|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 11:50:42 GMT
Well dictionaries do tend to be the authority when it comes to accurate definitions of words. No, they aren't. Dictionaries describe the usage of words, they don't define them. They determine the meaning of the words too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 12:01:56 GMT
No, they aren't. Dictionaries describe the usage of words, they don't define them. They determine the meaning of the words too. If by "determine" you mean that they do research to find out how people use words, then sure. But relying on a dictionary to define a complex issue is just plain stupid. For example, if I went and read the dictionary definition of "christian", are you really so foolish to think that I would then have a complete understanding of what it was to be a christian? For a real exploration of a complex issue, go read an encyclopedia. Or books on the subject. But of course you won't, because you're not interested in following evidence to a conclusion, you're only interested in finding things to support the conclusion you already want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 12:14:05 GMT
They determine the meaning of the words too. If by "determine" you mean that they do research to find out how people use words, then sure. But relying on a dictionary to define a complex issue is just plain stupid. For example, if I went and read the dictionary definition of "christian", are you really so foolish to think that I would then have a complete understanding of what it was to be a christian? For a real exploration of a complex issue, go read an encyclopedia. Or books on the subject. But of course you won't, because you're not interested in following evidence to a conclusion, you're only interested in finding things to support the conclusion you already want to believe. Being a person is not as complex an issue as being a Christian. Christianity has a codified set of dogma that one needs to follow to be a true representative of the religion. All that is required to be a person is to be a human individual. Being a Christian is a practice. Being a person is part of our natural being and existence. That’s it. Just as all that is required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a God. No need to overcomplicate things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 13:17:52 GMT
If by "determine" you mean that they do research to find out how people use words, then sure. But relying on a dictionary to define a complex issue is just plain stupid. For example, if I went and read the dictionary definition of "christian", are you really so foolish to think that I would then have a complete understanding of what it was to be a christian? For a real exploration of a complex issue, go read an encyclopedia. Or books on the subject. But of course you won't, because you're not interested in following evidence to a conclusion, you're only interested in finding things to support the conclusion you already want to believe. Being a person is not as complex an issue as being a Christian. Perhaps, but neither is it as simple as saying "it means X and that's the end of it". Then by your own definition, a fetus is not a person since it is not an individual.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 13:22:43 GMT
Being a person is not as complex an issue as being a Christian. Perhaps, but neither is it as simple as saying "it means X and that's the end of it". Then by your own definition, a fetus is not a person since it is not an individual. A fetus is a single person(distinct from a group) with it’s own body and unique DNA. Making it an individual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 13:28:58 GMT
No, a fetus is not a single thing. It is a part of the mother's body.
What's amusing to me is that you'll run to the dictionary when you think it supports you, but when it comes to words like "separate" and "individual" you'll ignore the dictionary completely.
You're a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 27, 2018 13:34:13 GMT
Being a person is not as complex an issue as being a Christian. Complex or not, if you ask the question, "Do you regard a newly fertilized egg (a zygote) to be a person yet?", I expect most people would answer, "Not yet". (I'm not aware that there's ever been any polling on that.)
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 13:44:14 GMT
No, a fetus is not a single thing. It is a part of the mother's body. What's amusing to me is that you'll run to the dictionary when you think it supports you, but when it comes to words like "separate" and "individual" you'll ignore the dictionary completely. You're a hypocrite. Individual noun 1. a single human being as distinct from a group. and, no, the mother is the container of the fetus, it is not a part of her body.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 27, 2018 14:04:27 GMT
And what makes the definition you find in a dictionary the "proper," factual definition? Just what would you say that dictionary authors are doing when they write a definition? Where do you believe they get the definitions from? Well dictionaries do tend to be the authority when it comes to accurate definitions of words. In other words, I'm asking you why they're "the authority" and what they're getting accurate (and don't just answer "the definition." They're getting the definition accurate per what?)
