GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Luigi said: "I assume its just a matter of time before the Trump goldshirts come and arrest me and mow me down with a machinegun..." So Mr. That's-A-Logical-Fallacy reverts to the Slippery Slope logical fallacy, to the point of catastrophizing! Take a breath. Slippery Slope? Trump openly and unabashedly says he wants to be President for life and a dictator. He openly praises and lays admiration on dictators. This is no secret. Despite that my comment about goldshirts was a joke... But honestly I wouldn't call it a slippery slope as much as I would call the joke a criticism of what Trump openly and clearly says he wants... because you know... he has... 1 hour ago, Laurie said: (I bolded a few things from your quote.) A few things... cherry picked almost? Ooo... I am excited! 1 hour ago, Laurie said: I find it curious that you use the term "scholastic" -- which in philosophy circles refers to Medieval Catholic philosophers -- and then claim that the point of view you are labeling "scholastic" is a weird, modern American construct held by a rabid few. Scholastic meaning relating to school or school education is from the 1600s. https://www.etymonline.com/word/scholastic and it seems the normative meaning of the term is relating to schools and education in the formal sense https://www.thefreedictionary.com/scholastic A rabid few? Could you show me that? 1 hour ago, Laurie said: You also conflate the "anti-abortion movement" with an anti-abortion philosophical position. I will be honest... this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Could you perhaps reword this? 1 hour ago, Laurie said: 1. Moral absolutes in philosophy did not originate with Christians. Crack open Aristotle. Consider Plato. (In this response, I'm giving your thoughts more cohesion than they have because you also conflate ideas held by faith with ideas held through philosophical positions. You can hold moral absolutes through faith alone, or hold them through a philosophical position, or you can maintain that certain absolutes held via faith are simultaneously perfectly in accord with philosophical reason. The Catholic church, for example, does the latter. Some evangelical churches do the former.) I don't think I suggested that moral absolutism originated or tends to anywhere... Perhaps again... please explain what you mean by I'm conflating and give examples specifically. I didn't say moral absolutism is bankrupt as an intellectual idea. Though to be honest I do think that. What I wrote was that I reject moral absolutism. I think it is inherently unreasonable and counter to evidence. Because it is... thats the case by definition... 1 hour ago, Laurie said: 2. Scholastic philosophy -- medieval Catholic philosophy -- did conclude there are such things as moral absolutes. In hashing over such thoughts, those philosophers were in rich dialogue with the past -- the ancient Greek & Jewish philosophers, predominantly -- plus the Jewish & Muslim philosophers who were their contemporaries. Not Catholic philosophy. Catholic theology. Curious that you got such a minor vocabulary distinction wrong after complaining about it moments ago and giving the implication you wanted to give me a talking down to... And I'm not much a fan of theology... I am a fan of science... then philosophy... then sometimes theology. But this doesn't seem to even remotely go to showing that moral absolutism is in any way useful or justified... or even reasonable... you just seem to be pointing out that it exists. I am not contesting that it exists. I am contesting that it is unreasonable and unevidentiary... and more specifically I am pointing out that I reject moral absolutism so reading my arguments without understanding that would be understandably confusing and even perhaps misleading. 1 hour ago, Laurie said: 3. Time marched on, the Protestant Reformation happened, yet a lot of Protestant scholars, while splitting off on issues of faith, kept a bedrock of philosophy going back to certain ancient thinkers that the scholastics had built up. Richard Hooker, prime example. 4. Time marched on and because a lot of scholastic & later Catholic philosophers were pretty good at what they did -- that is, thinking -- a lot of their ideas stuck around. Their ideas also stuck around because, well, they were Catholic & the Catholic church stuck around, too. (You can argue that their ideas only stuck around because the Church has power. But then I would point you to the hundreds of atheist & agnostic scholars who have seen and do see real merit in many of these thinkers and their positions even if, at the end of the day, they also think they are in error.) 5. Time marched on, and of course there were voices who had very different ideas about philosophy than many of the ancients, and scholastic, and Jewish & Muslim philosophers who maintained there are such things as moral absolutes. But that's nothing new, because there was a plethora of ideas about all sorts of philosophical things, right from the dawn of philosophy. Just as the scholastics didn't invent the idea that some things are objectively good and some bad, neither did "modern" thinkers invent the idea that morality is relative or subjective. That idea goes w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y back. Or, as you would put it: way back, way back, way back, way back, way back, way back. Before that even. Oh, and if you want to tally philosophers who think some things are absolutely bad and some absolutely good, you can throw Confucius on the pile. Add him along with Socrates & Plato & Aristotle. This reminded me greatly of tangential thought disorder. I don't see how most of this has any relevance at all to what I wrote or to the topic in general. As such I won't take my time to address, rebuke, or debunk them... despite so much of what you writing being at least minimally eligible for that. But there is one significant error. Moral absolutism and moral objectivism are not the same. I lean to moral objectivism but that would be overly simplistic to say since there are many variations of moral objectivism. To be more specific. I do think there is certain objectivity to right and wrong, good or bad, true or false... and I think that there is more to this than a majority happens to hold that view... But the discussion is not so much about morality... because the US legal system is not based in morality. It is based in fair rule of law among other dynamics. 