PDA

View Full Version : APP - Senator Kennedy became one of my heroes!



Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:02 PM
In the past I had never really cared much about Sennator Kennedy one way or another. Never really thought much about him, except the one time I met him in 1992.

I saw a clip on Larry King Live last night which made him one of my heros. They asked him what was the most important vote of your 40 year Sennate career. He said his vote against the Iraq war.

He outlined why he decided to vote no, and the extreeme pressure that was put on him to vote yes. He stood strong and made the correct decision. I honor that. I honor the same position taken by President Obama. For that Kennedy has become a hero in my book.

meme
08-27-2009, 01:05 PM
:rolleyes:

Cancel 2018. 3
08-27-2009, 01:05 PM
i'm sure mary jo's family considers him a hero

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 01:06 PM
i'm sure mary jo's family considers him a hero
You don't know, why don't you ask them? Aren't you passing judgment that isn't yours to pass?

meme
08-27-2009, 01:07 PM
He doesn't have to ask them, they already expressed their hate for the man and what a coward he was..

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 01:13 PM
He doesn't have to ask them, they already expressed their hate for the man and what a coward he was..

Really...this I would like to see in print. Didn't they take his money?

Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:16 PM
He voted against a war that needlessly killed thousands of American heros and hundrids of thousands of innocent Iraqi's.

Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:17 PM
A hero, rightfully buried where American Heros are buried... In Arlington National Cemitery!

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 01:18 PM
He voted against a war that needlessly killed thousands of American heros and hundrids of thousands of innocent Iraqi's.
thanks, Jarod, the man made a statement that he lived with the memory of her everyday of his life and felt remorse for what he did.

It sounds to me like he paid for his sins. His family may have had to money to get him off with a light punishment, but that doesn't mean he didn't pay everyday of his life for his part in her death.

If he had gone to prison for it, it still would not be enough for some people.

I am glad that I am a liberal and look beyond that night in 1969 and look at what good has come from this man's life of service.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-27-2009, 01:20 PM
You don't know, why don't you ask them? Aren't you passing judgment that isn't yours to pass?

why do you pass judgment on gwb about american soldiers who have died....

the stench of hypocrisy from the left is appalling

Cancel 2018. 3
08-27-2009, 01:21 PM
He voted against a war that needlessly killed thousands of American heros and hundrids of thousands of innocent Iraqi's.

and there it is....another lefting bringing up deaths of us soldiers to condemn gwb.....but oh no....you mention kennedy killing that young girl and you hate america and a stupid or whatever

fucking hypocrisy

Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:22 PM
and there it is....another lefting bringing up deaths of us soldiers to condemn gwb.....but oh no....you mention kennedy killing that young girl and you hate america and a stupid or whatever

fucking hypocrisy

I did not even mention GWB, defensive are you?

meme
08-27-2009, 01:24 PM
I did not even mention GWB, defensive are you?


only his daughters and wife..:rolleyes:

Cancel 2018. 3
08-27-2009, 01:26 PM
I did not even mention GWB, defensive are you?

so bringing up a war where thousands died unnecessarily has nothing to do with bush....

Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:39 PM
only his daughters and wife..:rolleyes:

Argument shifting, I was talking about the war when you said I was blamining Bush. I said nuthing about Bush in connection with the war.

Pittafull!

Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:39 PM
so bringing up a war where thousands died unnecessarily has nothing to do with bush....

I was discussing an act I thought Kennedy was heroic for trying to prevent.

meme
08-27-2009, 01:41 PM
Argument shifting, I was talking about the war when you said I was blamining Bush. I said nuthing about Bush in connection with the war.

Pittafull!


oh, it musta been in one of the other hundred threads you've started on the puke..:rolleyes:

that is pitiful

Jarod
08-27-2009, 01:42 PM
oh, it musta been in one of the other hundred threads you've started on the puke..:rolleyes:

Argument shifting.. again, you got nuthing do you?

Fish
08-27-2009, 01:53 PM
Hi I'm Yurt. I'm here to make all Ted Kennedy threads about Chapaquiddick.

meme
08-27-2009, 01:56 PM
it's too bad it's part of his legacy...even though we know the lefties would like to erase it from his past.

Jarod
08-27-2009, 02:08 PM
it's too bad it's part of his legacy...even though we know the lefties would like to erase it from his past.

Finally something I agree with you about... at least the first half of what you said.

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 02:10 PM
Hi I'm Yurt. I'm here to make all Ted Kennedy threads about Chapaquiddick.
Thanks! We appreciate it, really we do!

Cancel 2018. 3
08-27-2009, 03:24 PM
Hi I'm Yurt. I'm here to make all Ted Kennedy threads about Chapaquiddick.

http://www.nndb.com/people/182/000088915/kopechne-enl.jpg

if i have missed any threads, please let me know :)

Fish
08-27-2009, 09:51 PM
Not pictured: Hundreds of thousands of poor people directly benefited by Ted Kennedy's tireless public service.

cawacko
08-27-2009, 10:03 PM
Not pictured: Hundreds of thousands of poor people directly benefited by Ted Kennedy's tireless public service.

I'm going to use that sh*t for OJ. Not pictured: The millions of people he entertained on the field and on the big screen (while falsely being accused of murder).

Fish
08-27-2009, 10:10 PM
I'm going to use that sh*t for OJ. Not pictured: The millions of people he entertained on the field and on the big screen (while falsely being accused of murder).

"Playing a game for money is the same thing as devoting your life to helping the poor." -cawacko

cawacko
08-27-2009, 10:14 PM
"Playing a game for money is the same thing as devoting your life to helping the poor." -cawacko

James Carville you are not but you do show talent sir to be one of his protege's (sp).

meme
08-27-2009, 10:15 PM
the only way Teddy helped the poor was to take from others to do it, ..while he lived in the lap of luxury hording all his money..

Fish
08-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Hi meme!

uscitizen
08-27-2009, 10:47 PM
Would this before or after they've voted for him in every election for the past 40 years?

HMMM, is this true?

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 10:50 PM
i thought Republos loved the rich, have I been fooled all these years?

cawacko
08-27-2009, 11:22 PM
i thought Republos loved the rich, have I been fooled all these years?

Haha, yes. You've been listening to too much Democratic talk. The real rich are with me in SF, LA and then NY. They are the Democratic folks. :)

Cancel5
08-27-2009, 11:38 PM
Haha, yes. You've been listening to too much Democratic talk. The real rich are with me in SF, LA and then NY. They are the Democratic folks. :)
They are the "old" rich, the real rich!

cawacko
08-27-2009, 11:54 PM
They are the "old" rich, the real rich!

At least in my hood you have a lot of the new rich, internet money, and they lean Democratic as well.

Jarod
08-28-2009, 07:32 AM
i thought Republos loved the rich, have I been fooled all these years?

Its only good to be rich if you are a Republican. If you are a liberal apperantly its hypocritical!

Jarod
08-28-2009, 07:33 AM
Old established money, Democrat.

Money newly come into, Republican.

Thats the general trend anyway.

cawacko
08-28-2009, 07:58 AM
Old established money, Democrat.

Money newly come into, Republican.

Thats the general trend anyway.

Trend from where? Like I said a lot of the new money has come from the tech space. While not necessarily a liberal bastion on the whole tech folks tend to lean to the left.

Jarod
08-28-2009, 08:00 AM
Trend from where? Like I said a lot of the new money has come from the tech space. While not necessarily a liberal bastion on the whole tech folks tend to lean to the left.

I see Tech Space people as more conservative.. Sillicone valley types.

cawacko
08-28-2009, 08:13 AM
I see Tech Space people as more conservative.. Sillicone valley types.

Silicon Valley more conservative? Dude, I worked in the Silicon Valley for years. Folks in the tech space tend to lean left.

Damocles
08-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Old established money, Democrat.

Money newly come into, Republican.

Thats the general trend anyway.
So you are saying that Republicans earn it while Democrats inherit or lose it?

meme
08-28-2009, 08:16 AM
So you are saying that Republicans earn it while Democrats inherit or lose it?

:)

Jarod
08-28-2009, 09:23 AM
So you are saying that Republicans earn it while Democrats inherit or lose it?

I do believe that is often the trend.

cawacko
08-28-2009, 09:25 AM
I do believe that is often the trend.

Damn, I don't even agree with that. Haha...

Ability to inherit and lose money knows no partisan boundries.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-28-2009, 09:39 AM
So you are saying that Republicans earn it while Democrats inherit or lose it?

^lol^

and the answer....more lol


I do believe that is often the trend.

Jarod
08-28-2009, 11:44 AM
^lol^

and the answer....more lol

Hey I admit the negative to the Democratic party. The abilit to inherit knows no bounds I agree. But people who grew up in mega rich families often times are more liberal... I dont know why, but to me it seems the trend.

Vanderbilts, Rockafellers, Kennedy's.

DamnYankee
08-28-2009, 12:24 PM
In the past I had never really cared much about Sennator Kennedy one way or another. Never really thought much about him, except the one time I met him in 1992.

I saw a clip on Larry King Live last night which made him one of my heros. They asked him what was the most important vote of your 40 year Sennate career. He said his vote against the Iraq war.

He outlined why he decided to vote no, and the extreeme pressure that was put on him to vote yes. He stood strong and made the correct decision. I honor that. I honor the same position taken by President Obama. For that Kennedy has become a hero in my book. Only a faggot would have a hero like that. I'm glad he's dead and want to see lots more liberals dead, especially liberal politicians.

belme1201
08-29-2009, 10:15 PM
Only a faggot would have a hero like that. I'm glad he's dead and want to see lots more liberals dead, especially liberal politicians.


