Powell endorses Obama
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Probably those people who can't or won't see beyond the end of their nose
You mean anyone who has anything negative at all to say about the messiah?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Can you explain that irrational, intelllectually dishonest response ? It's irrational to care about a girl who has been raped ? It's Christian to destroy her life further ? The Bible has nothing to say about when life begins. So what do you base these views on, if not emotion ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
So what do you base these views on, if not emotion ?
Isn't talking about 9 year old rape victims an appeal to emotion? It seems to me that the vast majority of abortions are about undoing a bad choice.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Can you explain that irrational, intelllectually dishonest response ? It's irrational to care about a girl who has been raped ? It's Christian to destroy her life further ?
You *cannot* explain your irrational, intellectually dishonest (and anti-Christian) "argument." That's why you have to resort to emotive misdirection.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's irrational to care about a girl who has been raped ? It's Christian to destroy her life further ?
There are two (or even three) persons immediately involved in all abortions. I speak, of course, not of the "doctor" and "nurses," but of the baby, the mother, and sometimes the father. Of these two (or three), one of them always ends up dead, that being the whole point.
Ilíon wrote:
ou *cannot* explain your irrational, intellectually dishonest (and anti-Christian) "argument." That's why you have to resort to emotive misdirection.
I'll take that for a no then. You can't defend your view, you just hold it blindly because you've been told to.
Ilíon wrote:
There are two (or even three) persons immediately involved in all abortions. I speak, of course, not of the "doctor" and "nurses," but of the baby, the mother, and sometimes the father. Of these two (or three), one of them always ends up dead, that being the whole point.
OK, I see. So, so long as the maximum number of people are alive, quality of life means nothing ? Protecting victims means nothing ? Should the guy who raped her even be charged and go to jail ? I mean, the baby needs a father, right ? you're spouting retoric, but you're not actually answering me. Why does the girl who was raped have no rights ? Where does the baby end up ? Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So what do you base these views on, if not emotion ?
Isn't talking about 9 year old rape victims an appeal to emotion? It seems to me that the vast majority of abortions are about undoing a bad choice.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
He accused me of not thinking, of just relying on emotion. Well, most anti abortion argument is based on emotion, in my experience. My point of view, FWIW, is that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, but that education is more important than prohibition. However, to flat out ban all abortion, including in the sort of cases I am talking about, is also wrong. There's a grey area.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Well, then, when a person looks past the end of their nose, what do they see? Personnally, when I look past the end of mine, I see people who are horrified by the prospect of a traditional AMerican christian becoming president such as Governor Palin, but actively promote the notion that a practicing muslim becoming president would just be the most wonderful event in the entire history of western civilization. Something about that just does not make any sense what so ever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
OK, good. So you're completely blind. You're saying that the child in this case ( the 9 yo ) doesn't matter to you at all. She has no rights, not even the right to sympathy. And, of course, the child she goes on to raise, is going to have every chance in life, right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that the child in this case ( the 9 yo ) doesn't matter to you at all. She has no rights, not even the right to sympathy.
No, he's saying unborn people have super rights. Basically, a fetus has the God-given right to inhabit a woman's body without her consent for as long as it likes. Anyone else who tries to inhabit a woman's body without her consent is considered a rapist.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
modified on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:10 PM
-
That isn't surprising considering that Powell has always been a democrat pretending to be a republican. The fact that he is concerned about McCain's court picks but not Obama's is proof of that.
oilFactotum wrote:
And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president
Yeah, thats a beautiful sentiment. But who is it meant for?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That isn't surprising considering that Powell has always been a democrat pretending to be a republican.
When I first learned of Powell, I thought, "This is someone I might be able to support for the presidency" -- *gasp* there goes my membership in We-B-Racists *gasp* -- but then I learned more about him.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that the child in this case ( the 9 yo ) doesn't matter to you at all. She has no rights, not even the right to sympathy.
