|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 17, 2024 8:17:26 GMT
Do you always let the law dictate your morality, or is this a special case? I find it odd that you ask this. Stunned actually. Very puzzled mostly. There is often a very good reason this is done. For example, a parent comes home and uses their kid as a punching bag; maybe they like touching the kid sexually. Maybe they like leaving town for a few weeks or months at a time and the the ten y/o in charge with no adult. I am going to assume you are aware this happens and that the kids should be yanked away from the parents. So yes, this is a good thing, maybe a great thing. So what you're saying is if you were alive 90 years ago, you would've supported the Nazis since 'what they were doing was technically legal'. And if you were alive in the 1800s when owning black people as property was fully legal, you would've supported that too and maybe even taken part in it.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 185
Likes: 70
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 17, 2024 12:03:05 GMT
I find it odd that you ask this. Stunned actually. Very puzzled mostly. There is often a very good reason this is done. For example, a parent comes home and uses their kid as a punching bag; maybe they like touching the kid sexually. Maybe they like leaving town for a few weeks or months at a time and the the ten y/o in charge with no adult. I am going to assume you are aware this happens and that the kids should be yanked away from the parents. So yes, this is a good thing, maybe a great thing. So what you're saying is if you were alive 90 years ago, you would've supported the Nazis since 'what they were doing was technically legal'. And if you were alive in the 1800s when owning black people as property was fully legal, you would've supported that too and maybe even taken part in it. No. You missed my point entirely. From what you have said, you are entirely against abortion, but would think the authorities should not respond at all to complaints of child abuse; you would make children stay in an environment where they get molest and physically abused. Good to know.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 185
Likes: 70
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 17, 2024 12:07:06 GMT
I find it odd that you ask this. Stunned actually. Very puzzled mostly. There is often a very good reason this is done. For example, a parent comes home and uses their kid as a punching bag; maybe they like touching the kid sexually. Maybe they like leaving town for a few weeks or months at a time and the the ten y/o in charge with no adult. I am going to assume you are aware this happens and that the kids should be yanked away from the parents. So yes, this is a good thing, maybe a great thing. I was questioning whether it's better to forcibly rid the mother of her child before or after its born. To say it's better to do it after because it's legal is to let the law dictate your morality. At any rate, this wasn't a comparison between protection and prevention. If it were, we would be talking about killing the kid instead of saving him. I would think so, as would the majority of people.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 17, 2024 14:37:17 GMT
So what you're saying is if you were alive 90 years ago, you would've supported the Nazis since 'what they were doing was technically legal'. And if you were alive in the 1800s when owning black people as property was fully legal, you would've supported that too and maybe even taken part in it. No. You missed my point entirely. From what you have said, you are entirely against abortion, but would think the authorities should not respond at all to complaints of child abuse; you would make children stay in an environment where they get molest and physically abused. Good to know.
Your point is you don't seem capable of directly answering a question, you have to tap dance around every single comment.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 1,305
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 17, 2024 15:02:01 GMT
I don’t think I've ever said I support any abortions per se. I just think it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide whether to have one or not regardless of what anyone else thinks. Ok, but it still seems problematic. Absolutely and I think some on both sides of the debate make the mistake of oversimplifying - 'pro-lifers just want to control women' or 'pro-choicers just want to kill babies'. It's not a straightforward issue and treating it as such doesn't convince anyone.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 185
Likes: 70
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 17, 2024 19:03:31 GMT
No. You missed my point entirely. From what you have said, you are entirely against abortion, but would think the authorities should not respond at all to complaints of child abuse; you would make children stay in an environment where they get molest and physically abused. Good to know.
Your point is you don't seem capable of directly answering a question, you have to tap dance around every single comment.