You seriously need professional help.

uscitizen
08-29-2009, 10:56 PM
You seriously need professional help.

Yes he does. He is a very angry person.
Anger and hatred is like an acid that that eats up the container holding it.

If he could just let go of his fear.

TuTu Monroe
08-30-2009, 12:06 AM
Yes he does. He is a very angry person.
Anger and hatred is like an acid that that eats up the container holding it.

If he could just let go of his fear.

That's what I said to frog when she sent me her hate message.

She seriously needs help.

TuTu Monroe
08-30-2009, 12:08 AM
You seriously need professional help.

Odd you don't say anything to the lefties who have wished death on people.

belme1201
08-30-2009, 12:34 AM
Odd you don't say anything to the lefties who have wished death on people.

Did you read the post I referred to? It is the ranting of a sick person, you know, the one you read about that the neighbors say was a "quiet man, he stayed to himself". I was serious with my concern
When you see a post like that point it out to me, I'll be more than glad to join you, however, I also didn't see a response by you to the above post either if, as you indicate, you are truly concerned about messages like that. Those jousts you referred to regarding my side, I think you know I was never aboard or participating in those threads as soon as they were destroyed by the childishness. But, if you will point out posts such as that, both sides, again, I will join you.

meme
08-30-2009, 12:38 AM
Oh bull, SM is far from being a sick man..

watermark tells all the Republicans on here they should all die and go to hell, and the world would be a better place without Republicans, do we automatically assume he is a mass killer?? so much dramatics, it is funny as hell though..

cancel2 2022
08-30-2009, 05:38 AM
I see Tech Space people as more conservative.. Sillicone valley types.

I think that you've got the wrong valley, Silicone Valley is where all the porno films are made whereas Silicon Valley is the high tech one. :)

belme1201
08-30-2009, 08:01 AM
Oh bull, SM is far from being a sick man..

watermark tells all the Republicans on here they should all die and go to hell, and the world would be a better place without Republicans, do we automatically assume he is a mass killer?? so much dramatics, it is funny as hell though..


Obviously, as I suspected, your morality doesn't extend too far from your politics. You have a strange sense of humor.

meme
08-30-2009, 08:07 AM
Obviously, as I suspected, your morality doesn't extend too far from your politics. You have a strange sense of humor.


good grief..the laughs just keep on coming.

tinfoil
08-30-2009, 09:33 AM
You don't know, why don't you ask them? Aren't you passing judgment that isn't yours to pass?

LOL
I'm sure it's up for question

tinfoil
08-30-2009, 09:36 AM
Old established money, Democrat.

Money newly come into, Republican.

Thats the general trend anyway.

hard to find anything as stupid as this anywhere on the internets. Congrats

tinfoil
08-30-2009, 09:38 AM
I do believe that is often the trend.

LOLZ

Now that shit is funny!

TuTu Monroe
08-30-2009, 01:08 PM
Oh bull, SM is far from being a sick man..

watermark tells all the Republicans on here they should all die and go to hell, and the world would be a better place without Republicans, do we automatically assume he is a mass killer?? so much dramatics, it is funny as hell though..

Let's not forget BAC's and Lady T's death comments. This is obviously the left's MO.

Jarod
08-30-2009, 01:24 PM
Only a faggot would have a hero like that. I'm glad he's dead and want to see lots more liberals dead, especially liberal politicians.

If what you say is true... lots of Republican Senators and representatives describing themselves as "faggots" on television this weekend!

Minister of Truth
08-30-2009, 02:14 PM
LOLZ

Now that shit is funny!

Its as if he read the wrong side's talking points recently. :)

NOVA
08-30-2009, 03:00 PM
A drunkin sot, responsible for the death of a young girl while dui, is Jarods hero....

I have no problem believing that..not surprised at all....

cancel2 2022
08-30-2009, 04:27 PM
Let's not forget BAC's and Lady T's death comments. This is obviously the left's MO.

I guess you are missing Lowaicue.

DamnYankee
08-30-2009, 07:58 PM
If what you say is true... lots of Republican Senators and representatives describing themselves as "faggots" on television this weekend! What's your point?

TuTu Monroe
08-30-2009, 08:02 PM
I guess you are missing Lowaicue.

....and Prakosh, and, and, and, and. Damn, the list is long.

belme1201
08-30-2009, 08:06 PM
I guess you are missing Lowaicue.

Where'd he go? If you talk to him tell him belme said "Yom Sing".

TuTu Monroe
08-30-2009, 08:43 PM
Where'd he go? If you talk to him tell him belme said "Yom Sing".

He called for the assassination of Bush, so I'm sure you miss him.

Jeff
08-30-2009, 08:48 PM
I was discussing an act I thought Kennedy was heroic for trying to prevent.

He was just drunk that day he meant to vote yes,

christiefan915
08-31-2009, 07:29 AM
He called for the assassination of Bush, so I'm sure you miss him.

Good God, he didn't "call" for it, he was being sarcastic. He said the same thing about Thatcher.

Your fringe buddies out on the protest lines are suggesting the same thing about Obama.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/guy-with-gun-sign-town-hall.jpg

christiefan915
08-31-2009, 07:30 AM
Where'd he go? If you talk to him tell him belme said "Yom Sing".

I've wondered that also. Hope he's just taking a break from the madness.

Jarod
08-31-2009, 08:00 AM
ANyone else see part of that funeral...

He got a better funeral than Reagan or Ford...

TuTu Monroe
08-31-2009, 08:09 AM
Good God, he didn't "call" for it, he was being sarcastic. He said the same thing about Thatcher.

Your fringe buddies out on the protest lines are suggesting the same thing about Obama.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/guy-with-gun-sign-town-hall.jpg

Your trying to protect Low is futile with me. He is a nasty little man, except with those who agree with him.

christiefan915
08-31-2009, 08:20 AM
Your trying to protect Low is futile with me. He is a nasty little man, except with those who agree with him.

Yeah yeah yeah, you hate Low and we hat dumbo and you hate Prak and we hate dumbkis, etc. etc. <yawn>

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 10:57 AM
I've wondered that also. Hope he's just taking a break from the madness.

I'm not in contact with him maybe he decided he had enough.

belme1201
08-31-2009, 11:14 AM
I'm not in contact with him maybe he decided he'd had enough.

Smart man.

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 11:25 AM
like
Smart man.

I would like to know if he is all right though, not sure how to contact him.

Canceled1
08-31-2009, 11:45 AM
I'm not in contact with him maybe he decided he had enough.

Oh riiiiight!!

I've seen him here two times in the last seven days lurking. What is it with you Brits?

Closet voyeurs?

cancel2 2022
08-31-2009, 02:12 PM
Oh riiiiight!!

I've seen him here two times in the last seven days lurking. What is it with you Brits?

Closet voyeurs?

This from the woman who makes it her business seemingly to monitor the board for various posters coming and goings.

belme1201
08-31-2009, 02:37 PM
like

I would like to know if he is all right though, not sure how to contact him.

Me too, he and Telstar had some bad tyhoons within the last few weeks.

NOVA
08-31-2009, 06:39 PM
ANyone else see part of that funeral...

He got a better funeral than Reagan or Ford...

Yeah...the folks do seem a bit happy.....thats understandable....:clink:

meme
08-31-2009, 07:13 PM
a better funeral... pfeesh..

you didn't see hundreds of people stop their cars on the side of the roads and get out of their cars to salute him as his hearse went by to his final resting place...
you also didn't see anyone put up a little child to push politics in a prayer he gave, conservatives have more class than that.

TuTu Monroe
08-31-2009, 07:33 PM
This from the woman who makes it her business seemingly to monitor the board for various posters coming and goings.

No, you are confused, that would be Ethel.

Jarod
09-02-2009, 08:30 AM
a better funeral... pfeesh..

you didn't see hundreds of people stop their cars on the side of the roads and get out of their cars to salute him as his hearse went by to his final resting place...
you also didn't see anyone put up a little child to push politics in a prayer he gave, conservatives have more class than that.

That shows the love the common man had for TK.

I saw a very conservative Republican senator not be able to get through a loving and hartfelt speach without crying.

meme
09-02-2009, 08:36 AM
That shows the love the common man had for TK.

I saw a very conservative Republican senator not be able to get through a loving and hartfelt speach without crying.

Huh?
I was talking about the Reagan funeral..where hundreds of people stopped their cars on the roadway to say goodbye..

no common person I knew had a deep "love for Teddy boy"..in fact they could give a shit less about him..
and then to put a 10 yr. old boy up to give a prayer for all people to have affordable health care , low class at it's worse..

Jarod
09-02-2009, 08:47 AM
Huh?
I was talking about the Reagan funeral..where hundreds of people stopped their cars on the roadway to say goodbye..

no common person I knew had a deep "love for Teddy boy"..in fact they could give a shit less about him..
and then to put a 10 yr. old boy up to give a prayer for all people to have affordable health care , low class at it's worse..

You did not see the video of the herse being stoped by crowds of common people.

meme
09-02-2009, 08:54 AM
You did not see the video of the herse being stoped by crowds of common people.

I'm proud to say I only caught a couple of quick clips of that sick love fest for the scum bag while channel surfing...

charver
09-02-2009, 09:05 AM
You did not see the video of the herse being stoped by crowds of common people.

Ah yes, the love of the common man was something Teddy shared with our own Queen of Hearts, Princess 'Lady Di' Diana Spencer.

They also both witnessed the death of a fellow passenger in the aftermath of a terrible car crash.

Something to talk about in heaven there.

Jarod
09-02-2009, 09:37 AM
I'm proud to say I only caught a couple of quick clips of that sick love fest for the scum bag while channel surfing...

