(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		05-15-24 05:01 PM
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex New poll | | Thread closed
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 02:58 AM Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Abortion is not the answer to over-population, birth-control is. But when we are not at all in need of more people, actually quite the contrary, the loss of a potential human is not such a dire thing.
You said it yourself, birth control is the solution to overpopulation. I'll support that statement any day. But I disagree when you say the loss of a single human is not such a dire thing. (I know you said "potential human" but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a full-fledged human). Do militaries not expend a great amount of resources and hours to seek out a single downed pilot who's trapped in enemy territory? Do rescue services not continue near-futile searches just in the hope of saving one more life? Societal standards suggest that even a single human life is worth quite a bit.

Originally posted by Jomb
"Livestock are not human" - to me a tiny mass of dividing cells is not human either, which is the crux of our disagreement.
Yep, that's the base of it.

Originally posted by Jomb
I've known some men who would consider homosexual sex as equal or more reprehensible than abortion.
They've got their priorities wrong.

Originally posted by Jomb
A zygote is the epitome of mechanical processes, it is just one long chain of cell-divisions, like clockwork.
A zygote is the single cell that results from the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Once it's divided, it's an embryo.

Originally posted by Jomb
So its about a soul? Thats a religious concept, which is what i thought you were agruing about in the first place. Prove to me that i have a soul or that anyone has a soul. Where is my soul located? How much does it weigh? What does it look like? How does a zygote have one, but not a convicted murderer, a cow, or a gorilla? If i cloned you would your soul split in two? Or would one clone simply not have a soul? If one did'nt have a soul would it be morally ok if i killed him?
I took special care to point out that, while my own personal motivation for holding life in such high esteem is the presence of a soul, that's not the ground I'm arguing on.

Originally posted by Jomb
DNA is not life to me. It is a sequence of amino acids. Theoretically, with enough technology and raw materials it could be manufactured.
DNA isn't life to me, either. The various scientifically-approved signs of life - metabolism, growth, etc. - are what constitute life in my eyes. But a given organism's genetic code will define whether it is human life, which would in turn indicate whether it is eligible for the protection afforded to any other human.

Originally posted by Jomb
you said: "It is not her right to have her cake and eat it too, so to speak: she's involved herself in the act willingly, and must bear the consequences", which suggests that women are out fucking for jollies then saying "oh, i'm pregnant, but i can just have an abortion, no biggie!"
I don't know how my statement suggests that at all.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Do you speak english?
Your previous butchering of the definition of the word "judge" would lead me to ask the same question of you.

Originally posted by Dracoon
I'm going to act like this is a serious question.
Good, because it is a serious question. You said, "You're religious. That has been shown again and again," and used that as a justification to call me "holier-than-thou." The two are only incidentally related - one does not require the other, nor does one preclude the other.

Originally posted by Dracoon
No, when someone is religious but can't put their feelings behind them to let an action go that doesn't harm them and condemns other people's behavior, since you know, you ARE how you act, then they're being "holier-than-thou".
If I were not a religious person, or if nobody here were aware that I am, not a single thing I've said so far in this thread would have changed. I haven't argued my position from a religious standpoint, ever. The fact that I am religious outside the discussion of abortion is completely irrelevant.

Even so, just because an action doesn't harm me doesn't mean that the action is harmless. If I walk down the street and see a person getting mugged, I'm not being harmed at all by the event, but I would still step in to stop it. In fact, I would say that it is the mark of a virtuous person to take action rather than stand by the wayside when an event does not affect him directly yet has an adverse effect on others.

Originally posted by Dracoon
NO, LEARN HOW TO COMPARE THINGS TO OTHER SITUATIONS AND APPLY IT WITH BASIC KNOWLEDGE, DO THE CAPS HELP?

Look, you're justified to yourself, they're justified to themselves. NO ONE ELSE FUCKING MATTERS IN BOTH OF YOUR CASES. What if their ideas were right and you were in the wrong?
The only thing the caps help with is making you a bit more obnoxious than you are otherwise.