1 hour ago, Laurie said: 6. So, time marches on. We arrive at Roe v. Wade in the USA in the final 1/4 of the 20th century. The Catholic church has something to say, philosophically, about that legal decision in light of what she understands a human person to be & what she understands human rights to be. And she doesn't simply base that understanding on a Bible quote. She understands it based on the philosophy she has worked out & embraced over 2 millennia, much of it rooted in what she has deemed reasonable, true, and good in the philosophies of many people who were pagan, or Jewish, or Muslim, or what have you. (She also understands it based on the 10 Commandments, as noted above, because she maintains truth is truth & some truths we can know via 2 routes: divine revelation and the good old human mind.) The Catholic Church wasn't always this anti-abortion. Abortion existed before the 1900s... even before the 1800s. But yet the Catholic Church's moral line against it was not as overwhelming and overriding as it is today. It is also notable that the general Christian consensus was that abortion was not immoral except after when the fetus could be felt to move (and thus shown to be there and alive) since testing for both were not as great back then... which is what I have heard as a modern perhaps apologetic whitewash of this that it was not immoral because they didn't know. I think many modern Catholics might be surprised to know that until the 4th century Christian writing on abortion is virtually non-existent... also that from 4th to 10th century christian communities both did not consider abortion murder and considered it less offensive if it was committed by someone under duress like due to economics or anxiety. When ensoulment happened remained controversial for Christians many whom thought it didn't happen till quickening (movement) and that abortion prior to this while wrong was not as wrong... The clumping together of all abortion as very grave wrong (even as murder) from moment of conception onwards would be moderately alien to a Christian prior to the 1700s. But... I am not here to teach what Catholics believe or don't believe... or even the history of the same... 2 hours ago, Laurie said: 7. The "anti-abortion movement" in the USA, in reaction to Roe v. Wade, isn't one single phenomena. To pretend it is to create a straw man that can easily be knocked down. People are anti-abortion for a lot of reasons (some logical, some not, some based on faith only, some not). What I can say is that the Catholic church's position regarding Roe v. Wade is not something invented by a bunch of conservative American Catholics who have their undies unduly in a bunch. She holds one view, globally, and she's held it consistently through history. It isn't a strawman. It is an accurate assessment. But it is a political exploitation. Because prior to Roe v Wade abortion did exist in the United States and was to varying degrees legal in different States. Yet there wasn't a movement to abolish abortion. It happened after roe v wade. Why? Republicans saw how controversial the Supreme Court decision was and thought they could do a double win. They could put it back in local control, keeping in their states right message. They could also argue that its emotionally abhorrent and get people to vote for them. As partisan political strategy works... it actually wasn't a bad move. What Republicans failed to conceive is that by the 1990s abortion opinion would swing wildly away from them. It is a cultural war that they started and lost in many regards... 2 hours ago, Laurie said: 8. You can say her position is not a coherent or comprehensive moral construct. You might not agree with the conclusions she draws but to argue that her position is not coherent or comprehensive is laughable. (See notation above about atheist philosophers who take Catholic philosophy seriously precisely because it is comprehensive and coherent.) It is also laughable to say her pro-life position, or any of her positions regarding human life, is based in faith alone. I realize you in part are saying it's not a coherent or comprehensive moral position because you are lumping every Tom, (filtered) , and Walter who doesn't support abortion in with a (supposedly) monolithic "anti-abortion movement," but that conflation is on you. I can and do call moral absolutism and in specific the anti-abortion position incoherent and non-comprehensive. I would also say that it is a rather significant change from what the Catholic Church had held for centuries... I think the Catholic Church does a far better job as a whole of being more coherent and comprehensive... not that I think its very coherent and very comprehensive... just due to the fact that they have a body of doctrine that they have clearly spent some time thinking about. But I think it is very dishonest to say that the anti-abortion movement is inherently Catholic, because its not because you won't find the same kind of movement in another nation like say Mexico which is more Catholic and just south of America, and in America moreover you won't find that this is a narrowly Catholic subject. 2 hours ago, Laurie said: 9. And so: There is a radically coherent & comprehensive moral position about the value of human life that addresses, in minute detail, in millions of pages, over thousands of years, all the things you say "pro-lifers" don't really care about. It is maintained, globally, to this very moment, by millions of well-formed Catholics. It was maintained, historically, by millions more of well-formed Catholics. The kind of philosophical thinking that undergirds it -- the idea that some things can be demonstrated via reason and logic to be inherently bad, and some things inherently good -- is and was and has been held by all kinds of other peoples and cultures, not the least among whom are some of the world's brightest (non-Catholic, non-Christian) philosophers. I don't think you have shown a coherent and/or comprehensive position on anything... rather you have went on at length about how you think that is the case. No compelling argument other than some illusory appeals to history and authority have been made. Which I say illusory because your referencing of them is rather thin and and even tangential. While I do not deny there is a global anti-abortion movement and that the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. I think to imagine that it is in any way remotely like in America is very dishonest. You again conflated moral absolutism and moral objectivism. These are not the same. Not even a little bit. A moral objectivist would be willing to say that while something is objectively wrong that circumstance among other things can make it less wrong or even right. The Catholic Church's position on war could be considered moral objectivism for example. War is always wrong in a greater moral sense but that certain situations can make it permissible, justified, and even required. A moral absolutism on war would be like the quakers who oppose all war as intrinsically and always gravely wrong... as such a Quaker cannot in good conscience serve