SO you know not of what you speak.

meme
09-02-2009, 09:43 AM
SO you know not of what you speak.

I saw the so called "crowds" lining up for the scum bag on the sidewalks in a news clip like I said..

what diff, the dude is gone and I am over him already..

uscitizen
09-02-2009, 10:04 AM
Ah yes, the love of the common man was something Teddy shared with our own Queen of Hearts, Princess 'Lady Di' Diana Spencer.

They also both witnessed the death of a fellow passenger in the aftermath of a terrible car crash.

Something to talk about in heaven there.

LOL.

I love your view on life Charver. :clink:

DamnYankee
09-02-2009, 10:49 AM
Ah yes, the love of the common man was something Teddy shared with our own Queen of Hearts, Princess 'Lady Di' Diana Spencer.

They also both witnessed the death of a fellow passenger in the aftermath of a terrible car crash.

Something to talk about in heaven there. I'm afraid that there is a special place in hell for Ted.

Jarod
09-02-2009, 12:31 PM
I'm afraid that there is a special place in hell for Ted.

You can tell who gets to go to heaven and who is sent to hell?

DamnYankee
09-02-2009, 12:37 PM
You can tell who gets to go to heaven and who is sent to hell?In many cases we can't, but I think it's a no-brainer that unrepentant murderers, philanderers and abortion supporters go to hell.

Jarod
09-02-2009, 01:06 PM
In many cases we can't, but I think it's a no-brainer that unrepentant murderers, philanderers and abortion supporters go to hell.

So everyone who is pro-choice is going to hell?

uscitizen
09-02-2009, 01:08 PM
I'm afraid that there is a special place in hell for Ted.

This is the type of judge not lest ye be judged that the bible spoke of.
My understanding is that by doing this you can wind up hanging out for eternity with with teddy. Now that would be nice :clink:

DamnYankee
09-02-2009, 05:50 PM
So everyone who is pro-choice is going to hell? That's a given. Ted, however, has a special place in hell.

DamnYankee
09-02-2009, 05:51 PM
This is the type of judge not lest ye be judged that the bible spoke of.
My understanding is that by doing this you can wind up hanging out for eternity with with teddy. Now that would be nice :clink:You can't tell the difference between making a plain statement and a judgment. LOL

TuTu Monroe
09-02-2009, 05:56 PM
This is the type of judge not lest ye be judged that the bible spoke of.
My understanding is that by doing this you can wind up hanging out for eternity with with teddy. Now that would be nice :clink:

If that's the case, then everyone will be hanging out with Kennedy.

Jarod
09-03-2009, 06:46 AM
That's a given. Ted, however, has a special place in hell.

Wow you have more insight than the bible gives any human.

DamnYankee
09-03-2009, 07:16 AM
Wow you have more insight than the bible gives any human.Thank you, yes.

leaningright
09-03-2009, 12:14 PM
This is the type of judge not lest ye be judged that the bible spoke of.
My understanding is that by doing this you can wind up hanging out for eternity with with teddy. Now that would be nice :clink:

You understand correctly usc...

uscitizen
09-03-2009, 12:28 PM
You understand correctly usc...

Yes leaning I understand mostly. And sometimes I even wish I believed.
It could be a great comfort.

Please take none of my anti religion stuff personally. I just try and target the false Christians.
I have never attacked anyone whom I considered to be a true Christian. They are good folks, even though I disagree with them.

Just felt I had to tell you this because I hold you in a position of respect.
And feel that I would be honored to call you friend.

Thorn
09-03-2009, 01:34 PM
Yes leaning I understand mostly. And sometimes I even wish I believed.
It could be a great comfort.

Please take none of my anti religion stuff personally. I just try and target the false Christians.
I have never attacked anyone whom I considered to be a true Christian. They are good folks, even though I disagree with them.

Just felt I had to tell you this because I hold you in a position of respect.
And feel that I would be honored to call you friend.

Well said. I'll second that.

Minister of Truth
09-03-2009, 01:36 PM
So everyone who is pro-choice is going to hell?

I certainly can't think of a reason to be more affraid of it than by being pro-abortion...

Jarod
09-03-2009, 01:46 PM
I certainly can't think of a reason to be more affraid of it than by being pro-abortion...

Murder, tourture, rape... to name a few.

Minister of Truth
09-03-2009, 04:02 PM
Murder, tourture, rape... to name a few.

Yeah, mass murder, I agree.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 06:55 AM
Yeah, mass murder, I agree.

SO being pro-choice is the same as being a mass muderer?

Damocles
09-04-2009, 07:32 AM
SO being pro-choice is the same as being a mass muderer?
It would be more like being pro mass murder. I want it to be legal so people can make the choice to do it if they need to. I mean, some people deserve to be post-birth aborted. While I would never do it personally I can't make a law because I personally think it is wrong....

Jarod
09-04-2009, 07:36 AM
It would be more like being pro mass murder. I want it to be legal so people can make the choice to do it if they need to. I mean, some people deserve to be post-birth aborted. While I would never do it personally I can't make a law because I personally think it is wrong....

Its not the same as being pro-mass murder. One can be for it being legal to make the choice for yourself while still against making that choice.

I belive unprotected sex is a bad choice and I do not belive people should do it when they are not ready to have kids. That does not mean I belive it should be illegal! Same thing!

So if you belive that the secular government should not make a law against it, but still encourage and work toward getting people not to do it, that makes me pro-it!

Damocles
09-04-2009, 07:40 AM
Its not the same as being pro-mass murder. One can be for it being legal to make the choice for yourself while still against making that choice.

I belive unprotected sex is a bad choice and I do not belive people should do it when they are not ready to have kids. That does not mean I belive it should be illegal! Same thing!

So if you belive that the secular government should not make a law against it, but still encourage and work toward getting people not to do it, that makes me pro-it!
So, you didn't read my post and tried to explain what was already there.

Read it again, I'll bold the important parts...



It would be more like being pro mass murder. I want it to be legal so people can make the choice to do it if they need to. I mean, some people deserve to be post-birth aborted. While I would never do it personally I can't make a law because I personally think it is wrong....

Jarod
09-04-2009, 07:42 AM
No I read your entire post.

I was responding to the first part...

"It would be more like being pro mass murder. I want it to be legal so people can make the choice to do it if they need to. I mean, some people deserve to be post-birth aborted. While I would never do it personally I can't make a law because I personally think it is wrong.... "

Jarod
09-04-2009, 07:45 AM
It would be more like being pro mass murder. I want it to be legal so people can make the choice to do it if they need to. I mean, some people deserve to be post-birth aborted. While I would never do it personally I can't make a law because I personally think it is wrong....

Even considering the bolded part of your post, my point still stands... That would not make you pro-mass murder, in fact it makse you anti-mass murder, because as you stated, you personally think it is wrong!

Damocles
09-04-2009, 07:47 AM
It would be more like being pro mass murder. I want it to be legal so people can make the choice to do it if they need to. I mean, some people deserve to be post-birth aborted. While I would never do it personally I can't make a law because I personally think it is wrong....

Even considering the bolded part of your post, my point still stands... That would not make you pro-mass murder, in fact it makse you anti-mass murder, because as you stated, you personally think it is wrong!
That's idiotic. One understands that it is among the list of the ultimate wrongs, yet would be willing to allow others to do it because their understanding can't effect others?

It's plain stupid. We wouldn't be able to make any laws at all if this logic was followed with any regularity.

No matter how vile an act you commit, somebody can always say, "Well I wouldn't do it personally, but laws shouldn't be based on my morality!"

Jarod
09-04-2009, 07:57 AM
That's idiotic. One understands that it is among the list of the ultimate wrongs, yet would be willing to allow others to do it because their understanding can't effect others?

It's plain stupid. We wouldn't be able to make any laws at all if this logic was followed with any regularity.

No matter how vile an act you commit, somebody can always say, "Well I wouldn't do it personally, but laws shouldn't be based on my morality!"

I agree with your point above about how dumb that argument is, but, I hold firm to what I am saying which is that such an argument, as flawed as it is, does not make you PRO-MASS MURDER.

Talk about straw man. I did not use the argment for the sake of the argument, I used the argument to illistrate that making the argument still does not make you pro MASS-Murder.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:03 AM
I agree with your point above about how dumb that argument is, but, I hold firm to what I am saying which is that such an argument, as flawed as it is, does not make you PRO-MASS MURDER.

Talk about straw man. I did not use the argment for the sake of the argument, I used the argument to illistrate that making the argument still does not make you pro MASS-Murder.
I believe that it does. Through direct action you support laws that will continue to allow others to get rich off of something you profess to believe is wrong.

It would be more like having a factory that you could force others into to slaughter them then actively supporting the continued operation of that factory even though you think killing people is wrong, you continue to support the activity and try to say "I'm really against it, I don't think people should take anybody there!" (And this would be pretty much exactly like most pro-lifers see it. If you believe it is a child what possible reason could you give to support it even for rape or incest?)

Jarod
09-04-2009, 08:09 AM
I believe that it does. Through direct action you support laws that will continue to allow others to get rich off of something you profess to believe is wrong.

It would be more like having a factory that you could force others into to slaughter them then actively supporting the continued operation of that factory even though you think killing people is wrong, you continue to support the activity and try to say "I'm really against it, I don't think people should take anybody there!" (And this would be pretty much exactly like most pro-lifers see it. If you believe it is a child what possible reason could you give to support it even for rape or incest?)