I don't see how who's right and who's wrong makes any difference in this case, considering that the issue was one of whether one group actually can be right and the other wrong. It was never an issue of who actually is right and who actually is wrong.

Originally posted by Dracoon
First) If the baby has no brain, it has no value as a being.
How do you justify this statement?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Potential doesn't matter or we could all be convicted of potential murder.
The baby doesn't have "potential" to become a human being, it is a human being. It has the potential to grow into an adult, perhaps, but its status as a human is not potential but actual.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Second) I would choose the mother's life so she could, guess what, have another baby at a later time.
And that second baby would have, guess what, a genetic code that is entirely unique from the first. It would be a completely distinct being. That child that's been murdered isn't being given a second chance if the mother gets pregnant again - its mother has conceived a completely new child. The first one's chance is through.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Third) There is no criteria, I can't judge human value.
If you can't judge human value, how are you able to propose that no two human lives have the same value in the first place?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Silvershield
Your original post, as it was written, was difficult to understand and was not tied closely enough to the rest of what you'd said for it to appear as a relevant idea.
Do you know english, etc.
Yeah, the best way to account for your own ambiguity is to insult the person who can't understand it.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Silvershield
Let's distinguish "life" in a literal sense from "life" in a figurative sense. To force a mother to have a child might end her figurative life, but it will hardly threaten her literal life. And, I think the latter is far more important.
Let's not, because of so many values that happen in a literal sense of life compared to the figurative sense of life is astronomical. If you're intelligent you can preserve your way of life, however at any point, you may die in a literal sense. Life is Life, no matter what life it is.
No, life in a figurative sense is not life in a literal sense. When I fail a test and I say "My life is over!" I don't drop dead on the spot. When that mother who has the child finds that it makes her life more difficult, and she says "My life is over!" she doesn't drop dead on the spot, either. But, if an abortion is carried out, that child quite literally drops dead on the spot. If the options are to end a literal human life but preserve a figurative one (by allowing the mother to maintain the quality of life she is used to), or to preserve the literal life but hinder the figurative one (by forcing the woman to, at most, endure nine months pregnant and then surrender the child for adoption [because she isn't forced to do any more than that]), I choose the latter.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Ok, so you just further proved that justice can't exist, because now murder (your absolute wrong) does both right and wrong.
Fine, if my logic has proved that justice doesn't exist, then I guess that's how it is. I was never arguing justice in the first place. It's morality that we've been discussing, and the two are pretty different concepts.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:38 AM Link
Dracoon, Silvershield...Take a step back for your next couple of posts and cool the jets. Thanks.
Thexare

Metal battleaxe
Off to better places








Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:42 AM Link
Mind if I step in for a moment?

Silvershield, we get it. We know what your opinion is. Now stop fucking repeating yourself. =/

Dracoon, same to you, really.

Example: Dracoon makes a comment to the effect of "the unborn child is not yet human" (not those words, but that approximate meaning). Silvershield counters with
The baby doesn't have "potential" to become a human being, it is a human being. It has the potential to grow into an adult, perhaps, but its status as a human is not potential but actual.


And it repeats. I've seen it at least twice just for that one example, IIRC. And the irritating part is that Silvershield already knows about the source of this problem, yet is doing nothing to try to debate something differently.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Originally posted by Jomb
"Livestock are not human" - to me a tiny mass of dividing cells is not human either, which is the crux of our disagreement.
Yep, that's the base of it.


Now, you two could do the smart thing and try to find a different point to debate over, or you can continue to beat each other over the head with the same chairs you've been using throughout this entire thread. =/


That's all, just wanted to comment on the repeating.

Edit: Fuck you, Ziff. I started this post before you were even in the forum! =/

(edited by Cheveyo Chowilawu on 04-23-06 02:43 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:44 AM Link
I'm addressing points as they are presented to me. I know that, if I were to neglect a point, even if it's because I've seen it earlier in the thread, I'd likely get accused of "avoiding" it.

