Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Facebook debate, Part III

Okay, here it is.  The last leg of the debate I had with Matt Larimer, pastor of the Rio Grande Baptist Church here in Terre Haute.  Matt consistently refused to address my points.  He argued from ignorance, emotion and authority.  He couldn't hold a logical conclusion in a bucket.  I eventually just stopped answering him.  I've had better conversations with trolls.

Enjoy.


·         Description: Matt Larimer
April 20
o    I'm going to be completely honest with you. I have had countless discussions and debates with atheists and you are by far the most arrogant and at the same time least capable one I have ever spoken with. It would be better for your organization and your cause for you to stop posting goofy video's, pictures, and comments that only make you and the group look ridiculous.

I have a ton of respect for atheists who just can't say they believe in something they don't. I think it takes a lot of courage to stand up in a community and tell people how you really feel. But you are laughably arrogant, rude, disrespectful, and you seem to lack a basic grasp of your own world view. I am not very smart but at least I know it. I don't run around acting like I'm brilliant and just embarrassing myself. And I have heard and debated with plenty of atheists who I truly felt were extremely intelligent.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
April 20
o    I could say the same of you, and I have no idea what you've been posting, cause I don't care

If you don't want to debate me, piss off. I've got plenty of asshats thinking they have an argument for god. Take a number.

Like I went looking for you in the first place...
·         Description: Matt Larimer
April 20
o    You're right what I said in that last post was extremely rude and arrogant. I would just really love to sit down and have these discussions in a group. Did you say I could come to your group meetings on Fridays? I will not cause a disturbance, and I apologize again for the last post.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
April 20
o    Our meetings are open to the public. We'll be at Mogger's next Friday at 6:00pm.

Keep in mind that my group is part educational, part support group. There are members who are not as jaded against religion as I, and a few who have criticized me for being too harsh on religion.

In any event, there is never a lack of things to discuss at our meetings. And there are often spirited debates WITHOUT believers there.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
April 20
o    Oh, and BTW. There will be people there who won't like the fact I've invited you. Keep that in mind.

There are also people in my group who have been seriously hurt or are being seriously hurt by religion.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
April 20
o    I totally understand that. I know religion has done a lot of damage over the years, and that is why I get frustrated with myself when I say things that aren't respectful. I really appreciate the invite.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    I noticed you changed your idea's in the attic pitch to a non-profit group which will help fund abortions. I was wondering, are you pro-choice because you believe a woman has the right to make choices about her own body?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    sure
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    Then are you for or against prostitution?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    for
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    At least your consistent.
o    Why don't you post more material fighting for the rights of prostitutes?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    think I should?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    I would like to see people's reactions. Do you think they will be as supportive?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    why shouldn't they be?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    I totally agree, if your pro-choice you should support abortion and prostitution but I doubt many people would be, but maybe I'm wrong.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    you probably are
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    If abortion is legal and prostitution is illegal I would think that logically you would be fighting harder for the legalization of prostitution.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Abortion IS legal, and yet the fight to preserve the availability of the medicine is never ending. what with asshat laws like personhood bills getting passed all over the place, it's enough to make any rational person vomit.

On the other hand, prostitution is illegal, and yet the laws against it are rarely enforced. the vice police have better things to do than chase down people paying for blowjobs
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    At what point do you think that a person becomes a person?
o    I know it's a tough question just message me when you have it all figured out.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    yawn. sure
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    No seriously, at what point?
o    I really would love to know when you have decided that a person becomes a person.
o    Don't even answer it, this whole discussion makes me want to vomit. 50 million dead babies because you want to play God, and decide when people become people, and post stupid analogies between chickens and eggs.
o    At least be honest and start posting some information fighting to make prostitution legal.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 7
o    Or at least be honest and post pictures of a fertilized chicken egg, with the little baby chicken in it.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Matt, you're an idiot.

The question of personhood is irrelevant. Consider this:

I am a 36 year old male. There is no question I am a person. Certainly, you would also argue that if I became ill, I would still be a person.

What if I got a disease or illness that no longer allowed my body to sustain life within me? what if the only way I could survive was to depend on another person to use their body to sustain my life?