Wanting something to remain legal, is not the same as supporting that something. You are more logical than that, and you know better. IN fact you could easily stand up and say, I dont want the governemtn to make this illegal, I dont belive that will shut it down, I want to take all my resources to find other ways to shut it down other than by government force. I am against it, I just dont want to make it illegal. I dont believe that making a law against something stops it, it just makes it worse.

Now if you "supported" the factory, financially or otherwise, thats supporting it. Merely not wanting it to be illegal is not supporting it, in my book. You can belive otherwise all day long, but it does not follow logic.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:10 AM
Wanting something to remain legal, is not the same as supporting that something. You are more logical than that, and you know better. IN fact you could easily stand up and say, I dont want the governemtn to make this illegal, I dont belive that will shut it down, I want to take all my resources to find other ways to shut it down other than by government force. I am against it, I just dont want to make it illegal. I dont believe that making a law against something stops it, it just makes it worse.

Now if you "supported" the factory, financially or otherwise, thats supporting it. Merely not wanting it to be illegal is not supporting it, in my book. You can belive otherwise all day long, but it does not follow logic.
Directly acting to keep something legal even though you believe it to be "murder" is the same thing as supporting it. Period. Donating time to support the activity is the same thing as donating money to the cause.

Literally spending hours supporting the activity then saying you don't support it... illogical in an extreme.

charver
09-04-2009, 08:12 AM
I don't want to interrupt this free flowing, back-and-forth rally of ideas but could someone direct me to the website, or provide some contact details, for this "human slaughter factory"?

It strikes me as an interesting investment opportunity.

Thanks.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:13 AM
I don't want to interrupt this free flowing, back-and-forth rally of ideas but could someone direct me to the website, or provide some contact details, for this "human slaughter factory"?

It strikes me as an interesting investment opportunity.

Thanks.
It was a Monty Python sketch... You know the one where the guy wants to be a Freemason.

uscitizen
09-04-2009, 08:16 AM
It was a Monty Python sketch... You know the one where the guy wants to be a Freemason.

the fish slapping?

Or the lumberjack song?

charver
09-04-2009, 08:16 AM
It was a Monty Python sketch... You know the one where the guy wants to be a Freemason.

With this revelation you have made one, semi-psychotic, young hipster investor very unhappy. :(

Jarod
09-04-2009, 08:17 AM
Directly acting to keep something legal even though you believe it to be "murder" is the same thing as supporting it. Period. Donating time to support the activity is the same thing as donating money to the cause.

Literally spending hours supporting the activity then saying you don't support it... illogical in an extreme.

I totally disagree with the first part. There are plenty of things I want to be legal that I would be against!

I agree that donating time to support an activity is the same thign as donating money to the cause.

I vote pro-choice, yet I donate time and money to orginizations that I belive, in the long run, will result in less abortions.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:18 AM
the fish slapping?

Or the lumberjack song?
The abattoir, the guy designs an abattoir when they want a block of flats.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:19 AM
I totally disagree with the first part. There are plenty of things I want to be legal that I would be against!

I agree that donating time to support an activity is the same thign as donating money to the cause.

I vote pro-choice, yet I donate time and money to orginizations that I belive, in the long run, will result in less abortions.
I do not spend hours supporting a law directly unless I support it. Nor do you. You spend hours and hours defending the practice on this site alone, that is support, no equivocating. There is nothing wrong with supporting what you see as "rights", IMO there is something wrong with people who are incapable of understanding how the other side views it though.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:21 AM
With this revelation you have made one, semi-psychotic, young hipster investor very unhappy. :(
He has his own apron.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 08:26 AM
I do not spend hours supporting a law directly unless I support it. Nor do you. You spend hours and hours defending the practice on this site alone, that is support, no equivocating. There is nothing wrong with supporting what you see as "rights", IMO there is something wrong with people who are incapable of understanding how the other side views it though.

I spend hours debating the issue on this cite, I do enjoy debate, I have no illusions that the time I sepnd debating any issues is helping the cause!

I have never defended the practice of ABORTION.

I know how the other side views it, I just disagree with there position and am willing to argue it. It is flawed logic to say that because you dont want the government to get involved means you support the issue.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:31 AM
I spend hours debating the issue on this cite, I do enjoy debate, I have no illusions that the time I sepnd debating any issues is helping the cause!

I have never defended the practice of ABORTION.

I know how the other side views it, I just disagree with there position and am willing to argue it. It is flawed logic to say that because you dont want the government to get involved means you support the issue.
I never said that not wanting the government involved supports it, I have said that spending hours defending the "right", as you have, is support. You can also note the language that supporters use as opposed to somebody who doesn't support the activity.

A pro-lifer calls themselves pro-life, a supporter of abortion "rights" calls them "anti-abortionists", like you do even in this thread. Why are you so ashamed to support something like this?

Somebody who supports abortion "rights" calls themselves "pro-choice" (as you call yourself on this thread) while somebody who is a pro-lifer calls it "pro-abortion"....

I just don't get why you are such an apologist for your own belief.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 08:36 AM
I never said that not wanting the government involved supports it, I have said that spending hours defending the "right", as you have, is support. You can also note the language that supporters use. A pro-lifer calls themselves pro-life, a supporter of abortion "rights" calls them "anti-abortionists", like you do even in this thread. Why are you so ashamed to support something like this?

No, Ive always called them "anti-choice", not "anti abortionists"! Thats because I belive that by spending time on making it illegal, they are wasting money and effort on a MUCH less efficent method of making it cease to exist.

I am debating theories of government and its place in our lives when I debate the issue. I spend hours discussing it on this cite all the time. I do not spend hours or money trying to encourage more abortions. In fact, I spend hours and money trying to ensure that there are less abortions. In the words of Bill Clinton, "I want abortion to be safe, legal and RARE!"

I would go one step further by saying, "I want abortion to be obsolite, and I belive that the way to get there is by it being, at this time, safe, legal and rare!"

Damocles
09-04-2009, 08:39 AM
No, Ive always called them "anti-choice", not "anti abortionists"! Thats because I belive that by spending time on making it illegal, they are wasting money and effort on a MUCH less efficent method of making it cease to exist.

I am debating theories of government and its place in our lives when I debate the issue. I spend hours discussing it on this cite all the time. I do not spend hours or money trying to encourage more abortions. In fact, I spend hours and money trying to ensure that there are less abortions. In the words of Bill Clinton, "I want abortion to be safe, legal and RARE!"

I would go one step further by saying, "I want abortion to be obsolite, and I belive that the way to get there is by it being, at this time, safe, legal and rare!"
Oh, sorry. "anti-choicers"... The point remains the same. Your language, the time you dedicate to support the "choice" here and elsewhere, and your terms define you. You are debating support for one specific activity, believe it is a "right", and care little for what others see it as. You are a supporter.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 09:17 AM
Oh, sorry. "anti-choicers"... The point remains the same. Your language, the time you dedicate to support the "choice" here and elsewhere, and your terms define you. You are debating support for one specific activity, believe it is a "right", and care little for what others see it as. You are a supporter.

I am a supporter of the right to privacy (freedom) and all that entales, I also want abortion to end, I belive that the most efficent/best way to end abortion is to spend that money and effort somewhere other than on trying to make it illegal.

Making it illegal is a step closer to putting it back in the closet, not ending it.

Damocles
09-04-2009, 09:44 AM
I am a supporter of the right to privacy (freedom) and all that entales, I also want abortion to end, I belive that the most efficent/best way to end abortion is to spend that money and effort somewhere other than on trying to make it illegal.

Making it illegal is a step closer to putting it back in the closet, not ending it.
If such were the case, implying that people who wish the activity to end were "anti-choicers" would be insulting yourself. Your language, your insistence that it is a "privacy" right, and your dedication to the cause of keeping it accessible belie your intent. You support the action, defend it in every way, try to marginalize those who disagree by mocking them with negative names and stereotypes... You are a supporter, and are ashamed of it.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 10:02 AM
If such were the case, implying that people who wish the activity to end were "anti-choicers" would be insulting yourself. Your language, your insistence that it is a "privacy" right, and your dedication to the cause of keeping it accessible belie your intent. You support the action, defend it in every way, try to marginalize those who disagree by mocking them with negative names and stereotypes... You are a supporter, and are ashamed of it.

What negative name or stereotype have I mocked anyone with?

Say what you want, I am a supporter of it being legal, thats all.

You are trying to mock and marginalize those who would stand up for freedom, even when unpopluar, even when its not pretty by tying the right and principal to an unfortunate and unhappy evil that exists in our society. By doing so you are not reducing that evil but using it to chip away at the right to FREEDOM (privacy from government interference).

Damocles
09-04-2009, 10:11 AM
What negative name or stereotype have I mocked anyone with?

Say what you want, I am a supporter of it being legal, thats all.

You are trying to mock and marginalize those who would stand up for freedom, even when unpopluar, even when its not pretty by tying the right and principal to an unfortunate and unhappy evil that exists in our society. By doing so you are not reducing that evil but using it to chip away at the right to FREEDOM (privacy from government interference).
Again, you use the language of marginalizing of the supporter then ask me what language you use?

Anti-choicer, remove the mote from your eye....

Stop being ashamed of your support, stand up and be proud of what you believe in rather than try to be both at once while attempting to marginalize the side you least agree with. I've been embarrassed for you today. Your arguments have been the weakest I have seen in a long time.

Jarod
09-04-2009, 11:57 AM
Again, you use the language of marginalizing of the supporter then ask me what language you use?

Anti-choicer, remove the mote from your eye....

Stop being ashamed of your support, stand up and be proud of what you believe in rather than try to be both at once while attempting to marginalize the side you least agree with. I've been embarrassed for you today. Your arguments have been the weakest I have seen in a long time.