Edit:
...by the way, I'm not making any snide remarks of my own volition. I know well enough that to snipe at one's opponent rather than attacking his words is bad form, and I'm only responding in kind when witty little insults are thrown at me.

(edited by Silvershield on 04-23-06 02:46 AM)
Thexare

Metal battleaxe
Off to better places








Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:46 AM Link
*Cheveyo Chowilawu sighs.

And Dracoon, I assume, will say the same thing.

Even though these points have already been addressed.

Even though normally, in such a situation, if something gets repeated in a thread, it's usually met with numerous insults from people like Alastor.

Y'know something, this doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

If neither of you stop, this will continue fruitlessly until the thread is locked. Deflate the egos, both of you.

(edited by Cheveyo Chowilawu on 04-23-06 02:47 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:49 AM Link
He'll say the same thing as in, he'll claim that I was the first one to hurl a personal insult? Read the thread, it speaks for itself.

It's probably better off if any thread I'm involved in past four pages or so gets locked, because that seems to be the point that people like to sneak little flames into their posts.
Thexare

Metal battleaxe
Off to better places








Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:50 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
He'll say the same thing as in, he'll claim that I was the first one to hurl a personal insult?

No.

This is another case of "that made a lot more sense in my head."

I actually referred to this:

I know that, if I were to neglect a point, even if it's because I've seen it earlier in the thread, I'd likely get accused of "avoiding" it.


I made my post before your edit was finished.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6297 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:53 AM Link
You know, I'm going to stop arguing with you after this post, you just go in circles and when a point is brought up, you act like the person who brought up the point wrote it wrong, or you just interpret it as something completely different.

Good day sir, you will be a great polotician, but you will make a crappy person to have any sort of polotical conversation with.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Your previous butchering of the definition of the word "judge" would lead me to ask the same question of you.


Yet you've never given a counter definition to say I was wrong, by default, that would mean I was right.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Good, because it is a serious question. You said, "You're religious. That has been shown again and again," and used that as a justification to call me "holier-than-thou." The two are only incidentally related - one does not require the other, nor does one preclude the other.


One who believes that nothing is holy cannot be holier-than-thou was the point. I've said that before.

Originally posted by Silvershield
If I were not a religious person, or if nobody here were aware that I am, not a single thing I've said so far in this thread would have changed. I haven't argued my position from a religious standpoint, ever. The fact that I am religious outside the discussion of abortion is completely irrelevant.

Even so, just because an action doesn't harm me doesn't mean that the action is harmless. If I walk down the street and see a person getting mugged, I'm not being harmed at all by the event, but I would still step in to stop it. In fact, I would say that it is the mark of a virtuous person to take action rather than stand by the wayside when an event does not affect him directly yet has an adverse effect on others.


Yes your thoughts on the subject would've changed if you weren't religious. Religion makes you who you are. Yes, you have, you had a small argument with Ziff about Catholic cannon. Yes, because there is always a reason why you'd believe it was immoral.

If you see someone getting mugged on the streets, you call the damn cops. If that mugger pulls out a gun you're going to end up being mugged too. Which can also be back applied to the fact that all abortions have different, unpredictable, circumstances. (Which you never gave a real answer too besides the whole "Only when the mother's life is endangered.") Morallity/justice (which really is just an eye-for-an-eye in this day and age)/virtue (or rashness in that situation) are not always correct and lead to limiting factors in society as a whole. Especially when morality is so ill-defined and changes depending on who you ask.

Originally posted by Silvershield
The only thing the caps help with is making you a bit more obnoxious than you are otherwise.

I don't see how who's right and who's wrong makes any difference in this case, considering that the issue was one of whether one group actually can be right and the other wrong. It was never an issue of who actually is right and who actually is wrong.


It got you to read it.

You started it by believed abortion is wrong. Which is selfish and is an opinion. Yeah, it's selfish, you heard me, you'd think it'd be selfless to defend those who can't defend themself, but not in this case. Reality conquers ideas.

Originally posted by Silvershield
How do you justify this statement?


This was in refernce to baby + no brain = no value.