What right do I have, as a person, to force by law another person, my mother specifically, to use her body to sustain my own?

NONE!!

When my body can no longer sustain my life, I die. I have NO right to force, by will, law or moral authority someone else to use their body to sustain my own, for ANY length of time.

Your argument make me want to vomit. 50 million women forced to bear children they did not want. That equals 100 million lives destroyed because YOU think you have some divine knowledge that no one else has. You think you have the right to force your morality onto others. That's sick, and it is why I find religion so destructive to society. The idea that we ought to use religion to stop behavior found to be "sinful" is repugnant to me.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Andrew, your argument is ridiculous! A child could not survive on its own, realistically, until young adulthood. So please tell me you're logically consistent and you support murdering children if parents decide that they no longer want to sustain their lives.

Quit the whole "you make me want to vomit" act. It doesn't add any credibility to your argument. I literally was going to vomit last night because during our conversation I read some of the techniques used to perform abortions. The vital organs are fully formed and the heart begins beating at 5-6 weeks, and this is exactly the time that the majority of abortions are performed. The child is cut up and sucked through a tube.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Honestly this argument sounds eerily similar to your "thought crime" argument. Your ideas are born out of a contempt for religion rather than actually thinking about the situations and there consequences.
o    Surely you are not arguing that at birth the child can now survive on its own. So again at what point do think a person becomes a person, or at what point do you think a fetus can survive on its own? This is your argument right?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Matt, you must be daft.

This is not an argument about the needs of an infant for care from others. I would argue that no one is an island, at any point in their lives, and we all depend on one another at all times. This point of view further enrages me when I see people like you who try to impose false morality on others through legislation. That's offensive, and it makes me nauseous to contemplate. That's not an act. That's a response to religions' infection on society.

The argument is that if you support the mandatory commitment of one person's body to sustain the life of another, then you must also support the idea of forcing people to use their bodies to extend the life of others who are adults. This is the natural, logical conclusion to you position.

I think that is repulsive. It makes me want to vomit when I consider it. When I further acknowledge that there are people like you who think this is the moral thing to do, I am indeed filled with anger that you haven't thought about the situation and its consequences.

We can return to thought crime if you like. This is far more interesting to me.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    The question of when a person becomes a person is irrelevant, until you acknowledge you would be willing to force your mother to use her body to sustain your life after you became so ill your biody could no longer sustain life on its own.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    I'm not sure what you're talking about. How could my mother's body help sustain my life if I was ill? Do you mean things like taking care of me, feeding me, and changing my clothes? These things don't make me sick, they sound like things a loving caring mother would do. I would definitely do all of those things for any of my children if they became ill. I was trying to resist the urge to ask you this, but you sound like you've been reading to much eugenics literature.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Let's try again.

What if I got a disease or illness that no longer allowed my body to sustain life within me?

See, what I mean here is that my body cannot perform the functions on its own required to sustain my life.

What if the only way I could survive was to depend on another person to use their body to sustain my life?

What I mean here is that, hypothetically, my body must be connected in some biological way so that my mother's body is now to perform the function that mine can no longer perform.

What right do I have, as a person, to force by law another person, my mother specifically, to use her body to sustain my own?

The question is NOT would you do this willingly. The question is what right do you have to coerce, through legislation, any person to use their body in this manner? If it were voluntary, there is no conflict. It would indeed be wonderfully nice to do. However, that is not the point. By what right do you force a person (that's a person however you'd like to define one) to use their body to sustain the life of another person ( that's another person define however you;d like)?

Your silly personhood question is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. There is NO circumstance under which it is morally permissible to use legislation to coerce someone to do this. Period.

This has nothing to do with eugenics. You would be daft to think it did.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Okay I understand now, you don't think a woman's choice to create another person should translate into any responsibility to take care of that person. And I don't understand why the biological connection is so important to you. An infant is just as dependent on it's mother for care before and after the cord is cut. But I'm assuming that you feel a mother is responsible for the well being of the child as soon as it is born correct? Or do you think mothers should have the right to abandon their children if they no longer want to care for them?