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 27, 2018 14:55:06 GMT
I thought the killing of an innocent human is universally regarded as wrong. I guess I have too much faith in people. Well that’s not even what your own religion teaches! First of all, you shouldn’t have faith in people to begin with; I certainly don’t! According to the bible, you should have faith in God, and all men have fallen short of the glory of God. So if you’ve been putting your faith in man, then you’re not even following your own religion! Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in humans. Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord. Sound familiar? The point is, you need to be trusting God (as a Christian). In any case, let me just give you a refresher on how the Christian God you worship regards killing of people and innocence. Didn’t “God” wipe out all of mankind except one family in this global flood that you people believe in? Didn’t God destroy the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (including born and unborn children) because the people were supposedly wicked? Didn’t “God” MURDER Pharaoh Ramisees INNOCENT first born son, not to mention all the other innocent first born Egyptian children as an incentive to Pharaoh to release the Israelites? Didn’t God order the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in the “promised land”? That would include of course innocent people as well as guilty! Where is the cry for the “innocent” then? Of course you hypocritically ignore ALL of that when you stand on your “killing innocent people is bad” soapbox, preaching to everyone how immoral abortion supposedly is. Where is your faith in God? He murdered innocent children, so either he was wrong, or your argument about it being immoral falls apart! Nothing in legal jurisprudence (or Christian history) suggest a moral opposition to the killing of innocent people, much less a fetus! God killed innocent people all the time, and so does the US Government! It’s never referred to as “murder” in those contexts. So whether or not it is “moral” is an individual, purely subjective judgement. Again your argument basically falls back to “if it’s legal, then it should be acceptable”. I’ve already debunked that bs. Slavery was legal and an acceptable practice by a large number of people once upon a time. So was gassing Jews during Nazi germany. Both were just as evil then as they are acknowledged today. That’s true, but that’s not my argument. My only argument with respect to the law is what defines MURDER (since you used it erroneously on more than one occasion). With respect to morality, my argument has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the fact that there is no objective standard by which you can declare abortion immoral. You can’t call it murder since by definition it isn’t. And your OPINION that it is immoral is not backed up by any consistent religious perspective either since you are perfectly okay will killing children if you read a thousands year old book in which God ordered people to do that. So basically you have no leg to stand on in declaring what is/isn’t moral for anyone else. So you support the killing of a preborn human being, yes. Thanks for the confirmation. Well it wasn’t a confirmation because your statement is inaccurate. It is inaccurate because it removes all qualifies and context thus creating a straw man argument. Obviously I’m not for anyone and everyone getting an abortion for any reason they want, at any stage of pregnancy they want. But that’s what your straw man is trying to claim.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 15:22:09 GMT
captainbryce LOL I guess I just assumed people would innatly know that killing innocent human beings is not cool. Amen. Although I feel you’re taking the “too much faith in people” comment a bit too literally. I was being sarcastic. Yes. He did. Were those people innocent though? Yes. They weren’t innocent neither. Yes. Guess what? They were not innocent. No cry because, get this, they weren’t innocent!!! Cut the crap. If you’re for women to have the choice to kill their unborn human fetus then you support the killing of preborn human beings, whether you accept that reality or not.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jul 27, 2018 15:39:37 GMT
I thought the killing of an innocent human is universally regarded as wrong. I guess I have too much faith in people. Well that’s not even what your own religion teaches! First of all, you shouldn’t have faith in people to begin with; I certainly don’t! According to the bible, you should have faith in God, and all men have fallen short of the glory of God. So if you’ve been putting your faith in man, then you’re not even following your own religion! Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in humans. Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord. Sound familiar? The point is, you need to be trusting God (as a Christian). In any case, let me just give you a refresher on how the Christian God you worship regards killing of people and innocence. Didn’t “God” wipe out all of mankind except one family in this global flood that you people believe in? Didn’t God destroy the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (including born and unborn children) because the people were supposedly wicked? Didn’t “God” MURDER Pharaoh Ramisees INNOCENT first born son, not to mention all the other innocent first born Egyptian children as an incentive to Pharaoh to release the Israelites? Didn’t God order the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in the “promised land”? That would include of course innocent people as well as guilty! Where is the cry for the “innocent” then? Of course you hypocritically ignore ALL of that when you stand on your “killing innocent people is bad” soapbox, preaching to everyone how immoral abortion supposedly is. Where is your faith in God? He murdered innocent children, so either he was wrong, or your argument