Genetically it is unique, but the reason we're special is because of our brain, other wise we're just equal to some apes.


Originally posted by Silvershield
And that second baby would have, guess what, a genetic code that is entirely unique from the first. It would be a completely distinct being. That child that's been murdered isn't being given a second chance if the mother gets pregnant again - its mother has conceived a completely new child. The first one's chance is through.


Genetically yes, but every snow flake is different too, and they all end up as water in the end.

Originally posted by Silvershield
If you can't judge human value, how are you able to propose that no two human lives have the same value in the first place?


Because no two people have lived the same life and have gone through the same experiences. Duh.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Yeah, the best way to account for your own ambiguity is to insult the person who can't understand it.


Yeah, the best way to ease yourself of your own ambiguity is to not take in the factor of context and basic writing styles.

Originally posted by Silvershield
No, life in a figurative sense is not life in a literal sense. When I fail a test and I say "My life is over!" I don't drop dead on the spot. When that mother who has the child finds that it makes her life more difficult, and she says "My life is over!" she doesn't drop dead on the spot, either. But, if an abortion is carried out, that child quite literally drops dead on the spot. If the options are to end a literal human life but preserve a figurative one (by allowing the mother to maintain the quality of life she is used to), or to preserve the literal life but hinder the figurative one (by forcing the woman to, at most, endure nine months pregnant and then surrender the child for adoption[because she isn't forced to do any more than that]), I choose the latter.


For all you know, that failing grade on your test might drive you to suicide. Parenthood can lead to insanity and that is certainly a mental death.

And again, you didn't take into account: Models, prositutes, and materialistic people. Sure it isn't a majority, but if you make any exception, other people will demand exceptions.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Fine, if my logic has proved that justice doesn't exist, then I guess that's how it is. I was never arguing justice in the first place. It's morality that we've been discussing, and the two are pretty different concepts.


Morality is whimsical and everyone has a different view on morality, what you might not find moral someone else may find moral. Morality doesn't exist and has no definition (not literal definition mind you), but people use it to bring down their beliefs on others. I find that highly immoral.

(edited by Dracoon on 04-23-06 02:53 AM)
(edited by Dracoon on 04-23-06 02:54 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6308 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:21 AM Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
You know, I'm going to stop arguing with you after this post, you just go in circles and when a point is brought up, you act like the person who brought up the point wrote it wrong, or you just interpret it as something completely different.
I'm not going in circles because I enjoy spending twenty minutes writing on an Internet message board, I'm going in circles because, in trying to respond to everything that you say, I often find myself responding to the same argument that's written a different way each time.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Good day sir, you will be a great polotician, but you will make a crappy person to have any sort of polotical conversation with.
I'd say the same to you.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Silvershield
Your previous butchering of the definition of the word "judge" would lead me to ask the same question of you.


Yet you've never given a counter definition to say I was wrong, by default, that would mean I was right.
Ok, you used the word "judge" in the following context:

"You're condemning people to something they don't want to do. Your judgement would be for them not to do it, you're passing judgement on how they should live their lives, that's judgement to me."

That statement of yours was intended to prove that, through the arguments I've made in this thread, I am guilty of judging people (specifically, women who have abortions). However, your statement lacks basic grammar insomuch as your misuse of the word "judgement" makes it an invalid sentence. My preference would be for women not to get abortions, and I'm expressing a preference for women to carry babies to full term; by substituting "judgement" in each case where "preference" (or an equivalent word) would rightfully appear, you are making it appear as if I am passing judgement. But, passing judgement on a person and expressing a preference for how that person should behave are two ideas that don't even approach one another in meaning.

Originally posted by Dracoon
One who believes that nothing is holy cannot be holier-than-thou was the point. I've said that before.
The phrase "holier-than-thou" does not contain the word "holy" as a reference to any sort of religious affiliation. It's a figure of speech that is roughly equivalent to calling somebody self-righteous, and you certainly couldn't argue that in order to be self-righteous you need to be religious as well.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Yes your thoughts on the subject would've changed if you weren't religious. Religion makes you who you are. Yes, you have, you had a small argument with Ziff about Catholic cannon. Yes, because there is always a reason why you'd believe it was immoral.
I don't know how else to put it, especially because I've said the same thing several times, but the source of my disapproval of abortion makes no difference. A discussion of this sort is intended to explore a given topic, not to look into the reasons why a participant feels the way he does about that topic.