in a war even if it ultimately mean that they die. And in regards to how much you responded to what I wrote... I am honestly not sure if you responded to a single thing I wrote... your very tangential writing style is not easy to follow and not easy to see what you are responding to specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 26 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Slippery Slope? Trump openly and unabashedly says he wants to be President for life and a dictator. He openly praises and lays admiration on dictators. This is no secret. Despite that my comment about goldshirts was a joke... But honestly I wouldn't call it a slippery slope as much as I would call the joke a criticism of what Trump openly and clearly says he wants... because you know... he has... A few things... cherry picked almost? Ooo... I am excited! Scholastic meaning relating to school or school education is from the 1600s. https://www.etymonline.com/word/scholastic and it seems the normative meaning of the term is relating to schools and education in the formal sense https://www.thefreedictionary.com/scholastic A rabid few? Could you show me that? I will be honest... this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Could you perhaps reword this? I don't think I suggested that moral absolutism originated or tends to anywhere... Perhaps again... please explain what you mean by I'm conflating and give examples specifically. I didn't say moral absolutism is bankrupt as an intellectual idea. Though to be honest I do think that. What I wrote was that I reject moral absolutism. I think it is inherently unreasonable and counter to evidence. Because it is... thats the case by definition... Not Catholic philosophy. Catholic theology. Curious that you got such a minor vocabulary distinction wrong after complaining about it moments ago and giving the implication you wanted to give me a talking down to... And I'm not much a fan of theology... I am a fan of science... then philosophy... then sometimes theology. But this doesn't seem to even remotely go to showing that moral absolutism is in any way useful or justified... or even reasonable... you just seem to be pointing out that it exists. I am not contesting that it exists. I am contesting that it is unreasonable and unevidentiary... and more specifically I am pointing out that I reject moral absolutism so reading my arguments without understanding that would be understandably confusing and even perhaps misleading. This reminded me greatly of tangential thought disorder. I don't see how most of this has any relevance at all to what I wrote or to the topic in general. As such I won't take my time to address, rebuke, or debunk them... despite so much of what you writing being at least minimally eligible for that. But there is one significant error. Moral absolutism and moral objectivism are not the same. I lean to moral objectivism but that would be overly simplistic to say since there are many variations of moral objectivism. To be more specific. I do think there is certain objectivity to right and wrong, good or bad, true or false... and I think that there is more to this than a majority happens to hold that view... But the discussion is not so much about morality... because the US legal system is not based in morality. It is based in fair rule of law among other dynamics. The Catholic Church wasn't always this anti-abortion. Abortion existed before the 1900s... even before the 1800s. But yet the Catholic Church's moral line against it was not as overwhelming and overriding as it is today. It is also notable that the general Christian consensus was that abortion was not immoral except after when the fetus could be felt to move (and thus shown to be there and alive) since testing for both were not as great back then... which is what I have heard as a modern perhaps apologetic whitewash of this that it was not immoral because they didn't know. I think many modern Catholics might be surprised to know that until the 4th century Christian writing on abortion is virtually non-existent... also that from 4th to 10th century christian communities both did not consider abortion murder and considered it less offensive if it was committed by someone under duress like due to economics or anxiety. When ensoulment happened remained controversial for Christians many whom thought it didn't happen till quickening (movement) and that abortion prior to this while wrong was not as wrong... The clumping together of all abortion as very grave wrong (even as murder) from moment of conception onwards would be moderately alien to a Christian prior to the 1700s. But... I am not here to teach what Catholics believe or don't believe... or even the history of the same... It isn't a strawman. It is an accurate assessment. But it is a political exploitation. Because prior to Roe v Wade abortion did exist in the United States and was to varying degrees legal in different States. Yet there wasn't a movement to abolish abortion. It happened after roe v wade. Why? Republicans saw how controversial the Supreme Court decision was and thought they could do a double win. They could put it back in local control, keeping in their states right message. They could also argue that its emotionally abhorrent and get people to vote for them. As partisan political strategy works... it actually wasn't a bad move. What Republicans failed to conceive is that by the 1990s abortion opinion would swing wildly away from them. It is a cultural war that they started and lost in many regards... I can and do call moral absolutism and in specific the anti-abortion position incoherent and non-comprehensive. I would also say that it is a rather significant change from what the Catholic Church had held for centuries... I think the Catholic Church does a far better job as a whole of being more coherent and comprehensive... not that I think its very coherent and very comprehensive... just due to the fact that they have a body of doctrine that they have clearly spent some time thinking about. But I think it is very dishonest to say that the anti-abortion movement is inherently Catholic, because its not because you won't find the same kind of movement in another nation like say Mexico which is more Catholic and just south of America, and in America moreover you won't find that this is a narrowly Catholic subject. I don't think you have shown a coherent and/or comprehensive position on anything... rather you have went on at length about how you think that is the case. No compelling argument other than some illusory appeals to history and authority have been made. Which I say illusory because your referencing of them is rather thin and and even tangential. While I do not deny there is a global anti-abortion movement and that