And this argument has everything to do with eugenics, and you would be daft to think it doesn't. You don't think anyone should be responsible for another person if that person can not take care of themselves. That is the logical outcome of your argument. And it's exactly what leads to the termination of the elderly, mentally handicapped, and the unborn.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    No.

NO.

no.

NO.

Let's try again.

What if I got a disease or illness that no longer allowed my body to sustain life within me?

See, what I mean here is that my body cannot perform the functions on its own required to sustain my life.

What if the only way I could survive was to depend on another person to use their body to sustain my life?

What I mean here is that, hypothetically, my body must be connected in some biological way so that my mother's body is now to perform the function that mine can no longer perform.

THIS SCENARIO INVOLVES THE LEGAL COERCION OF ONE PERSON TO USE THEIR BODY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE OF ANOTHER PERSON.

What right do I have, as a person, to force by law another person, my mother specifically, to use her body to sustain my own?

The question is NOT would you do this willingly. The question is what right do you have to coerce, through legislation, any person to use their body in this manner? If it were voluntary, there is no conflict. It would indeed be wonderfully nice to do. However, that is not the point. By what right do you force a person (that's a person however you'd like to define one) to use their body to sustain the life of another person ( that's another person define however you;d like)?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    This is NOT a question of responsibility. This is a question of legal coercion.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Okay I think I get it now. No one should be legally coerced into sustaining the life of another person. Therefore it is okay to cut that person into pieces, suck them up through a hose, and throw them in the trash. Your position now makes perfect sense.
o    How does that not make you sick. They cut the baby up, suck it out through a hose, and throw it in the trash.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    they do the same to cancer
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    You are really cold hearted man, and you think religion makes people do crazy things.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    you still haven't defended the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
o    You really are a simple man, with no understainding of how morals, ethics and civility work
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    Yeah I do. It is moral, ethical, and civil not to cut people up into little pieces. What about that do you not understand.
o    I'm not coercing anyone. A man and woman make a choice to create a life it is therefore their responsibility to care for that life. This doesn't seem that difficult of a concept.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Defend the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    I'm not coercing anyone. A man and woman make a choice to create a life it is therefore their responsibility to care for that life. This doesn't seem that difficult of a concept.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Oh, you think abortion should be legal, and only object on moral grounds?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    If you only object on moral grounds, then FINE!!

You do that, and allow others to make moral choice ON THEIR OWN
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    pass one law that restricts or prohibits abortion and....
o    Defend the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 8
o    When a person uses their body to create a life they should be legally obligated to care for that life. There shouldn't be any laws concerning abortion. The child is a person, it's simply murder man.
o    When the child is born are the parents obligated to care for it?
o    If they left it in the car when they got home they would be prosecuted for negligent homicide. What difference does the umbilical cord make?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Defend the position to justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    So you think your mother ought to be forced to use her body to save your life if your body was no longer able to sustain it's own?

"When a person uses their body to create a life they should be legally obligated to care for that life."

Until when? Until birth? Death? High school?

"What difference does the umbilical cord make?"

That's MY point.
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 9
o    We already have laws which state the period of time in which a parent is obligated to car for a child, I believe in Indiana it's until they're 18 years old. Do you disagree with these laws?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    Yes, exactly. These laws are arbitrary, no?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 9
o    You don't think there is any reason why parents should be obligated to take care of their children?
·         Description: Andrew Garber
o    are these reasons arbitrary?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 10
o    No the reasons aren't arbitrary. If a parent neglects their child, and as a result the child dies or experiences trauma there should be consequences.
·         Description: Andrew Garber
May 10
o    sure. consequences. fine.

What does that have to do with the question? Do you understand what "arbitrary" means?
·         Description: Matt Larimer
May 10
o    The reasons for the laws aren't arbitrary. They aren't random or based on personal whims. They are based on damage that will occur if the laws aren't followed, and therefore there must be a defined punishment if the laws are broken. What do you think arbitrary means? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't punish parents who neglect their children?


And there you have it.  I couldn't take anymore.  I just had to stop.  And I thought Tim gave me a headache!!


No comments:

Post a Comment