Originally posted by Dracoon
If you see someone getting mugged on the streets, you call the damn cops. If that mugger pulls out a gun you're going to end up being mugged too.
Alright, apparently my analogy was flawed, but that doesn't change its meaning (which should've been clear enough anyway): just because an act does not harm me does not mean that the act does not harm somebody, and it is respectable for a person to intervene in the act even if it does not harm him personally.

Originally posted by Dracoon
(Which you never gave a real answer too besides the whole "Only when the mother's life is endangered.")
Because I feel that, unless the mother's life is endangered, there is no justifiable circumstance for an abortion to take place. If you wish to give me specific examples of when a woman might want an abortion, I'd be happy to tell you why I don't believe it's the best course of action.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Morallity/justice (which really is just an eye-for-an-eye in this day and age)/virtue (or rashness in that situation) are not always correct and lead to limiting factors in society as a whole. Especially when morality is so ill-defined and changes depending on who you ask.
Morality is definitely ill-defined in most cases, but I think there are certain times when a moral value is inarguable and undeniable.

Originally posted by Dracoon
You started it by believed abortion is wrong. Which is selfish and is an opinion. Yeah, it's selfish, you heard me, you'd think it'd be selfless to defend those who can't defend themself, but not in this case. Reality conquers ideas.
What do I gain by a woman having that child instead of aborting it? How is it selfish of me to encourage her to choose one course over the other, when I am not personally affected either way?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Genetically it is unique, but the reason we're special is because of our brain, other wise we're just equal to some apes.
Not much to be said here. I believe we are unique because we are human, you believe we are unique because we can think. Difference of opinion.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Genetically yes, but every snow flake is different too, and they all end up as water in the end.
I'm missing the point of this analogy. Care to spell it out for me?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Because no two people have lived the same life and have gone through the same experiences. Duh.
Who's to say a person's life experiences give that person's life more or less value than anyone else's?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Yeah, the best way to ease yourself of your own ambiguity is to not take in the factor of context and basic writing styles.
Oftentimes your ambiguity is simply because you fail to preview a post before you submit it, as is evidenced by missing or mispelled words and similar errors that make your points occasionally harder to understand.

Originally posted by Dracoon
For all you know, that failing grade on your test might drive you to suicide. Parenthood can lead to insanity and that is certainly a mental death.
I guess a consequence of failing a test might be to commit suicide, but that doesn't make my statement of "My life is over!" any more true.

Originally posted by Dracoon
And again, you didn't take into account: Models, prositutes, and materialistic people. Sure it isn't a majority, but if you make any exception, other people will demand exceptions.
I didn't take those into account because I don't understand what a person's profession or degree of materialism has to do with the value of a human life.
Tarale

2710
Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!!
Persona non grata


 





Since: 11-17-05
From: Adelaide, Australia

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:24 AM Link
You know, I do so love it when two people turn a thread into their own private pissing match.

Rom Manic









Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:32 AM Link
So let them continue to debate their points. So long as some new facts find their way in there, I see it remaining valid. After all, a debate's point is to prove any opinion to a question beyond a resonable doubt.
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6569 days
Last view: 6569 days
Posted on 04-23-06 07:14 AM Link
My goodness, I leave for a day and chaos ensues. SS, I've got to say, it's pretty clear Dracoon believes in what I consider the rather ridiculous notion of what I would call absolute relative morality. And if you don't believe there is a definite right & wrong, you're probably never going to be convinced that anything is wrong. If you are, you'll decide to justify changing your values so it's no longer considered wrong in your opinion.

Absolute morality doesn't necessarily imply that we know what is right and wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. It may in fact be impossible for man to know that. But it does posit that such morality exists, and to deny that basically makes any discussion of anything regarding morality pointless.