I had a good chuckle at your remark...the irony of it all.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 17, 2024 20:15:38 GMT
I told you I parked my car on the grass, then you accused me of doing so deliberately to kill. You know that that was a fictional example by way of comparison, right? Started by you? Also, to continue the metaphor, those who supported your claim to being the perfect driver might in defence claim that your driving was merely "justified killing". After all as mentioned, Command Theory is a usual first choice in these circumstances. My example proved that it is possible to know, and the point still stands that "mysterious ways" is just a cop out for those who wish to avoid contemplating a self-admitted jealous, angry and vengeful god, who further admits to creating evil, and commands, or works to effect mass killings. Odd to think but I am not that familiar with American slang. Neither is this board it appears, for it shows up this end as a spelling error. Sorry if this means that you are back on "mysterious ways" again. But don't forget those words of advice from scripture "He shall call upon me, and I will answer him" Ps 9:15 or "if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" John 14:14. Since you believe in this deity and I don't, then I thought you might helpfully use the hotline for the answer from the horse's mouth. But as I already said, there's your purported deity's clear enough admissions and unflattering portrait in some of the Bible. Based on that inspiration I feel, along I imagine with most reasonable and objective observers in these instances, that I am on firm enough ground in knowing the answer already. And hence that special pleading or cop-outs from discomforted believers should be called out for what they are. But now, as I am just repeating myself and you haven't managed to disprove what one can say about the apologists for God and their tactics, I will leave it there. Feel free to speculate if you think this is a mysterious way.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 17, 2024 22:54:25 GMT
I told you I parked my car on the grass, then you accused me of doing so deliberately to kill. You know that that was a fictional example by way of comparison, right? Like the rest of your post, this is based on a faulty foundation. I really did park on the grass, and you still don't know why. But don't let that stop you from making stuff up to fill that gap. The red underline you see is a function of your browser and not this forum. You should know this because I've told you before: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/6002557/threadLearn that this time so there won't be another next time.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 18, 2024 15:56:58 GMT
Your point is you don't seem capable of directly answering a question, you have to tap dance around every single comment.
I had a good chuckle at your remark...the irony of it all.
So yes or no, should it be legal for women to kill their rapists, since it's already legal and encouraged they kill their babies for the crime the rapist committed?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 18, 2024 22:06:30 GMT
Like the rest of your post, this is based on a faulty foundation. I really did park on the grass, and you still don't know why. But don't let that stop you from making stuff up to fill that gap. Remember how I told you that comparing a human to God was a category mistake, but then how, to please you, I would try? That is the 'faulty foundation' we have here. Such a comparison could only be done by making things fictional and more apposite. (Though I was amused that you really thought I thought you a murderer, thereby entirely missing the point of the exercise.) The main difference is that it is quite possible that a human can act with reasons unknown to others. Well, duh. But as a human you are not an omniscient and omnipotent deity, a 'Perfect Driver' are you?. One with a whole book describing your character, your motives and actions and ultimately, in the event, followers struggling to explain why, when you seem illogical, perverse or morally confusing, you are not really. And it is such a god, and those efforts of its apologists, with all their special pleading and cop outs, which we have always been discussing. See how it works? Best not to rely on slang then, but proper English, to save confusion; it will also save you trying to score points through trivial matters unrelated to the main subject. I also have better things to do than check if your interesting vocab is typo, or slang. And with that I will leave this particular exchange, for I fully sustained my point and it really seems as if you are reaching now.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2024 22:42:05 GMT
Like the rest of your post, this is based on a faulty foundation. I really did park on the grass, and you still don't know why. But don't let that stop you from making stuff up to fill that gap. Remember how I told you that comparing a human to God was a category mistake This is about your reluctance to simply admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass while demanding that I explain why someone else ordered massacres. Clearly you see the hypocrisy that you're trying to sidestep. "Homicide of the Gaps" just wasn't punny enough. Next time you don't know what something means, just ask. But then again, would it even matter? Because now that you know what I meant by "Gank of the Gaps," you... Funny, that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 18, 2024 23:46:22 GMT
This is about your reluctance to simply admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass while demanding that I explain why someone else ordered massacres. I don't demand anything, except perhaps you using examples irrelevant to a theological thread. I am simply, still, talking about the special pleading and get-out for a murderous god through "He works in mysterious ways" when He has a track record of otherise being jealous, angry, vengeful and genocidal. You are not a god, for reasons I hope you remember being told. Better park on a different lawn, since you are certainly arguing here in mysterious ways now. "Someone else" lol
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2024 23:57:58 GMT