Ive been very embarrased for you lately, you enjoyed a lot of my respect for a long time, been going downhill for a while.

I hope I am still able to learn more from you, go back to being the statesman I saw you as!

I am what I am and I support what I support. I am not ashamed at all of my positions. I belive strongly in the right to freedom from excessive government infringement in my life! Sometimes that means I have to stand up for rights that allow people the choice to do things I personally find offensive. Its a difficult position but one I believe in strongly.

Minister of Truth
09-04-2009, 02:16 PM
SO being pro-choice is the same as being a mass muderer?

Yep. Just like being a Nazi, and that is not my usual dramatics and hyperbole at play. Abortion is one of the few issues I don't joke around about.

Well, not entirely. I do make jokes about damnation, but that is more of a half joke than anything...

Jarod
09-08-2009, 07:48 AM
Yep. Just like being a Nazi, and that is not my usual dramatics and hyperbole at play. Abortion is one of the few issues I don't joke around about.

Well, not entirely. I do make jokes about damnation, but that is more of a half joke than anything...

So if you are pro-death penalty are you a murderer?

Minister of Truth
09-11-2009, 01:29 AM
So if you are pro-death penalty are you a murderer?

Perhaps. I am not pro-death penalty, so no gotcha for you... Now, the fact that liberals see a comparison between the two does suggest hopelessness on your part. We should just legalize drugs and let you all OD already.

Jarod
09-11-2009, 07:28 AM
If you are pro-war does that make you a mass murderer?

Minister of Truth
09-12-2009, 10:42 AM
If you are pro-war does that make you a mass murderer?

If you are merely pro-war for the sake of hawkishness, then yes. There is a definite need for war, or at least for having warmaking capacity, but simply supporting war makes you a murderer. I think most partisans don't count in this definition, because people will oppose wars (Balkans, Iraq) when they are out of power. Some people opposed either or both examples on principle, but they are not the majority, I think...

I initially supported Iraq (and continued to into 2006, if memory serves) because it was sold as a national security threat. I was also 16, and had not studied the realist strategy to containing the Middle East (ala Brent Scowcroft and Bush Sr. during the Gulf War).

Jarod
09-15-2009, 08:10 AM
If you are merely pro-war for the sake of hawkishness, then yes. There is a definite need for war, or at least for having warmaking capacity, but simply supporting war makes you a murderer. I think most partisans don't count in this definition, because people will oppose wars (Balkans, Iraq) when they are out of power. Some people opposed either or both examples on principle, but they are not the majority, I think...

I initially supported Iraq (and continued to into 2006, if memory serves) because it was sold as a national security threat. I was also 16, and had not studied the realist strategy to containing the Middle East (ala Brent Scowcroft and Bush Sr. during the Gulf War).

So, if you are Pro-Choice across the board... you are a mass murderer, if you are Pro-Choice in some circumstances you are not?

Cancel 2016.2
09-15-2009, 08:58 AM
So, if you are Pro-Choice across the board... you are a mass murderer, if you are Pro-Choice in some circumstances you are not?

No. You would not be a mass murderer. But you would be complacent in the mass murder of the innocent lives that are taken due to abortion.

Bonestorm
09-15-2009, 09:31 AM
No. You would not be a mass murderer. But you would be complacent in the mass murder of the innocent lives that are taken due to abortion.


I'm complacent in your malapropism.

Jarod
09-15-2009, 11:34 AM
I'm complacent in your malapropism.

ROTFLMAO!

Jarod
09-15-2009, 11:36 AM
Funny how they call me Pro-Abortion, yet the two times Ive impregnated a woman resulted in my two happy healthy children!

Cancel 2016.2
09-15-2009, 11:43 AM
Funny how they call me Pro-Abortion, yet the two times Ive impregnated a woman resulted in my two happy healthy children!

Being in support of an action does not mean you carry out the action yourself.

You either support it being legal or you do not.

Jarod
09-15-2009, 11:51 AM
Being in support of an action does not mean you carry out the action yourself.

You either support it being legal or you do not.

You are correct; supporting the legilazation of something is not the same thing as promoting it, recomending it, or being pro-it!

I belive many currently illegal drugs should be legal, I would not recomend you take them, in do not belive you should take them, I am not pro-drug use.

I belive cigeretts should be legal, I would not recomend you smoke them I am not pro-cigerette.

Cancel 2016.2
09-15-2009, 03:14 PM
You are correct; supporting the legilazation of something is not the same thing as promoting it, recomending it, or being pro-it!

I belive many currently illegal drugs should be legal, I would not recomend you take them, in do not belive you should take them, I am not pro-drug use.

I belive cigeretts should be legal, I would not recomend you smoke them I am not pro-cigerette.

You cannot read. I stated being in support of an action doesn't mean you have to take the action yourself.



People can support abortions being legal, without having an abortion themselves. But in supporting the abortions being legal, you are complicit in the murder of innocent children.

It is the same as stating, I support murder being legal, but "I" would never kill someone. You are stating that it is ok for others to do so legally.

Jarod
09-15-2009, 03:26 PM
You cannot read. I stated being in support of an action doesn't mean you have to take the action yourself.



People can support abortions being legal, without having an abortion themselves. But in supporting the abortions being legal, you are complicit in the murder of innocent children.

It is the same as stating, I support murder being legal, but "I" would never kill someone. You are stating that it is ok for others to do so legally.

No, there is where you are wrong. Just because something is illegal does not make it okay. There are plenty of things that are legal that I do not belive are okay!

According to your rules, the Government is the final decision maker on if something is okay... If you belive its wrong, you must support the government making it illegal?

Deminishing oneself by abusing alchol is WRONG, but its illegal.... Are you complicit in Alchole abuse buy not supporting prohibition?

Damocles
09-15-2009, 06:58 PM
No, there is where you are wrong. Just because something is illegal does not make it okay. There are plenty of things that are legal that I do not belive are okay!

According to your rules, the Government is the final decision maker on if something is okay... If you belive its wrong, you must support the government making it illegal?

Deminishing oneself by abusing alchol is WRONG, but its illegal.... Are you complicit in Alchole abuse buy not supporting prohibition?
When you diminish yourself it is your business, when you take some other life, especially the most innocent and least capable of defense, it is not. Some people support others rights to take human life if it is at an early stage, others do not believe that it is within your rights to take that life with impunity.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:12 AM
You cannot read. I stated being in support of an action doesn't mean you have to take the action yourself.



People can support abortions being legal, without having an abortion themselves. But in supporting the abortions being legal, you are complicit in the murder of innocent children.

It is the same as stating, I support murder being legal, but "I" would never kill someone. You are stating that it is ok for others to do so legally.

But you are not complicit in murder just because you say it should be legal...!

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:14 AM
When you diminish yourself it is your business, when you take some other life, especially the most innocent and least capable of defense, it is not. Some people support others rights to take human life if it is at an early stage, others do not believe that it is within your rights to take that life with impunity.

Others do not belive it is a life.

Still others belive they have to ballance the rights of the individual embryo with the rights of the pregnant woman and draw a line somewhere. The more developed the embryo is, the more important its rights are!

Damocles
09-16-2009, 07:17 AM
Others do not belive it is a life.

Still others belive they have to ballance the rights of the individual embryo with the rights of the pregnant woman and draw a line somewhere. The more developed the embryo is, the more important its rights are!
Then they are incapable of understanding what life is. (Most would say it isn't a "person" yet, but not that it isn't alive because that is demonstrably false).

You become complicit when you take an active role in allowing others to continue killing. There is a difference between standing by and taking an active role.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:20 AM
When you diminish yourself it is your business, when you take some other life, especially the most innocent and least capable of defense, it is not. Some people support others rights to take human life if it is at an early stage, others do not believe that it is within your rights to take that life with impunity.

I belive that in many situations home schooling is harmfull to children, When it is I belive its wrong... Do I belive it should be illegal... NO!

I belive arranged marriages are wrong... harmfull to people... Do I belive they should be illegal... NO!

I belive prostitution is wrong, I belive its harmfull to woman... Do I belive it should be illegal... No!

I belive individual discrimination against people due to race is wrong... It is harmfull to all of society. Do I belive it should be illegal... No!

Damocles
09-16-2009, 07:21 AM
I belive that in many situations home schooling is harmfull to children, When it is I belive its wrong... Do I belive it should be illegal... NO!

I belive arranged marriages are wrong... harmfull to people... Do I belive they should be illegal... NO!

I belive prostitution is wrong, I belive its harmfull to woman... Do I belive it should be illegal... No!

I belive individual discrimination against people due to race is wrong... It is harmfull to all of society. Do I belive it should be illegal... No!
What you "believe" is beside the point, many do believe that home schooling should be illegal, when they take definitive action towards one side or the other they are either supporting home schooling or they support ending its legality.

And none of these take a life.

And you do believe that discrimination based on race should be illegal, I've seen you support Affirmative Action with zeal. What you don't believe should be illegal is the people who speak out.

You argue poorly. You take positive action to ensure that others can take life, that is support and complicity.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:23 AM
Then they are incapable of understanding what life is. (Most would say it isn't a "person" yet, but not that it isn't alive because that is demonstrably false).

You become complicit when you take an active role in allowing others to continue killing. There is a difference between standing by and taking an active role.

But you see... I do not belive that by keeping abortion legal you are increasing the amount of abortions. I do not belive that making it illegal will prevent abortions. I belive that the best way to prevent abortions is to keep it legal, but promote more education and more alternatives.

If you still hold to your previously stated position, you belive abortion should be legal, but the MD's should be required to attempt to "save" the "life". You know many will "die" under that plan, are you complicit in murder?