It doesn't really help when said person, as is usually the case, is antireligious as well, to the point that they will attack religious people arguing on nonreligious grounds merely because said person is religious. SS, I applaud your devotion to this, and I'm sorry I wasn't here to assist you in taking on the attacks, poorly worded as they were, but honestly, I don't think it's worth your time, or mine. Some people just won't listen.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 07:17 AM Link
Originally posted by Skydude
My goodness, I leave for a day and chaos ensues. SS, I've got to say, it's pretty clear Dracoon believes in what I consider the rather ridiculous notion of what I would call absolute relative morality. And if you don't believe there is a definite right & wrong, you're probably never going to be convinced that anything is wrong. If you are, you'll decide to justify changing your values so it's no longer considered wrong in your opinion.

Absolute morality doesn't necessarily imply that we know what is right and wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. It may in fact be impossible for man to know that. But it does posit that such morality exists, and to deny that basically makes any discussion of anything regarding morality pointless.

It doesn't really help when said person, as is usually the case, is antireligious as well, to the point that they will attack religious people arguing on nonreligious grounds merely because said person is religious. SS, I applaud your devotion to this, and I'm sorry I wasn't here to assist you in taking on the attacks, poorly worded as they were, but honestly, I don't think it's worth your time, or mine. Some people just won't listen.


That adds little to this conversation. I've chastised both posters for their lengthy, if not interesting, dialogue which often bordered on insults. Skydude, you didn't partake in this and I'm going to ask you to butt out of this if you're not to contribute anything. Kapeesh?

PS: Props to those that did participate in this conversation (SS/Dracoon, mostly) for remaining relatively civil!
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6297 days
Last view: 6297 days
Posted on 04-23-06 09:54 AM Link
I say we declare Godwin 3 pages back and call it a day.
C:/xkas bio.asm
Compiled ASM code








Since: 11-17-05

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:14 PM Link
Originally posted by Arwon
I say we declare Godwin 3 pages back and call it a day.

God win or God religion win, there NO way to prove that God want the same thing than the christian

(edited by Bio on 04-23-06 02:15 PM)
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6569 days
Last view: 6569 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:45 PM Link
Well, Ziff, what does my post add? It gives my own take on the events of the past couple of pages, for which I was not present. It does so in a summary form, with what I feel is the primary theme of the discussion. Do you think it would be a better idea if I went through every post made and addressed each point individually? You have no right to tell me to "butt out" as I have been a part in the discussion, and much of this came directly out of some of it that I was directly involved with. I have just as much right to post here as anyone else.

Beyond that, it also gives some explanation of the idea of absolute vs relative morality, a point not properly explained in this thread but a key feature of the debate.

So don't tell me my post didn't contribute anything, when in fact it's served to contribute a lot more than some of your own posts here.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:47 PM Link
_�
Skreename

Giant Red Paratroopa


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6302 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:48 PM Link
Originally posted by Bio
Originally posted by Arwon
I say we declare Godwin 3 pages back and call it a day.

God win or God religion win, there NO way to prove that God want the same thing than the christian

Did you hear a whooshing sound? It was the point going over your head. (Godwin's law: The longer a debate goes on, the more likely it is that a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis will be made. Which it was, thanks to Silvershield, several times. A corollary, which some disagree with, states that the party that first does it loses the argument.)
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6569 days
Last view: 6569 days
Posted on 04-23-06 05:01 PM Link
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
_�


I have to say.................what?

And as for bringing up the Nazis, the fact is that it's probably about the clearest cut example of something being definitely wrong, whereas they thought they were right themselves...and it's more accessible to people than other examples of the same. And yet it seems Dracoon still thinks they might not have been wrong, in an absolute sense, from what I understand...
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 05:04 PM Link
Sorry, that was supposed to be a smiley of some sort. My browser has a bad habit of going mental

Well, there are examples that are less volatile than the NAZIs to use.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex | Thread closed


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.035 seconds; used 492.98 kB (max 645.42 kB)