This is about your reluctance to simply admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass while demanding that I explain why someone else ordered massacres. I don't demand anything, except perhaps you using examples irrelevant to a theological thread. I am simply, still, talking about the special pleading and get-out for a murderous god through "He works in mysterious ways" when He has a track record of otherise being jealous, angry, vengeful and genocidal. You are not a god, for reasons I hope you remember being told. Better park on a different lawn, since you are certainly arguing here in mysterious ways now. "Someone else" lol I understand that when someone says they don't know why God does something, you will translate that to the "mysterious ways copout." But I also understand that if you say you don't know why I do something, you'd have to translate it into the "mysterious ways copout" lest you be a hypocrite, so you don't. My advice? Stop trying to fool yourself into thinking you're fooling anyone else, let alone me.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 0:42:30 GMT
I understand that when someone says they don't know why God does something, you will translate that to the "mysterious ways copout." Just a reminder that scripture tells us that very thing (while naturally, when it suits, ignoring that claim), being inspired by the supposed deity with such verse as "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” [Romans 11:33-36]. You really ought to remember how, just a few messages back, I said it is "quite possible that a human can act with reasons unknown to others". Now please, give it up. I don't know why I need to keep saying this over and over but here it is for the very last time: You are not a god. This matters because there is a whole book about God in which his character, prejudices, actions, motives and sometimes murderous activities are made clear. He is also held up as the definitive measure of love, justice and love. You, as far as I can tell, are not troubled by any of these things. So a consideration of what you do and how it can be judged is a false one. And hence, when God does something like ordering the genocide of the Canaanites, those who follow his actions have to justify them. This they do through either claiming what He does is necessarily just a process called Command Theory, an idea not held very positively by most philosophers, or they the faithful say they cannot explain it. This sounds like special pleading and a cop out for the reasons given above, an unwillingness to confront the very uncomfortable moral dilemma of a deity which mass murders, or orders the same, while still expecting love, respect and worship. This is special pleading for an entity of this sort one quite reasonably would expect not to mass murder, order rape (or even fail to make itself known to all without ambiguity, come to that) You may in future just refer to the paragraph above as it is usually the same answer provided to your quibbles in this exchange. My advice to you my friend is stop arguing in ways mysterious to anyone who can tell the difference between a human and deity, let alone cop out or special pleading with intellectual and moral honesty when they see it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2024 0:57:53 GMT
I understand that when someone says they don't know why God does something, you will translate that to the "mysterious ways copout." Just a reminder that scripture tells us that very thing (while naturally, when it suits, ignoring that claim), being inspired by the supposed deity with such verse as "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” [Romans 11:33-36]. Indeed. For who has known the mind of me when I parked on the grass? But God can't? Tell me again what special pleading is. Then tell the class why he ordered those massacres right after you tell them why I parked on the grass. I'll do just that when it becomes relevant. QED
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 1:16:31 GMT
Just a reminder that scripture tells us that very thing (while naturally, when it suits, ignoring that claim), being inspired by the supposed deity with such verse as "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” [Romans 11:33-36]. Indeed. For who has known the mind of me when I parked on the grass? But God can't? Tell me again what special pleading is. Then tell the class why he ordered those massacres right after you tell them why I parked on the grass. I'll do just that when it becomes relevant. QEDYou'll find all the information you need very apparent in that very useful paragraph. Special pleading is an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view or appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment. . For instance if one worships a supposed good and loving god, then it is would be when one chooses to ignore confronting instances when that special interest deity commits genocide or orders rape or offers the special treatment defence of claimed inscrutability. Or even perhaps on a message board when an answer is given to a interlocutor several times he or she still asks the same question as if nothing had been said. and talks about grass rather theological issues. I hope that helps. But it won't, it never does. Truly mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2024 1:27:31 GMT
Or even perhaps on a message board when an answer is given to a interlocutor several times he or she still asks the same question as if nothing had been said. If I'm that interlocutor, I'll stop asking the question when you answer it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 3:26:52 GMT
Bodily autonomy is a human right and it is about freedom to copulate the way you want the time, the place, the partner you desire. . Drinking legal matter is not. It’s either Business law either social law.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:28:12 GMT
Or even perhaps on a message board when an answer is given to a interlocutor several times he or she still asks the same question as if nothing had been said. If I'm that interlocutor, I'll stop asking the question when you answer it correctly. That very useful paragraph is still there. Just see it as proving further information lol.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 22:53:36 GMT
And as to the protection or the wholessness of the body, the penal code applies, not the human rights law. So no, refusal of goin to war can’t be grounded on body autonomy, but the penal code. In time of war, soldiers do not need the law to protect their right to chose their copulation partner. They have guns. They can force do whovever they fancy. Civilian’s body autonomy requires them to be protected against soldiers. By human rights laws.
|
|