the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. I think to imagine that it is in any way remotely like in America is very dishonest. You again conflated moral absolutism and moral objectivism. These are not the same. Not even a little bit. A moral objectivist would be willing to say that while something is objectively wrong that circumstance among other things can make it less wrong or even right. The Catholic Church's position on war could be considered moral objectivism for example. War is always wrong in a greater moral sense but that certain situations can make it permissible, justified, and even required. A moral absolutism on war would be like the quakers who oppose all war as intrinsically and always gravely wrong... as such a Quaker cannot in good conscience serve in a war even if it ultimately mean that they die. And in regards to how much you responded to what I wrote... I am honestly not sure if you responded to a single thing I wrote... your very tangential writing style is not easy to follow and not easy to see what you are responding to specifically. You're kidding. Right? Except you aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 53 minutes ago, Laurie said: You're kidding. Right? Except you aren't. I guess I was kidding myself to think that you might minimally try in your response to me. So yes. The joke was on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) I think it’s nice that Mrs. Amy Vivian Coney and her husband have seven children, five biological children and two children adopted from Haiti. Hard to imagine someone so hard working, raising seven children has time and the drive to work in high profile public service. A woman like this would make a great supreme court justice. Edited July 4, 2018 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Except it doesn't fit the definition of murder. Not traditionally or legally. It is also a very gross dishonest and emotionally charged argument. Whatever you want to classify it as, it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And it is twisted to legalize the intentional killing of an innocent human being. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: ~18% of the American public when polled think there should be a no-exception ban on abortion and ~22% of the American public when polled thinks that abortion should be more restricted. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx But it is not murder. At least according to the law. Unless a very radical change in word definition, legal precedent, the law as written, or something else when one says abortion it does not mean murder. In the same way that war does not mean murder or capital punishment does not mean murder. See above. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment Except it is very explicitly in this regard in the bill of rights, the fourth amendment. It clearly states that unreasonable intrusions by the state is not to be tolerated. The court found in roe v wade that a ban on abortion unavoidably was an unreasonable intrusion. By extension the court found that it was the state telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies when it directly relates to their course of their life, the choices they can or can't reasonably make, the obtaining of sound medical opinion and treatment options, and over control of their very own bodies... thus is a violation of the security of their own bodies. That does not state anything about a right to privacy. And I obviously do not care what Roe v. Wade has to say about it. Courts can be wrong. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Again a gross emotionally charged argument. But if we may... lets reword that a bit...It is twisted and bizarre to think that one may [let a man plead the fifth after killing] an innocent human being because to prevent one from doing so would be a violation of one's [right against self-incrimination]. It is twisted and bizarre to think that one may [own firearms which have the almost exclusive purpose of killing] a human being because to prevent one from doing so would be a violation of one's [right to bear arms]. This is why emotionally charged arguments are inherently illogical and dishonest. No. What you wrote is stupid and is not a proper analogy. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: The general public has been, is, and will have opinions I disagree with... that I think arguably would be considered wrong moreover in retrospect. Slavery was a very complex moral challenge for the United States. The anti-black laws and ordinances were largely in very direct and very obvious violation of the fourteenth amendment. But these are red herrings. No. It was not a red herring. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: It is also irrelevant to the fact that in the United States government is by the popular consent and will of the governed. This is a reality and legitimacy that even the Catholic Church has conceded. Abortion was generally not illegal in the United States till the mid 1800s. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561 It is curious that your argument is that the popular consent and will of the governed, the fair rule of law, the protection of civil rights, and similar does not matter... which by definition lends itself to tyranny. Nonsense. That is not what I argued. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: As a hypothetical: Suppose if someone told you that they didn't care that African Americans were counted as people or citizens, that they didn't care what the courts/law had found, they didn't care what the fourteenth amendment promised them, that they quite candidly considered it was wrong of them to be treated as equals... Would that be tyranny? Why or why not? I will jump ahead and say yes it is tyranny. Because it disregards democracy, the the fair rule of law, and well established civil rights... No. It would not be tyranny. People are entitled to hold whatever opinions they desire. Now, if government actions and policies violate the law, that would be tyranny. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: This is what you are telling me... these things don't matter to you. The only thing that does matter is ending abortion. No. I stated no such thing. Nonsense. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Oh I am not pretending. But then again I don't think you are pretending either. I think you really are just this misguided and foolish. You believe that it should be legal to intentionally kill innocent human beings. There is nothing more misguided and foolish than that. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: But supposing that there was no bill of rights at all... that it was utterly the choice of the public... and the public wanted to ban abortion. That would be how it worked. I would disagree with it because I don't think that would be fair rule of law, protecting civil rights, or secularism. But I would at least concede that without a bill of rights to mandate such a legal norm... my opinion would merely be my opinion. But that would also mean that under a no bill of rights or fair rule of law society governed by the popular consent and will of the governed... that would mean that if a majority of Americans wanted to line up all Catholic Priests and Bishops having them molested and shot. That would be the reality. The constitution does not prevent states from enacting laws that ban abortion. That is your problem, and it will be corrected once the right judges are appointed to the courts. So enjoy your open access to legal, safe, and rare murder while it lasts. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: It is curious that you cited the wiki page which largely dispels your own doubts and claims. It is also kinda amusing and disturbing that you literally mention from the wiki article that the rate of abortions in the United States has in fact decreased and is below pre-roe-v-wade levels. No. I stated that it is not the legalization of abortion that has led to its decrease. Other factors, such as the availability of contraception, has led to its decrease, and that is precisely what the article states. And that is very obvious from the data, in which abortion rates doubled immediately after abortion was legalized. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: So... you think that women who want an abortion will simply not seek abortions if it is not available? I dunno. Do rapists still rape even though it is illegal? Do thieves still steal even though it is illegal? 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Kinda like how allegedly if guns were banned or people didn't have easy legal access to them... people would get guns another way right? And you accuse me of raising red herrings. Gun control is a totally different issue and I have stated no opinion on it here. FWIW, I believe that gun control can be an effective measure, depending on the circumstances and manner in which it is implemented. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I am not your buddy. You are a very dishonest and very tyrannical troll who just happens to have the favor of the community you are apart of. Your extremely charged emotional arguments, disregard for facts, dishonest citations, and even citing things that contradict you then pretending as if you didn't process it... I would never ever want to be your buddy. Most of all because you seem very hateful... and very bigoted... and very toxic... Whatever you want to level against me pal, you are still the one who thinks that a person should have a right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. It does not get any more despicable than that. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I wouldn't want that even remotely in my life... BUT... I want it legal and safe... and then rare. The word order is quite apt. Then again the whole idea that banning something will solve the problem... If I were to have a mental image of you in this conversation it would be this by the way... You already posted that cartoon. Where did you get it from? The baby killers apologetic handbook? 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I assume that is an invitation for you to find something even worse to portray me as because dehumanizing me like you have already has not been enough for you... So looking forward to that. You dehumanized yourself. Nobody here did that to you. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Too bad Republicans oppose all of those things now... Also kinda sad that Republicans will almost undoubtedly never ever get Roe v Wade overturned... but yet this is why you vote for them again and again and again... You keep putting dollar bills into the broken vending machine... I am not a Republican so all of that is irrelevant to me. And the "broken vending machine" are the Democrats. They lost an election to quite possibly the worst candidate that the Republicans have ever offered. Really, if you cannot beat a candidate as bad as Trump who are you going to beat? But I guess that is what happens when your party is so stupid as to think that it should be acceptable to kill innocent human beings. You should work on that. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Making abortions illegal will remove incentive to approach the matter with a public health approach. It could even further stigmatize the subject. Nonsense. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: So... where is the public health approach on rape? These are very deranged individuals who engage in rape. Maybe if there was a more comprehensive mental health care system that could be further prevented. But the public sees that the ban is sufficient and thinks that rapists shouldn't get mental health care but sentences. But the extremely extremely extremely emotionally charged argument of rape being so very extremely dishonest... let me ask... what civil right would be used to make rape legal? Just out of idle curiosity? Because far as I can see there would be absolutely and utterly none. The fourth amendment protects the security of person... even that would seem to protect against rape. Rape is a terrible act. But an equally terrible act is the innocent killing of an innocent human being. The constitution protects neither. And the fact that you consider rape to be "emotionally charged" but see no problem with the legalized killing of innocent human beings indicates how morally bankrupt you are. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Which is exactly the point. It is an extremely dishonest and emotionally charged argument. Which is why I pointed out before that the anti-abortion argument is not logical... it has to unavoidably appeal to emotion. No. The abortion argument is quite logical. It is wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Not really... you just have been shouting rape and murder... This is a website buddy. We are typing here in case you noticed. There is no shouting whatsoever. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Your post would be more honest and more coherent if your post was just rape and murder in all caps repeated over and over and over and over and over again. And your post would be more honest and coherent if you dropped the "legal, safe, and rare" facade and just admitted that you have no problem with killing innocent persons whatsoever because you are an atheist, you have no morality, and you view human beings merely in a utilitarian fashion. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: And I am fairly sure that when it comes to all the other ways that human life is ended by sanction of the state... that you have failed to even ostensibly address... shows that it has nothing to do with this... If you want to start threads on these other topics please go ahead. I am against the death penalty if that is what you have in mind. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I suppose you are right... shall we start to brutally torture to death everyone in our jails accused of murder now? No. Torture is immoral. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: If it is overturned I will be genuinely surprised... But unless it is radically overturned... it will simply go back to Congress and the States... and even those States that choose to ban it if that happened I suspect won't last for very long. You will be even more surprised when you die and are faced with the fact that God exists. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Also... racial segregation did not have an aggressive campaign to end it at the ballot box for 30-40 years... So that is a Non Sequitur. Not that you have shown me that you even remotely care about logic or honesty... No. It is not a non-sequitur. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Also yes... I will always support the popular consent and will of the governed, fair rule of law, civil rights, and secularism. I am glad that at least I know that regardless of what happens you will be opposed to such things... Nonsense. I never stated that I am against the will of the governed. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Because there is no legal right to rape or theft... and it is against the legal tradition of the United States (unlike abortion that only started to be illegal really in the mid 1800s)... rape and theft also have everything to do with the violation of the security of another person... unreasonably at that... The constitution does not protect abortion, and killing a person is worse than stealing his possessions. You lose. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I really think you would make more sense if you just shouted rape and murder over and over and over again till your head popped... You already wrote that. Please be original. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Because there is a valid law that prohibits it. Also because you concede there is no reason for it. So you have no sense of morality or right and wrong, other than what the state legislature tells you is right and wrong? If the state in which you live repeals the homicide statute then anyone should be free to come over to your house and kill you? You are morally bankrupt, but we already knew that. Let me tell you why I should not be allowed to come over to your house and kill you for no reason - Because it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. This is really not that difficult of a concept to understand. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Your inability to make distinctions even from your own arguments is kinda disturbing and makes me think that my effort to try to address your comments with any modicum of reasonableness or evidence is just a waste of time... and just gives the illusion that you are somehow making a sensible or valid argument when you very grossly are not. Also its fun to be ostensibly threatened to be murdered by someone on a Catholic website! Considering your gross fixation on murder and rape I imagine you will be asking about coming to rape me next... Please. Nobody here is threatening to murder or rape you. The question was posed to you in order to demonstrate that you have no solid moral principle under which you can ban the murder of an adult while legalizing the murder of an unborn child. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: What do you think happens in war??? Just in case you somehow didn't know... murder happens in war... Including the killing of innocent civilians... men, women, and children... That is kinda the whole war thing humans do... So what? People kill innocent human beings in the course of all types of duties, be it war or otherwise, and I oppose all such actions. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: And you are saying that forcing someone to go kill other humans isn't related at all to murder? Really? Nonsense. I never said that. Killing an enemy combatant during a just war (for example, a man shooting a gun in your direction) is not murder. If you kill intentionally an kill an innocent human being during war, that is murder. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: That is such an absurd claim that I am kinda surprised your brain just didn't shut down from a critical error message. Nonsense. I never said that. 13 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: The right to privacy is not absolute or inviolate. That is true. Yeah. But you can do anything and everything in the name of privacy, including killing completely innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 @Peace, I read across your comments, I was not very impressed to be very honest. Like I mentioned I didn't think your first post had any validity or reasonableness to it... I even expressed how I was concerned that responding would give some illusion that perhaps your post or position has some validity or reasonableness to it. Your gross dehumanization and candidly personal attacks are very improper... your asking if you can come kill me for no reason (which is a threat, at least ostensibly)... your refusal to accept sources you yourself cite or that are cited to you... and I could go on and on.. shows me that not only are you not honest but you are very grossly dishonest and very grossly uncharitable. As such I am reporting your post. I don't mind a little rough and tumble... but the extremeness that you take it to is really quite disturbing. Maybe you have grown accustomed to the idea that you can shout murderer, rapist, and threaten to kill people in the name of your cause... but I quite simply will not tolerate that. As such I will not respond substantively to any of your points, which lack substance to begin with, and I will address the much more major issue that you are a bigoted hateful threatening abusive and toxic individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) this tread has turned ugly. there is no need for this name calling as shown above. Edited July 4, 2018 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: @Peace, I read across your comments, I was not very impressed to be very honest. Am I supposed to care about the opinion of someone who does not even have enough common sense to know that killing innocent human beings is wrong? 