about it being immoral falls apart! Nothing in legal jurisprudence (or Christian history) suggest a moral opposition to the killing of innocent people, much less a fetus! God killed innocent people all the time, and so does the US Government! It’s never referred to as “murder” in those contexts. So whether or not it is “moral” is an individual, purely subjective judgement. Again your argument basically falls back to “if it’s legal, then it should be acceptable”. I’ve already debunked that bs. Slavery was legal and an acceptable practice by a large number of people once upon a time. So was gassing Jews during Nazi germany. Both were just as evil then as they are acknowledged today. That’s true, but that’s not my argument. My only argument with respect to the law is what defines MURDER (since you used it erroneously on more than one occasion). With respect to morality, my argument has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the fact that there is no objective standard by which you can declare abortion immoral. You can’t call it murder since by definition it isn’t. And your OPINION that it is immoral is not backed up by any consistent religious perspective either since you are perfectly okay will killing children if you read a thousands year old book in which God ordered people to do that. So basically you have no leg to stand on in declaring what is/isn’t moral for anyone else. So you support the killing of a preborn human being, yes. Thanks for the confirmation. Well it wasn’t a confirmation because your statement is inaccurate. It is inaccurate because it removes all qualifies and context thus creating a straw man argument. Obviously I’m not for anyone and everyone getting an abortion for any reason they want, at any stage of pregnancy they want. But that’s what your straw man is trying to claim. You speak the truth, captainbryce. Cody, shut the hell up.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 27, 2018 16:02:54 GMT
captainbryce LOL I guess I just assumed people would innatly know that killing innocent human beings is not cool. Why would people think that when the bible condoned it? Although I feel you’re taking the “too much faith in people” comment a bit too literally. I was being sarcastic. Okay, well that’s good of you to admit. Now that we know you don’t have faith in people, and we seem to agree that nobody should, then what point were you making? Because that seems to bolster my position about how morality is subjective. Yes. He did. Were those people innocent though? You tell me. I’m not referring to the sinful, wicked adults who died in the flood, I’m talking about the children (since that seems to be the moral relativism you’re trying to avoid. Were the children (including the unborn ones) innocent? That’s something for you to ponder as you wrestle with this apparent contradiction. Yes. They weren’t innocent neither. Yes. Guess what? They were not innocent. So the underlying theme now seems to be that unborn children are NOT innocent after all. So then what is your moral objection to abortion then? If unborn children can be guilty (even deserving of death according to your religion), then where do you get off telling a young mother who was raped that she is immoral for terminating her pregnancy due to the “innocence” of her child? Because that was the plea you made earlier, INNOCENCE remember? I sense more kettle logic coming now. No cry because, get this, they weren’t innocent!!! What is your measure of innocence Cody? How are we to objectively determine whether an unborn child is “innocent” or not? What did Pharaoh Ramisees young child actually do that warranted a death sentence? What did any of the unborn children who god ordered killed do to warrant their death? Cut the crap. If you’re for women to have the choice to kill their unborn human fetus then you support the killing of preborn human beings, whether you accept that reality or not. No, you cut the crap. Don’t try to remove any and all context from someone else’s position and intentionally distort their argument in order to attack a straw man. A woman who was raped and became pregnant deciding to terminate the pregnancy 3 weeks later is not the same thing as a woman who cheated on her husband deliberately causing a miscarriage in her 6th month to avoid the embarrassment of having her adulterous affair exposed. According to you, they are exactly the same thing and should be treated the same. My position is that they are different scenarios entirely and thus should be considered differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 17:09:55 GMT
captainbryce I thought the killing of an innocent human is universally regarded as wrong. I guess I have too much faith in people. Abortion exists... therefore it's god's will. Apparently so does god... why do you hate god's plan?
|
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 546
|
Post by senan90 on Jul 27, 2018 17:19:30 GMT
Alright retard Cody, I'll watch another shitty weak minded bait video made by creepy Religious jerks with nothing better to do with their sad lives. So, your headline goes "pro-choice advocate gets owned on abortion by pastor". Okay, lets go through it;
A woman parked outside a clinic watches curiously from a distance at some film crew. Nothing hostile about her actions judging from her body language. We see the man asking her "Do you work here at Planned Parenthood?" as if it's any of his business. "I'm a pastor - I'm a Christian - and we're going to end Abortion in our country" He then approaches her like a sleazy huckster and uses the same unoriginal and witless verbatim "60 million children are murdered" Why do you support the murder of children" Great start! I'm already enthralled where this is going!
The woman, responds passionately about the economic plight of the USA and refers to socio-economic conditions of the poor. The insightful pastor responds "You should repent on the slaughter of children". Yep, she's getting served so far!