No, he's saying unborn people have super rights. Basically, a fetus has the God-given right to inhabit a woman's body without her consent for as long as it likes. Anyone else who tries to inhabit a woman's body without her consent is considered a rapist.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
modified on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:10 PM
WEll, what I don't get is that it seems the discussion is polarised around two views 1 - the womans body is hers and she can do what she likes with it 2 - all abortion is wrong, the woman has no rights at all I don't agree with either of these positions, I think both are too extreme. I don't agree with abortion as a form of birth control, but I do believe that there are times when it should be considered as a reasonable option. I don't believe that bunch of cells that are madly dividing == a living human being, or that said bunch of cells should take precedence over a living human being.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
He accused me of not thinking, of just relying on emotion. Well, most anti abortion argument is based on emotion, in my experience. My point of view, FWIW, is that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, but that education is more important than prohibition. However, to flat out ban all abortion, including in the sort of cases I am talking about, is also wrong. There's a grey area.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
He accused me of not thinking, of just relying on emotion.
Which, lo and behold, is exactly, and all, you proceded to do.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, most anti abortion argument is based on emotion, in my experience.
But then: 1) I have never "argued" from emotion. 2) You're a liar, in any event; so why would you not lie about "in [your] experience?"
-
Christian Graus wrote:
He accused me of not thinking, of just relying on emotion.
Which, lo and behold, is exactly, and all, you proceded to do.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, most anti abortion argument is based on emotion, in my experience.
But then: 1) I have never "argued" from emotion. 2) You're a liar, in any event; so why would you not lie about "in [your] experience?"
Ilíon wrote:
Which, lo and behold, is exactly, and all, you proceded to do.
Well, again, you started it.
Ilíon wrote:
I have never "argued" from emotion.
No, because, you're yet to defend your view at all. you've made no argument, so how could it be based on emotion ?
Ilíon wrote:
You're a liar, in any event; so why would you not lie about "in [your] experience?"
Again, your AI code is showing it's cracks. An actual human being would be able to defend their views instead of falling back to these sort of attacks.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That isn't surprising considering that Powell has always been a democrat pretending to be a republican.
When I first learned of Powell, I thought, "This is someone I might be able to support for the presidency" -- *gasp* there goes my membership in We-B-Racists *gasp* -- but then I learned more about him.
Same here. I would have loved to have Powell run as a staunch conservative republican. Alas, the man is as far from a conservative as Obama is. I assume he was a republican simply out of political convenience, but he certainly is no movement conservative.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
WEll, what I don't get is that it seems the discussion is polarised around two views 1 - the womans body is hers and she can do what she likes with it 2 - all abortion is wrong, the woman has no rights at all I don't agree with either of these positions, I think both are too extreme. I don't agree with abortion as a form of birth control, but I do believe that there are times when it should be considered as a reasonable option. I don't believe that bunch of cells that are madly dividing == a living human being, or that said bunch of cells should take precedence over a living human being.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
I agree with your position completely. But please remember, in the US the entire abortion debate is complicated by the fact that we have no comprehensive national abortion law that was ever decided by the legislative branch of our government. The entire issue is based upon a court decision that itself was based upon the most convoluted legal reasoning imaginable. I am not anti-abortion, but I am opposed to the judicial branch empowering itself to arbitrarily define who is and who is not a human being. At the very least, any such decision should be explicitely based upon the will of the people acting through their democratically elected representatives. That doesn't seem like so much to ask for, but our elected representatives are just too cowardly to directly address the issue.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Anyone who advocates for abortion is not a CHristian. Anyone who supports abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who makes excuses for abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who will not admit that abortion is sin is not a Christian. Walking into a church building doesn't make you a Christian any more than walking into a McDonald's makes you a hamburger.
Ilíon wrote:
Anyone who makes excuses for abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who will not admit that abortion is sin is not a Christian.
Ilíon wrote:
With abortion, there are very few instance in which killing the unborn human being is not murder, but there is one general case in which it is not: in which the mother's life honestly is endangered by the pregnancy.
[See the full post here^] Somebody's not Christian. . . :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Well, then, when a person looks past the end of their nose, what do they see? Personnally, when I look past the end of mine, I see people who are horrified by the prospect of a traditional AMerican christian becoming president such as Governor Palin, but actively promote the notion that a practicing muslim becoming president would just be the most wonderful event in the entire history of western civilization. Something about that just does not make any sense what so ever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
a practicing muslim
You have really sunk that low? I am ashamed of you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You have really sunk that low? I am ashamed of you
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I mean, personnally, I freely admit that I think we should keep Islam as far from political power as we possibly can. But hey, I suppose a muslim would be no worse than a marxist, and we certainly have plenty of those.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You have really sunk that low? I am ashamed of you
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I mean, personnally, I freely admit that I think we should keep Islam as far from political power as we possibly can. But hey, I suppose a muslim would be no worse than a marxist, and we certainly have plenty of those.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ilíon wrote:
ou *cannot* explain your irrational, intellectually dishonest (and anti-Christian) "argument." That's why you have to resort to emotive misdirection.
