Enjoy.
·
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.
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.
·
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...
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...
·
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.
·
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.
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.
·
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.
There are also people in my group who have been seriously hurt or are being seriously hurt by religion.
·
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.
·
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?
·
May 7
o
sure
·
May 7
o
Then are you for or
against prostitution?
·
May 7
o
for
·
May 7
o
At least your
consistent.
o
Why don't you post
more material fighting for the rights of prostitutes?
·
May 7
o
think I should?
·
May 7
o
I would like to see
people's reactions. Do you think they will be as supportive?
·
May 7
o
why shouldn't they be?
·
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.
·
May 7
o
you probably are
·
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.
·
May 7
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
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
·
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.
·
May 7
o
yawn. sure
·
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.
·
May 7
o
Or at least be honest
and post pictures of a fertilized chicken egg, with the little baby chicken in
it.
·
May 8
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.
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.
·
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.
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.
·
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?
·
May 8
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.
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.
·
May 8
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.
·
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.
·
May 8
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.
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.
·
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.
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.
·
May 8
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)?
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)?
·
May 8
o
This is NOT a question
of responsibility. This is a question of legal coercion.
·
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.
·
May 8
o
they do the same to
cancer
·
May 8
o
You are really cold
hearted man, and you think religion makes people do crazy things.
·
May 8
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
·
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.
·
May 8
o
Defend the position to
justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·
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.
·
May 8
o
Oh, you think abortion
should be legal, and only object on moral grounds?
·
May 8
o
If you only object on
moral grounds, then FINE!!
You do that, and allow others to make moral choice ON THEIR OWN
You do that, and allow others to make moral choice ON THEIR OWN
·
May 8
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
·
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?
·
May 9
o
Defend the position to
justify coercing people to use their bodies to prolong the life of others
·
May 9
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.
"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.
·
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?
·
May 9
o
Yes, exactly. These
laws are arbitrary, no?
·
May 9
o
You don't think there
is any reason why parents should be obligated to take care of their children?
·
May 9
o
are these reasons
arbitrary?
·
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.
·
May 10
o
sure. consequences.
fine.
What does that have to do with the question? Do you understand what "arbitrary" means?
What does that have to do with the question? Do you understand what "arbitrary" means?
·
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