Pastor then responds: "..Moment of conception, a human being is formed". Err no, a tiny fertilised egg does not share the same functions and characteristics of a human being.
The woman then states about the lack of education, resources and healthcare which implies about the reality that Abortions will always happen. The best we can do, realistically, to stop Abortions is providing better healthcare and resources. That's a win-win for both crowds. So how does Pastor whatshisname respond to this valid comment? "So it's alright to kill them!" Yowza, a stupid Strawman attack.
As the woman is quite rightly irritated by his feeble rebuttals and childish antics, as she is responding, belligerently, he then interrupts her with "Auschwitz (3 times).
I clicked out of the video after that, and I assume she rightfully drove off and didn't give any more time to this turd-chewing homoncule.
So, no, retard Cody. I saw no ownage at all. 0/10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 18:05:40 GMT
Perhaps, but neither is it as simple as saying "it means X and that's the end of it". Then by your own definition, a fetus is not a person since it is not an individual. A fetus is a single person(distinct from a group) Is a zygote a person?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 18:24:29 GMT
No, dummy, the video starts with the woman, who has stopped her car in the middle of the road, to ask the pastor “what are you doing?”, as if it’s any of her business.
Right off the bat he’s honest, upfront and gets straight to the point.
Stating facts is “unoriginal” and “witless verbatim” now? Yeah good one, potato.
A reasonable enough question.
An appeal to emotion, that’s all that was.
Boy, are you an idiot or what. Biologists agree that human life begins at conception. Pick up a science book, arshole.
Actually the pastor completely debunked her argument, which she had no answer for.
You sound even more hysterical and incoherent than her LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 18:28:39 GMT
Right off the bat he’s honestNo, he isn't. Abortion will never be ended in the country known as the USA.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 27, 2018 18:37:21 GMT
The pastor is Jeff Durbin who apparently is a Calvinist who holds extreme views. He believes women who have abortions are murderers who deserve the death penalty, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Given his other "old school" thinking he would probably prefer that women who have abortions should be publically stoned to death. Pastor Jeff Durbin link
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 27, 2018 18:52:47 GMT
captainbryce LOL I guess I just assumed people would innatly know that killing innocent human beings is not cool. Why would people think that when the bible condoned it? Although I feel you’re taking the “too much faith in people” comment a bit too literally. I was being sarcastic. Okay, well that’s good of you to admit. Now that we know you don’t have faith in people, and we seem to agree that nobody should, then what point were you making? Because that seems to bolster my position about how morality is subjective. Yes. He did. Were those people innocent though? You tell me. I’m not referring to the sinful, wicked adults who died in the flood, I’m talking about the children (since that seems to be the moral relativism you’re trying to avoid. Were the children (including the unborn ones) innocent? That’s something for you to ponder as you wrestle with this apparent contradiction. Yes. They weren’t innocent neither. Yes. Guess what? They were not innocent. So the underlying theme now seems to be that unborn children are NOT innocent after all. So then what is your moral objection to abortion then? If unborn children can be guilty (even deserving of death according to your religion), then where do you get off telling a young mother who was raped that she is immoral for terminating her pregnancy due to the “innocence” of her child? Because that was the plea you made earlier, INNOCENCE remember? I sense more kettle logic coming now. No cry because, get this, they weren’t innocent!!! What is your measure of innocence Cody? How are we to objectively determine whether an unborn child is “innocent” or not? What did Pharaoh Ramisees young child actually do that warranted a death sentence? What did any of the unborn children who god ordered killed do to warrant their death? Cut the crap. If you’re for women to have the choice to kill their unborn human fetus then you support the killing of preborn human beings, whether you accept that reality or not. No, you cut the crap. Don’t try to remove any and all context from someone else’s position and intentionally distort their argument in order to attack a straw man. A woman who was raped and became pregnant deciding to terminate the pregnancy 3 weeks later is not the same thing as a woman who cheated on her husband deliberately causing a miscarriage in her 6th month to avoid the embarrassment of having her adulterous affair exposed. According to you, they are exactly the same thing and should be treated the same. My position is that they are different scenarios entirely and thus should be considered differently. God has the authority. He is the creator, the very source of life. He gives life, therefore he can take life. He is infinitely holy, just and loving. He rules.
|
|