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:25 AM
What you "believe" is beside the point, many do believe that home schooling should be illegal, when they take definitive action towards one side or the other they are either supporting home schooling or they support ending its legality.

And none of these take a life.

And you do believe that discrimination based on race should be illegal, I've seen you support Affirmative Action with zeal. What you don't believe should be illegal is the people who speak out.

I said individual discrimination. Affirmative Action is not individual discrimination, it is government forced discrimination.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 07:26 AM
But you see... I do not belive that by keeping abortion legal you are increasing the amount of abortions. I do not belive that making it illegal will prevent abortions. I belive that the best way to prevent abortions is to keep it legal, but promote more education and more alternatives.

If you still hold to your previously stated position, you belive abortion should be legal, but the MD's should be required to attempt to "save" the "life". You know many will "die" under that plan, are you complicit in murder?
I believe you work very hard to give yourself an excuse to promote the legal sanction of an activity that some believe to be atrocious. I think that it is silly to say, "I don't think it would end it, therefore we shouldn't make a law against it."

I don't think a law against murder will stop people from committing that crime, but I don't support legalizing it therefore.

And no, I do not think it should be legal to directly and purposefully take that life, you are misstating my position by a large margin.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:29 AM
What you "believe" is beside the point, many do believe that home schooling should be illegal, when they take definitive action towards one side or the other they are either supporting home schooling or they support ending its legality.

And none of these take a life.

And you do believe that discrimination based on race should be illegal, I've seen you support Affirmative Action with zeal. What you don't believe should be illegal is the people who speak out.

You argue poorly. You take positive action to ensure that others can take life, that is support and complicity.

False. I take positive action to prevent it from being swept under a rug and to promote a more effective way of ending the taking of "life".

Under your theory, If I defended keeping arranged marriages legal, even though I am against arranged marriages..... But I did it because I felt an important overiding political principal called freedom was at stake, I would be complicit and supportave of arranged marriages.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:31 AM
I believe you work very hard to give yourself an excuse to promote the legal sanction of an activity that some believe to be atrocious. I think that it is silly to say, "I don't think it would end it, therefore we shouldn't make a law against it."

I don't think a law against murder will stop people from committing that crime, but I don't support legalizing it therefore.

And no, I do not think it should be legal to directly and purposefully take that life, you are misstating my position by a large margin.

Okay, obviously I misunderstood your position... What is it again? Do you belive abortion should be legal?

DamnYankee
09-16-2009, 07:38 AM
Okay, obviously I misunderstood your position... What is it again? Do you belive abortion should be legal?Let's keep it legal, since its a proven method of reducing the number of babies born to liberals.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:40 AM
Let's keep it legal, since its a proven method of reducing the number of babies born to liberals.

And the teenaged daughters of Republican elitest's.

DamnYankee
09-16-2009, 07:43 AM
And the teenaged daughters of Republican elitest's. Collateral damage.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 07:44 AM
Okay, obviously I misunderstood your position... What is it again? Do you belive abortion should be legal?
I believe it should be replaced with something that recognizes the right of the life as well as the right of the "incubator". Treating the burgeoning human life as a patient rather than as a disease that should be killed.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:47 AM
I believe it should be replaced with something that recognizes the right of the life as well as the right of the "incubator". Treating the burgeoning human life as a patient rather than as a disease that should be killed.

But you know that many of the removed "lives" will die, at least in the begining.... Right?

And if you support this plan, are you not, based on your logic, supporting the killing of these "lives"?

Damocles
09-16-2009, 07:49 AM
But you know that many of the removed "lives" will die, at least in the begining.... Right?

And if you support this plan, are you not, based on your logic, supporting the killing of these "lives"?
I also know that many patients with cancer will die even while we try to save their lives, that does not make me any more complicit in their deaths than it would when these tiny patients die.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 07:53 AM
I also know that many patients with cancer will die even while we try to save their lives, that does not make me any more complicit in their deaths than it would when these tiny patients die.

No, but you are not the one promoting giving the cancer patients the cancer.... By your logic, you are promoting taking these patients from a safe enviroment to one where they willl surely die, dispite your best efforts to "save" them. Using your logic, you are complicit in the deaths of these tiny patients.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 07:56 AM
No, but you are not the one promoting giving the cancer patients the cancer.... By your logic, you are promoting taking these patients from a safe enviroment to one where they willl surely die, dispite your best efforts to "save" them. Using your logic, you are complicit in the deaths of these tiny patients.
It is a compromise when two rights are in conflict. In the same event where we would try to save the life of a child born early due to an accident or any other reason they were removed from the "safe" environment.

I would be complicit if I directed action and supported action that would ensure their death, if I directed action that would kill that life purposefully and with will (abortion). Understanding that not all life can be kept in a constant and perfect safe environment and thus working to create an artificial one is not quite the same thing as supporting the directed and purposeful taking of that life.

By your current criteria, allowing children to leave the house at all could be construed as being complicit in their deaths because we know some of them will get in accidents when they leave that safe environment and will die. Yet we consistently insist that they leave the house, get in conveyances where we know some will lose their lives, and go places like school.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:02 AM
It is a compromise when two rights are in conflict. In the same event where we would try to save the life of a child born early due to an accident or any other reason they were removed from the "safe" environment.

I would be complicit if I directed action and supported action that would ensure their death, if I directed action that would kill that life purposefully and with will (abortion). Understanding that not all life can be kept in a constant and perfect safe environment and thus working to create an artificial one is not quite the same thing as supporting the directed and purposeful taking of that life.

It is certian that with todays technology many, if not most of these patients would die. Promoting an act that will result in certian death makes you complicit in that death, and according to your logic, by promoting the laws that would allow this, you are promoting that act!

I agree that it is a compromise because two rights that are in conflict, but when the result is 99% of the time certian death... its bacically the same thing. Based on your logic you are promoting a plan that would make you complicit in the deaths of millions of patients.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:05 AM
It is a compromise when two rights are in conflict. In the same event where we would try to save the life of a child born early due to an accident or any other reason they were removed from the "safe" environment.

I would be complicit if I directed action and supported action that would ensure their death, if I directed action that would kill that life purposefully and with will (abortion). Understanding that not all life can be kept in a constant and perfect safe environment and thus working to create an artificial one is not quite the same thing as supporting the directed and purposeful taking of that life.

By your current criteria, allowing children to leave the house at all could be construed as being complicit in their deaths because we know some of them will get in accidents when they leave that safe environment and will die. Yet we consistently insist that they leave the house, get in conveyances where we know some will lose their lives, and go places like school.

TO your last paragraph...

Allowing children out of the house is not almost absolutly certian to result in death. Removing a fetus at three months is certian, based on modern technology, to result in that fetus's "death"!

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:06 AM
TO your last paragraph...

Allowing children out of the house is not almost absolutly certian to result in death. Removing a fetus at three months is certian, based on modern technology, to result in that fetus's "death"!
It will absolutely result in some death. Under your current criteria you would be "complicit" in their deaths because you promote it.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:07 AM
It is certian that with todays technology many, if not most of these patients would die. Promoting an act that will result in certian death makes you complicit in that death, and according to your logic, by promoting the laws that would allow this, you are promoting that act!

I agree that it is a compromise because two rights that are in conflict, but when the result is 99% of the time certian death... its bacically the same thing. Based on your logic you are promoting a plan that would make you complicit in the deaths of millions of patients.
"Many if not most" is again not the same thing as direct and purposeful action that would kill them as if they are a disease. There is a major difference between trying to save a life and purposefully ending one.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:10 AM
"Many if not most" is again not the same thing as direct and purposeful action that would kill them as if they are a disease. There is a major difference between trying to save a life and purposefully ending one.

Certian death to those in the first trimester.

Almost certina death to those in the second.

In the first trimester it is direct anbd purposeful action that will kill them as if they are a disease, no mater what you do with the fetus after the removal.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:12 AM
Certian death to those in the first trimester.

Almost certina death to those in the second.

In the first trimester it is direct anbd purposeful action that will kill them as if they are a disease, no mater what you do with the fetus after the removal.
Not "certain", we will improve technologies through necessity.

Direct and purposeful action to end their life is when you vacuum them into the trash can, not when you try to save their life. This takes a long view, but in the long run will save far more lives than continuing the purposeful slaughter of life.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:19 AM
Not "certain", we will improve technologies through necessity.

Direct and purposeful action to end their life is when you vacuum them into the trash can, not when you try to save their life. This takes a long view, but in the long run will save far more lives than continuing the purposeful slaughter of life.

It is certain today, and for the next 5 years, after that you might be correct. You are promoting this plan today!

I agree your plan is a shift in perspective and respecting the "life", I dont disagree with your plan... I merely am pointing out that it would, based on your logic, cause you to be complicit in the deaths of many patients who have been removed. What you do with a fetus that has been removed at 2 months is illrelevant to if it lives or dies, based on current technology.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:26 AM
It is certain today, and for the next 5 years, after that you might be correct. You are promoting this plan today!

I agree your plan is a shift in perspective and respecting the "life", I dont disagree with your plan... I merely am pointing out that it would, based on your logic, cause you to be complicit in the deaths of many patients who have been removed. What you do with a fetus that has been removed at 2 months is illrelevant to if it lives or dies, based on current technology.
Again, I understand that many of these lives will end in the beginning of it and that it is very unfortunate, however it is still not the same thing as directly and purposefully squishing them up and sucking them through a tube directly working to end their life. Even a lawyer can see the difference in the two, I have faith in you.

The largest difference between you and I, I do not support a plan that will never make it any better, I do not support the legality of something that directly and purposefully takes the youngest and most innocent of human life and treats it like "medical waste" because it is inconvenient, I do not support the direct action of taking those lives without any recognition of their right to life. I don't try to excuse my support, nor feel any need to try to twist out of what I believe to be right, that the actions are consistent with what I know to be right.

You support legally taking those lives, an activity that if done properly will kill them every single time regardless with no purpose to learn, to get better, to try to save them. You support it and then try to weasel out a reason why it is okay to support what you supposedly find abhorrent yet actively support.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:39 AM
Again, I understand that many of these lives will end in the beginning of it and that it is very unfortunate, however it is still not the same thing as directly and purposefully squishing them up and sucking them through a tube directly working to end their life. Even a lawyer can see the difference in the two, I have faith in you.

The largest difference between you and I, I do not support a plan that will never make it any better, I do not support the legality of something that directly and purposefully takes the youngest and most innocent of human life and treats it like "medical waste" because it is inconvenient, I do not support the direct action of taking those lives without any recognition of their right to life. I don't try to excuse my support, nor feel any need to try to twist out of what I believe to be right, that the actions are consistent with what I know to be right.

You support legally taking those lives, an activity that if done properly will kill them every single time regardless with no purpose to learn, to get better, to try to save them. You support it and then try to weasel out a reason why it is okay to support what you supposedly find abhorrent yet actively support.

My point is that you are supporting a plan that will certiantly take life. Based on your logic, which I belive you know to be false, you would be complicit in the deaths of these patients.

It does not matter how you remove a three month fetus, the result will be the same. I belive that advances in modern technology will ultimatly correct the evil of abortion. I also know we are not there yet. Likely your plan would get us there faster... STOP KIDDING YOURSELF your plan will directly and purpusfully result in the death of the youngest of human life.

Dont hide behind, "but my intent was to save it". You know it will die going in, that is killing it!

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:41 AM
My point is that you are supporting a plan that will certiantly take life. Based on your logic, which I belive you know to be false, you would be complicit in the deaths of these patients.

It does not matter how you remove a three month fetus, the result will be the same. I belive that advances in modern technology will ultimatly correct the evil of abortion. I also know we are not there yet. Likely your plan would get us there faster... STOP KIDDING YOURSELF your plan will directly and purpusfully result in the death of the youngest of human life.

Dont hide behind, "but my intent was to save it". You know it will die going in, that is killing it!
What I support is certain to create a better future where none of these lives would be lost, what you support is certain to maintain the capacity to kill purposefully for convenience. What I support would not take any of these lives with the directed purpose of killing, that is where your disconnect is, and where your support lies. The purpose of removing them would not be to kill them, only in what you support is that the actual purpose.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:44 AM
What I support is certain to create a better future where none of these lives would be lost, what you support is certain to maintain the capacity to kill purposefully for convenience. It would not kill any of these lives by directed purpose of killing, that is where your disconnet is. The purpose of removing them would not be to kill them, only in what you support is that the actual purpose.

If you know the result of an act WILL be death... it does not matter what your purpose was. That does not change the amount of complicity in the deaths.

I agree with your plan and would support it over the current law. But based on your logic by supporting your proposal, we would both be complicit in the deaths of these lives.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:46 AM
If you know the result of an act WILL be death... it does not matter what your purpose was. That does not change the amount of complicity in the deaths.

I agree with your plan and would support it over the current law. But based on your logic by supporting your proposal, we would both be complicit in the deaths of these lives.
And again, I know that many times our efforts to save them, especially in early implementation, will unfortunately be fruitless but it would never result in the direct and purposeful taking of life. Not even one time would the purpose of the activity be to kill, that is only in what you support wholeheartedly as the best legal activity to make such killings happen "less often" and work to desperately find some way to make such a disconnect fit what you know is right.

What I support in no way conflicts with what I know to be right.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:47 AM
What I support is certain to create a better future where none of these lives would be lost, what you support is certain to maintain the capacity to kill purposefully for convenience. What I support would not take any of these lives with the directed purpose of killing, that is where your disconnect is, and where your support lies. The purpose of removing them would not be to kill them, only in what you support is that the actual purpose.

IN fact that goes directly back to my point earlier that I do not belive that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions. I am making a very simular argument. Also, my intent in supporting legal abortion is not to promote abortion but to protect the right to FREEDOM!

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:48 AM
If you know the result of an act WILL be death... it does not matter what your purpose was. That does not change the amount of complicity in the deaths.

I agree with your plan and would support it over the current law. But based on your logic by supporting your proposal, we would both be complicit in the deaths of these lives.
If you agree with what I propose then work towards that rather than the continued legality of killing on purpose that which we can work to save.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:49 AM
IN fact that goes directly back to my point earlier that I do not belive that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions. I am making a very simular argument. Also, my intent in supporting legal abortion is not to promote abortion but to protect the right to FREEDOM!
There is no freedom to kill. Such a "freedom" is abhorrent. Supporting the activity because you think it will make it "less" is ridiculous twisting.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:52 AM
There is no freedom to kill. Such a "freedom" is abhorrent. Supporting the activity because you think it will make it "less" is ridiculous twisting.

Its not the freedom to kill I am supporting, its the freedom to do with your own body what you choose. I agree that freedom has to be ballanced with the rights of the fetus, and at some point the rights of the fetus are greater than the right to freedom. We can argue where those rights interscet all day.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:53 AM
Its not the freedom to kill I am supporting, its the freedom to do with your own body what you choose. I agree that freedom has to be ballanced with the rights of the fetus, and at some point the rights of the fetus are greater than the right to freedom. We can argue where those rights interscet all day.
Again. Then support change, not the status quo. The "freedom" to do with your own body what you want does not trump the right to life.

What I propose recognizes both of these rights, what you propose continues to recognize only one of them.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:57 AM
If you agree with what I propose then work towards that rather than the continued legality of killing on purpose that which we can work to save.

I currently do not work toward either. Currently I work toward feeding my family.

I have fun discussing these things here... I do not consider that workign toward anything.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 08:58 AM
Again. Then support change, not the status quo. The "freedom" to do with your own body what you want does not trump the right to life.

What I propose recognizes both of these rights, what you propose continues to recognize only one of them.

False, I do not support abortion after the first trimester unless the life or health of the woman is in signifigant danger.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 08:59 AM
False, I do not support abortion after the first trimester unless the life or health of the woman is in signifigant danger.
And yet you do not work to make abortions after the first trimester illegal?

Jarod
09-16-2009, 09:25 AM
And yet you do not work to make abortions after the first trimester illegal?

No, but if it came to a vote, Id support that.

Do you work to make it a requirement that aborted fetuses be given all possable medical attention to try to save them?

DamnYankee
09-16-2009, 09:30 AM
IN fact that goes directly back to my point earlier that I do not belive that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions. I am making a very simular argument. Also, my intent in supporting legal abortion is not to promote abortion but to protect the right to FREEDOM!What about the FREEDOM of the unborn?

Damocles
09-16-2009, 10:57 AM
No, but if it came to a vote, Id support that.

Do you work to make it a requirement that aborted fetuses be given all possable medical attention to try to save them?
Yes, I do.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 12:08 PM
Yes, I do.

Then by your logic, if you are successfull at what you are working toward, you will be complicit in the deaths of innocent unborn human life.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 01:39 PM
Then by your logic, if you are successfull at what you are working toward, you will be complicit in the deaths of innocent unborn human life.
Again, incorrect. If I am successful I am complicit in changing the system to give them a chance, however minuscule rather than certain death, and furthering women's rights hugely when it becomes consistently possible.

Jarod
09-16-2009, 02:24 PM
Again, incorrect. If I am successful I am complicit in changing the system to give them a chance, however minuscule rather than certain death, and furthering women's rights hugely when it becomes consistently possible.

No, according to your logic, in order to not be complicit you would work toward banning all abortion until technology got to a place where it would be reasonably likely that the patient would survive. Otherwise you are supporting a law that will almost certantly result in death of the "youngest of human life"!

By supporting such a law you are complicit in the death of that life.

Damocles
09-16-2009, 02:27 PM
No, according to your logic, in order to not be complicit you would work toward banning all abortion until technology got to a place where it would be reasonably likely that the patient would survive. Otherwise you are supporting a law that will almost certantly result in death of the "youngest of human life"!

By supporting such a law you are complicit in the death of that life.
No, that is only in your "logic", as I pointed out earlier. Attempting to save what would otherwise be considered trash if the system you promote continues is not complicity in the death, it is directly working for a positive change. Now if I advocated this change from a system where no abortions were happening then I'd be promoting more "death"...

Cancel 2016.2
09-16-2009, 02:34 PM
Others do not belive it is a life.

Still others belive they have to ballance the rights of the individual embryo with the rights of the pregnant woman and draw a line somewhere. The more developed the embryo is, the more important its rights are!

if it wasn't a life.... then the womans body would automatically eject it... there would be no need for an abortion.

Jarod
09-18-2009, 07:00 AM
No, that is only in your "logic", as I pointed out earlier. Attempting to save what would otherwise be considered trash if the system you promote continues is not complicity in the death, it is directly working for a positive change. Now if I advocated this change from a system where no abortions were happening then I'd be promoting more "death"...

False, based on the plan you are promoting... actions you are "promoting" will end "lives". Sure at some time in the future lives may be saved, but that is the same as the argument I made. I belive that by keeping abortion legal and open ultimatly lives will be saved because less abortions will occure.

christiefan915
09-18-2009, 08:25 AM
What about the FREEDOM of the unborn?

If they're not born, they're not free.

DamnYankee
09-18-2009, 08:34 AM
If they're not born, they're not free. How sad you are...

