Powell endorses Obama
-
Al Beback wrote:
They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Actually we also limit people's choices all the time also, even when it involves their own bodies. We are not, nor have we ever been a libertarian society. But, fine, have the government encode that concept into law and the issue will be resolved. I'll be happy with whatever law our elected representatives establish on the issue. Hell, as far as I'm concerned they can define human life as beginning at the first fart, the first intelligible spoken word, or the first algebra equation solved - as long as it represents the actual will of the people.
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:
as long as it represents the actual will of the people
I vote for first algebra equation solved. Gives parents a fair amount of time to decide whether they made a mistake or not.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Oily is many things, but hardly a cobra
Perhaps, but that is what Powell's quoted comment was intended as. There has been no effort by the McCain administration to exploit Obama's muslim connections. It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
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:
It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
Martin Luther King famously said that he looked forward to the day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
Martin Luther King famously said that he looked forward to the day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry? Wouldn't bigotry be exactly the opposite - not wanting to be called by your given name because it sounds muslim? And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this 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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I think it is entirely healthy that westerners would be less comfortable with a muslim becoming president than a christian.
That is a complete mis-characterisation. The left has voted, quite comfortably, for one Christian after another. Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
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.
-
John Carson wrote:
The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry? Wouldn't bigotry be exactly the opposite - not wanting to be called by your given name because it sounds muslim? And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this 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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry?
Are you really that dumb or just playing dumb? Why do you think they use his middle name? Do they use anyone else's middle name? Why the difference? It is because they realise that many of their supporters are tiny-brained and bigoted enough to consider that this is a mark against Obama.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this issue?
I was careful. I referred to "many Republicans", not simply to "Republicans".
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
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:
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
People who hold any religious beliefs do not believe what I want them to believe. Fundamentalists are a problem because of 1. the policy positions that fundamentalism implies and with which I disagree, 2. the quality of mind (dogmatic, not evidence-based) that is characteristic of fundamentalists and which leads to poor decision making in government.
John Carson
-
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
Ilíon wrote:
You're such a liar. But, even if you weren't lying, how is "he started it" a justification for your anti-rationality?
Well, I accept that you didn't start arguing from emotion. Because you refuse to actually present any rationale for your views whatsoever. I am left to assume your arguments are the same ones I've heard elsewhere, because if indeed you're a font of rare wisdom, you're keeping it to yourself.
Ilíon wrote:
Let's give you a little run-down, Mr InveterateLiar:
ROTFL !!!
Ilíon wrote:
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."
OK, but why should anyone believe this ? I mean, on what basis have you defended this view point ?
Ilíon wrote:
Will murdering her unborn child unrape her?
How is this not an appeal to emotion ? That's exactly what it is, 'murdering her unborn child'.....
Ilíon wrote:
We already see that Mr Graus is both anti-rational and a liar.
What you are is self evident, there's no need for me to say anything further on that front. But, again, that doesn't change that you're incapable of defending your view point. You did ask some emotionally loaded questions, which led me to believe that your reasons for opposing abortion are based on emotion. IF you have anything else, why not spit it out ?
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
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is?
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby.
Well, sure. So, are you suggesting that the one that is already capable of reason and emotion, be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ? Should she not have any choice here ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception.
*grin* well, I am certain it doesn't occur at birth, however, there's no way that there's a human there at conception, in any form that makes sense. And, if we want to argue for the soul, surely if there's a soul in that tiny group of dividing cells, it would not go to hell for having been aborted ? I am not sure I'd want to nominate when life starts, but I am certain that, for example, taking a medication that causes a miscarriage during the first weeks after conception, is not murder. Beyond that, I don't like it, I am against it as a form of birth control, I think to say the mother has rights and the child has none, is insane. However, on the other hand, I can see places where it's not as black and white as we'd perhaps like it to be.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That doesn't seem like so much to ask for, but our elected representatives are just too cowardly to directly address the issue.
Yeah, I guess the issue is now too divisive for anyone to touch with a barge pole. Which is a shame. However, I do feel that when life begins is not something that should be defined by the 'will of the people'. Perhaps the legality of abortion should be, because such a thing should at least reflect community standards, in that, if the community opposes it, perhaps it should be illegal. The flip side of the coin is that when it is illegal, girls die because they go to backyard abortionists. Which is why the thing I'd like most to see, is more education, and not just of the super emotional kind. My approach with my daughter is very much to try to talk to her and make sure she understands the issues involved. I fear that too many parents want to enforce a standard, but not explain it, so kids do not internalise values, they just act the way they know they are expected to, when parents are watching.
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:
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
No. We tell them what they should do, which is totally different. They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
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)
The extreme position is that while a child is inside a womans body, her ownership of her body extends to that child. Murder is a crime. If I kill you, it's accepted I have done wrong. So, the issue becomes, at what point does an unborn child have the rights that they will have throughout life ? To say that until the baby pops it's head out, it is a cancer to be cut out, is ludicrous. But, again, to say that abortion is to be denied under any circumstances is, IMO, also too extreme. The middle ground I am comfortable with, does limit access to abortion to the point of making it close to non existant, but it still allows for abortion to take place in situations where it's not just a poor choice of birth control method.