7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Like I mentioned I didn't think your first post had any validity or reasonableness to it... I even expressed how I was concerned that responding would give some illusion that perhaps your post or position has some validity or reasonableness to it. I did not ask for your validation and nor do I need it. In fact, I do not value your opinion whatsoever. 7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Your gross dehumanization and candidly personal attacks are very improper... your asking if you can come kill me for no reason (which is a threat, at least ostensibly)... your refusal to accept sources you yourself cite or that are cited to you... and I could go on and on.. shows me that not only are you not honest but you are very grossly dishonest and very grossly uncharitable. As such I am reporting your post. No, you dehumanized yourself by taking the position that it is acceptable to kill an innocent human being. That dehumanizes you, me, and everyone else. And you cannot go on and on. If you could, you would. But your arguments have been refuted, so you gave up. And go ahead and report my post if you like. I am practically shaking in my boots. 7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I don't mind a little rough and tumble... but the extremeness that you take it to is really quite disturbing. Nothing I wrote is as disturbing as you coming here and trying to convince us that it is acceptable to kill innocent people. 7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Maybe you have grown accustomed to the idea that you can shout murderer, rapist, and threaten to kill people in the name of your cause... but I quite simply will not tolerate that. As such I will not respond substantively to any of your points, which lack substance to begin with, and I will address the much more major issue that you are a bigoted hateful threatening abusive and toxic individual. This is nonsense. I never accused you of being a murderer or a rapist, and I never threatened to kill anyone. You are nothing more than an immature child who cries and pouts when he cannot get his way. You are not the victim of anything. But let me tell you who are victims - the millions of innocent unborn children who have been put to death by your "legal, safe and rare" murder. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Peace, Don’t waste your finger effort. It’s GSH’s tactic to parse other’s posts in order to discredit, misinterpret, exaggerate, and mislead with a “rebuttal”. A cacophony of selective criticism that is oderly only in his mind. Come on, a GreenScapularHumanist that expresses surprise and disdain when questioned about his moniker? He won’t clearly or concisely address a simple question of when he thinks a person becomes a person, either philosophically, logically, or legally. There is significant diversity on that matter and it is the fundamental question in how to address the effect of Roe v Wade, whether it can or should be overturned or curb its effect on legalization of abortion. RvW established a right of women to have priority control over her health. Easy majority justice vote. The problem was establishing the rights of the unborn. Potential viability outside the womb was considered, but not unanimously defined or agreed to. Hence they deferred to the States, and we allow late term abortions and allow rape as justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Peace said: RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURER WHY CAN'T I COME AND KILL YOU FOR NO REASON? Your obvious personal attacks, logic fallacies, refusal to accept citations (even from yourself), gross mischaracterizations in the most dehumanizing way possible, and your fixation on murder and rape... is over the top. But the asking why you can't come and kill me for no reason? By the way... I've taken the liberty of summarizing your post. I actually think its more coherent and sensible now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Your obvious personal attacks, logic fallacies, refusal to accept citations (even from yourself), gross mischaracterizations in the most dehumanizing way possible, and your fixation on murder and rape... is over the top. But the asking why you can't come and kill me for no reason? By the way... I've taken the liberty of summarizing your post. I actually think its more coherent and sensible now. That is complete nonsense. You are a child. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Anomaly said: Don’t waste your finger effort. Good advise. But I get the feeling everything they do is wasted effort. They think Roe v Wade will someday be overturned. Something even conservative commentators strongly disagree with. Hes clearly into the 'I will keep doing something even if it is an utter waste'... 1 hour ago, Anomaly said: It’s GSH’s tactic to parse other’s posts in order to discredit, misinterpret, exaggerate, and mislead with a “rebuttal”. I try to with intellectual honesty and fairness approach everyone here. I even gave peace ample chance to show that he was able to do more than shout murder and rape. I did the same with you who decided that because you didn't like the replies (they weren't an immediate surrender to you) you decided to get hotty. Little2add who more strangely cannot count, literally unable to assess what number is bigger than the other, which is either disability or extreme dishonesty. You are fully able to reply but you have chosen not to. 1 hour ago, Anomaly said: A cacophony of selective criticism that is oderly only in his mind. Come on, a GreenScapularHumanist that expresses surprise and disdain when questioned about his moniker? He won’t clearly or concisely address a simple question of when he thinks a person becomes a person, either philosophically, logically, or legally. My screenname is Green Scapulared Human. I have explained it before. I was not surprised or distainful when another user. felt that it was misleading for reasons that to me seemed bizarre and unreasonable. I explained why I thought it bizarre and unreasonable. Further I did clearly and concisely address that question. But to go further and deeper... I said yes... I do think to some degree philosophically logically biologically ethically and/or legally a person and human starts at or roughly at conception, I think when the fertilized egg attaches to the ovarian wall would be my preference for more biological reasons. But the idea that merely on the grounds that someone is a person or a human being that they have an absolute and inviolate right to life is not reasonable, legal, ethical, or logical... In fact I pointed out to you already the courts do concede that life, personhood, and human life at least in some sense starts at conception... 