Holy crap!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
When they judge others based on their own situations, when they hurl abuse at women going in to abortion clinics, when they kill doctors, they are uncaring.
How so? It seems to me that they care a great deal.
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 seems to me that they care a great deal.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
What ? Are you talking about gun ownership ?
That is what I was talking about the entire time.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yeah. I think the big issue is probably 'inner city types' who have no idea how life works, and would probably find it icky if they did. I mean, so many people are so out of touch with reality in terms of things like sickness, or growing food, that they have views that are plain bizarre. The trouble is, we've had the vaccinations for so long, that people forget what it was like without them.
The problem is that their child probably wont ever get sick as a result (not that I would wish that on them). Some people will see that as validation of their belief that vaccinations are no longer required where as it's more likely to be because 90% of the children that child comes into contact with will have been vaccinated.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
When they judge others based on their own situations, when they hurl abuse at women going in to abortion clinics, when they kill doctors, they are uncaring.
How so? It seems to me that they care a great deal.
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.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
That's terrible.
No it isn't. It's justice ... that is, certainly it's terrible (for pure justice is a terrible thing), but it's not terrible in the wimpy, passive, hand-wringing Churchianity way that you mean the word.
Ilíon wrote:
No it isn't. It's justice ... that is, certainly it's terrible (for pure justice is a terrible thing), but it's not terrible in the wimpy, passive, hand-wringing Churchianity way that you mean the word.
What's that saying? Thou shalt murder? That's right, isn't it? I think it's becoming increasingly obvious just what sort of person you are.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You really don't know ?
Actually, I am quite perplexed by it. And I always have been. It is the original question that began turning me into a conservative.
Christian Graus wrote:
What would they have to promote in order to be on the 'right', in your view ?
I don't know. I hardly see how someone saying that life should be protected even when it is in the womb ends up on the same side of the political spectrum as Adolph Hitler. I don't necessarily agree with that fundamentalist perspective, but I'm stumped as to how anyone could catalog it politically along side Nazism.
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:
the same side of the political spectrum as Adolph Hitler
The socialist side?
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
That's terrible.
No it isn't. It's justice ... that is, certainly it's terrible (for pure justice is a terrible thing), but it's not terrible in the wimpy, passive, hand-wringing Churchianity way that you mean the word.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Well bless your little heart. Since I didn't say how I meant it, your description can best be described as intellectually dishonest. Since you did it willfully that would make you a liar and a fool.
snigger...chortle...guffaw! I'd say that you are my kind of Christian, Gary, except that Ilion would try to twist it around, so I'll say that, in my humble opinion, you're Christ's kind of Christian. Something he'll never be.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
:-O
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Regardless of one's opinion on the morality of the mans profession, he was still murdered, and his killer should pay the appropriate penalty for not giving him the very right that his trail will represent. No one has the right to take the law into their own hands.
I have sympathy for some of these guys - not the ones who bomb the clinics, but the guys who honestly believe that these doctors are committing murder and that every day they (the abortionists) are allowed to continue their grisly trade more innocents will die. I don't agree - or at least find myself not ready to agree wholeheartedly - but I ask myself, if I knew there was someone who was killing little kids and that for one reason or another (diplomatic immunity, maybe?) he couldn't or wouldn't be prosecuted - would I break the law and deliver justice?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
don't agree - or at least find myself not ready to agree wholeheartedly - but I ask myself, if I knew there was someone who was killing little kids and that for one reason or another (diplomatic immunity, maybe?) he couldn't or wouldn't be prosecuted - would I break the law and deliver justice?
Either one believes in the importance and sanctity of the legal system or one does not. It seems to me that it would be far better to work to change a legal system that is allowing some to escape prosecution inappropriatelty, than to presume the right to "deliver justice" (the quotes because I find the very idea suspect) oneself.
-
Oakman wrote:
don't agree - or at least find myself not ready to agree wholeheartedly - but I ask myself, if I knew there was someone who was killing little kids and that for one reason or another (diplomatic immunity, maybe?) he couldn't or wouldn't be prosecuted - would I break the law and deliver justice?
Either one believes in the importance and sanctity of the legal system or one does not. It seems to me that it would be far better to work to change a legal system that is allowing some to escape prosecution inappropriatelty, than to presume the right to "deliver justice" (the quotes because I find the very idea suspect) oneself.
Rob Graham wrote:
Either one believes in the importance and sanctity of the legal system or one does not.
I believe in it. No question about it. But it doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for those who, in the belief that they are doing what must be done, break the law. Were I ever to be pushed to that extreme - I don't know that I ever could be, I could not argue with whatever penalty the law chose to impose.
Rob Graham wrote:
"deliver justice" (the quotes because I find the very idea suspect) oneself.
Have you ever read Billy Budd? It makes the difference between the law and justice quite clear and why we must accept the law as the closest we can ever get to justice, as well.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You really think if your government went after you, there's any gun you could afford, that would help you ?
This isn't about the government going after an individual. This is about the government attempting to dominate the entire population. Perhaps Obama decides its time for a change and bans all fireamrms, and sends soilders to each home to collect them. Well that would be time to fight. I GUARANTEE you there would be fire fights across the country, protests, riots, the works. Do you really think they are stupid enough to try to collect weapons if they know they are going to be used? I dont fucking think so retard. You are so fucking pathetic. You can't defend yourself! Only a fucking moron could think he could really defend himself against real threats with a fucking boomerang. Get real fucktard. You are helpless and pathetic against any real threat. What are you going to do throw money at them? :laugh: Fuck...
modified on Monday, June 1, 2009 11:42 AM
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You really think if your government went after you, there's any gun you could afford, that would help you ?
This isn't about the government going after an individual. This is about the government attempting to dominate the entire population. Perhaps Obama decides its time for a change and bans all fireamrms, and sends soilders to each home to collect them. Well that would be time to fight. I GUARANTEE you there would be fire fights across the country, protests, riots, the works. Do you really think they are stupid enough to try to collect weapons if they know they are going to be used? I dont fucking think so retard. You are so fucking pathetic. You can't defend yourself! Only a fucking moron could think he could really defend himself against real threats with a fucking boomerang. Get real fucktard. You are helpless and pathetic against any real threat. What are you going to do throw money at them? :laugh: Fuck...
modified on Monday, June 1, 2009 11:42 AM
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Perhaps Obama decides its time for a change and bans all fireamrms, and sends soilders to each home to collect them.
Well, that sounds like your wet dream. It plainly won't happen tho.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I GUARANTEE you there would be fire fights across the country, protests, riots, the works.
And that's one reason why it won't happen.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Do you really think they are stupid enough to try to collect weapons if they know they are going to be used?
No, you appear to think that, but I don't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I dont f***ing think so retard. You are so f***ing pathetic.
Interesting. Were you stoned when you wrote this ? Will the government take your guns ? Not likely. If the government decided to take your guns, could they ? Of course. I mean, they have nukes, and you have what ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can't defend yourself!
Of course I can.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Only a f***ing moron could think he could really defend himself against real threats with a f***ing boomerang. Get real fucktard.
1 - because I don't live in a country full of gun nuts, if someone threatens me, I know the odds of them having a gun are low 2 - trying to defend yourself with a gun is a good way to get shot So, I can easily defend myself, I'd sure rather grab something close at hand to fight someone with a knife, than with a gun.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are helpless and pathetic against any real threat.
Here's an interesting question. What threat ? On what basis do you think someone would threaten me at all ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What are you going to do throw money at them?
Funny enough, the only reason I can see for someone to pull a gun on me, is robbery. So, yes, if I gave them what they wanted, the odds are good I would survive. Assuming they had a gun. If they didn't have a gun ( which is likely because this is not a country of war mongering gun nuts ), I could just grab an axe or something and it would be game on.
Christian Graus Driven
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Perhaps Obama decides its time for a change and bans all fireamrms, and sends soilders to each home to collect them.
Well, that sounds like your wet dream. It plainly won't happen tho.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I GUARANTEE you there would be fire fights across the country, protests, riots, the works.
And that's one reason why it won't happen.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Do you really think they are stupid enough to try to collect weapons if they know they are going to be used?
No, you appear to think that, but I don't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I dont f***ing think so retard. You are so f***ing pathetic.
Interesting. Were you stoned when you wrote this ? Will the government take your guns ? Not likely. If the government decided to take your guns, could they ? Of course. I mean, they have nukes, and you have what ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can't defend yourself!
Of course I can.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Only a f***ing moron could think he could really defend himself against real threats with a f***ing boomerang. Get real fucktard.
1 - because I don't live in a country full of gun nuts, if someone threatens me, I know the odds of them having a gun are low 2 - trying to defend yourself with a gun is a good way to get shot So, I can easily defend myself, I'd sure rather grab something close at hand to fight someone with a knife, than with a gun.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are helpless and pathetic against any real threat.
Here's an interesting question. What threat ? On what basis do you think someone would threaten me at all ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What are you going to do throw money at them?
Funny enough, the only reason I can see for someone to pull a gun on me, is robbery. So, yes, if I gave them what they wanted, the odds are good I would survive. Assuming they had a gun. If they didn't have a gun ( which is likely because this is not a country of war mongering gun nuts ), I could just grab an axe or something and it would be game on.
Christian Graus Driven
And cut...
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The number of challenges/organisms that a person's immune system encounters in a day is an order of magnitude more than the number of vaccines they'll receive over their entire life.
Sure - his point was that a lot of them were vaccinating against things that are not life threatening. He said he would ask 'what if we don't do this and he gets this disease' and the answer was 'he'll feel a bit sick for a few days'. If that is true, why vaccinate ? Like I said above, I've only heard his side, and I would default towards 'do what the doctor recommends', but if he's right, I would agree that it's silly to vaccinate for things that are not really that bad.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
The allegations are that the mercury in some vaccinations are contributing to autism. Might be true. But the answer isn't to stop the vaccinations, but to actively get them changed to stop using mercury.
This statement is false
There's no good evidence for it and a LOT of good evidence against it. The mercury and thimerserol debate is actually considered pretty over by even most of autism/vaccine staunchest supporters. There were a bunch of really good studies done to look at the link since Andrew Wakefield faked his first study on autism vs vaccines in the 90s - so the anti-vaccination crowd has pretty much switched to 'well it must be other contaminants' and other memes like 'too many too soon.' It's a nasty business...
- F