I'll take that for a no then. You can't defend your view, you just hold it blindly because you've been told to.
Ilíon wrote:
There are two (or even three) persons immediately involved in all abortions. I speak, of course, not of the "doctor" and "nurses," but of the baby, the mother, and sometimes the father. Of these two (or three), one of them always ends up dead, that being the whole point.
OK, I see. So, so long as the maximum number of people are alive, quality of life means nothing ? Protecting victims means nothing ? Should the guy who raped her even be charged and go to jail ? I mean, the baby needs a father, right ? you're spouting retoric, but you're not actually answering me. Why does the girl who was raped have no rights ? Where does the baby end up ? Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is? It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby. I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception. So you can see how it is hard for me to get my arms around taking the life of one innocent victim in order to alleviate some of the pain inflicted on another.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
modified on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:18 PM
-
Ilíon wrote:
Which, lo and behold, is exactly, and all, you proceded to do.
Well, again, you started it.
Ilíon wrote:
I have never "argued" from emotion.
No, because, you're yet to defend your view at all. you've made no argument, so how could it be based on emotion ?
Ilíon wrote:
You're a liar, in any event; so why would you not lie about "in [your] experience?"
Again, your AI code is showing it's cracks. An actual human being would be able to defend their views instead of falling back to these sort of attacks.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Christian Graus: He accused me of not thinking, of just relying on emotion. Ilíon: Which, lo and behold, is exactly, and all, you proceded to do. Christian Graus: Well, again, you started it.
You're such a liar. But, even if you weren't lying, how is "he started it" a justification for your anti-rationality? Let's give you a little run-down, Mr InveterateLiar: Ilíon "starts" it[^]: "Anyone who advocates for abortion is not a CHristian. Anyone who supports abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who makes excuses for abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who will not admit that abortion is sin is not a Christian." Christian Graus doesn't even try to make an anti-rational appeal to emotion[^]:" So ( and I realise I am again asking you to think and discuss here, so feel free to call me dishonest and be done with it ), if a 9 year old girl is repeatedly raped by her step father and becomes pregnant, you'd say that she should be denied an abortion ?" Ilíon responds emotionally[^]:"Did the unborn child this 9 year-old is carrying rape her? Will murdering her unborn child unrape her? Why is it that you people like to toss about emotions as being the basis to "reason" ... but refuse to actually reason?" The ever-rational Christian Graus displays more the logical reasoning for which he is so famed[^]:"OK, good. So you're completely blind. You're saying that the child in this case ( the 9 yo ) doesn't matter to you at all. She has no rights, not even the right to sympathy. And, of course, the child she goes on to raise, is goin
-
Well, then, when a person looks past the end of their nose, what do they see? Personnally, when I look past the end of mine, I see people who are horrified by the prospect of a traditional AMerican christian becoming president such as Governor Palin, but actively promote the notion that a practicing muslim becoming president would just be the most wonderful event in the entire history of western civilization. Something about that just does not make any sense what so ever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I see people who are horrified by the prospect of a traditional AMerican christian becoming president such as Governor Palin,
Who are these people? Friends of yours? I have yet to see anyone, here or on other sites, "horrified" by Palin's religion.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but actively promote the notion that a practicing muslim becoming president would just be the most wonderful event in the entire history of western civilization.
Nor have I seen evidence of this BS.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you mean
I think/hope I may have misunderstood. Were you accusing Obama's people of supporting a Muslim for President?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I was responding generally to this line: Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president and the approving response of those who otherwise express horror at stalwart, traditional christians becoming president. I was not referring to Obama. Frankly, I think it is entirely healthy that westerners would be less comfortable with a muslim becoming president than a christian. ANd I think we shouild be able to unapologetically express that view in a free society without having some lefty spewing deadly political venom at us.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.