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.
-
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
You are my hero....
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.
-
You are my hero....
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.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You're such a liar. But, even if you weren't lying, how is "he started it" a justification for your anti-rationality?
Well, I accept that you didn't start arguing from emotion. Because you refuse to actually present any rationale for your views whatsoever. I am left to assume your arguments are the same ones I've heard elsewhere, because if indeed you're a font of rare wisdom, you're keeping it to yourself.
Ilíon wrote:
Let's give you a little run-down, Mr InveterateLiar:
ROTFL !!!
Ilíon wrote:
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."
OK, but why should anyone believe this ? I mean, on what basis have you defended this view point ?
Ilíon wrote:
Will murdering her unborn child unrape her?
How is this not an appeal to emotion ? That's exactly what it is, 'murdering her unborn child'.....
Ilíon wrote:
We already see that Mr Graus is both anti-rational and a liar.
What you are is self evident, there's no need for me to say anything further on that front. But, again, that doesn't change that you're incapable of defending your view point. You did ask some emotionally loaded questions, which led me to believe that your reasons for opposing abortion are based on emotion. IF you have anything else, why not spit it out ?
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.
-
You are my hero....
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 spouting retoric, but you're not actually answering me.
It's logically impossible to answer a fool, or a liar (refuting a liar is a different matter). Since I am a rational being who tries always to be logical and honest, I don't attempt the logically impossible.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
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.
You really ought to work on that illogical and irrational contradiction. Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as grey -- grey is merely black and white that we haven't yet separated. Frequently because we refuse even to look and see that it can be separated.
Ilíon wrote:
It's logically impossible to answer a fool, or a liar (refuting a liar is a different matter).
See, even when I speak to total morons, I make sure my answers are logical and clear, so that my willingness to defend my views, shows them in sharp relief. Much like I've done to you in this thread. If you're not willing to defend your views, then take them elsewhere. If you can't discuss your beliefs, keep them to yourself.
Ilíon wrote:
You really ought to work on that illogical and irrational contradiction.
I should work on the foolish notion that life is not like a movie, and that sometimes you have to think ?
Ilíon wrote:
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as grey -- grey is merely black and white that we haven't yet separated. Frequently because we refuse even to look and see that it can be separated.
Is all this wonderful justification of your views that you refuse to share, based on stupid word games ?
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:
OK, but why should anyone believe this ?
Ilíon wrote:
You already know it to be true[^]
Linking to yourself. How clever. But, my views are not the issue. I am able to discuss those. Why can't you discuss yours ? Don't say it's a waste of time talking to liars, you've wasted far more time discussing your refusal to answer me than it would take to just tell us how you defend your statements.
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 are my hero....
I saw this thread and fired up IE, just so I could read what Troy had written.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
He's referring to you as 'your new hero' above. I couldn't even remember saying it, I was obviously kidding around. I guess that doesn't happen in his little world.
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 are my hero....
He would be. He's a liar. You're a liar. It's a perfect match made in hell.
Ilíon wrote:
It's a perfect match made in hell.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you don't believe a word you say, that you're just trolling. No-one is this stupid.
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.
-
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 ?
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.
You have no issue with stopping all the people who just want abortions because they had unprotected sex, and don't want to pay the piper? I mean, I know a lot of people who have had abortions. But no one I know got raped and had an abortion, let alone any 9 year olds. So if I say "OK, any raped 9 year olds can get an abortion, either with parental consent, or a court order", you'll say "ok, nobody who is doing it as an excuse to have unprotected sex can keep doing it", right? Count the 9 year olds it happens to, and get back to me. Last time I looked, it was not a million raped 9 year olds a year. Let alone pregnant ones. I'll protect the 9 years olds who got pregnant from rape, if you will protect the babys of people who are lazy and unwilling to curb their hormones. Or should the law allow me shoot anyone I want, because there is some minor chance that one of the people I see might attack me, or some 9 year old I know. So I should not have my right to kill people curtailed, based on the privacy of my own thought and fears.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is?
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby.
Well, sure. So, are you suggesting that the one that is already capable of reason and emotion, be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ? Should she not have any choice here ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception.
*grin* well, I am certain it doesn't occur at birth, however, there's no way that there's a human there at conception, in any form that makes sense. And, if we want to argue for the soul, surely if there's a soul in that tiny group of dividing cells, it would not go to hell for having been aborted ? I am not sure I'd want to nominate when life starts, but I am certain that, for example, taking a medication that causes a miscarriage during the first weeks after conception, is not murder. Beyond that, I don't like it, I am against it as a form of birth control, I think to say the mother has rights and the child has none, is insane. However, on the other hand, I can see places where it's not as black and white as we'd perhaps like it to be.
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.
Give it up Christian, you'll get nowhere but stressed. What bugs me is not that people are pro- or anti-abortion, but that the fanatical anti-abortionists believe that their personal opinion outweighs that of the mother.