NationStates Jolt Archive

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)
Despair isn't an evil, it's a state of mind. A way of thinking. Apathy would be better.

Maybe I should replace despair with date rape or just add it in as a 6th great evil.

2 out of 5 aint bad. aint too good either though. come on, divorce as a great evil?!

I think apathy is worse than date rape. That's what lets the North Korean's starve, what prevented the outrage from the Iraqi mass graves, what allows American elections to be decided by 40% of the people.

2 out of 5 aint bad. aint too good either though. come on, divorce as a great evil?!
It does wonders for the all the kids who don't have homes anymore.

i have one really big hate, and that is religion... wont hold it against anyone.. just dont like the idea of it.

anyway, ill leav now. lease send your flames to me in the post.

2 out of 5 aint bad. aint too good either though. come on, divorce as a great evil?!
what 2 are you talking about?
And yes, divorce is evil.

Abortions not evil. When a 16 year old has a kid, it ruins her life, her familys life, and her friends life. Why ruin 7 lifes for the price of one who doesnt know lifes?

Ah. I got it.
Partisanship.

Abortions not evil. When a 16 year old has a kid, it ruins her life, her familys life, and her friends life. Why ruin 7 lifes for the price of one who doesnt know lifes?
what you just said makes no logical educated sense what ever.
How does it ruin the life of a freind? How does it ruin anyones life. Children are not a burden.

It does wonders for the all the kids who don't have homes anymore.

it isn't exactly good for kids to live in a house with as much strife as two parents who hate each other creates either. and divorce certainly doesn't rank anywhere near, say, genocide or the raping of the ecosystem on the big ol' list of evils.

How does it ruin the life of a freind? How does it ruin anyones life. Children are not a burden.

ahahaha you're either really rich, don't have kids, or male.

In no particular order:
1. Corporate dominance of society--i.e. Wal-Martization.
2. Fanaticism of any sort
3. Human trafficking
4. Apathy
5. Greed

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)
Ummmm where is murder on your list? How about stealing?

There is nothing wrong with being a religious fanatic unless you impose your will upon others.

What about torturing people....certainly that is more evil than most on your list?

Satan, and his incredible skill in convincing people he doesn't exist
Abortion, especially State sanctioned
Communism/Fascism/other totalitarian government systems
Anti-Semitism
Slavery

These are not in any particular order by the way.

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)


My sincere apologies, Whittier, but I and mine must most respectfully disagree with your esteemed opinion in this matter.

Abortion - Abortion is not evil. Abortion is a choice. Abortion is not often a choice made lightly, but it is a choice made by a woman about her own body. As such, it is a choice made by that woman, and as such, it is a valid choice which should be respected. It is our sincere belief that life does not begin until the first breath - a belief shared with many of many religions. Until that breath, the mass of flesh within the body of the living woman is little more then that - a mass of flesh. As such, it is no more then any other organ in the body, and may be viewed as such - something which perhaps has the potential for life, but which is not yet alive.

All life lived, it is our view, is spent in the learning of choice and how to choose. As such, even such choices are valid choices, and must be supported in our view.

Forced Slavery - such things must be supported by a culture, or a set of beliefs, in which those enslaved are somehow "less than" the one doing the enslaving. As it is our belief that all be taught that all others are valid, even in their "otherness", this belief by itself removes the viability of such choices. However, should it be someone's choice to enslave another, then that is a valid choice - and by making such a choice, that individual accepts the karmic debt of that enslavement in a life to come. This makes it a valid choice, with valid consequences. We do not see this as "wrong", therefore. Perhaps a bit "short sighted", but it is through making such choices that we learn the full impact and consequence of the choices we make. As such, we do not actively support such choices, nor do we actively prevent them from being.

This is our choice.

Religious Fanaticism - This is another result of the same cause - the belief that others are somehow "lesser" then one or another group. Our logic remains the same - we do not encourage such choices, nor do we act to prevent such choices from occuring. We exist, and by our existing, we instruct in our way of being. Others remain free to choose or not to choose as they wish.

Divorce or Adultery - it is specious to believe that any choice which is right for any individual and/or group is therefore the "right" choice for any other individual and/or group. It is not our intent to force any to remain with one another for any length of time, should one or both seek no longer to remain. Nor is it our endeavor to make somehow any particular arrangement more "correct" than any other. We have found that myriad arrangements are indeed possible. It is not the place of any outside of a relationship to say what is "right" or "wrong" for that relationship. If two (or more) choose to have a relationship, and one (or both) choose to violate the agreements which made manifest that relationship, then it is for those who chose to be in that relationship in the first place to decide whether to continue or modify or terminate that relationship. If they choose not to violate those agreements, or to modify them, or to walk away from them, that again is entirely the choice of those individuals. That makes such choices valid in our eyes, and as such, we have no judgement for or against such decisions. Most definitely, we do not see such as "evil".

Despair - this is a condition, chosen within the self, as a "result" of external events as one chooses to perceive them. The "cure" for such is not to consider such an invalid choice - which it most assuredly is not - but to give the availability of support of culture, family, society, and/or whatever other group is available. Of course, some will not avail themselves of such support. Some will. This, too, is chosen.

My sincere apologies, Whittier, but to us, there is no "good" and no "evil", only choice and the ramifications of choosing. We therefore cannot support your belief, though we do not in any way deny or inhibit your right to have it.

Go in peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

In no particular order:
1. Corporate dominance of society--i.e. Wal-Martization.
2. Fanaticism of any sort
3. Human trafficking
4. Apathy
5. Greed

Yes, I agree with that. How do you define fanaticism though?

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.



My sincere apologies, Whittier, but I and mine must most respectfully disagree with your esteemed opinion in this matter.

Abortion - Abortion is not evil. Abortion is a choice. Abortion is not often a choice made lightly, but it is a choice made by a woman about her own body. As such, it is a choice made by that woman, and as such, it is a valid choice which should be respected. It is our sincere belief that life does not begin until the first breath - a belief shared with many of many religions. Until that breath, the mass of flesh within the body of the living woman is little more then that - a mass of flesh. As such, it is no more then any other organ in the body, and may be viewed as such - something which perhaps has the potential for life, but which is not yet alive.

All life lived, it is our view, is spent in the learning of choice and how to choose. As such, even such choices are valid choices, and must be supported in our view.

Forced Slavery - such things must be supported by a culture, or a set of beliefs, in which those enslaved are somehow "less than" the one doing the enslaving. As it is our belief that all be taught that all others are valid, even in their "otherness", this belief by itself removes the viability of such choices. However, should it be someone's choice to enslave another, then that is a valid choice - and by making such a choice, that individual accepts the karmic debt of that enslavement in a life to come. This makes it a valid choice, with valid consequences. We do not see this as "wrong", therefore. Perhaps a bit "short sighted", but it is through making such choices that we learn the full impact and consequence of the choices we make. As such, we do not actively support such choices, nor do we actively prevent them from being.

This is our choice.

Religious Fanaticism - This is another result of the same cause - the belief that others are somehow "lesser" then one or another group. Our logic remains the same - we do not encourage such choices, nor do we act to prevent such choices from occuring. We exist, and by our existing, we instruct in our way of being. Others remain free to choose or not to choose as they wish.

Divorce or Adultery - it is specious to believe that any choice which is right for any individual and/or group is therefore the "right" choice for any other individual and/or group. It is not our intent to force any to remain with one another for any length of time, should one or both seek no longer to remain. Nor is it our endeavor to make somehow any particular arrangement more "correct" than any other. We have found that myriad arrangements are indeed possible. It is not the place of any outside of a relationship to say what is "right" or "wrong" for that relationship. If two (or more) choose to have a relationship, and one (or both) choose to violate the agreements which made manifest that relationship, then it is for those who chose to be in that relationship in the first place to decide whether to continue or modify or terminate that relationship. If they choose not to violate those agreements, or to modify them, or to walk away from them, that again is entirely the choice of those individuals. That makes such choices valid in our eyes, and as such, we have no judgement for or against such decisions. Most definitely, we do not see such as "evil".

Despair - this is a condition, chosen within the self, as a "result" of external events as one chooses to perceive them. The "cure" for such is not to consider such an invalid choice - which it most assuredly is not - but to give the availability of support of culture, family, society, and/or whatever other group is available. Of course, some will not avail themselves of such support. Some will. This, too, is chosen.

My sincere apologies, Whittier, but to us, there is no "good" and no "evil", only choice and the ramifications of choosing. We therefore cannot support your belief, though we do not in any way deny or inhibit your right to have it.

Go in peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva


1. Abortion is murder. Scientists have proved that human life begins precisely three days after conception. (defined as the merging of egg and sperm.)
So what you are saying is that amoebas aren't alive cause they don't breathe?

2. All forced slavery is evil. As it violates the individuals' natural inalianable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.

Yes, I agree with that. How do you define fanaticism though?
Al Qaeda and the like, whether christian or muslim.

what you just said makes no logical educated sense what ever.
How does it ruin the life of a freind? How does it ruin anyones life. Children are not a burden.

Are you pro-welfare?

Al Qaeda and the like, whether christian or muslim.

Yes, I agree with that, but Incertonia said "fanaticism of any kind"...I was wondering what exactly he would classify as any kind.

Satan, and his incredible skill in convincing people he doesn't exist
Abortion, especially State sanctioned
Communism/Fascism/other totalitarian government systems
Anti-Semitism
Slavery

These are not in any particular order by the way.

Sorry that i'm double posting, but...

Anti-Semitism? So just regular racisim is fine and dandy, but in the name of God, don't hate Jew's? ;) lol.

Yes, I agree with that. How do you define fanaticism though?
Fanatacism, to me, is the unquestioning belief in a dogma, whether religious or secular, and the determination to convert others to your way of thinking, using force if necessary, and making no place for dissent.

Sorry that i'm double posting, but...

Anti-Semitism? So just regular racisim is fine and dandy, but in the name of God, don't hate Jew's? ;) lol.

I never, ever said regular racism is fine and dandy, nor even implied it. The thread says "top 5". Jews, being the chosen people of God DO rate higher than all other races, so I listed that specifically. If it was a top 6 or top 10 list, racism would have been on it.

P.S. - I'm a white guy of French ancestry, not jewish myself.

2 out of 5 aint bad. aint too good either though. come on, divorce as a great evil?!

Divorce, at least in Catholicism as I understand it, is considered an "evil" sin. Whether or not its a true evil is probably still debated. Apparently they believe that when marriage "in holy matrimony" is broken, they defy God in one way or another. Which is rediculous at best...

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion

Really? Even when it protects the mother's life, or in cases of rape, incest, and other violent acts?

Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)

thats definatly one

Religious fanaticism

and another one

Divorce and Adultery

So you would rather force two people who find out they hate each other to live together?

Despair (leads to first three)

I just don't see the relation.

I never, ever said regular racism is fine and dandy, nor even implied it. The thread says "top 5". Jews, being the chosen people of God DO rate higher than all other races, so I listed that specifically. If it was a top 6 or top 10 list, racism would have been on it.

P.S. - I'm a white guy of French ancestry, not jewish myself.



The...CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD?!?



Europen's are weird...


<sits in corner, singing...>

"Oh, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm sane..."

[edit]:Oops, sorry. I just saw "French" in there. I know that doesn't mean your Europen...or, well. You know what I mean. ;)
[edit2]: ...So...Jews are worth more then say, Blacks?

Despair

Honestly, how can someone NOT despair at least a thousand times in their life? The world is full of enough evils to keep despair in more than enough people's hearts for a long time, and sure maybe some of these people should at least TRY to make their life better, but you can't out right PREVENT dispair. And apparently those others listed CAN be prevented.

Europen's are weird...

I said of French ANCESTRY (which actually can be quite confusing considering I can't stand the French). I'm a Missourian and proud of it.

*off to edit my profile and add my blasted location in*

Are you pro-welfare?
No. Im for:
1. Abstinence
2. Failing abstinence, government subdized use of contraceptives and morning after pills.
3. Voluntary male chemical castration. No female could ever get pregnant with a male.

The trick is to avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

The...CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD?!?



Europen's are weird...


<sits in corner, singing...>

"Oh, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm sane..."

[edit]:Oops, sorry. I just saw "French" in there. I know that doesn't mean your Europen...or, well. You know what I mean. ;)

Haven't you ever read or even HEARD about God's People being the Jews??? Where have you been living? Under a rock?? Please... watch The Prince of Egypt just once... >_< eesh

Fanatacism, to me, is the unquestioning belief in a dogma, whether religious or secular, and the determination to convert others to your way of thinking, using force if necessary, and making no place for dissent.
I agree with this and that is why it is a top evil.

To say the jews are some kind of master race is truely racism of the nazi kind.

To say the jews are some kind of master race is truely racism of the nazi kind.

who said that...? oO;

I never wrote they were a master race. Not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. Now, if you have a problem with them being the chosen people of God then you should probably take that up with God. All I did was state the truth as it is clearly spelled out in The Bible.

I never, ever said regular racism is fine and dandy, nor even implied it. The thread says "top 5". Jews, being the chosen people of God DO rate higher than all other races, so I listed that specifically. If it was a top 6 or top 10 list, racism would have been on it.

P.S. - I'm a white guy of French ancestry, not jewish myself.
That's the same as saying that jews are the master race.

Nothing personal, Leynier, but most of the bullshit that goes on over in the Middle East is directly related to that "God's chosen people" crap. Jews lay claim to the title, Christians claim they're cursed because they didn't accept Jesus as Messiah and Muslims say they're both wrong because they haven't accepted Mohammed as the most recent and therefore relevant prophet. All the while they neglect to realize that they're all worshiping the same God, and that if they weren't separated by time, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed would have all gone to college together and done keg stands. There's too much religion and not enough spirituality in the religions in general, and there's such a concentration of it in that little area that any little spark or antagonism threatens to set the whole place ablaze, all in the name of religious fervor and arguments over who are God's chosen people, a subject God has been silent on for quite some time.

I never wrote they were a master race. Not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. Now, if you have a problem with them being the chosen people of God then you should probably take that up with God. All I did was state the truth as it is clearly spelled out in The Bible.

Though some people do not believe in God, it is written in the Bible that the Jew are God's People. So, whenever this is written, lest otherwise specified, I assume they are merely stating the fact. I don't think anyone here has necessarily said that Jews are a more superior people (correct me if I'm wrong).

One question:

What do you consider the 5 greatest evils of our time?
I am writing a political article on this for a future political campaign.

I'm sorry that this issue confuses you. I guess all I can suggest is for you to go visit a local Jewish temple and talk it over with a Rabbi until you understand the difference between "chosen people" and "master race".

Nothing personal, Leynier, but most of the bullshit that goes on over in the Middle East is directly related to that "God's chosen people" crap. Jews lay claim to the title, Christians claim they're cursed because they didn't accept Jesus as Messiah and Muslims say they're both wrong because they haven't accepted Mohammed as the most recent and therefore relevant prophet. All the while they neglect to realize that they're all worshiping the same God, and that if they weren't separated by time, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed would have all gone to college together and done keg stands. There's too much religion and not enough spirituality in the religions in general, and there's such a concentration of it in that little area that any little spark or antagonism threatens to set the whole place ablaze, all in the name of religious fervor and arguments over who are God's chosen people, a subject God has been silent on for quite some time.
That is why Israel falls under the definition of what constitutes an evil empire. Cause it is run by jewish religious fanatics who kill people just cause of their race and religion.

That is why Israel falls under the definition of what constitutes an evil empire. Cause it is run by jewish religious fanatics who kill people just cause of their race and religion.
Careful there--there are plenty of people all over the world who fit that description, even some in the US in positions of power. That's a massive generalization that blanket condemns people in Israel's government and populace who oppose the violence and who actively work to keep it from happening.

Careful there--there are plenty of people all over the world who fit that description, even some in the US in positions of power. That's a massive generalization that blanket condemns people in Israel's government and populace who oppose the violence and who actively work to keep it from happening.
Hence we should fund such groups and help them overthrow the evil Likud regime.

I'm sorry that this issue confuses you. I guess all I can suggest is for you to go visit a local Jewish temple and talk it over with a Rabbi until you understand the difference between "chosen people" and "master race".


...So...Master Religion?

Lol.

What I find funny about this thread.

"This is my opinion on what the 5 greatest evils are. They're different for everyone"

"OMGWTF YOUR WRONG!!!1!eleven!!"

;) j/k ;)

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings,

1. Abortion is murder. Scientists have proved that human life begins precisely three days after conception. (defined as the merging of egg and sperm.)
So what you are saying is that amoebas aren't alive cause they don't breathe?


I am sorry, my friend, but I disagree with your definition of "life", as is my "right" and my choice. An ameoba can exist quite nicely all by itself. At "three days old", a zygote is incapable of existing outside of the womb. Therefore, not any sort of "life" as I choose to define it.

How "scientists" define life is entirely their choice, I am not beholden to accept their opinions. Or to reject them. Choice.

You may, of course, choose to define life however you like. You may choose to have a logical debate or an emotional "feelfest" as you choose - just as I may choose to participate or not.

Choice.

Where rights are concerned, however, there is only one definition which has meaning to me:

"Your rights end where my nose begins".

Might I suggest your reading "T'ain't Nobody's Business If I Do"? My staff shall endeavor to rediscover the authors name if a simple search will not suffice. This, of course, assumes you are interested.

Go in peace,

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.


2. All forced slavery is evil. As it violates the individuals' natural inalianable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.


My apologies, Whittier, but these rights are not "inalienable". Anyone can be killed. Anyone can be imprisioned. And happiness is found within, not without.

Should someone choose to enslave another, it is our opinion that they have indeed chosen to be enslaved at a later date, perhaps in another life. The lesson will be learned, once chosen. But, then again, such falls back on our previously stated belief that such things as forced slavery can only occur in an atmosphere which has previously taught the individual that one group is somehow "better" then another.

Knowledge increases perception, which allows for more understanding of what one's choices potential consequences are.

Go in peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.

My sincere apologies for taking up more space with my words, but as you later did ask for what the "face of evil" was, I would state there is really only one source of what you call "evil", and that is ignorance. Ignorance is caused by a lack of questioning. And a lack of questioning is often caused by giving in to one's base fears. These can be as simple as fear of spiders to as complicated as the belief that one is of a "chosen race" - which then carries the burden of "proving" this belief.

Therefore, there is only one "evil", and that would be Fear. All else is merely details and distortions from this most basic core.

The question then is "is Fear Evil"? Perhaps distorting, perhaps debilitating, but not truly "evil" as the end result of giving in to any fear will be to experience the consequence of decision from the other side of the equation, resulting eventually in greater perception of the whole. Any temporal event is merely that - temporal, no matter how awful it may appear.

Our soul, however, is forever, and quite beyond such things as time and hate.

Go in Peace,

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

I never, ever said regular racism is fine and dandy, nor even implied it. The thread says "top 5". Jews, being the chosen people of God DO rate higher than all other races, so I listed that specifically. If it was a top 6 or top 10 list, racism would have been on it.

P.S. - I'm a white guy of French ancestry, not jewish myself.

Lifting other races over others is VERY evil. I can't believe this post.
Hate is the biggest crime, apathy and greed following. Fanatism is bad, but I think it goes under hate too. Denying education is hard one, as it doesn't sound do evil, but just think how much of evil things happens because of ignorance and lack of better knowledge.

All I did was state the truth as it is clearly spelled out in The Bible.

I still can't believe this guy!!!! The truth as it is clearly spelled in The BIBLE? Well by the Beowulf the chosen race is not jews, by the Koran the chosen race is not jews, by Buddha the chosen race is not jews...shall I go on?

Lifting other races over others is VERY evil. I can't believe this post.
Again, if you have issues with this, please take it up with God. It is he who made the covenant with Abraham, not I. I simply accept his actions.

@Helioterra: I simply gave my top 5 as the OP asked. I am not trying to shove my beliefs down your throat. Obviously, my beliefs are not going to be guided by the Koran or any other religious text other than the Bible.

1. DUBYA.
2.Cheney.
3. Rumsfeld.
4. Rupert Murdoch.
5. Karl Rove.

Again, if you have issues with this, please take it up with God. It is he who made the covenant with Abraham, not I. I simply accept his actions.

Well I won't take it up with "God" as I don't know that guy. Meaning I don't believe in any god. So, I don't take any religious beliefs as facts. None of you can prove that this god of yours is right, can you? You just have to believe. I choose not to.

I am not trying to shove my beliefs down your throat. Obviously, my beliefs are not going to be guided by the Koran or any other religious text other than the Bible.

Sorry, I don't mean to deny your faith. It is fine by me. I just don't know how God's chosen race should be any better than any other race.

what about murder or genocide!

not just divorce. the breakdown of the family unit in general.

I'd say my top 5 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6557707&postcount=16) incorporate murder and genocide as every one of them has led to those acts in the past and/or present day.

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.

My sincere apologies for taking up more space with my words, but as you later did ask for what the "face of evil" was, I would state there is really only one source of what you call "evil", and that is ignorance. Ignorance is caused by a lack of questioning. And a lack of questioning is often caused by giving in to one's base fears. These can be as simple as fear of spiders to as complicated as the belief that one is of a "chosen race" - which then carries the burden of "proving" this belief.

Therefore, there is only one "evil", and that would be Fear. All else is merely details and distortions from this most basic core.

The question then is "is Fear Evil"? Perhaps distorting, perhaps debilitating, but not truly "evil" as the end result of giving in to any fear will be to experience the consequence of decision from the other side of the equation, resulting eventually in greater perception of the whole. Any temporal event is merely that - temporal, no matter how awful it may appear.

Our soul, however, is forever, and quite beyond such things as time and hate.

Go in Peace,

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

eh? are you IC on general?

what about murder or genocide!
I think murder is not as bad as making other people murder for you. Which sometimes leads even to genocide. Both go under hate and ignorance.

A political/economic system that pays "entertainers" millions of dollars per year,
while children in third world countries die of famine or preventable diseases is IMHO the most evil thing occuring in the world at the moment.

A political/economic system that pays "entertainers" millions of dollars per year,
while children in third world countries die of famine or preventable diseases is IMHO the most evil thing occuring in the world at the moment.
Or just bomb them...

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)

I'd question whether abortion is as great an evil as the way our society treats mothers of unwanted babies, or young mothers. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

As for Divorce and Adultery- well, maybe adultery in certain circumstances, but divorce? Surely unhappy marriage is worse than amicable divorce?

Mine would be

Murder
Rape
Religion
Intolerance
Self-righteousness


I'm pretty sure numbers 1,2,4 and 5 could all fit under 3.

The greatest evil of all time is undoubtedly the misplaced sense of self-importance that is the hallmark of our species. That same self-importance that makes one man think that he / she is more important then another because they have a fatter bank account / better education / lighter skin colour / a certain nationality / a membership to a certain religion / are older / younger / have a bigger dick or titties / are wearing a certain brand of clothes / etc, and because of this conviction they / we think it is just to treat others as inferior.

The exploitation of nature, human resources, the position that the female gender in general is in on this planet of ours, which is one of a second grade civilian, religious fanaticism, just to name a few, are all an expression of that self-importance.

Evil is just some way of disagreeing with something. It does not actually exist, except as figment of our imagination. Referring to something as being evil is just like giving up on an argument while still arguing. Simply writing it off as evil is like digging in and preparing for an onslaught of incoming opposing views. Seldom does the fortification falter, but seldom does anything ever get accomplished. Quite frankly it’s a rather lazy way of dealing with things. And trust me, I know lazy.

The greatest evil of all time is undoubtedly the misplaced sense of self-importance that is the hallmark of our species. That same self-importance that makes one man think that he / she is more important then another because they have a fatter bank account / better education / lighter skin colour / a certain nationality / a membership to a certain religion / are older / younger / have a bigger dick or titties / are wearing a certain brand of clothes / etc, and because of this conviction they / we think it is just to treat others as inferior.

The exploitation of nature, human resources, the position that the female gender in general is in on this planet of ours, which is one of a second grade civilian, religious fanaticism, just to name a few, are all an expression of that self-importance.


I agree. As a species we're horribly self-obsessed. Freud said all the greatest scientific revolutions were ones than knocked humanity of it's self-proclaimed pedestal of greatness. Copernicus showed us we aren't the centre of the Universe, Darwin showed us we aren't the highest form of created life, one below the angels, but rather a minor, insignificant little offshoot of the tree of life, and Freud (which characteristic modesty) showed us we aren't even in control of our own mind, but rather are at the mercy of our own subconcious dreams and desires. Long may this tradition of self-effacing modesty continue.

Evil is just some way of disagreeing with something. It does not actually exist, except as figment of our imagination. Referring to something as being evil is just like giving up on an argument while still arguing. Simply writing it off as evil is like digging in and preparing for an onslaught of incoming opposing views. Seldom does the fortification falter, but seldom does anything ever get accomplished. Quite frankly it’s a rather lazy way of dealing with things. And trust me, I know lazy.

You are right. So, instead of calling it "the greatest evil" I will call it "the greatest weakness".

You are right. So, instead of calling it "the greatest evil" I will call it "the greatest weakness".
That’s not much better, if at all.

That’s not much better, if at all.


And it doesn't sounds nearly so cool.

It does wonders for the all the kids who don't have homes anymore.

Wait, what? Kids are not left homeless because their parents got a divorce.

At least last time I checked I still had a home. *checks* Yep, still do.

That’s not much better, if at all.

Oh yes, it is :)

No. Im for: 1. Abstinence 2. Failing abstinence, government subdized use of contraceptives and morning after pills. 3. Voluntary male chemical castration. No female could ever get pregnant with a male. The trick is to avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

First of all, what about rape, incest, etc. If the woman gets pregnant, you expect her to keep the child, that she didn't want and had no choice in getting? Second, contraceptives don't always work. They can break, or the pill could be too late. It's not a foolproof method. Thirdly, FORCED CHEMICAL CASTRATION???? So....you want to essentially force all males to become sterile. Um, HELLO??? How could we continue the species that way??
Also:
Children are not a bother.

Have you ever had kids? They take time, energy, and money. Money that a lot of people don't have, so they get jobs and neglect the kids. Pregnancy is no piece of cake either. Have you carried around this huge weight for nine months, having to buy new clothes, getting morning sickness, having to carefully watch your diet because even if you don't get all the nutrients you need, the baby will take what it can out of your body anyway? So don't try to talk about how children aren't any trouble at all.

2. All forced slavery is evil. As it violates the individuals' natural inalianable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.

Although I agree those should be an individuals inalienable rights, I'm afraid that's a very American view. No where in the unwritten British constitution is 'liberty' or 'happiness' an inalienable right. Some countries don't hold the same rights to be self-evident as the Americans.

1. DUBYA.
2.Cheney.
3. Rumsfeld.
4. Rupert Murdoch.
5. Karl Rove.


I would definately agree with you...especially about bush.

Oh yes, it is :)
Maybe I should have read your post before making that comment. Yes, it is better in those instances. Like I said though I know lazy. And now you know why. And if I start calling things lazy, than it must really be lazy.

I'd question whether abortion is as great an evil as the way our society treats mothers of unwanted babies, or young mothers. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

As for Divorce and Adultery- well, maybe adultery in certain circumstances, but divorce? Surely unhappy marriage is worse than amicable divorce?

Mine would be

Murder
Rape
Religion
Intolerance
Self-righteousness


I'm pretty sure numbers 1,2,4 and 5 could all fit under 3.

I agree with you about abortion and divorce, but i must disagree on your list. Yes, 1, 2, 4, and 5 COULD fit under 3, but that doesn't mean they do. Yes, some religions are intolerant and self-righteous, but others simply believe what they believe and accept that others believe differently. For example, the reason the Hindus and Muslems are enemies now is that when Pakistan was part of india, the the Hindus didn't care what religion the anyone else was, but the Muslems tried to convert the Hindus. The Muslems believed that their religion was THE right one, the Hindus believed that all religions were valid, and everyone was worshipping the same god, only in different forms. The Muslems hated the Hindus because they worshipped a heathen god and they wouldn't convert and the Hindus didn't like the Muslems trying to convert them. (btw, i'm not trying to be pro-Hindu or pro-Muslem, I'm just stating the facts as I was taught them, so sorry if I got them a little off...)

You can't just throw all the world's religions under that title and call it bad, because religions can be so different from each other, and not all have intolerance and self-righteousness associated with them.

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)


Despair isn't evil.
Dicorce is usually for the good of both parties involved.
abortion isn't evil because a baby with serious defects wouldn't want to live, would it?

There are more evil things then what you have mensioned

1. Abortion is murder. Scientists have proved that human life begins precisely three days after conception. (defined as the merging of egg and sperm.)


um, HUH?! scientists have done no such thing. according to science, the sperm and egg are "human life" because they are living human tissues. it's called The Human Life Cycle because at no point does life begin...everything along the process is alive, and everything is composed of human tissues. non-living tissue does not suddenly become living, and non-human tissue doesn't suddenly become human, so if you think a 3-day zygote is a human you must also accept a sperm and an egg as human.

however, murder does not refer to the ending of life, since we don't call it murder when a dog or a wasp are killed. similarly, the killing of tissues that are human in nature is not always murder, for which we should all be greatful because we are all guilty of shedding living human cells every day. if anything, science has shown us how unacceptable it is to rule a 3-day fetus "human" because such a fetus is indistinguishable from the stomach cells we slough by the millions.

that said, science cannot comment on the nature of human personhood, since that is a matter of opinion. science can tell us about all the things we might us to define personhood, like consciousness for example, but it cannot tell us which we must chose to use in our definition.

as for my Big Bad Top Five, i would have to say...

1. the continued existence and endorsement of religious superstition
2. the decline of independent punk music
3. government legislation of personal morality, and the public's submission to same
4. the Catholic Church's spreading of AIDS in Africa, and the world's failure to respond to such murder (personal opinion, but i think it is the single most evil act since the holocaust)
5. the gradual yet systematic distruction of the American government as originally designed. current efforts to delay a national election spring to mind, in particular, but add to that the slow evaporation of actual conservative economics and politics (preservation of states rights, for instance) and you get an abominable mess.

Call me old-fashioned but:

Gluttony
Pride
Sloth
Lust
Avarice
Jealousy
Wrath

1. Abortion is murder. Scientists have proved that human life begins precisely three days after conception. (defined as the merging of egg and sperm.)

Come on. If you're going to cite pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo as a justification for your 'morality', at least be honest about it rather than claiming it as proven by scientists. This is absolute nonsense. Abortion is the greyest of greys. There isn't likely to be proof favouring either side of the debate for a long time, if ever.

I'm disturbed that divorce and despair appear ahead of, say: murder, genocide, rape, racism, sexism, I could go on...

2 out of 5 aint bad. aint too good either though. come on, divorce as a great evil?!

I know that a lot of Catholics consider divorce evil.

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings,



I am sorry, my friend, but I disagree with your definition of "life", as is my "right" and my choice. An ameoba can exist quite nicely all by itself. At "three days old", a zygote is incapable of existing outside of the womb. Therefore, not any sort of "life" as I choose to define it.

How "scientists" define life is entirely their choice, I am not beholden to accept their opinions. Or to reject them. Choice.

You may, of course, choose to define life however you like. You may choose to have a logical debate or an emotional "feelfest" as you choose - just as I may choose to participate or not.

Choice.

Where rights are concerned, however, there is only one definition which has meaning to me:

"Your rights end where my nose begins".

Might I suggest your reading "T'ain't Nobody's Business If I Do"? My staff shall endeavor to rediscover the authors name if a simple search will not suffice. This, of course, assumes you are interested.

Go in peace,

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

truely, the Nazis said the same.

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.





My apologies, Whittier, but these rights are not "inalienable". Anyone can be killed. Anyone can be imprisioned. And happiness is found within, not without.

Should someone choose to enslave another, it is our opinion that they have indeed chosen to be enslaved at a later date, perhaps in another life. The lesson will be learned, once chosen. But, then again, such falls back on our previously stated belief that such things as forced slavery can only occur in an atmosphere which has previously taught the individual that one group is somehow "better" then another.

Knowledge increases perception, which allows for more understanding of what one's choices potential consequences are.

Go in peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

They are inalienable, the US Declaration of independence, other documents and the Bible itself, says they are.
Only god has the authority to rescind or restrict such rights. Hence they are inalienable.

Ab-shalom, and sincere greetings.

My sincere apologies for taking up more space with my words, but as you later did ask for what the "face of evil" was, I would state there is really only one source of what you call "evil", and that is ignorance. Ignorance is caused by a lack of questioning. And a lack of questioning is often caused by giving in to one's base fears. These can be as simple as fear of spiders to as complicated as the belief that one is of a "chosen race" - which then carries the burden of "proving" this belief.

Therefore, there is only one "evil", and that would be Fear. All else is merely details and distortions from this most basic core.

The question then is "is Fear Evil"? Perhaps distorting, perhaps debilitating, but not truly "evil" as the end result of giving in to any fear will be to experience the consequence of decision from the other side of the equation, resulting eventually in greater perception of the whole. Any temporal event is merely that - temporal, no matter how awful it may appear.

Our soul, however, is forever, and quite beyond such things as time and hate.

Go in Peace,

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

So you do not beleive there is such a thing as evil, and that even terrorists and child molestors are good people?

Refering to the right to life...

They are inalienable, the US Declaration of independence, other documents and the Bible itself, says they are.


Where exactly in the Bible does it say that you have an inalienable right to life?

truely, the Nazis said the same.

I invoke Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html).

Getting back on topic, mine would probably be something like;
1) Fanaticism
2) Imperialism
3) Exploitation
4) Xenophobia
5) Totalitarianism

Sorry, I don't mean to deny your faith. It is fine by me. I just don't know how God's chosen race should be any better than any other race.
Well, if you really read the bible, it says God has no chosen race. All the races are equal in his sight.
That is what is in scripture.

First of all, what about rape, incest, etc. If the woman gets pregnant, you expect her to keep the child, that she didn't want and had no choice in getting? Second, contraceptives don't always work. They can break, or the pill could be too late. It's not a foolproof method. Thirdly, FORCED CHEMICAL CASTRATION???? So....you want to essentially force all males to become sterile. Um, HELLO??? How could we continue the species that way??
Also:


Have you ever had kids? They take time, energy, and money. Money that a lot of people don't have, so they get jobs and neglect the kids. Pregnancy is no piece of cake either. Have you carried around this huge weight for nine months, having to buy new clothes, getting morning sickness, having to carefully watch your diet because even if you don't get all the nutrients you need, the baby will take what it can out of your body anyway? So don't try to talk about how children aren't any trouble at all.

how do you read "forced" when I said voluntary?

If you don't want children, get yourself sterilized. Its about being human enough to make sacrifices for some one else. If you are not willing to make such a sac. then I say you are niether human nor capable of true love.

Although I agree those should be an individuals inalienable rights, I'm afraid that's a very American view. No where in the unwritten British constitution is 'liberty' or 'happiness' an inalienable right. Some countries don't hold the same rights to be self-evident as the Americans.
That is why I support using US military to invade nations that don't hold these rights to be inalienable. So wecan liberate their citizens from tyranny.

In no particular order:

1. Hate
2. Intolerance
3. Greed
4. Apathy
5. Arrogance

Just my two cents.

how do you read "forced" when I said voluntary?

If you don't want children, get yourself sterilized. Its about being human enough to make sacrifices for some one else. If you are not willing to make such a sac. then I say you are niether human nor capable of true love.

and what if you want children on YOUR terms, not somebody else's? what if you care so much about your future children that you want to ensure they are only born when you are fully prepared to love them and care for them as they deserve? what if you have too much respect for human life to bring unwanted infants into the world only to foist them off on somebody else because, in your selfishness, you were unwilling to take responsibility for your situation?

and most importantly, what if you think that other people's bodies belong to THEM, and you have the compassion and respect to let them chose what to do just as they would allow you the same courtesy? to try to tell somebody that they don't understand love simply because they respect the right to chose is arrogant, ignorant, and (frankly) infantile. i hope i never understand or experience what you consider "love," and i hope you never inflict it upon anybody i care about.

Although I agree those should be an individuals inalienable rights, I'm afraid that's a very American view. No where in the unwritten British constitution is 'liberty' or 'happiness' an inalienable right. Some countries don't hold the same rights to be self-evident as the Americans.

That is why I support using US military to invade nations that don't hold these rights to be inalienable. So we can liberate their citizens from tyranny.


So, Whittier, you advocate the invasion of the United Kingdom by the US military?

Edit:

Does the fact that people in the UK would be killed (ie. have their supposed inalienable right to life denied to them) in the course of such an invasion not seem a trifle difficult to reconcile with your position - "in order to grant you your inalienable right to life we are going to kill some of you"?

um, HUH?! scientists have done no such thing. according to science, the sperm and egg are "human life" because they are living human tissues. it's called The Human Life Cycle because at no point does life begin...everything along the process is alive, and everything is composed of human tissues. non-living tissue does not suddenly become living, and non-human tissue doesn't suddenly become human, so if you think a 3-day zygote is a human you must also accept a sperm and an egg as human.

however, murder does not refer to the ending of life, since we don't call it murder when a dog or a wasp are killed. similarly, the killing of tissues that are human in nature is not always murder, for which we should all be greatful because we are all guilty of shedding living human cells every day. if anything, science has shown us how unacceptable it is to rule a 3-day fetus "human" because such a fetus is indistinguishable from the stomach cells we slough by the millions.

that said, science cannot comment on the nature of human personhood, since that is a matter of opinion. science can tell us about all the things we might us to define personhood, like consciousness for example, but it cannot tell us which we must chose to use in our definition.

You are entirely wrong and don't read enough science journals.
The fusion of the Nuclei of sperm and egg don't make the cell come to life. It makes the fertilized egg a seperate human being. Seperate from the mother.
The 3day old fetus, according to actual science, is quite distinguishable from the stomach cells.
you are right about personhood to an extent. however, there is a point at which personhood begins regardless of what your own personal beliefs are.
You can claim that if you step off the top of a building that you won't fall, and you can hold your own personal belief that you won't. But as soon as you step off, you will fall.

Come on. If you're going to cite pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo as a justification for your 'morality', at least be honest about it rather than claiming it as proven by scientists. This is absolute nonsense. Abortion is the greyest of greys. There isn't likely to be proof favouring either side of the debate for a long time, if ever.

I'm disturbed that divorce and despair appear ahead of, say: murder, genocide, rape, racism, sexism, I could go on...
The April 2004 issue of Discover, and one of last years issues of the AMA.

Ok: biggest evils: I try to find general formulations

1. Murderer: there is no crime which is more severe than that. It ends human life, ends the possibity for somebody to life his life.

2. Rape/Abuse/physical or/and psychologicaly: it is not ending the life for the victim of it. But it can make their lives like hell. Therefore I ranked it second.

3. Religious extremism in general. However: most dangerous is islamic extremism, because it is using the most militant forms.
To that belongs islamists terrorism: it is already covered under 1. However I want to explicitly name the dangerous ideolology of Islamic extremism. It is the biggest thread for the 21 rst centuries. This bastards are never going to stop. Their aim is the islamisation of the world. This totalitarian ideology is the biggest thread and all democratic nations have to stand together in this fight. No nation is safe regardless of their position to Iraq or Afghanistan.

4. HIV Aids: it is the plague of our times for many parts of Africa. In Botswana 37% of the population is HIV positive, in South Africa more than 20%. The population of southern Africa and other parts of Africa is - although of the high birth rates not going to increase - in some countries may even decline - due to this desaster. It is like the pleague in Europe during the Middle Ages or during the 30 year-war (1618-48) in Central Europe, where the plague had also devasting effects.

5. Family breakdown (as it has become pretty common in western societies). The psychological effects for the children can be devastating. It is creating wounds on the children, especially if - and that´s usually the case - happends with a big quarrel and fight between the parents. The effects for the child then fall under the point 2. It is an abuse on the children.

Refering to the right to life...



Where exactly in the Bible does it say that you have an inalienable right to life?
Thou shalt not murder, he that murders shall surely be put to death.

and what if you want children on YOUR terms, not somebody else's? what if you care so much about your future children that you want to ensure they are only born when you are fully prepared to love them and care for them as they deserve? what if you have too much respect for human life to bring unwanted infants into the world only to foist them off on somebody else because, in your selfishness, you were unwilling to take responsibility for your situation?

and most importantly, what if you think that other people's bodies belong to THEM, and you have the compassion and respect to let them chose what to do just as they would allow you the same courtesy? to try to tell somebody that they don't understand love simply because they respect the right to chose is arrogant, ignorant, and (frankly) infantile. i hope i never understand or experience what you consider "love," and i hope you never inflict it upon anybody i care about.

your sense of love and how children should be raised is rather upper class centric. You seem to be saying only rich people should have children.

So, Whittier, you advocate the invasion of the United Kingdom by the US military?

Edit:

Does the fact that people in the UK would be killed (ie. have their supposed inalienable right to life denied to them) in the course of such an invasion not seem a trifle difficult to reconcile with your position - "in order to grant you your inalienable right to life we are going to kill some of you"?
If they are killing people who never committed the violent crime, then yes , the UK should be invaded.

You are entirely wrong and don't read enough science journals.
The fusion of the Nuclei of sperm and egg don't make the cell come to life. It makes the fertilized egg a seperate human being. Seperate from the mother.
The 3day old fetus, according to actual science, is quite distinguishable from the stomach cells.
you are right about personhood to an extent. however, there is a point at which personhood begins regardless of what your own personal beliefs are.
You can claim that if you step off the top of a building that you won't fall, and you can hold your own personal belief that you won't. But as soon as you step off, you will fall.

um, i hold a degree in biology and am currently studying for my PhD in human neurophysiology. don't tell me i don't read enough scientific journals, especially when you are making ridiculous claims that are not recognized by any accreddited scientific or medical institution.

the fertilized egg is NOT separate from the mother, it is directly attached and dependent upon her. it is distinct genetically, much like a tapworm is, or like the bacteria that live in her intestinal tract. the sperm and the egg are distinct and recognizable within the female as much as the fertilized egg is, just as the bacteria are.

and no, there IS NO ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF PERSONHOOD ESTABLISHED BY SCIENCE. personhood can be defined in a million different ways, and they are all pure opinion. you can define personhood by consciousness, as most people tend to do, but then a fetus (and indeed a 3 year old human) is not human but an adult chimp is. science can test concrete claims about personhood, such as testing the limitations and development of consciousness, but it cannot tell us why we should chose to use consciousness as our standard for personhood as opposed to, say, physical viability, or heartbeat.

comparing the proven, objective reality of falling to the subjective reality of personhood is completely ludicrous and unscientific. that's like saying that there is an objective standard of what it means to be pretty because we have an objective system of measuring height...the two are totally unrelated and cannot be compared.

your sense of love and how children should be raised is rather upper class centric. You seem to be saying only rich people should have children.

i believe only people who can support children should have children. to do otherwise is cruel. you don't have to be upper class to be able to support children, and i never claimed you did...kids don't need a Playstation or a new pair of rollerblades every year, but they do need good food, safe housing, and parents who are around enough to raise them properly. my folks are nothing near rich and they did just fine, mainly because they saved up and budgetted correctly, and waited until they were ready to have children. the ability to raise children is as much about emotional and psychological "providing" as physical; as we all know, plenty of rich people aren't in any way equipped to parent, because stupidity knows no class boundary.

Thou shalt not murder, he that murders shall surely be put to death.

Let's just unpack that first section for a moment...

"Thou shalt" = "You should not"

"murder" = "kill unjustly"

Therefore, justified killing seems not to be covered by this command.

If there is such a thing as a justified killing, then there is no inalienable right to life, no?

um, i hold a degree in biology and am currently studying for my PhD in human neurophysiology. don't tell me i don't read enough scientific journals, especially when you are making ridiculous claims that are not recognized by any accreddited scientific or medical institution.

the fertilized egg is NOT separate from the mother, it is directly attached and dependent upon her. it is distinct genetically, much like a tapworm is, or like the bacteria that live in her intestinal tract. the sperm and the egg are distinct and recognizable within the female as much as the fertilized egg is, just as the bacteria are.

and no, there IS NO ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF PERSONHOOD ESTABLISHED BY SCIENCE. personhood can be defined in a million different ways, and they are all pure opinion. you can define personhood by consciousness, as most people tend to do, but then a fetus (and indeed a 3 year old human) is not human but an adult chimp is. science can test concrete claims about personhood, such as testing the limitations and development of consciousness, but it cannot tell us why we should chose to use consciousness as our standard for personhood as opposed to, say, physical viability, or heartbeat.

comparing the proven, objective reality of falling to the subjective reality of personhood is completely ludicrous and unscientific. that's like saying that there is an objective standard of what it means to be pretty because we have an objective system of measuring height...the two are totally unrelated and cannot be compared.

Science has not yet tried to determine when consciencesness begins. but the fact is, that is how you determine personhood.
There is a difference between being a distinct human life and being a person.
It can be and has been determined that the a distinct and seperate human lifeform comes into existence on the third day.
It has not been proven or disproven as to when consciousness begins. And until you can determine when a fetus becomes conscience, you cannot determine personhood. All you have are ideological views that have no scientific basis.

If they are killing people who never committed the violent crime, then yes , the UK should be invaded.

Hahaha! Of all the places in the world, God.

i believe only people who can support children should have children. to do otherwise is cruel. you don't have to be upper class to be able to support children, and i never claimed you did...kids don't need a Playstation or a new pair of rollerblades every year, but they do need good food, safe housing, and parents who are around enough to raise them properly. my folks are nothing near rich and they did just fine, mainly because they saved up and budgetted correctly, and waited until they were ready to have children. the ability to raise children is as much about emotional and psychological "providing" as physical; as we all know, plenty of rich people aren't in any way equipped to parent, because stupidity knows no class boundary.
80% of the world's children develop just fine with out all that stuff.
And all human beings have an inalienable right to reproduce or not reproduce regardless of whether they can actually support the children or not.

If they are killing people who never committed the violent crime, then yes , the UK should be invaded.

To whom does the "they" refer here - the US military, or the people of the UK, it isn't the clearest to me (or did you mean to write "ever commited").

Either way it seems that you are arguing that in some cases the supposedly inalienable right to life is in fact alienable, no?

80% of the world's children develop just fine with out all that stuff.
And all human beings have an inalienable right to reproduce or not reproduce regardless of whether they can actually support the children or not.

i don't believe i ever said people don't have a right to reproduce, i simply said that i believe having a child when you know you can't support it is wrong. people have the right to tell their child it is stupid and ugly every day of its life, but that doesn't mean it is a good or healthy thing for the child. i believe it is cruel, and i totally disagree that children who grow up without food, housing, and parenting are "just fine." if you believe so then i pity the children in your life.

To whom does the "they" refer here - the US military, or the people of the UK, it isn't the clearest to me (or did you mean to write "ever commited").

Either way it seems that you are arguing that in some cases the supposedly inalienable right to life is in fact alienable, no?
to defend life, you must destroy the lives of those who oppose the right to life

to defend life, you must destroy the lives of those who oppose the right to life

So life isn't an inalienable right then?

I thought the belief that it was an inalienable right was the basis for invading the UK, no?

to defend life, you must destroy the lives of those who oppose the right to life



You're going to argue yourself in circles here.

Osama Bin Ladin opposes the right to life of those who he doesn't agree with. The US army opposes the right to life of those who want to kill US citizens. Who wins out?

Does Osama Bin Ladin have a reason for opposing the right to life of some people? Is that reason valid? Is he defending the right of life for some arabs against the "oppression" of the Zionists, who kill many arabs?

@Whittier


"that is how you determine personhood"
Most legal systems of countries give the "personhood" from the moment of the end of birth. For example: in order to be entitled to be the owner of rights you need to be born. The unborn life can´t be the owner of rights in principal (certain execption my exists).

However: that doesn´t change the fact that the embryo is HUMAN LIFE. And it is human life from the moment of conception. Therefore it must be determined what rights the unborn life possesses. It can´t be the same like the born life.
The real question is here only one question: those the unborn life has the same right to life as the born life. If yes, why?, if no: why?
And if it doesn´t have the same right to life how far do the restrictions go.
Just for medical reasoon (life of the mother is at risk)?, after rape? if the embryo shows disabilities??, if the mother thinks/says she can´t/doesn´t want to afford a child???, e.g.

It is a question where serious and good people can disagree on.

So life isn't an inalienable right then?

I thought the belief that it was an inalienable right was the basis for invading the UK, no?
it is inalienable. It was God who said that those who committ murder or rape shall be put to death.
To not do so, would violate the law of God and the laws of nature. And it would cause people to go around violating other people's right to life by raping or killing them.

@Whittier


"that is how you determine personhood"
Most legal systems of countries give the "personhood" from the moment of the end of birth. For example: in order to be entitled to be the owner of rights you need to be born. The unborn life can´t be the owner of rights in principal (certain execption my exists).

However: that doesn´t change the fact that the embryo is HUMAN LIFE. And it is human life from the moment of conception. Therefore it must be determined what rights the unborn life possesses. It can´t be the same like the born life.
The real question is here only one question: those the unborn life has the same right to life as the born life. If yes, why?, if no: why?
And if it doesn´t have the same right to life how far do the restrictions go.
Just for medical reasoon (life of the mother is at risk)?, after rape? if the embryo shows disabilities??, if the mother thinks/says she can´t/doesn´t want to afford a child???, e.g.

It is a question where serious and good people can disagree on.


Prove to me that a 3 day old embryo can think and I'll conceed. Have fun with that.

@Whittier


"that is how you determine personhood"
Most legal systems of countries give the "personhood" from the moment of the end of birth. For example: in order to be entitled to be the owner of rights you need to be born. The unborn life can´t be the owner of rights in principal (certain execption my exists).

However: that doesn´t change the fact that the embryo is HUMAN LIFE. And it is human life from the moment of conception. Therefore it must be determined what rights the unborn life possesses. It can´t be the same like the born life.
The real question is here only one question: those the unborn life has the same right to life as the born life. If yes, why?, if no: why?
And if it doesn´t have the same right to life how far do the restrictions go.
Just for medical reasoon (life of the mother is at risk)?, after rape? if the embryo shows disabilities??, if the mother thinks/says she can´t/doesn´t want to afford a child???, e.g.

It is a question where serious and good people can disagree on.

BUt most laws on the matter of sex are not even based on real science, only on religious bigotry and stereotypes.
It is not a distinct seperate human life at conception. Conception is merely the fusing of the sperm cell with the egg cell. It don't become distinct until the nuclei of the two cells actually merge together to create one set of nuclie. That don't happen till 3 days after conception.
The last part of your argument is only common sense.

Prove to me that a 3 day old embryo can think and I'll conceed. Have fun with that.
It likely can't. But no one can prove either way.

It is not a distinct seperate human life at conception. Conception is merely the fusing of the sperm cell with the egg cell. It don't become distinct until the nuclei of the two cells actually merge together to create one set of nuclie. That don't happen till 3 days after conception.
The last part of your argument is only common sense.

ahh, so therefore identical twins are one person. because, you see, they do not differentiate until much much later in the process, so if life begins at conception then idential twins are only one person. they do, after all, have exactly the same DNA. and what about conjoined twins, who are not even physically distinct from each other? if having individual DNA and being physically distinct are the criterion then conjoined twins are only one person as well.

It likely can't. But no one can prove either way.


Yes, I can. It doesn't have the tissues to be able to think (nerve, brain tissues), so it is no more capable of thought then a simple bacteria.

I'm just wondering if anyone can prove me wrong.

It likely can't. But no one can prove either way.

yes, we can. we can conclusively prove that a 3rd-day embryo does not have what we refer to as "thought" because it does not have the structures that produce that. it's like how we can say with absolute certainty that a 3rd day embryo cannot walk because we know it does not have limbs...it has no nervous system, no brain, no structures for producing thought, the same way it has no legs or arms for producing motility.

it is inalienable. It was God who said that those who committ murder or rape shall be put to death.
To not do so, would violate the law of God and the laws of nature. And it would cause people to go around violating other people's right to life by raping or killing them.


So, we are in agreement that the "thou shalt not kill" of the Bible should properly be rendered in English as "thou shalt not murder", and that justified killings are possible according to it.

Nowhere is it specified in that command who is responsible for putting those that murder to death - man or God. Agreed?

According to the Bible, man is fallible, whereas God is not, yes?

Therefore according to the Bible it is not the role of man to be arbiter and executioner, but instead God, because if man appoints himself as the agent of justice he, at the very least, runs the risk of committing an unjustified killing which is forbidden by the Bible.

This model above is in perfect accord with your assertion that the right to life is inalienable none may take it away except God which is what you calimed earlier, but you now claim that none may take it away except God, or man.

The right to life no longer seems so inalienable according to your claim that "you must destroy the lives of those who oppose the right to life".

yes, we can. we can conclusively prove that a 3rd-day embryo does not have what we refer to as "thought" because it does not have the structures that produce that. it's like how we can say with absolute certainty that a 3rd day embryo cannot walk because we know it does not have limbs...it has no nervous system, no brain, no structures for producing thought, the same way it has no legs or arms for producing motility.
I would agree there. Assuming our current methods of determing thought capacity are correct.

So, we are in agreement that the "thou shalt not kill" of the Bible should properly be rendered in English as "thou shalt not murder", and that justified killings are possible according to it.

Nowhere is it specified in that command who is responsible for putting those that murder to death - man or God. Agreed?

According to the Bible, man is fallible, whereas God is not, yes?

Therefore according to the Bible it is not the role of man to be arbiter and executioner, but instead God, because if man appoints himself as the agent of justice he, at the very least, runs the risk of committing an unjustified killing which is forbidden by the Bible.

This model above is in perfect accord with your assertion that the right to life is inalienable none may take it away except God which is what you calimed earlier, but you now claim that none may take it away except God, or man.

The right to life no longer seems so inalienable according to your claim that "you must destroy the lives of those who oppose the right to life".

kGod allows govts. to come into power to carry out his divine will, which is to carry out the justice of God.

kGod allows govts. to come into power to carry out his divine will, which is to carry out the justice of God.

Looking around the world it seems that he also allows governments with a blatant disregard for the right to life to come to power.

The top five greatest evils:

Hatred
Hierarchy
Money
Pollution
Transhumanism

BUt most laws on the matter of <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=sex&v=56">sex</a> are not even based on real <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=science&v=56">science</a>, only on religious bigotry and stereotypes.
It is not a distinct seperate human life at conception. Conception is merely the fusing of the sperm cell with the egg cell. It don't become distinct until the nuclei of the two cells actually merge together to create one set of nuclie. That don't happen till 3 days after conception.
The last part of your argument is only
common sense.

I disagree. When sperm unites with the egg cell all conditions are met for the begining of a new human life. A sperm has half of the genetical information, the egg the other half. Both seperate are nothing. But if one sperm reaches the egg and the conception happens all natural conditions for the begining of a human life are met.
That life may end pretty soon - for whatever reason - or shortly after or during the pregnancy (only 50% of the pregnancies lead to a child which is born alive after all). But from that moment on nature has its work.
The conception is the CONDITIO SINE QUA NON (the condition without....) nothíng else would happen. It is the begining. Logically any action which is done after conception to end this process (pregnancy) are problematic.
I just want to say that. In my country it is the dominant opinion to say that human life begins with the conception. I agree to that. Every other moment doesn`t make sense. You have to start right at the begining. In doubt you always have to chose the most early date and that is conception.

However: Abortion is not punished if certain conditions are met (like councelling). However: technically spoken it is still illegal but it is not punished under those circumstances.
Regarding the pill afterward: it is allowed but not seen as an abortion.
But legally this argumentation has no basis, since it is believed that the date of conception is the begining of life that has to be considered an abortion as well. It is legally a grew field. But from the facts everything speaks in favour of the opinion that the current handling is not in accordance with the law and the constituition.

I disagree. When sperm unites with the egg cell all conditions are met for the begining of a new human life. A sperm has half of the genetical information, the egg the other half. Both seperate are nothing. But if one sperm reaches the egg and the conception happens all natural conditions for the begining of a human life are met.
That life may end pretty soon - for whatever reason - or shortly after or during the pregnancy (only 50% of the pregnancies lead to a child which is born alive after all). But from that moment on nature has its work.
The conception is the CONDITIO SINE QUA NON (the condition without....) nothíng else would happen. It is the begining. Logically any action which is done after conception to end this process (pregnancy) are problematic.
I just want to say that. In my country it is the dominant opinion to say that human life begins with the conception. I agree to that. Every other moment doesn`t make sense. You have to start right at the begining. In doubt you always have to chose the most early date and that is conception.

However: Abortion is not punished if certain conditions are met (like councelling). However: technically spoken it is still illegal but it is not punished under those circumstances.
Regarding the pill afterward: it is allowed but not seen as an abortion.
But legally this argumentation has no basis, since it is believed that the date of conception is the begining of life that has to be considered an abortion as well. It is legally a grew field. But from the facts everything speaks in favour of the opinion that the current handling is not in accordance with the law and the constituition.


If I wished to waste my time playing games with cells, I could theoretically make a full human being from my skin cells, as it has all of the requirements to form a human being (all the DNA, ect). Heaven's going to get pretty crowded if we count all of the skin cells that die off.

If I wished to waste my time playing games with cells, I could theoretically make a full human being from my skin cells, as it has all of the requirements to form a human being (all the DNA, ect). Heaven's going to get pretty crowded if we count all of the skin cells that die off.

or if we really do count all fertilized eggs as people, since 50% of them die through the natural process of the woman's body. though we will be able to save some room in heaven because identical twins will only count as one person between the two of them.

or if we really do count all fertilized eggs as people, since 50% of them die through the natural process of the woman's body. though we will be able to save some room in heaven because identical twins will only count as one person between the two of them.

So I can kill a twin without committing murder? Yippe!

The top five greatest evils:
...
Transhumanism

Nah, possibly 'our' greatest hope.

So I can kill a twin without committing murder? Yippe!

no no, you committed HALF of a murder. don't ask me how that would work legally, but then these pro-lifers rarely think that far ahead when they propose such ludicrous concepts.

no no, you committed HALF of a murder. don't ask me how that would work legally, but then these pro-lifers rarely think that far ahead when they propose such ludicrous concepts.

Maybe they can lethally inject some of my skin cells.

CSW

"Prove to me that a 3 day old embryo can think and I'll conceed. Have fun with that."

Counter-question: can a person who is in a comma think???
What is your criteria for human life???
Consciousness?? You can be unconscious. What is when you sleep????
What is with people who can´t think (like we can) because of diseases or disfunctions in their brains???? Don´t they have a right to life.

The question can not be: is it able to think. The question is: does it in principal have the ability to do so. Or in other words: is it human life.
And my criteria would be: if the genetical information is completed and it is in the body of the woman (the natural environment) the moment when spermium and egg cell unite, the moment of conception where the genetical information is completed and two seperate halfs (who are on their own worth nothing- who are no human life because they lack the information) are united, the moment is there where the natural development of the new life begins.
Or viewed from another perspective: due to the sexual intercourse both man and woman have done their parth. By doing so they have given the decision to nature whether there is an spermium which makes its way through.
If that happens we are speaking of the development of one thing (not any more spermium and egg but the embryo). It is life. It may be not alive. But it is human life. Any information is in there.
You can´t treat that like trash. That´s what I want to say.
Having said that: I don´t say abortion should be outlawed, not at all. But it must be clear that it is a morally sensitive issue, because it is about human life.

Well, I've never heard of a person being in a comma (a panda walks into a bar, eats, shoots, and leaves), so that disproves that entire line of questioning, and the point is that a 3 day old embryo lacks the ability to think at all. It is physically impossible for one to think.

As for the rest, look up.

Nah, possibly 'our' greatest hope.

Although I'm getting tired and am not in the mood to debate, I have no desire to have my very humanity replaced by technology.

"If I wished to waste my time playing games with cells, I could theoretically make a full human being from my skin cells, as it has all of the requirements to form a human being (all the DNA, ect). Heaven's going to get pretty crowded if we count all of the skin cells that die off."
You can´t. You may try, but you can´t currently do that.
By the way: we are still speaking about the natural process. If we are agreeing on the protection of the embryo we of course have to limit experiments with cells.

I have stated what I see as the criteria: meeting of sperm and egg cell and the unification from them inside the female uterus.

Only there pregnancy can occur naturally. Sperm and egg can´t meat if you have oral sex on your skin

"If I wished to waste my time playing games with cells, I could theoretically make a full human being from my skin cells, as it has all of the requirements to form a human being (all the DNA, ect). Heaven's going to get pretty crowded if we count all of the skin cells that die off."
You can´t. You may try, but you can´t currently do that.
By the way: we are still speaking about the natural process. If we are agreeing on the protection of the embryo we of course have to limit experiments with cells.

I have stated what I see as the criteria: meeting of sperm and egg cell and the unification from them inside the female uterus.

Only there pregnancy can occur naturally. Sperm and egg can´t meat if you have oral sex on your skin
Yes, they can, they just won't develop

Well, I've never heard of a person being in a comma (a panda walks into a bar, eats, shoots, and leaves), so that disproves that entire line of questioning, and the point is that a 3 day old embryo lacks the ability to think at all. It is physically impossible for one to think.

As for the rest, look up.

I meant coma of course.

And you can´t commit half murderes because there is no half human.
We are discussing the character of the embryo. That is one thing, not two. It is human life. You can´t deny that. It is not half-life or something, it is human life, but unborn life.
The rest what you wrote is just crap.
You can´t spoil water out of a glass before you have filled it with water. Egg is nothing alone, sperma is nothing alone. Sperma is like water. It exists in masses. But water in bottles you have to pay for. It is valuable.
Contraception is like filling water in a bottle: two things with no value get value and are protected. If you destroy the bottle you have to pay.
Abortion is like the distruction of the bottle. Should it be punished?? People can differ on that. I don´t think so if certain conditions are met. However it is not an action which can be condoned except in cases where the mothers life is at risks.

Ah, an egg is perfectly capable of making a human being on its own, it is just a matter of getting the cell to duplicate its DNA twice (one cycle of mitosis without dividing), its just a matter of making it do that, but once again, you doged the point. A new combination of DNA does not make a human being, it only becomes a human being when it can think, IE around day 21+.

Although I'm getting tired and am not in the mood to debate, I have no desire to have my very humanity replaced by technology.

Okay, I'll come back to you another day on how you differentiate the two in a way meaningful enough to privilege 'humanity'.

Sperm and egg can´t meat if you have oral sex on your skin

That one goes on the list of unfortunate spelling mistakes for today, yet somehow seems strangely suitable as a euphemism for making a baby.

My 5 greatest evils:

Deliberate Ignorance
Arrogance
Illiteracy
Fundamentalism
Stagnation

Nothing makes me lose my cool faster than deliberate ignorance. That, and it's sidekick; impatience. I don't anger easily, so for me to say that I have a short fuse when dealing with people who prefer to walk around in a mental neutral zone should be considered a fair warning. :Mad:

Ah, an egg is perfectly capable of making a human being on its own, it is just a matter of getting the cell to duplicate its DNA twice (one cycle of mitosis without dividing), its just a matter of making it do that, but once again, you doged the point. A new combination of DNA does not make a human being, it only becomes a human being when it can think, IE around day 21+.

I would doubt that. There are people who are 21 years and they can´t think.


Well: I think we can leave the debate for today, I have to go now.
The problem is that we are looking from two different premises. You claim (and that seems to be an pretty popular opinion in the anglo-saxon world that in the first two or three weeks it is not human life for what argument whatsoever).
First of all the question is. How do you exactly now what the embryo can and can not do. You have to assume. And I would say: In doubt you should always be careful and therefore should chose the earlier date.
The embryo doesn´t begin to think all of a sudden. It doesn´t develop brain cells or nerv cells from the middle of nowhere. It does that because with the moment of conception a biological program has started: the program of human life. That is the conditio sine qua non for everything else. And every other moment is arbitrarly chosen under premises which are highly doubtly.
Due to the caution principal only the moment of conception can be seen as the appopriate date: it is the most early one.

What consequences you draw from that (regarding abortion or research on embryos) is another discussion. However: when a country decides on its laws about this issue it has of course come to a judgement on that as well.

I leave it on that point for today: Good night.

My 5 greatest evils:

..
Illiteracy
...

...
That, and it's sidekick; impatience.

I hate to point this out, but the phrase 'hoist on your own petard' seems strangely appropriate. It seems to be an unwritten rule of the cosmos that as soon as anyone starts pointing out errors in the writings of others or complaining about illiteracy they are bound to slip up themseves shortly thereafter.

Not a spelling/grammar flame, just an observation of cruel irony.

I would doubt that. There are people who are 21 years and they can´t think.


Well: I think we can leave the debate for today, I have to go now.
The problem is that we are looking from two different premises. You claim (and that seems to be an pretty popular opinion in the anglo-saxon world that in the first two or three weeks it is not human life for what argument whatsoever).
First of all the question is. How do you exactly now what the embryo can and can not do. You have to assume. And I would say: In doubt you should always be careful and therefore should chose the earlier date.
The embryo doesn´t begin to think all of a sudden. It doesn´t develop brain cells or nerv cells from the middle of nowhere. It does that because with the moment of conception a biological program has started: the program of human life. That is the conditio sine qua non for everything else. And every other moment is arbitrarly chosen under premises which are highly doubtly.
Due to the caution principal only the moment of conception can be seen as the appopriate date: it is the most early one.

What consequences you draw from that (regarding abortion or research on embryos) is another discussion. However: when a country decides on its laws about this issue it has of course come to a judgement on that as well.

I leave it on that point for today: Good night.

Um, I know for a pretty good fact that a embryo less then 3 weeks can not think because they don't have the tissue for it.

I hate to point this out, but the phrase 'hoist on your own petard' seems strangely appropriate. It seems to be an unwritten rule of the cosmos that as soon as anyone starts pointing out errors in the writings of others or complaining about illiteracy they are bound to slip up themseves shortly thereafter.

Not a spelling/grammar flame, just an observation of cruel irony.

*smacks you with a pie* :p

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)

This is easy:

Liberalism
Liberalism
Liberalism
Liberalism and...
Liberalism.

Simple!

Ah, an egg is perfectly capable of making a human being on its own, it is just a matter of getting the cell to duplicate its DNA twice (one cycle of mitosis without dividing), its just a matter of making it do that, but once again, you doged the point. A new combination of DNA does not make a human being, it only becomes a human being when it can think, IE around day 21+.
No. You need a perfect egg, and we now know that human eggs are the most messed up eggs in all of nature.
It is the egg that determines how a fetus will develop if at all. And to get an egg to divide on its own, you have to severly damage the egg, whereby giving you a person who has some type of physical or mental handicap.

truely, the Nazis said the same.

ah, I see. Inflammatory rather then debate. No logic, only words intended to have emotional impact. My mistake, I thought the intent was discussion, not to make waves for no purpose.

Sincere apologies, but my emotions do not motivate my decisions - they serve me, they do not rule me. So sorry!

Go in Peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

So you do not beleive there is such a thing as evil, and that even terrorists and child molestors are good people?

Ah, sorry, no. Again, I do not "believe" in good or evil, only choice. A terrorist makes certain choices, with certain reprocussions. A child molestor does the same thing - makes choices. Each choice has it's own reprocussion.

I am sorry I cannot make this clear enough for your to understand, but perhaps you seek only to inflame, and not to debate or learn?

Go in Peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

Ab-shalom and sincere greetings.

In no particular order:

1. Hate
2. Intolerance
3. Greed
4. Apathy
5. Arrogance

Just my two cents.

Each of these stems from fear. If you extinguish the root, would you not extinguish the tree?

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

ah, I see. Inflammatory rather then debate. No logic, only words intended to have emotional impact. My mistake, I thought the intent was discussion, not to make waves for no purpose.

Sincere apologies, but my emotions do not motivate my decisions - they serve me, they do not rule me. So sorry!

Go in Peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva
then why are you getting emotional over a statement of fact. Have never read one of their speeches?

what are those star things?

Science has not yet tried to determine when consciencesness begins. but the fact is, that is how you determine personhood.
There is a difference between being a distinct human life and being a person.
It can be and has been determined that the a distinct and seperate human lifeform comes into existence on the third day.
It has not been proven or disproven as to when consciousness begins. And until you can determine when a fetus becomes conscience, you cannot determine personhood. All you have are ideological views that have no scientific basis.


You have therefore undermined and destroyed your own arguement. All fertilization creates is - your definition - a separate set of cells. For a short while it is "separate and distinct". Then it either (a) fuses with the female or (b) is ejected from the body. So, perhaps you are saying a fertilized egg becomes human then loses it's humanity a few days later no matter what?

Curious.

As you cannot "determine personhood" and I can determine that a living woman is "a person", I remain of the opinion that it is her choice.

You are still free to choose whatever you like, including invasion and death to "force" your views on others, if that is your choice.

WWJD?

Go in Peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

kGod allows govts. to come into power to carry out his divine will, which is to carry out the justice of God.

So, it is not an "inalienable right".

Again, you defeat your own arguement.

I would also ask... if God puts governments in power to carry out his will, and two governments are in conflict, does that not therefore imply that God's will is in conflict?

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

I meant coma of course.

And you can´t commit half murderes because there is no half human.
We are discussing the character of the embryo. That is one thing, not two. It is human life. You can´t deny that. It is not half-life or something, it is human life, but unborn life.
The rest what you wrote is just crap.
You can´t spoil water out of a glass before you have filled it with water. Egg is nothing alone, sperma is nothing alone. Sperma is like water. It exists in masses. But water in bottles you have to pay for. It is valuable.
Contraception is like filling water in a bottle: two things with no value get value and are protected. If you destroy the bottle you have to pay.
Abortion is like the distruction of the bottle. Should it be punished?? People can differ on that. I don´t think so if certain conditions are met. However it is not an action which can be condoned except in cases where the mothers life is at risks.

Ah. Water in bottles you pay for because you believe it has worth. Intrinsicly, it is no more valuable then water from a faucet.

And a set of cells is not human life - it is only a set of cells, "nature" working a set of blueprints to build something which may or may not eventually contain a soul and life. As it is from the beginning, it is incapable of living in any sense on it's own. Therefore, it is not in and of itself alive, except perhaps in a parasitic sense.

I do wonder what you so fear by others making choices which do not agree with your beliefs.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

You have therefore undermined and destroyed your own arguement. All fertilization creates is - your definition - a separate set of cells. For a short while it is "separate and distinct". Then it either (a) fuses with the female or (b) is ejected from the body. So, perhaps you are saying a fertilized egg becomes human then loses it's humanity a few days later no matter what?

Curious.

As you cannot "determine personhood" and I can determine that a living woman is "a person", I remain of the opinion that it is her choice.

You are still free to choose whatever you like, including invasion and death to "force" your views on others, if that is your choice.

WWJD?

Go in Peace.

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

No, you misunderstand. Once it becomes seperate and distinct, it remains such until it is born or dies and becomes reabsorbed into the female digestive tract. I will find a link to the article I am talking about. It will help you.

So, it is not an "inalienable right".

Again, you defeat your own arguement.

I would also ask... if God puts governments in power to carry out his will, and two governments are in conflict, does that not therefore imply that God's will is in conflict?

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva
Democracies do not rule with God's consent.

The 5 greatest evils...

1 - religious fanaticism
2 - Ottawa Senators
3 - Orangemen
4 - Hitler
5 - Stalin

Democracies do not rule with God's consent.

Are you counting the USA as a democracy for the sake of this argument, or does God intervene in the decisions made by the members of the electoral college, and so grant the President divine right?

So, it is not an "inalienable right".

Again, you defeat your own arguement.

I would also ask... if God puts governments in power to carry out his will, and two governments are in conflict, does that not therefore imply that God's will is in conflict?

Namaste,
Sultan Sinjin Lefkowitz, Sultanate of Vastiva

So, basically God allows anything that any Government decides to do...its your basic circular argument. Something is permissible because it can be seen to exist.

I've always been amused by Terry Pratchett's summation..if two sides both claim that God is on their side, then they are both right... however, the two Gods then cancel each other out, leaving the armies to slug it out!

Forget these 5 evils
focus on the source of them all, humanity
humanity creates the evils therefore the evil is humanity
as long as man exists there will always be conflict, and not always on the battle fields

This is easy:

Liberalism
Liberalism
Liberalism
Liberalism and...
Liberalism.

Simple!
Great - socialists are in the clear! The evil ones are capitalists, ie people who practice economic... liberalism. Hooray.

The 5 greatest evils...


3 - Orangemen


Though no fan of the Orange Order myself, I really think listing them as one of the 5 greatest evils is somewhat harsh. Implausible but true: in recent years they have been more moderate than in the past and have done much to rein in some of the lose cannons. It also seems somewhat odd to list them (even if you are just using them as a shorthand for loyalists/unionists in general) but to let the deeds of the nationalists/republicans pass without comments.

Or is simply it for crimes against music that they make your list?



Edit: 'rein' not 'reign', why do I always type the wrong homophone?

Great - socialists are in the clear! The evil ones are capitalists, ie people who practice economic... liberalism. Hooray.

Heh. You typically wouldn't expect a poster with "democratic" in their name to say liberalism was evil, would you?

The five greatest evils are unknown. Because the greatest evils are those that occur, but no one knows about or thinks it's evil at all. Think about it.

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)
That's hilarious! Only religious fanatics would think Abortion is one of the greatest evils ever.
:p

Maybe I should replace despair with date rape or just add it in as a 6th great evil.
date rape is more evil than just regular rape? You are seriously messed up and obviously know nothing about rape.

Also, abortion is not evil, it's a woman's choice to do with her body what she wants, and men should stop trying to tell her what to do with her body. If men can walk away from it, woman should be able to too.

date rape is more evil than just regular rape? You are seriously messed up and obviously know nothing about rape.

Also, abortion is not evil, it's a woman's choice to do with her body what she wants, and men should stop trying to tell her what to do with her body. If men can walk away from it, woman should be able to too.

And what of the human fetus?

i'm not against abortion, but I recognize the fact that the baby fetus is a human being.....

It depends on the reasoning behind the abortion...

Under at least certain circumstances it should be allowed.

I don't think a fetus is a human being. Can it survive on its own? Can it think? No, it can't. How can you kill something that has never been born? Our age is not measured from the day we were concieved, but from the day that we were born. How can you kill something that has never been alive and does not know life?

Well if you look at it that way, what about severely brain damaged people? Can they survive on their own? No, but they're still human. Can they still think? We don't know. And just like that, we don't know when a fetus acquires consciousness.

but a brain damaged person knows what life is, and can think, because you have to think to breathe.

but a brain damaged person knows what life is, and can think, because you have to think to breathe.


Basic unwilled motor functions operated by the brain are not generally regarded as thinking.

but perhaps you seek only to inflame, and not to debate or learn?

Finally someone sees the light! Okay, I just found this thread today and might be in a somewhat priveledge position due to not having been involved, but IMHO this insight took WAY too long.

The 5 great evils of our time?

The entire Middle East region
Boston
Scousers
Barney the Dinosaur
Religion

The 5 great evils of our time?

The entire Middle East region


Nah, the entire East Midlands region.

The Seven Greatest Evils
1.)Beliefs
2.)Religion
3.)Apathy
4.)Prejudice
5.)Stupidity
6.)Herd Mentality
7.)Alturism- Living ones life for others.

These are great evils because they are common and every lasting. Besides which they feed off each other.

what you just said makes no logical educated sense what ever.
How does it ruin the life of a freind? How does it ruin anyones life. Children are not a burden.

children can be a great burden for one who is not ready for them... they are finantialy, psycologically and physically burdoning.

you have to be able to provide a stable home environment, healthy maintanence (food ect), and emotional care and support, as well as having to dedicate an eccessive amount of time to their wellbeing. it is not healthy for a 'child' (12-18) yr old to be forced to cope with all that and the social stigma and physical conditions of her pregnancy because she is not given the option of an abortion.

as to divorce being an evil, isn't it worse to stay in a relationship that has deterorated to the point at which the two people are physically incapable of living together. the reasons for devorce are the 'evil' things...

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)

Someone's a little conservative...

To me the five greatest evils of all time are:
Humanity in General
George W. Bush
Drugs and Alcohol
Computers (You know when you can't seem to get off the computer, even though you've been using it for two days straight... Anyways, I lover computers...)
War

Nah, the entire East Midlands region.
As a former denizen of Leicester, I feel well-placed to shout out an "AMEN" to that!

Someone's a little conservative...

To me the five greatest evils of all time are:
Humanity in General
George W. Bush
Drugs and Alcohol
Computers (You know when you can't seem to get off the computer, even though you've been using it for two days straight... Anyways, I lover computers...)
War

I agree with the George W. Bush and War

But drugs and alcohol??? And Humanity in general isnt evil, its just dumb people like Dubya which make it so.

Dude where's the party? (with the alcohol and the drugs??)

Nah, the entire East Midlands region.
As a former denizen of Leicester, I feel well-placed to shout out an "AMEN" to that!

The year I spent in Coventry was exactly one year too long. Why did the urban planners not have the courage and convictions to finish what the Luftwaffe had begin and flatten the place entirely?

Though no fan of the Orange Order myself, I really think listing them as one of the 5 greatest evils is somewhat harsh. Implausible but true: in recent years they have been more moderate than in the past and have done much to rein in some of the lose cannons. It also seems somewhat odd to list them (even if you are just using them as a shorthand for loyalists/unionists in general) but to let the deeds of the nationalists/republicans pass without comments.

Or is simply it for crimes against music that they make your list?

Well, mainly on the principle that I am Irish Catholic by birth right and they killed me ancestors! Yeah... They killed me relatives who fought in the IRA. ;) ok... so, not just for that reason. It would have to really be the music -- I mean, it can't be the blood, I'm too much of a hybrid mutt.

Cocnerning the Orange Order:

It would have to really be the music -- I mean, it can't be the blood, I'm too much of a hybrid mutt.

Good answer. The fact that they are for the most part reactionary bigots trying to drag the country back into the dark ages would also have been acceptable, but unfortunately they are not the only group in NI that hold this position.

The Seven Greatest Evils
1.)Beliefs
2.)Religion
3.)Apathy
4.)Prejudice
5.)Stupidity
6.)Herd Mentality
7.)Alturism- Living ones life for others.

These are great evils because they are common and every lasting. Besides which they feed off each other.

I agree good on you!

Coventry is certainly a ... wonder ... to behold, though it was apparently quite attractive before Churchill handed it to the Luftwaffe. I've heard the north of the city compared unfavourably with Beirut...

As for Leicester, its main claim to fame is that it is the unofficial counterfeit capital of Europe. I'd add that the Leicester accent is the ugliest in the UK. Yep, even more painful on the ears than Paisley Irish!

The 5 greatest evils of are time are as follows (in no particular order):

*McDonalds
*Pot Noodles
*Pokemon
*Tweenies
*Foot and Mouth

Thank you
Queen Sarah

Thou shalt not murder, he that murders shall surely be put to death.


Your a Christian right? What about what Jesus said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

I disagree. When sperm unites with the egg cell all conditions are met for the begining of a new human life. A sperm has half of the genetical information, the egg the other half. Both seperate are nothing. But if one sperm reaches the egg and the conception happens all natural conditions for the begining of a human life are met.
That life may end pretty soon - for whatever reason - or shortly after or during the pregnancy (only 50% of the pregnancies lead to a child which is born alive after all). But from that moment on nature has its work.
The conception is the CONDITIO SINE QUA NON (the condition without....) nothíng else would happen. It is the begining. Logically any action which is done after conception to end this process (pregnancy) are problematic.
I just want to say that. In my country it is the dominant opinion to say that human life begins with the conception. I agree to that. Every other moment doesn`t make sense. You have to start right at the begining. In doubt you always have to chose the most early date and that is conception.

However: Abortion is not punished if certain conditions are met (like councelling). However: technically spoken it is still illegal but it is not punished under those circumstances.
Regarding the pill afterward: it is allowed but not seen as an abortion.
But legally this argumentation has no basis, since it is believed that the date of conception is the begining of life that has to be considered an abortion as well. It is legally a grew field. But from the facts everything speaks in favour of the opinion that the current handling is not in accordance with the law and the constituition.
Even when the sperm is inside the egg, they are still not one until their nuclei unite. That takes 3 days.

or if we really do count all fertilized eggs as people, since 50% of them die through the natural process of the woman's body. though we will be able to save some room in heaven because identical twins will only count as one person between the two of them.
just because an sperm has entered an egg, does not mean it was able to fertilize that egg. There are millions of things that can and often do, go wrong.

I disagree. When sperm unites with the egg cell all conditions are met for the begining of a new human life. A sperm has half of the genetical information, the egg the other half. Both seperate are nothing. But if one sperm reaches the egg and the conception happens all natural conditions for the begining of a human life are met.
That life may end pretty soon - for whatever reason - or shortly after or during the pregnancy (only 50% of the pregnancies lead to a child which is born alive after all). But from that moment on nature has its work.
The conception is the CONDITIO SINE QUA NON (the condition without....) nothíng else would happen. It is the begining. Logically any action which is done after conception to end this process (pregnancy) are problematic.
I just want to say that. In my country it is the dominant opinion to say that human life begins with the conception. I agree to that. Every other moment doesn`t make sense. You have to start right at the begining. In doubt you always have to chose the most early date and that is conception.

However: Abortion is not punished if certain conditions are met (like councelling). However: technically spoken it is still illegal but it is not punished under those circumstances.
Regarding the pill afterward: it is allowed but not seen as an abortion.
But legally this argumentation has no basis, since it is believed that the date of conception is the begining of life that has to be considered an abortion as well. It is legally a grew field. But from the facts everything speaks in favour of the opinion that the current handling is not in accordance with the law and the constituition.

Actually the figures are lower than your 50%. Otherwise women would automatically be getting pregnant half of the time they engage in sexual intercourse. But this doesn't happen.

CSW

"Prove to me that a 3 day old embryo can think and I'll conceed. Have fun with that."

Counter-question: can a person who is in a comma think???
What is your criteria for human life???
Consciousness?? You can be unconscious. What is when you sleep????
What is with people who can´t think (like we can) because of diseases or disfunctions in their brains???? Don´t they have a right to life.

The question can not be: is it able to think. The question is: does it in principal have the ability to do so. Or in other words: is it human life.
And my criteria would be: if the genetical information is completed and it is in the body of the woman (the natural environment) the moment when spermium and egg cell unite, the moment of conception where the genetical information is completed and two seperate halfs (who are on their own worth nothing- who are no human life because they lack the information) are united, the moment is there where the natural development of the new life begins.
Or viewed from another perspective: due to the sexual intercourse both man and woman have done their parth. By doing so they have given the decision to nature whether there is an spermium which makes its way through.
If that happens we are speaking of the development of one thing (not any more spermium and egg but the embryo). It is life. It may be not alive. But it is human life. Any information is in there.
You can´t treat that like trash. That´s what I want to say.
Having said that: I don´t say abortion should be outlawed, not at all. But it must be clear that it is a morally sensitive issue, because it is about human life.
Its been proven they can't.

I meant coma of course.

And you can´t commit half murderes because there is no half human.
We are discussing the character of the embryo. That is one thing, not two. It is human life. You can´t deny that. It is not half-life or something, it is human life, but unborn life.
The rest what you wrote is just crap.
You can´t spoil water out of a glass before you have filled it with water. Egg is nothing alone, sperma is nothing alone. Sperma is like water. It exists in masses. But water in bottles you have to pay for. It is valuable.
Contraception is like filling water in a bottle: two things with no value get value and are protected. If you destroy the bottle you have to pay.
Abortion is like the distruction of the bottle. Should it be punished?? People can differ on that. I don´t think so if certain conditions are met. However it is not an action which can be condoned except in cases where the mothers life is at risks.
'And until the nuclie unite in the middle of the egg, the sperm is nothing but a parasite that has invaded the egg.

Ah, an egg is perfectly capable of making a human being on its own, it is just a matter of getting the cell to duplicate its DNA twice (one cycle of mitosis without dividing), its just a matter of making it do that, but once again, you doged the point. A new combination of DNA does not make a human being, it only becomes a human being when it can think, IE around day 21+.
not exactly.

Are you counting the USA as a democracy for the sake of this argument, or does God intervene in the decisions made by the members of the electoral college, and so grant the President divine right?
America is actually an oligarchy.

The Ultimate list of evils(in no particular order...except for the first one):
1.apathy
2. take the ten commandments and remove "thou shalt not"
3.CAROL ANN
4. CAROL ANN
5. the word "stromboli"
6. weed
7. pot
8. carrots
9. liberals
10. conservatives
11. Russian conservatives... aka Soviet liberals
12. pyromaniacs...wait...nevermind
13. Jerry Falwell and the rest of those damned porno stars

but a brain damaged person knows what life is, and can think, because you have to think to breathe.
no they cannot think.

children can be a great burden for one who is not ready for them... they are finantialy, psycologically and physically burdoning.

you have to be able to provide a stable home environment, healthy maintanence (food ect), and emotional care and support, as well as having to dedicate an eccessive amount of time to their wellbeing. it is not healthy for a 'child' (12-18) yr old to be forced to cope with all that and the social stigma and physical conditions of her pregnancy because she is not given the option of an abortion.

as to divorce being an evil, isn't it worse to stay in a relationship that has deterorated to the point at which the two people are physically incapable of living together. the reasons for devorce are the 'evil' things...
you shouldn't be going around sleeping with every guy you see unless you want to be pregnant. ANd we know that is exactly what 70% of american girls do.

And all human beings have an inalienable right to ... not reproduce regardless of whether they can actually support the children or not.

Ergo, abortion should be legal.

As for my top 5:

1: Voluntary ignorance.
2: Selfishness.
3: Arrogance.
4: Taking away a person's ability to make or even consider a choice.
5: Needless destruction of life.

Ergo, abortion should be legal.
Who said anything about outlawing them? I said they were evil. Not that they were illegal.

you shouldn't be going around sleeping with every guy you see unless you want to be pregnant. ANd we know that is exactly what 70% of american girls do.
Marvellous. You expect us to take you seriously after a comment like that?

America is actually an oligarchy.

OK: I wasn't really trying to open the "US is not a democracy" can of worms here, but rather seeing if your claim that God allows governments to come to power to do his will apllied in your mind to the United States. Am I to take it that you believe this of the current US administration?

OK: I wasn't really trying to open the "US is not a democracy" can of worms here, but rather seeing if your claim that God allows governments to come to power to do his will apllied in your mind to the United States. Am I to take it that you believe this of the current US administration?
yes. but not of the last.

you shouldn't be going around sleeping with every guy you see unless you want to be pregnant. ANd we know that is exactly what 70% of american girls do.

Wahey! Either Whittier is talking absolute nonsense or I should hang out with more American girls...

yes. but not of the last.

Ah, so any executions carried out under the current administration are the will of God, whereas any that happened under the previous administration were not?

Ah, so any executions carried out under the current administration are the will of God, whereas any that happened under the previous administration were not?
correct, cause God told me.

Ummmm where is murder on your list? How about stealing?

There is nothing wrong with being a religious fanatic unless you impose your will upon others.

What about torturing people....certainly that is more evil than most on your list?

sharpens his knifes at the mention of the word. How do you like your Scalp? sliced of diced? :)

correct, cause God told me.

Self-mockery, I assume.

you shouldn't be going around sleeping with every guy you see unless you want to be pregnant. ANd we know that is exactly what 70% of american girls do.

ahh, and did God tell you that as well?

you are certainly headed for the Most Entertaining Crackpot title, i'll give you that. i can only hope that this is all an intentional parody, and you will be able to appreciate your title.

correct, cause God told me.

Yet whenever I try to tell people about all the wonderful things the magical pink Unicorn told me, they want to throw me into a nuthouse. It's not fair. :(

Yet whenever I try to tell people about all the wonderful things the magical pink Unicorn told me, they want to throw me into a nuthouse. It's not fair. :(

it's okay, my celestial leprechaun doesn't go over very well, either. i guess people can accept certain imaginary friends but not others...perhaps if we claimed that our imaginary friends wanted us to cannibalize the rizen body of their demi-god son then we would add plausibility to our cases?

Yes, and maybe we could use a few commandments as well.

In no particular order, I would say the five biggest problems in the world today are:

1. The rise of movements against Change.
2. I'll agree with a poster above- voluntary ignorance.
3. Inequitable distribution of information. (All people should have equal access to non-classified information.)
4. "Family Values"
5. The destruction of the environment.

1. Capitalism
2. Discrimination
3. Hatred
4. Intolerance
5. Fanticism

According to the bureau of the US Census, less than 1% of Americans are athiests.

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)

I thnk you may be guilty of a little of this.

The 5 greatest evils of are time are as follows (in no particular order):

*McDonalds
*Pot Noodles
*Pokemon
*Tweenies
*Foot and Mouth

Thank you
Queen Sarah

You have a follower.

There can be no compromise with evil. There can be no turning back.

The 5 greatest evils of our time are:

Abortion
Human trafficking (modern name for forced slavery)
Religious fanaticism
Divorce and Adultery
Despair (leads to first three)

Divorce is evil?

So you should stick with the one you married...even if you don't like each other....great plan

1. Totalatarianism.
2. Russian Mafia
3. Mis-interpretation/misuse of religion for acheiving own ends.
4. Terrorism
5. Brussel Sprouts

Refering to the right to life...



Where exactly in the Bible does it say that you have an inalienable right to life?


Not sure, is it before or after the 'stone homosexuals to death' bit?

1. Speed of Communication
2. Lack of Empathy
3. Lack of Personal Responsibility/Sense of Entitlement
4. Lack of Education (meaning teaching people how to think, not just memorize facts.)
5. Tom Cruise

It's probably been done but:

Barney
Tinkywinky
Dipsy
Lala
Po

1. Speed of Communication
2. Lack of Empathy
3. Lack of Personal Responsibility/Sense of Entitlement
4. Lack of Education (meaning teaching people how to think, not just memorize facts.)
5. Tom Cruise

Lack of Empathy, that's a good(evil?) one too.

It's probably been done but:

Barney
Tinkywinky
Dipsy
Lala
Po
I'm assuming that's Barney and the Teletubbies?

Too bad it's limited to 5, because you left out Pikachu

Here are my five, I'm not married to these ideas, mind you. It's just what I could come up with now. I'll read your responses and see if I change my mind.

1. Religious fundamentalism
2. Nationalism
3. Racism/classism (e.g. the caste system in India and other nations.)
4. Apathy
5. I'm having a hard time coming up with a fifth one. The above four seem adequate. I'd like to say "ignorance", but is that really evil, or is it just an unfortuante result of the above four examples?

Since I can't come up with a good fifth example, I'll just say Michael Savage.