Damocles
09-18-2009, 05:21 PM
False, based on the plan you are promoting... actions you are "promoting" will end "lives". Sure at some time in the future lives may be saved, but that is the same as the argument I made. I belive that by keeping abortion legal and open ultimatly lives will be saved because less abortions will occure.
Incorrect. Based on the change that I am advocating actions I promote will give a remote chance of life to what otherwise is considered refuse and worthy only of the label of "waste," while the action you advocate (change nothing) will continue the status quo where life is considered trash. Human trash is something we need to avoid, not promote.

egordon0315
09-18-2009, 06:59 PM
Is it entertaining to you that two guys are debating the moral/legal implications of abortion? (Are they both guys?)

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I haven't seen a single offer for either to take in a teenaged, homeless pregnant child and adopt her crack-addicted baby.

I don't know the political affiliations of either of these guys, and don't know which is which, quite frankly.

But this is ridiculous. It is the woman's choice. If the father is the husband, then it has to be a consensus between the two.

I believe in quality, not quantity, of life.



If they're not born, they're not free.

Minister of Truth
09-18-2009, 07:33 PM
If they're not born, they're not free.

How kind of you.

christiefan915
09-18-2009, 07:34 PM
Is it entertaining to you that two guys are debating the moral/legal implications of abortion? (Are they both guys?)

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I haven't seen a single offer for either to take in a teenaged, homeless pregnant child and adopt her crack-addicted baby.

I don't know the political affiliations of either of these guys, and don't know which is which, quite frankly.

But this is ridiculous. It is the woman's choice. If the father is the husband, then it has to be a consensus between the two.

I believe in quality, not quantity, of life.

Yes, two guys.

Nobody ever mentions the man's part in this either, as if every man who is notified of an unplanned pregnancy is jumping for joy over the event. I agree with your comment about consensus, and also favor quality over quantity.

egordon0315
09-18-2009, 08:22 PM
Another voice of reason. What makes men think they have any voice at all in this discussion? Man up, guys, then you have every reason to voice an opinion.

(I love ya, Christie)


Yes, two guys.

Nobody ever mentions the man's part in this either, as if every man who is notified of an unplanned pregnancy is jumping for joy over the event. I agree with your comment about consensus, and also favor quality over quantity.

Damocles
09-18-2009, 11:22 PM
Is it entertaining to you that two guys are debating the moral/legal implications of abortion? (Are they both guys?)

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I haven't seen a single offer for either to take in a teenaged, homeless pregnant child and adopt her crack-addicted baby.

I don't know the political affiliations of either of these guys, and don't know which is which, quite frankly.

But this is ridiculous. It is the woman's choice. If the father is the husband, then it has to be a consensus between the two.

I believe in quality, not quantity, of life.
It is entertaining when somebody mentions it and doesn't comprehend that nobody is arguing forcing anybody to be pregnant. You don't read the thread, jump to conclusions then make assumptions based on what you normally say. It isn't salient here.

DamnYankee
09-19-2009, 04:39 AM
Is it entertaining to you that two guys are debating the moral/legal implications of abortion? (Are they both guys?)

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I haven't seen a single offer for either to take in a teenaged, homeless pregnant child and adopt her crack-addicted baby.

I don't know the political affiliations of either of these guys, and don't know which is which, quite frankly.

But this is ridiculous. It is the woman's choice. If the father is the husband, then it has to be a consensus between the two.

I believe in quality, not quantity, of life.I believe that society is better off without liberals. Am I therefore justified if I kill a few?

christiefan915
09-19-2009, 10:53 AM
How sad you are...

Oh, well. When I'm suffering hell's torment and see you Paradise, and I ask for you to dip your fingertip in water and cool my tongue, you and 3D can ROTFL and say "tough luck, murderer." :help:

christiefan915
09-19-2009, 10:56 AM
Another voice of reason. What makes men think they have any voice at all in this discussion? Man up, guys, then you have every reason to voice an opinion.

(I love ya, Christie)

Hear, hear!

(Love ya back, Lizzie!)

Minister of Truth
09-19-2009, 05:00 PM
Oh, well. When I'm suffering hell's torment and see you Paradise, and I ask for you to dip your fingertip in water and cool my tongue, you and 3D can ROTFL and say "tough luck, murderer." :help:

Yeah, very funny... I don't think I'll be laughing at your predicament.

christiefan915
09-19-2009, 08:11 PM
Yeah, very funny... I don't think I'll be laughing at your predicament.

It's one thing to believe in and follow religion teachings, and another for believers to think they know how God will judge people when they die.

Personally, there's a line I don't cross when contemplating the mind of God.

Minister of Truth
09-19-2009, 09:15 PM
It's one thing to believe in and follow religion teachings, and another for believers to think they know how God will judge people when they die.

Personally, there's a line I don't cross when contemplating the mind of God.

My line is murder (actually, unprovoked assault). What's yours?

cancel2 2022
09-20-2009, 04:34 AM
I believe that society is better off without liberals. Am I therefore justified if I kill a few?

I often wondered why you use Clint Eastwood as your avatar when he was born in San Francisco, do you think of yourself as Dirty Harry?

Minister of Truth
09-20-2009, 02:03 PM
It's one thing to believe in and follow religion teachings, and another for believers to think they know how God will judge people when they die.

Personally, there's a line I don't cross when contemplating the mind of God.

BTW - you should take notice that "not knowing how God will judge people" is an excuse to do anything under the sun. People are supposed to respect God enough to know that if something is wrong, they shouldn't play dumb.

There should be loads of lines that you don't cross, such as the various requests on our part which the Bible quite clearly.

christiefan915
09-20-2009, 02:42 PM
BTW - you should take notice that "not knowing how God will judge people" is an excuse to do anything under the sun.

It's only an excuse for those who want to do wrong, and are looking for justification.


People are supposed to respect God enough to know that if something is wrong, they shouldn't play dumb.

I agree, but there are lots of people who do it. For example, look how many so-called good Christians trash Islam and Muslims.

There should be loads of lines that you don't cross, such as the various requests on our part which the Bible quite clearly.

Could you clarify? Something seems to be missing.

christiefan915
09-20-2009, 02:45 PM
My line is murder (actually, unprovoked assault). What's yours?

That's not the kind of line I was talking about. I was referring to how far people can go in their efforts to explain how God will judge humanity.

Minister of Truth
09-20-2009, 04:07 PM
That's not the kind of line I was talking about. I was referring to how far people can go in their efforts to explain how God will judge humanity.

God will probably judge us on the very requests of us He makes in the Bible (I meant to say "quite clearly outlines" earlier). For example, Jesus asks us to partake in communion or we will not have life within us. The 10 Commandments and Golden Rule come to mind. Things like that. If I choose to ignore those, I can be pretty confident I will be judged accordingly.

I also don't see what is wrong with trashing heresy, as you alluded to in the earlier post.

christiefan915
09-20-2009, 04:26 PM
God will probably judge us on the very requests of us He makes in the Bible (I meant to say "quite clearly outlines" earlier). For example, Jesus asks us to partake in communion or we will not have life within us. The 10 Commandments and Golden Rule come to mind. Things like that. If I choose to ignore those, I can be pretty confident I will be judged accordingly.

I also don't see what is wrong with trashing heresy, as you alluded to in the earlier post.

It goes to my argument about how much mortals can know the mind of God. I would never say that Muslims or any other religious group will be judged harsher than Catholics or Christians. I also think that the vast majority of religions have some version of the Golden Rule.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-20-2009, 05:13 PM
That's not the kind of line I was talking about. I was referring to how far people can go in their efforts to explain how God will judge humanity.

my opinion....

god judged humanity by sending his own son to die for our sins....god will judge our humanity through his son's advocacy

i don't see how you can get more powerful than that

Minister of Truth
09-20-2009, 06:58 PM
It goes to my argument about how much mortals can know the mind of God. I would never say that Muslims or any other religious group will be judged harsher than Catholics or Christians. I also think that the vast majority of religions have some version of the Golden Rule.

As far as Catholics go, I certainly think that clergy have greater responsibility for their actions than laypeople, so perhaps people who are not Christian will likewise be judged less critically for their conduct.

That said, I think people who claim to follow the Bible will be expected to have heeded its requests.

DamnYankee
09-20-2009, 07:31 PM
I often wondered why you use Clint Eastwood as your avatar when he was born in San Francisco, do you think of yourself as Dirty Harry?Harry called it like he saw it, and didn't take any shit from anyone. He and the Southern Man have a lot in common.

Beefy
09-20-2009, 08:43 PM
He and the Southern Man have a lot in common.

Except that Eastwood actually DOES call it as he sees it, is successful, intelligent, decent looking, coherent, knows the difference between a mole hill and a mountain, he has skied before, and is libertarian, not Republitard.

Other than that, you guys might have something in common, but we know it cant be an ancestor, because yours are Adam and Eve, and his are real.

DamnYankee
09-21-2009, 06:30 AM
Except that Eastwood actually DOES call it as he sees it, is successful, intelligent, decent looking, coherent, knows the difference between a mole hill and a mountain, he has skied before, and is libertarian, not Republitard.

Other than that, you guys might have something in common, but we know it cant be an ancestor, because yours are Adam and Eve, and his are real.
The Southern Man has a successful marriage with a beautiful wife and two smart athletic children, has a successful career with his own business, owns two beautiful homes and is an accomplished alpine skier. He is of course a handsome man and physically fit. He is fiscally and socially Conservative and "tells it like it is" to the point where he pisses off social lib-tards like yourself so that they make fools of themselves by making baseless personal accusations.