1 hour ago, Anomaly said: There is significant diversity on that matter and it is the fundamental question in how to address the effect of Roe v Wade, whether it can or should be overturned or curb its effect on legalization of abortion. Can you name those experts who think roe v wade will be overturned merely by changing judges out? 1 hour ago, Anomaly said: RvW established a right of women to have priority control over her health. Easy majority justice vote. The problem was establishing the rights of the unborn. Potential viability outside the womb was considered, but not unanimously defined or agreed to. Hence they deferred to the States, and we allow late term abortions and allow rape as justification. For the court to find that abortion is illegal on the grounds that a fetus is a person would be a dramatic overreach by the courts. The courts don't get to make law. Suppose Congress made and passed a law authorizing dueling. There is nothing that would be intrinsically unconstitutional about it. So the courts could not come back later and say 'well these two individuals are persons, thus we are banning this practice'. The court would very fully admit that they are both persons and human beings... Or to something a bit more on the nose... many States had on their books, Texas till the 1990s amazingly, that if a man caught his wife in the act of adultery and in a fit of rage killed her... he as not to be prosecuted for murder. BUT if he killed the man... he could of been. The courts found this constitutional. Not because they failed to concede the woman had rights or that that the woman wasn't a person. Though in this particular case it would seem to me a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment... but the courts in the US have a strong conservative bend that is resistant to making such a liberal reading of the law... So quite simply no... if the Supreme Court today said that at the moment of conception they are full persons and full human beings... it would change not a single thing. 11 minutes ago, Peace said: RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER YOU ARE A CHILD A CHILD A CHILD A CHILD WHY CANT I COME AND KILL YOU FOR NO REASON? I think the idea of you not responding to me is a very laudable and fantastic idea. Edited July 4, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 join the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Good advise. But I get the feeling everything they do is wasted effort. They think Roe v Wade will someday be overturned. Something even conservative commentators strongly disagree with. Hes clearly into the 'I will keep doing something even if it is an utter waste'... I try to with intellectual honesty and fairness approach everyone here. I even gave peace ample chance to show that he was able to do more than shout murder and rape. I did the same with you who decided that because you didn't like the replies (they weren't an immediate surrender to you) you decided to get hotty. Little2add who more strangely cannot count, literally unable to assess what number is bigger than the other, which is either disability or extreme dishonesty. You are fully able to reply but you have chosen not to. My screenname is Green Scapulared Human. I have explained it before. I was not surprised or distainful when another user. felt that it was misleading for reasons that to me seemed bizarre and unreasonable. I explained why I thought it bizarre and unreasonable. Further I did clearly and concisely address that question. But to go further and deeper... I said yes... I do think to some degree philosophically logically biologically ethically and/or legally a person and human starts at or roughly at conception, I think when the fertilized egg attaches to the ovarian wall would be my preference for more biological reasons. But the idea that merely on the grounds that someone is a person or a human being that they have an absolute and inviolate right to life is not reasonable, legal, ethical, or logical... In fact I pointed out to you already the courts do concede that life, personhood, and human life at least in some sense starts at conception... Can you name those experts who think roe v wade will be overturned merely by changing judges out? For the court to find that abortion is illegal on the grounds that a fetus is a person would be a dramatic overreach by the courts. The courts don't get to make law. Suppose Congress made and passed a law authorizing dueling. There is nothing that would be intrinsically unconstitutional about it. So the courts could not come back later and say 'well these two individuals are persons, thus we are banning this practice'. The court would very fully admit that they are both persons and human beings... Or to something a bit more on the nose... many States had on their books, Texas till the 1990s amazingly, that if a man caught his wife in the act of adultery and in a fit of rage killed her... he as not to be prosecuted for murder. BUT if he killed the man... he could of been. The courts found this constitutional. Not because they failed to concede the woman had rights or that that the woman wasn't a person. Though in this particular case it would seem to me a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment... but the courts in the US have a strong conservative bend that is resistant to making such a liberal reading of the law... So quite simply no... if the Supreme Court today said that at the moment of conception they are full persons and full human beings... it would change not a single thing. I think the idea of you not responding to me is a very laudable and fantastic idea. This response is pathetic. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Peace said: RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MURDER RAPE MRUDER YOU ARE PATHETIC YOU ARE A CHILD GOOD RIDDANCE GET OUT WHY CANT I MURDER YOU!? YOU DIDNT ANSWER! PATHETIC PATHETIC I am not sorry you haven't taken the time to make a more cogent argument and that you relied so heavily on very illogical very emotional and very abusive tangents... I am also not sorry that now that your gambit is being addressed rather than pretending that there is some reasonableness or validity to your very illogical very emotional and very abusive tangnts that I am choosing not to substantially reply to them... I took the time to be fair and reasonable with you. You took the time to be very unfair and very unreasonable with me. I mean like Jesus said: Quote But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, hat you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Or as Peace (ironic name by the way) read that: Quote KILL THE MURDERS! KILL THE RAPISTS! LET NONE BE ALIVE! SHOUT RAPE AND MURDER! THEY ARE PATHETIC! THEY ARE CHILDREN! CAST THEM OUT! HATE THEM! CHEAT THEM! LIE! BE UNFAIR! CAST THEM OUT! GOOD RIDDANCE! I believe thats from the gospel of forgot to take their meds on time. Edited July 4, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts