NationStates Jolt Archive

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

Actually we're strong enough in our morality to tolerate other behaviors without feeling overly tempted.

"Sin" and "morality" are arbituary guidelines contrived by humans to control themselves and each other.

Actually, you've got your history wrong. Epicurus was around before Christianity.

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

I doubt it.

Actually, you've got your history wrong. Epicurus was around before Christianity.
Thats what I thought. He was around the Golden Age which was at least 200-800 years before Christian rome.

*slaps forehead*

Not this guy again. He only reinforces the negative stereotypes of Christianity. Go away, shoo!

Liberals aren't too weak for morality, they simply have a different definition of morality than Christians do.

Epicurus was a Greek, and around before Rome became a Christian empire. Rome had a pretty decadent culture even without his teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Thats what I thought. He was around the Golden Age which was at least 200-800 years before Christian rome.

...and his ideas were known in Roman society from at least 50 BC onwards, that's about 450 years before the eventual sack of Rome.

Epicurus was a Greek, and around before Rome became a Christian empire. Rome had a pretty decadent culture even without his teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
Look at Sdariji and his big stick of truth.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You're claiming that we want to kill hospital patients?
Dream on.

...and his ideas were known in Roman society from at least 50 BC onwards, that's about 450 years before the eventual sack of Rome.
Thanks, I wasn't sure about the estimate.

Neo: Liberals also want to eat your children.

There's nothing more immoral than a priveleged and vocal minority enforcing their extremists beliefs on an entire nation. America stays true to its principles which are democracy, pluralism, personal freedom, capitalism and secularism. As long as we cling to these principles, we are strong. People who want to impose fundamentalist Protestant "morals" are the greatest threat to America's founding principles. Before you parade out some bullshit about America's "Christian heritage," remember Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both publically disavowed christianity. The largest religious group in America today is Catholics, none of whom are represented among the Founding Fathers

Neo: Liberals also want to eat your children.
Yeah, but that one is true though.
*glances at fridge full of babies in kitchen*

Liberals aren't too weak for morality, they simply have a different definition of morality than Christians do.

Are you thus implying that liberalism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity? Now that would make a much more interesting discussion.

Look at Sdariji and his big stick of truth.

That's what she said. :D

1 Early abortion is not immoral. Until there's a brain capable of thought and emotion it's not a human being.

2 "Secularization" is not immoral. Secular government ensures that all religions get treated equally and nobody uses the power of government to enforce their religious beleifs on others.

3 Contraception is not immoral. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, which lead to unhappy childhoods and maladjusted adults. It also cuts down on the abortions you seem to hate.

4 Where did you get the idea that liberals want to destroy marriage? Are you just making this crap up as you go along?

5 Affirmative action is debatable. If it's seen as reparations for slavery and Jim Crow I'm all for it. Making restitution is a very moral thing to do.

6 Sex education isn't immoral. It prevents teen pregnancies and reduces the spread of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Banning sex ed is immoral.

7 When a hospital patient is braindead, or is so brain damaged that he will remain in a vegetative state for the rest of his life removing life support is a form of mercy, not immorality.

Yeah, but that one is true though.
*glances at fridge full of babies in kitchen*
They are quite delicious when baked to a golden brown.

The largest religious group in America today is Catholics, none of whom are represented among the Founding Fathers

Yup, I'm one of them.

Actually, you've got your history wrong. Epicurus was around before Christianity.

I'm talking about the doctrine of Epicurus.

we're too strong for morality

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8832894&postcount=6

Two weeks have not passed.

I'm talking about the doctrine of Epicurus.

And we're saying that Rome wasn't exactly a morally upstanding society before his teachings became popularized.

I'm talking about the doctrine of Epicurus.

Which was known to the Romans from at the latest 50BC when Lucretus wrote of it in De Rerum Naturem. That's 450 years before the sack of Rome. It is now up to you to prove a causal link between these two events.


Side note: interestingly Christianity became known to the Romans later than the Epicurean doctrine, and thus the chances of it being a strong causal factor leading to the sack of Rome are probably higher...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8832894&postcount=6

Two weeks have not passed.

In that case, I'm out of here.

Right. Late Roman history is not my strongest point (I'm more of a punic war kinda person) but didn't Rome fall for lots and lots of reasons?Getting just too big for its own boots, the mass hunnic migrations that nobody could really stop (there's a definite difference between an approaching army and an approaching country), internal corruption, destruction of the republican system of gov't, a succession of dangerously insane emperors... I really don't see what Rome could have done. I doubt that any "Doctrine of Epicurus" was the pivotal point.

Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

What's the point of asking? I suspect that if anyone refutes your little hypothesis about liberals, you'll just assume that they're in denial.

Yup, I'm one of them.

Me too. So how can you align yourself with the Protestant right that calls the pope the anti-christ and sees us as barbarians?

I smell an IP ban coming.


Commando, honestly, do you even put some throughts into this before you speak?

Me too. So how can you align yourself with the Protestant right that calls the pope the anti-christ and sees us as barbarians?

I am a actually a paleoconservative (I support Pat Buchanan, who is Catholic). I left the Republicans when I saw they were giving into social liberalism. The heretics like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell also were in the party, and I couldn't take their anti-Catholicism, though I agreed with them on moral issues.

1 Early abortion is not immoral. Until there's a brain capable of thought and emotion it's not a human being.

Now THATS immoral,biased stupid typical pro-abortion view.

What says she's not a human being because she doesn't have a brain capable of thought? Then tell me this, if she's not a homo sapiens then what is she?

You can't answer that, because she is a homo sapiens.

Judging people by their stage in human development is just sick and plain wrong. And yeah, why stop there. Why not kill of all those annoying 3-year old kiddo's too since they don't have brain as developed as adults?

Me too. So how can you align yourself with the Protestant right that calls the pope the anti-christ and sees us as barbarians?
You catlicks are pagans. you worship mary the pope and the saints instead of Jesus. I will pray for you and comando. I will pray that you leave your pagan cult and let Jesus into your hart.

The opinions of Jesussaves do not represent the opinions of Drunk Commies, Nationstates, or Jolt.

:rolleyes: God Damnit! (yes commando #whateverthehellitisnow i took the lord's name in vain, so damn me)

Why Mod!!! Why!!!! isn't this guy ban-on-sight? I've seen most if not all of the things this guy posts and I have never ever seen him contribute ANY thing positive except for good ol' fashioned flamebait, but we have enough of that already.

Please, if there is a Just and Loving Mod out there, save us and do something about this guy! Doesn't the fact that he's Commando5 tell you something? How many reincarnations does he get, and how many free passes on insulting EVERYONE who doesn't conform to his extremely orthodox christianity?

Now THATS immoral,biased stupid typical pro-abortion view.

What says she's not a human being because she doesn't have a brain capable of thought? Then tell me this, if she's not a homo sapiens then what is she?

You can't answer that, because she is a homo sapiens.

Judging people by their stage in human development is just sick and plain wrong. And yeah, why stop there. Why not kill of all those annoying 3-year old kiddo's too since they don't have brain as developed as adults?
A lump of human flesh without a human mind. No different than an appendix.

Commando5 has been deleted for breaking forumban.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Before the other absurdities of the first post are properly addressed with derisive laughter and widespread scorn, I rather think that the original poster ought to give some qualification to his question.

"Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome"

This appears to be an attempt at providing some sort of context... but it leaves me wondering, "So what?"

Rome fell, gosh, we'd better not let that happen again! Not even those of us who may be descended from they who plundered it.

Perhaps the world was better off before the concept of empire was bloodly thrust upon it with no little help from the conquering monotheism adopted by the empire case in point, and perhaps it almost recovered with such historic falls as that of the Romans.

Great empires aren't generally worth saving in the first place.

Perhaps the world was better off before the concept of empire was bloodly thrust upon it with no little help from the conquering monotheism adopted by the empire case in point, and perhaps it almost recovered with such historic falls as that of the Romans.



must.... resist.... nitpicking.... *fails.*

Actually, most of the great Empires of the ancient world were pagan, and before the concept of Empire existed we were all living in huts trying to figure out how to make fire come out of wood.*I don't think the world was a better place for it, personally. I'm quite attached to the internet.**

*I'm not saying that Empire changed all that, just simple chronology.
** don't take the post seriously. I'm just jesting.

A lump of human flesh without a human mind. No different than an appendix.

Oh, except that Appendix's aren't humans. They are parts of humans. Appendix's don't develop into fully grown adult beings.

Commando5 has been deleted for breaking forumban.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Aww thats crap. I never knew about a forumban.

must.... resist.... nitpicking.... *fails.*

Actually, most of the great Empires of the ancient world were pagan, and before the concept of Empire existed we were all living in huts trying to figure out how to make fire come out of wood.*I don't think the world was a better place for it, personally. I'm quite attached to the internet.**

*I'm not saying that Empire changed all that, just simple chronology.
** don't take the post seriously. I'm just jesting.

I believe that once the Romans adopted Christianity, they were the first monotheistic empire in the truest sense of the word.

Oh, except that Appendix's aren't humans. They are parts of humans. Appendix's don't develop into fully grown adult beings.
Having the potential to become a human being isn't the same as having realized that potential. Sperm has the potential to become a human life. By your logic wet dreams should be mourned like the death of one's child.

Having the potential to become a human being isn't the same as having realized that potential. Sperm has the potential to become a human life. By your logic wet dreams should be mourned like the death of one's child.

Nope you sad commie. Sperms + eggs develop into human life, not sperms by themselves.

I believe that once the Romans adopted Christianity, they were the first monotheistic empire in the truest sense of the word.

I thought so, but didn't want to run the risk of someone pointing out some truly obscure indonesian empire that only had the one god, the god of gamelan and rhythym. Or something like that. The Romans were better before they adopted it anyway. Go go Ceres!

Edit: though Isis would kick her arse. Wrong pantheon though.

So periods and wet dreams which waste both are bad?

It's annoying that Christian seems to mean 'rightwing' round here I'm a commie/socialist/liberal christian, I see no contradiction in this.

I thought so, but didn't want to run the risk of someone pointing out some truly obscure indonesian empire that only had the one god, the god of gamelan and rhythym. Or something like that. The Romans were better before they adopted it anyway. Go go Ceres!

I'm sure there must've been some obscure empire that most people haven't heard of that was monotheistic, but the well-known ones were polytheistic.

Anyway, Bacchus was a better god.

Creating a country with moral absolutes in it's framework is a stupid thing to do because humans don't adhere to moral absolutes. Morality is relative, because it exists only in the mind and every mind is different. Also, societies change theire view on morality over time, so the goverment and law need to be able to change also if you don't want wave after wave of bloody potests and revolutions. That's what happened in the past in many countries including my own, and it is still the main cause of strife in developing countries today.
If you want an idea of how bad non-secularization and moral absolutes are, look at those Islamic extremist terrorist you American right wingers hate so much. They are seeking to defend the idea of a religious state in which laws are beyond all question.

So periods and wet dreams which waste both are bad?

It's annoying that Christian seems to mean 'rightwing' round here I'm a commie/socialist/liberal christian, I see no contradiction in this.

No, and that makes no sense. None of the above are human beings until they both MELD (or whatever they do). THEN they become a human being, and if you're a christian that has no problem with 500 million babies being aborted each year, you should reevaluate your principles.

Well, Commando5, I'll say you're PROBABLY some degenerative right wall (not wing, b/c this guy is liberal=satan) and NOT the brightest of bulbs, either. I've heard freshmen, ninth graders, mimic these kind of arguments that their biased, ignorant parents parroted from some would-be politician. PLEASE, if you're going to argue, say something intelligent, not some brain-damaged statement that says, paraphrased, "liberals are bad people." I don't like hearing this bitching about religion, either, because all republicans ever say is abortion is an evil, paganistic heretical thing and anyone who supports it will beat Hitler to hell. Provided, IMO, abortion is debateable, but i can NOT believe Commando5 is arguing against contraception...did you health teacher pick on you in high school? what was it? I mean, the comment earlier on in the thread that said contraception used properly NEGATES pregnancies, which could lead to an abortion, made perfect sense. Or were just cleaning out a whole barrel of evil? Instead of generalizations, use some logic, or call you your local republican representative, ask for advice, and use HIS argument.
I don't want to hear any more "liberal" attacks, because the diehard right wing people in this country have been taught like attack dogs to pounce on anything labeled "liberal." This biased nonsense should really stop if there will be any social progress around here anytime soon. Oh yeah, and the original poster, I've said him enough, should either stop talking, or use some decent arguments, because such BLATANTLY aggressive threads as this will only show the poster's ass to everyone and infuriate the "insulted", for the original generalizations were meek indeed. Stupid people go home and don't talk.

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

First of all, take a look at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05500b.htm and when you have finished reading that article, then take a look at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
After reading these excellent articles made by Catholic Christians, then please try to compare the dates in the two articles with that of the fall of the western empire. Have fun.

Nope you sad commie. Sperms + eggs develop into human life, not sperms by themselves.
1 I'm not sad.

2 That sperm had the potential to join with an egg and become life. Just like every embryo has that potential. It's not a guarantee in either case, and it's not a thinking, feeling human being in either case. It's just the potential for one.

Anyway, Bacchus was a better god.

Bacchus couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Besides, best not to anger Ceres lest all your crops fail. Bit like neptune in that regards, except that nobody declared war on her.

on a white text note, could we be getting more off topic?

I think this proves who is the best. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Ceres&word2=Bacchus)

I would argue that it is not the specific moral positions of social liberalism that must be deplored as an example of weakness. I would instead argue that the dangers of social liberalism lie in it's enshrinement of moral relativism and the plurality of purpose and desire that grows from it.

Unity of human purpose and desire should be the goal of human society. Liberalism permits conflict and promotes disunity.This problem would be mitigated if libertarians argued in favour of a superior social doctrine - unfortunately liberalism defines itself in opposition of alternative, so called authoritarian viewpoints without the benefits of providing a new moral compass. Instead, "do as thou wilt" becomes the law, leaving those who lack the idealism of their new leader but yet desire a change to wander rudderless in a darkening world.

Bacchus couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Besides, best not to anger Ceres lest all your crops fail. Bit like neptune in that regards, except that nobody declared war on her.

on a white text note, could we be getting more off topic?

I think this proves who is the best. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Ceres&word2=Bacchus)

But Bacchus is the god of drinking and partying! You can't go wrong with that.

Here's my question. If sex education is immoral, then how do we teach our children obout the dangers of things like HIV, and other transmitted diseases. Having sex is something that comes naturally to animals. I truly doubt that some field and gmae officer goes out and teaches the deer. So, if we don't teach our children about it, then they are going to make the same mistakes that have been plauging our culture for years.

Glenorand :sniper:

and another thing!! I get INCREDIBLY tired of listening about how immoral abortion is, even though i find the arguments debateable, because the only thing i ever hear is "immorality"...and this is a democracy, where people are supposed to be free, as long as they don't enfringe on others' rights. "Others" is defined as citizens of the United States, and fetuses don't have birth certificates...overpopulation is a problem anyway.
I consider myself middle ground in the abortion debate, some would say left-leaning, I may agree or disagree depending on the day, but the arguments against abortion are weak, (i.e. immoral or ...i dunno, let's hear it) considering abortion doesn't affect how a government functions or harms those who oppose it.

FROM ITAKE

<<No, and that makes no sense. None of the above are human beings until they both MELD (or whatever they do). THEN they become a human being, and if you're a christian that has no problem with 500 million babies being aborted each year, you should reevaluate your principles.>>

I habe no problem with these abortions because

a) they reduce the burdens on the mother and (if appliccable) the state, most abortions are teenagers who would generally not do a good job through simple inexperience. Not to mention her psychological problems.

b) a lot of them prevent kids coming who would end up in a lousy situation one way or the other. Poverty, mental problems, possible abuse, and so on ad nauseum.

c) there's too many damn people on this world already. We need to deal with overcrowding and if abortion is what it takes that's what it'll have to be.

d) if a mother aborts a child they can give birth later in better circumstances for all parties.

Call me heartless and mercenary if you want but there are facts which override the need you may feel to order everyone else's life to your morality.

I base my principles on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not the morality of a corrupt and utdated Church or the crazed wannabe-Jews who call themselves fundamentalists. Nowhere does Jesus say abortion is wrong. He says not to kill and to generally be nice to peole, I interpret that as letting them make the decision which brings them happiness without adversely affecting others.

But Bacchus is the god of drinking and partying! You can't go wrong with that.

Ceres (http://www.awakening-healing.com/images/Ceres%20100%20dpi.jpg)

Bacchus (http://www.oregon-wine.com/bacchus.jpg)

who would you rather go to a party with?

1 Early abortion is not immoral. Until there's a brain capable of thought and emotion it's not a human being.

2 "Secularization" is not immoral. Secular government ensures that all religions get treated equally and nobody uses the power of government to enforce their religious beleifs on others.

3 Contraception is not immoral. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, which lead to unhappy childhoods and maladjusted adults. It also cuts down on the abortions you seem to hate.

4 Where did you get the idea that liberals want to destroy marriage? Are you just making this crap up as you go along?

5 Affirmative action is debatable. If it's seen as reparations for slavery and Jim Crow I'm all for it. Making restitution is a very moral thing to do.

6 Sex education isn't immoral. It prevents teen pregnancies and reduces the spread of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Banning sex ed is immoral.

7 When a hospital patient is braindead, or is so brain damaged that he will remain in a vegetative state for the rest of his life removing life support is a form of mercy, not immorality.


Hmm are you suggesting that someone who is brain dead is not human, because they cant think or show emotion. now heres what i think, if a baby has the same genetic make up as their parents, then that baby is a human being. im not saying whether killing terry schivo was wrong or right, but either way shes still human.

The largest religious group in America today is Catholics, none of whom are represented among the Founding Fathers
Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons?

::edit::

Has there been a Commando4? Or did I miss something?

Hmm are you suggesting that someone who is brain dead is not human, because they cant think or show emotion. now heres what i think, if a baby has the same genetic make up as their parents, then that baby is a human being. im not saying whether killing terry schivo was wrong or right, but either way shes still human.
I don't define personhood by DNA. I define personhood by the ability to think and experience emotions. Look at it this way. If you met a space alien who could think and feel but lacked human DNA would it be ok to kill it because it's not "human"? If you answered no to that question then you must agree that DNA doesn't make one a person. Mental ability does. If you answered yes, you're the immoral one.

1 I'm not sad.

2 That sperm had the potential to join with an egg and become life. Just like every embryo has that potential. It's not a guarantee in either case, and it's not a thinking, feeling human being in either case. It's just the potential for one.

1. I do belive you are.

2. Correction, you ARE sad. Only sad people degenerate themselves to that kind of argumentation.

Obviously, the sperm cannot DEVELOP INTO A HUMAN BEING BY ITSELF. Neither can the EGG. But once they join together, they can and will (unless interfered with) develop into a thinking,feeling human being.

and another thing!! I get INCREDIBLY tired of listening about how immoral abortion is, even though i find the arguments debateable, because the only thing i ever hear is "immorality"...and this is a democracy, where people are supposed to be free, as long as they don't enfringe on others' rights. "Others" is defined as citizens of the United States, and fetuses don't have birth certificates...overpopulation is a problem anyway.
I consider myself middle ground in the abortion debate, some would say left-leaning, I may agree or disagree depending on the day, but the arguments against abortion are weak, (i.e. immoral or ...i dunno, let's hear it) considering abortion doesn't affect how a government functions or harms those who oppose it.

Its just, just about as immoral as murder. And if you don't think murder is immoral, too bad. This is not about freedom, because none looks to the freedom that the small baby should have.

And what do you mean "overpopulation is a problem anyways"? Yeah, lets kill all Chinese and that won't be a problem anymore!

a) they reduce the burdens on the mother and (if appliccable) the state, most abortions are teenagers who would generally not do a good job through simple inexperience. Not to mention her psychological problems.

So does killing immigrants and/or black people. It reduces the burden on the state, and on people that get robbed. Does it make it okay? NO! Because its still MURDER and it still WRONG.

b) a lot of them prevent kids coming who would end up in a lousy situation one way or the other. Poverty, mental problems, possible abuse, and so on ad nauseum.

If the baby could talk, I am damned confident she would say "GIVE ME A FUCKING CHANCE!". But again, your arguments can just aswell apply to immigrants, or black people, or any other group more prone to crime.

c) there's too many damn people on this world already. We need to deal with overcrowding and if abortion is what it takes that's what it'll have to be.

yeah, thats the spirit. Real christian thinking you got over there, I'm sure you'l make Jesus proud.

d) if a mother aborts a child they can give birth later in better circumstances for all parties.

But that won't matter shit to the baby, because then it would be dead. Remember thats its a unique human being, not a generic "thingy".

Call me heartless and mercenary if you want but there are facts which override the need you may feel to order everyone else's life to your morality.

Pro-abortionist always have the tendency to contradict themselves.

Notice that you used the word "life". What about the baby's life? Or, are you okay with "regular" murder too? Or maybe as you sad, murder with the object of decreasing overpopulation?

Ceres (http://www.awakening-healing.com/images/Ceres%20100%20dpi.jpg)

Bacchus (http://www.oregon-wine.com/bacchus.jpg)

who would you rather go to a party with?

Yeah, but Ceres is the god of plants and farming and motherly love. Bacchus is the god of getting wasted. I'm sure Bacchus knows plenty of hot demigods and shit that he could hook you up with, and I guarantee they'd put out more than the god of motherly love.

Nowhere does Jesus say abortion is wrong. He says not to kill and to generally be nice to peole, I interpret that as letting them make the decision which brings them happiness without adversely affecting others.


Abortion=killing. Jesus says killing is wrong= Jesus says abortion is wrong.

Is that so very hard to understand that abortion is murder, nothing more and nothing less?

And I'd call KILLING "adversely affecting others", "others" such as the baby.

Abortion=killing. Jesus says killing is wrong= Jesus says abortion is wrong.

Is that so very hard to understand that abortion is murder, nothing more and nothing less?

Abortion is not murder.

Here's a hint: Go look up the legal definition of murder.

Abortion=killing. Jesus says killing is wrong= Jesus says abortion is wrong.


love seeing how we're talking all high and mighty in absolutes here. *rolls eyes*

I don't define personhood by DNA. I define personhood by the ability to think and experience emotions. Look at it this way. If you met a space alien who could think and feel but lacked human DNA would it be ok to kill it because it's not "human"? If you answered no to that question then you must agree that DNA doesn't make one a person. Mental ability does. If you answered yes, you're the immoral one.

Not really, what's important is HUMAN life. If we ever encountered aliens, we could solve the moral problems that would arise there.

Until you prove to me that aliens exist I don't even need to make a standpoint regarding them, since its purely hypothetical.

Abortion is not murder.

Here's a hint: Go look up the legal definition of murder.

In what nation? In Saudi Arabia, stoning your wife is not the legal definition of murder. Over here in Sweden, it is.

Silly commie.

love seeing how we're talking all high and mighty in absolutes here. *rolls eyes*

There's nothing to discuss, unless you want to degenrate yourself to talking about which humans it would be okay to kill.

Yeah, but Ceres is the god of plants and farming and motherly love. Bacchus is the god of getting wasted. I'm sure Bacchus knows plenty of hot demigods and shit that he could hook you up with, and I guarantee they'd put out more than the god of motherly love.

I doubt it. Ceres was adopted from the Greeks, and I don't think you can really get more hedonistic than some of the Greek city-states. ok, it was mainly man/man hedonism, and not good, wholesome acceptable woman/woman hedonism, but I'm pretty sure that Ceres could use her Hellenic contacts and get Aphrodite round. AHA! Can't really touch Aphrodite.

of course, Bacchus is also adopted from the greeks... Dionysus I believe, so he'd have the same contacts. which is why this goes in the white text.

Besides, if she's a mother, you know she's experienced at least, unlike the ones that bacchus hangs around with whose sole experience is dark drunken fumblings in the vomitorium :D

1. I do belive you are.

2. Correction, you ARE sad. Only sad people degenerate themselves to that kind of argumentation.

Obviously, the sperm cannot DEVELOP INTO A HUMAN BEING BY ITSELF. Neither can the EGG. But once they join together, they can and will (unless interfered with) develop into a thinking,feeling human being.




Snipped all but what applied to my post

1 Actually I'm kind of happy.

2 They might develop into a human being, unless the zygote fails to implant into the uterine wall, which happens alot of the time, or unless there's a miscarriage, or unless the sperm or egg was defective. There's no guarantee.

But that won't matter shit to the baby, because then it would be dead. Remember thats its a unique human being, not a generic "thingy".

Babies don't get aborted. Foetuses do. A foetus is not a baby. A baby is not a foetus.

Murder is killing a person.

A Foetus is not a person.

Therefore abortion is not murder.

As for contraception, sex education and euthansia being immoral, let's just say that everyone doesn't have the warped Christian morality that seems to be a requirement for republicans nowadays.

I doubt it. Ceres was adopted from the Greeks, and I don't think you can really get more hedonistic than some of the Greek city-states. ok, it was mainly man/man hedonism, and not good, wholesome acceptable woman/woman hedonism, but I'm pretty sure that Ceres could use her Hellenic contacts and get Aphrodite round. AHA! Can't really touch Aphrodite.

of course, Bacchus is also adopted from the greeks... Dionysus I believe, so he'd have the same contacts. which is why this goes in the white text.

Besides, if she's a mother, you know she's experienced at least, unlike the ones that bacchus hangs around with whose sole experience is dark drunken fumblings in the vomitorium :D

Ceres is Demeter, if I am not mistaken.

And Rome was waaaaaay more decadent than Greece.:D

Not really, what's important is HUMAN life. If we ever encountered aliens, we could solve the moral problems that would arise there.

Until you prove to me that aliens exist I don't even need to make a standpoint regarding them, since its purely hypothetical.
You missed the entire point. It's not an argument for the existance of intelligent alien life. It's a mental experiment to see how one defines personhood. DNA can't be enough. If it were a tumor would count as a person.

Snipped all but what applied to my post

1 Actually I'm kind of happy.

2 They might develop into a human being, unless the zygote fails to implant into the uterine wall, which happens alot of the time, or unless there's a miscarriage, or unless the sperm or egg was defective. There's no guarantee.

1. No

2. True, but thats nature. Nature or God (you choose) designed it that way, and then its obviously nothing "wrong" with it. Abortion is artifical. Abortion is not giving the baby a chance at all.

And your classification of "human being" is not generic, its purely designed based on your own ideas. I could make my own, saying that you have to be "this tall" to be a human being and it would be just as justified as yours.

Thats where the problem lies, judging human life.

In what nation? In Saudi Arabia, stoning your wife is not the legal definition of murder. Over here in Sweden, it is.

Silly commie.

Fine, look it up in a fucking dictionary. Here, I'll even help you out.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

Gee, look at that, unlawful killing. Now, if abortion is legal, it's not unlawful killing, now is it?

Learn how to demonstrate your points without relying on deliberately misleading emotive language.

<<And I'd call KILLING "adversely affecting others", "others" such as the baby>>

Assuming the baby is concious all it knows is warm darkness and movment. I'd say that's a good run. If you end it quickly and painlessly I would say that a baby has not been adversely affected.

If you ask any creature whether it should die it will say no. Snakes, Spiders, Tigers, Hampsters all have one imperative, survival.

If nothing else Jesus was a social realist. Unless you have a genuine cure for all the ills of the world, lets use what we have.

I think Jackie Fleming had it right with her 'society for the protection of children who have already been born' cartoon. We as bor and active humans have problems. Let's deal with them rather than add to them. Deal with the mortal world first. I'll do what I believe is right because I believe that is what God wants me to do.

Babies don't get aborted. Foetuses do. A foetus is not a baby. A baby is not a foetus.

Murder is killing a person.

A Foetus is not a person.

Therefore abortion is not murder.

As for contraception, sex education and euthansia being immoral, let's just say that everyone doesn't have the warped Christian morality that seems to be a requirement for republicans nowadays.

Wow, you are REALLY smart.

No, tell me what makes your logic so great. Tell me what makes a foetus different from a person?

And your classification of "human being" is not generic, its purely designed based on your own ideas. I could make my own, saying that you have to be "this tall" to be a human being and it would be just as justified as yours.

Incorrect, because his would be supported by science, whereas yours would only be supported by your assinine logic.

Wow, you are REALLY smart.

No, tell me what makes your logic so great. Tell me what makes a foetus different from a person?

What makes the skin on your back different from a person?
A liver not a person?

Lack of sentience.

Its times like this that I miss Jesussaves. :(

<<And I'd call KILLING "adversely affecting others", "others" such as the baby>>

Assuming the baby is concious all it knows is warm darkness and movment. I'd say that's a good run. If you end it quickly and painlessly I would say that a baby has not been adversely affected.

If you ask any creature whether it should die it will say no. Snakes, Spiders, Tigers, Hampsters all have one imperative, survival.

If nothing else Jesus was a social realist. Unless you have a genuine cure for all the ills of the world, lets use what we have.

I think Jackie Fleming had it right with her 'society for the protection of children who have already been born' cartoon. We as bor and active humans have problems. Let's deal with them rather than add to them. Deal with the mortal world first. I'll do what I believe is right because I believe that is what God wants me to do.

Great, nice words. But where does the point come when its not murder? It is still murder.

Fine, look it up in a fucking dictionary. Here, I'll even help you out.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

Gee, look at that, unlawful killing. Now, if abortion is legal, it's not unlawful killing, now is it?

Learn how to demonstrate your points without relying on deliberately misleading emotive language.

Are you really this stupid or are you just joking? Wheter abortion is legal or not doesn't matter, since it varies videly from nation to nation.

You missed the entire point. It's not an argument for the existance of intelligent alien life. It's a mental experiment to see how one defines personhood. DNA can't be enough. If it were a tumor would count as a person.

Tumor? No, the tumor is a part of another person. A baby is a human being with unique DNA living inside another person.

Ceres is Demeter, if I am not mistaken.

And Rome was waaaaaay more decadent than Greece.:D


yeah, but at least Aprhodite is legal! I mean... gonna be difficult to explain trying to get lucky with Eros.

And yeah, Ceres is Demeter.

and another white text moment, my last before sleep. Only in Greece do you have the greatest innuendo ever.
Socrates: I owe a cock to Askelpios, will you remember to pay the debt? :D

What makes the skin on your back different from a person?
A liver not a person?

Lack of sentience.

The fact that its a part of me, not a unique human being with unique DNA in a stage of its development?

Unless you want to tell me the skin on my back can develop a sentience?

Tumor? No, the tumor is a part of another person. A baby is a human being with unique DNA living inside another person.

A disease has unique DNA and lives inside another person. We don't conscider illnesses to be human. Get better at defining.

1. No

2. True, but thats nature. Nature or God (you choose) designed it that way, and then its obviously nothing "wrong" with it. Abortion is artifical. Abortion is not giving the baby a chance at all.

And your classification of "human being" is not generic, its purely designed based on your own ideas. I could make my own, saying that you have to be "this tall" to be a human being and it would be just as justified as yours.

Thats where the problem lies, judging human life.
1 You're psychic now? Anyway, you're not very good at it.

2 If you define human life as anything with human DNA then you must say that a tumor is human life. It has human DNA. It's DNA is slightly different from it's "parent". Just like a human fetus.

I use mental ability to define personhood because mental ability is what counts. Killing a person isn't wrong because he has human DNA any more than killing a tumor is wrong. What makes killing a person wrong is that you are destroying a wealth of unique ideas, a unique perspective on the world, and a being capable of emotions like love and happiness.

Incorrect, because his would be supported by science, whereas yours would only be supported by your assinine logic.

What you just said is assinine logic. "Science" themselves made that definition on their own, based on their own values of what human life would be.

Example:

A while ago, the definition was based on when the heart started to beat. Now its based on brain activity.

Its times like this that I miss Jesussaves. :(
He posted on page 1 or 2 of this thread.

Unless you want to tell me the skin on my back can develop a sentience?

Can and has are two very different things.

A disease has unique DNA and lives inside another person. We don't conscider illnesses to be human. Get better at defining.

Diseases develop into adults? I didn't know that.

Tumor? No, the tumor is a part of another person. A baby is a human being with unique DNA living inside another person.
A tumor has unique DNA. Want to try again?

He posted on page 1 or 2 of this thread.
Still.

\Are you really this stupid or are you just joking? Wheter abortion is legal or not doesn't matter, since it varies videly from nation to nation.

Yes, I am really this stupid.

It's annoying that Christian seems to mean 'rightwing' round here I'm a commie/socialist/liberal christian, I see no contradiction in this.

Hey, I'm a commie/socialist/liberal Christian, too. And I thought I was the only one.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?
Friend one: man this guys biased. and morals arent universal.

Me: *smacks kid on the head with a text book* culture bound, moron. get an education.

1 You're psychic now? Anyway, you're not very good at it.

2 If you define human life as anything with human DNA then you must say that a tumor is human life. It has human DNA. It's DNA is slightly different from it's "parent". Just like a human fetus.

I use mental ability to define personhood because mental ability is what counts. Killing a person isn't wrong because he has human DNA any more than killing a tumor is wrong. What makes killing a person wrong is that you are destroying a wealth of unique ideas, a unique perspective on the world, and a being capable of emotions like love and happiness.

Where the F did I say I define human's by DNA? I don't. I define humans by being a unique being with unique DNA being in one stage of development with the potential to develop into a fully grown adult.

Diseases develop into adults? I didn't know that.

Don't be a dumbass, you know exactly what I meant. Just because it has unique DNA does not mean it is human life. Furthermore, just because it can develop into human life doesn't mean it has. There is a huge difference between presence and future, one which you seem not to grasp.

Hey, I'm a commie/socialist/liberal Christian, too. And I thought I was the only one.
Same here! Now it makes three.

Don't be a dumbass, you know exactly what I meant. Just because it has unique DNA does not mean it is human life. Furthermore, just because it can develop into human life doesn't mean it has. There is a huge difference between presence and future, one which you seem not to grasp.
Having discussed this issue in fora a sight more civilised than this, I learned that many people who oppose abortion for religious reasons include the potential for life as one of the reasons for their opposition.

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

Ok. A couple important facts should be added right off the bat:
Epicurus was a pre-Augustan philosopher, who lived from ca 340-270BC. And since Christianity began in Augustus' time, around the year 0 (the exact does not matter), I would like to object to your statement about Epicurus' Doctrine, on the grounds that his doctrine had already been around for at least two centuries. In fact, it appears in the Georgics, written by Vergil for Augustus- I learned about him in Latin class, as it happens. Secondly, Epicurus did not in fact support self-indulgence. I had a research paper due two months ago on Epicureanism. To quote a dictionary entry on Epicureanism:
"For Epicureans, pleasure is achievable through knowledge, friendship and temperance. They enjoyed mainly simple pleasures, and avoided such 'bodily desires' as sex and overeating. Indulging oneself was seen as the path to dissatisfaction."

And another important fact. Liberals are not trying to destroy morals. They are following their own code of what is right and wrong. You may not agree with them, but I personally feel that however you may feel about their beliefs, you have no right to try and change their beliefs unless those beliefs are causing harm to someone else; murder, for example, causes harm to others. So you are entitled to your own opinions, but please do not call those who hold differing opinions "immoral" and "terrible," as I believe you put it.

Whats wrong with you people? Abortion is MURDER! Jesus wants every baby to live. Satan is trying to get you to sacrifice your chilkren. It say abortion is wrong in the bible. God wrote the bible. That meant that God said abortion is wrong. Anyone who has abortion will burn in hell unless he repents and lets Jesus into his life. The little embreo screams and cries when the doctors come with ther sharp knife to kill it. Anybody who says diffrent is a stupid lyer.

;)

Having discussed this issue in fora a sight more civilised than this, I learned that many people who oppose abortion for religious reasons include the potential for life as one of the reasons for their opposition.

I understand that is used as an argument. However, I'm also saying it is a flawed one. If the potential is what matters, one could assume using a condom to be murder. As some catholics do. It makes no logical sense- you can't kill something which doesn't exist yet.

;)
Thanks, I've had my fix for today. (this is Kervoskia)

;)

Hah! This post is just a parrot of what Commando said.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, affirmitive action, the destruction of marriage
Do you consider libertarians social liberals? If so, you should be happy to know we oppose all of the above (abortion is actually a dividing issue for us; I'm against it).

Hah! This post is just a parrot of what Commando said.
:D

I don't know where he gets the 'destruction of marriage' bit from. Maybe it's the fact that we don't stone gays.

I'd actually vote that liberals have the morals that allow for the greatest good to come because it allows for the greatest freedom to occur.

Other than that: Itake, stop the flamebaiting, keep it civil. Show us you can do that.

Drunk Commies and Sdaeriji - should probably stop feeding Itake.

I don't know where he gets the 'destruction of marriage' bit from. Maybe it's the fact that we don't stone gays.
We don't? When the hell did this happen, no one tells me these things!

I'd actually vote that liberals have the morals that allow for the greatest good to come because it allows for the greatest freedom to occur.

Other than that: Itake, stop the flamebaiting, keep it civil. Show us you can do that.

Drunk Commies and Sdaeriji - should probably stop feeding Itake.

He/she seems to have left.

For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.
You know nothing of ancient history, do you?

No he doesn't. I could have told him he was wrng and I never heard of epicurus.

I don't define personhood by DNA. I define personhood by the ability to think and experience emotions. Look at it this way. If you met a space alien who could think and feel but lacked human DNA would it be ok to kill it because it's not "human"? If you answered no to that question then you must agree that DNA doesn't make one a person. Mental ability does. If you answered yes, you're the immoral one.

I agree.
Someone answer me this: you have a person and you slowly turn them into a cyborg until nothing but the brain is left. Is that a human? It thinks, feels, just like you and me, but has a robot body. Now take an example of a human body and replace it with a dog brain. Is that a human or a dog?

I personally feel that (and dont hate me now) a mentally handicapped person is lower than a normal person. Now im not saying 'kill them all' but Im saying that they cant think like us, and we need to think for them, and we need to make decisions for them, and generally they arent as productive in the economy, so they are more children or animals than adult humans.

(ps. if you mods are looking to ban me for my views dont IP ban me cuz im on my friends computer and she's about to cry)

Its just, just about as immoral as murder. And if you don't think murder is immoral, too bad. This is not about freedom, because none looks to the freedom that the small baby should have.

You see things in very black and white. And if you think murder is always immoral, too bad. Your given the option between your mothers life or your childs life. You gotta kill one of them. Or did you watch Revelations on TV last night? THe nun killed the girl. Oh very black and white...


So does killing immigrants and/or black people. It reduces the burden on the state, and on people that get robbed. Does it make it okay? NO! Because its still MURDER and it still WRONG.

You cant make a comparison like that, theres no relation between the two. Your now saying we SELECT what kind of baby's to abort. Most abortions have NOTHING to do with the fetus/embyo/zygote. It has to do with the mother and her situation. And yes, the US does turn down immigrants every year and leave them to their death because they just couldnt get them in.



If the baby could talk, I am damned confident she would say "GIVE ME A FUCKING CHANCE!". But again, your arguments can just aswell apply to immigrants, or black people, or any other group more prone to crime.

No, you cant, your wrong. But now im being culture-bound and sinking to your level.
On a lighter note, the 'baby' in the first trimester doesnt have the ability or even comprehension to say 'give me a fucking chance' because its like your finger nail saying 'dont cut me, i wont grow as fast i swear'.


Pro-abortionist always have the tendency to contradict themselves.


Now THAT amuses me.


Notice that you used the word "life". What about the baby's life? Or, are you okay with "regular" murder too? Or maybe as you sad, murder with the object of decreasing overpopulation?
Or murder by disassociation. If you ignore it it doesnt happen. If you dont let the refugees in they were never there. If you pretend abortions dont happen then they never did.

Nope you sad commie.

2. Correction, you ARE sad. Only sad people degenerate themselves to that kind of argumentation.

Wow, you are REALLY smart.

Are you really this stupid or are you just joking?
Itake, drop the personal attacks immediately. Not only is that entirely against the rules under which these forums operate, it also weakens your argument. If you can't calm down enough to post in a civil manner, don't post at all.

Are we understood?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Don't be a dumbass, you know exactly what I meant. Just because it has unique DNA does not mean it is human life. Furthermore, just because it can develop into human life doesn't mean it has. There is a huge difference between presence and future, one which you seem not to grasp.
http://bioteach.ubc.ca/TeachingResources/Genetics/Mouse&Ear.jpg

Is this a human or a mouse?

http://bioteach.ubc.ca/TeachingResources/Genetics/Mouse&Ear.jpg

Is this a human or a mouse?

That would be a mouse, and would seem to support my point. Thank you. :)

That would be a mouse, and would seem to support my point. Thank you.
yw ;)

Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?
Not at all. I am a liberal and moral absolutist. I think that discrimination is always wrong.

Do you consider libertarians social liberals? If so, you should be happy to know we oppose all of the above (abortion is actually a dividing issue for us; I'm against it).

Wait, what?

Libertarians are against secular government?

The hell?

Since when are libertarians pro-theocracy?

Liberals aren't too weak for morality, they simply have a different definition of morality than Christians do.
By this definition, are liberal Christians just confused? ;)

And we're saying that Rome wasn't exactly a morally upstanding society before his teachings became popularized.
Sorry but this phrase always make me laugh, even more so than "moral rectitude." I wonder did the guy who thought up these phrases just have a sense of humour or was it a Freudian slip?

Wait, what?
Libertarians are against secular government?
The hell?
Since when are libertarians pro-theocracy?
You don't understand - I'm against secularization of culture that a lot of the PC liberals seem to want - secular government, fine, but I'm not gonna go off the deep end if separation of church and state is slightly breached. What I am against is the 'freedom *from* religion' crap; the government cant stop people from evangelizing just because they are trying to spread morality.

You don't understand - I'm against secularization of culture that a lot of the PC liberals seem to want - secular government, fine, but I'm not gonna go off the deep end if separation of church and state is slightly breached. What I am against is the 'freedom *from* religion' crap; the government cant stop people from evangelizing just because they are trying to spread morality.

...Um...

Since when has there been a large movement for a religious BAN?

Mind you, I'd be happy if it ceased to exist, but considering liberals include myriad religions, especially the downtrodden ones...

This is like arguing against liberals eating children.

Yeah. I'm against it too. Also the having unconsenting sex with alien sheep. Really against that.

I'm sure there must've been some obscure empire that most people haven't heard of that was monotheistic, but the well-known ones were polytheistic.

Anyway, Bacchus was a better god.

Akhenaton is generally considered one of the first monotheist rulers: whether you consider Dynastic Egypt as an empire is a different matter.

Since when has there been a large movement for a religious BAN?
There hasn't been one yet - but never say never; religious oppression has occured in other parts of the globe...

There hasn't been one yet - but never say never; religious oppression has occured in other parts of the globe...

Yes, but usually in favor of one, and against its rivals.

More of a conservative thing, these days.

Yes, but usually in favor of one, and against its rivals.

Only if you count Soviet or Chinese communism as religions.

Only if you count Soviet or Chinese communism as religions.

Honestly, the way the hard-core communists on here argue... I'd call it a secular religion.

They preach like Evangelists.

Honestly, the way the hard-core communists on here argue... I'd call it a secular religion.

This description runs into problems when you are dealing with Christian Communists - do they have a simultaneously secular and sacred religion?

This description runs into problems when you are dealing with Christian Communists - do they have a simultaneously secular and sacred religion?

You make it suggest that religion requires there only be one.

You make it suggest that religion requires there only be one.

The point might have been better made if I had described them as holding a simultaneously secular and not-secular religion or a simultaneously sacred and not-sacred religion. x & -x ... you know?

Christianity destroyed Rome, not hedonism.

Christianity destroyed Rome, not hedonism.

I vote we just leave it at 'Rome was destroyed' and not worry about who/what/why/whatever. I think that point is moot by now.

The point might have been better made if I had described them as holding a simultaneously secular and not-secular religion or a simultaneously sacred and not-sacred religion. x & -x ... you know?

They're not mutually exclusive.

Many religions get combined. Wicca does it routinely, for example.

Combing a secular and non-secular one would be even easier, since there would be no conflict.

After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Rome was sacked because it was too freaking huge. It collapsed under its own weight not because liberal doctrine corrupted the Roman population. You make no sense.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion

Would you rather have unsafe abortions, births that killed the mother, or the theivery of rights for the living mother for the sake of an unborn sack of organs, which by definition is not alive and the abortion of which is not so much murder as saving a life (the mother's)?

secularization

why is this immoral? only to someone who's closed concept of morality is the absolute adherence to the absolute doctrine of the absolute one true church, even over the bible itself. name one civilization that has survived for a prolonged period of time in relative peace while ruling under a theological rather than a secular code of law. Just one, please!

contraception

even flimsier argument than the argument against abortion. Not only are sperm not alive, 99.999% or so of them never fertilize. though, i suppose, an unwanted pregnancy can always be aborted. OH WAIT, IT CAN'T. not in your perfect little world, anyway.

the destruction of marriage

how does liberalism destroy marriage? unsupported statements do not an argument make. an ass they make, indeed.

affirmitive action

only the militant multiculturalists. I dislike affirmative action on the ground that it's so "equal" it's racist. personally, i think people should be admitted to college based on their actual level of intelligence, not their race. What's your excuse?

sex education

So, you'd like sex ignorance? That'd be funny:

"SO, that's what that thing does!! Who'd of thought?"

death to hospital patients

who told you that? that's like me saying Jews use blood in their matzah meal. Did Tom DeLay say tell you this? Did he forget to mention he did the same thing to his own FATHER in the 80s? Thought so.

These things are not moral by any standards.

Whose standards? I find your stupidity immoral, by my standards.

Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

No.

</diatribe>

There hasn't been one yet - but never say never; religious oppression has occured in other parts of the globe...
and its almost always been by another religious group...and even spreading gods word of democracy to evil-doers can be considered such ;)

What is up with theocrats in America. God, they wish to keep a brain dead person alive against her wishes. What the fuck? As bad as the fucking "save the trees" freaks. I think we should kill em before they turn the U.S. into Iran.

Abortion: I don't agree with. Just provide better prevention.

Government: Desolve 95% of it. Yes, even the precious FCC. That will make theocrats mad. The added benefit is that government could not be used as a tool for either liberals, conservatives, socialist, or theocrats.

Oh, if any conservative or liberal wishes to force me into thier vision of right and wrong, I'll practice my second amendment right.

What is up with theocrats in America. God, they wish to keep a brain dead person alive against her wishes. What the fuck? As bad as the fucking "save the trees" freaks. I think we should kill em before they turn the U.S. into Iran.

Abortion: I don't agree with. Just provide better prevention.

Government: Desolve 95% of it. Yes, even the precious FCC. That will make theocrats mad. The added benefit is that government could not be used as a tool for either liberals, conservatives, socialist, or theocrats.
You are so right, I just felt I had to compliment you on this.

And in canada we can go to the BCC (Birth Control Center) and get free condoms! FREE CONDOMS!!!!!

Your fifth incarnation? Don't you ever get tired of this monotony Commando?

many of you have made a reference to abortion in relation to this liberalism debate. i believe that abortion is a moral issue and should not be decided by the government, a government is not there to impose values on its people this is not a theocracy! laws made by ageing men are being made to control the bodies of young women. i see an blatant difference in persepective. Personally i don't believe in abortion but the government has no place in directing this sensitive of an issue

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

Im conservative but i gotta disagree with you buddy. Im an athiest first of all so i disagree with what you call morality. The reasons rome fell is number one they became to greedy and lost there sence of nationality in there race to get more money. Two they spread to far, the roman militairy forces had an extent and they were stretched to past there limits which allowed the germanic tribes to break through weak pionts in there defences and overun the roman empire. And last of all christainity caused rome to fall they became so devoted, they started killing people who didnt share there views which caused rome to lose its grip on its outer fringes in places like africa and britain were there werent enough romans to enforce there religious laws so the people were in rebellion besides the fact that rome was being attacked by the huns and the visigoths and astrogoths and various tribes they had to give up these outposts and they eventually lost almost all of there territory except for the for the western half of the empire which became its own christian empire but was eventually conquored by the muslim empire.

many of you have made a reference to abortion in relation to this liberalism debate. i believe that abortion is a moral issue and should not be decided by the government, a government is not there to impose values on its people this is not a theocracy! laws made by ageing men are being made to control the bodies of young women. i see an blatant difference in persepective. Personally i don't believe in abortion but the government has no place in directing this sensitive of an issue
Thank you! Morals are based on opinions, and whatever your opinions may be, you should have every right to put the ideals to practice, unless it infringes on the ability of someone else to practice their own beliefs and express their own opinions. I could care less if Evangelists from around the globe decided to fast or march or whatever until cells stopped getting sucked out of wombs, but the second they say that you're going to be forced into jail (or worse) because of it, I will be joining Calculations in his practicing of the second amendment. And this goes for any group or any law proposed, not just those involving abortion. Feel free to debate over whether or not it is morally objectionable, but this is really a personal matter, and chances are you will not reach a reasonable conclusion from continuing to reiterate yourselves.

Just my view I guess.

I have to comment that this thread has to be one of the most flame ridden threads I've read through on here. Cutting through the flames, there are some decent points on both sides. (my own wording and thoughts included in those points)

1. A human foetus is still a human and should probably be called murder if it is killed. Do we not call it a double murder if a pregnant woman is killed? Do we not mourn miscarriages?

2. The mother's rights are being infringed upon by forcing her to have the child when she cannot support it. Such is the case with teen pregnancy which can completely destroy the life of the mother because of social circumstances, which still happens irregardless of possibility of adoption (kicked out of high school, shunned by both peers and elders). Even worse is when the mother would surely die as a result of the birth. Taking one life to protect another is still murder. In the case of rape resulting in pregnancy, her life has been destroyed once already, do we ask her to be reminded of this daily?

These two points are seriously contradictory. As a result there is only one solution. Legalize it and leave it up to the moral values of the individual in question. Personally, unless it was life threatening to me, I would keep the child in all circumstances except rape. I cannot be the judge for anyone else. Nor should you be. Let each individual decide. That's what freedom means.

EDIT: PS - The second amendment only allows you to wield weapons, not to use them against anyone. That's still classified as murder or at least manslaughter most of the time.

Ugh, can't someone move this into the spam area?

That's all this is, that's all commando ever does, spam and flamebait.

Ugh, can't someone move this into the spam area?

That's all this is, that's all commando ever does, spam and flamebait.

Wait. He's started spamming too?

I'm sure there must've been some obscure empire that most people haven't heard of that was monotheistic, but the well-known ones were polytheistic.

Anyway, Bacchus was a better god.

Ancient Isreal? I admit it wasn't that big, but .....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't leaving everyone to do whatever they wished with their own bodies be more moral than forcing them to conform to society?

In my opinion, YES.

the destruction of marriage

Divorce is the destruction of marriage; I don't see any conservatives trying to make that illegal...

Wait. He's started spamming too?
He posts the same thing over and over and over. He spaces them out, but it's the same effect, isn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't leaving everyone to do whatever they wished with their own bodies be more moral than forcing them to conform to society?

In my opinion, YES.

I'd say so. And people who follow morals on their own accord rather than at the coercion of social or governmental pressures are the truly moral. How could one expect the individuals of a society to be moral if they do so begrudgingly at the edict of official policy? So then one could say that the "liberal" live and let live social policy is the most moral of all, as it gives the *freedom* for morality.

I don't feel like resorting to direct attacks on the poster's intelligence is generally the right way of going about things, but for the most part it seems as though those who claim weakness or defectiveness of the opposition as a point of argument usually do so to hide a weakness of their own. And those with the "gumption" to do so online are obviously even more questionable.

Akhenaton is generally considered one of the first monotheist rulers: whether you consider Dynastic Egypt as an empire is a different matter.

I would consider Dynastic Egypt an empire, but Akhenaton (if I am thinking of the correct person) was more of an aberration of Egypt and not really the norm. If I recall correctly, he was removed and the regular polytheistic culture was returned rather quickly.

Ancient Isreal? I admit it wasn't that big, but .....

It wasn't really an empire in the sense that we determine empires in ancient times. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Macedon; those were empires.

This thread promises to answer the zen questions of "Is a NS thread causes posters to scream, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" and "What is the sound of a head hitting a keyboard, repeatedly?"

It wasn't really an empire in the sense that we determine empires in ancient times. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Macedon; those were empires.

well now we are just splitting hairs. :)

blarg another totally retarded post/thread - why can't you people be normal... go outside... get out of these internet forums for a while

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?

Secularization: More moral than anything you can transpose

Contraception: More moral than forcing people to have babies

Abortion: See above

Destruction of marriage: Are you fucking kidding?

Affirmative Action: Its immoral to try and help people be equal?

Sex Education: Today social liberals want immoral things like... sex education(You are against sex education? Its more moral for people to be ignorant?)

Death to hospital patients: Again, are you fucking kidding?


My god, this is the worst thread. Ever.

(By the way, im not a moral person, but I understand what is commonly held to be moral, and you are way off dude).

My god, this is the worst thread. Ever.

Agreed, 100%.

Throughout history absolute morality has been what held great empires together. For instance Christian Rome was thriving until the atheist Doctrine of Epicurus was introduced. Epicurus believed in living life to please yourself and yourself only (indulging in 7 deadly sins). After this doctrine was introduced many Romans followed it, became corrupted, and the Germanic tribes sacked Rome.

Today social liberals want immoral things like abortion, secularization, contraception, the destruction of marriage, affirmitive action, sex education, death to hospital patients, ect. These things are not moral by any standards. Do social liberals want these terrible things because they are too weak for morality and so instead of admitting it they turn to immorality and call it "freedom"?I was thinking along these lines... of course, there are points he put out that I don't agree with. (Bolded are NOT things I agree with especially the point about Liberals being the Cause, Underlined are unsure areas for me. I think it's more about the Morals of the core civilization changing.) but it does beg to question why so many Empires collapse and more it seems from Internal failure than by foreign power. Currently researching and hope to post my findings here one day.

BTW. I really don't agree with most of what Commando[whatever number] posts.

Let's see; according to Commando5, it must be moral to force people to: 1. believe in God, whether they want to or not
2. have numerous babies, no matter how many they decided they WANTED to have, even if they can't afford to do so
3. have people stay in a harmful or even deadly marriage, (gives "til death do us part" a whole new meaning)
4. stay "downtrodden" because of their race, creed, sex, (or sexual preferences)
5. not learn about their own bodies, let alone the opposite sex
6. keep people alive longer than they want, even if they are brain dead, instead of honoring a living will
Morality is respecting others: their beliefs, wishes, hopes and dreams; not making people live their life based on ancient ideas that could not possibly foresee the incredible changes people would be making in 2000+ years.
To have people be able to travel freely, to have true control of their own lives, to be able to marry who they love, to not have to worry about being attacked because of their race or religion, that, my friends, is a moral world. I only wish we were already there.

-snip-

Wow. Great first post, man. Welcome to NS General.

*hands you a cookie*

Oh, I agree 100%, by the way.

Let's see; according to Commando5, it must be moral to force people to: 1. believe in God, whether they want to or not
2. have numerous babies, no matter how many they decided they WANTED to have, even if they can't afford to do so
3. have people stay in a harmful or even deadly marriage, (gives "til death do us part" a whole new meaning)
4. stay "downtrodden" because of their race, creed, sex, (or sexual preferences)
5. not learn about their own bodies, let alone the opposite sex
6. keep people alive longer than they want, even if they are brain dead, instead of honoring a living will
Morality is respecting others: their beliefs, wishes, hopes and dreams; not making people live their life based on ancient ideas that could not possibly foresee the incredible changes people would be making in 2000+ years.
To have people be able to travel freely, to have true control of their own lives, to be able to marry who they love, to not have to worry about being attacked because of their race or religion, that, my friends, is a moral world. I only wish we were already there.

Ah, you see, but it's the *Christian* thing to do. You are a good Christian, right?

:confused: Wow... People really think like this! :rolleyes: Back to World of Warcraft! :D

What says she's not a human being because she doesn't have a brain capable of thought? Then tell me this, if she's not a homo sapiens then what is she?

You can't answer that, because she is a homo sapiens.
To be nitpicking, a human not capable of thought cant be a homo sapiens.

sa·pi·ent
adj.

Having great wisdom and discernment.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sapins, sapient- present participle of sapere, to taste, be wise. See sep- in Indo-European Roots.]

I have to comment that this thread has to be one of the most flame ridden threads I've read through on here. Cutting through the flames, there are some decent points on both sides. (my own wording and thoughts included in those points)

1. A human foetus is still a human and should probably be called murder if it is killed. Do we not call it a double murder if a pregnant woman is killed? Do we not mourn miscarriages?

2. The mother's rights are being infringed upon by forcing her to have the child when she cannot support it. Such is the case with teen pregnancy which can completely destroy the life of the mother because of social circumstances, which still happens irregardless of possibility of adoption (kicked out of high school, shunned by both peers and elders). Even worse is when the mother would surely die as a result of the birth. Taking one life to protect another is still murder. In the case of rape resulting in pregnancy, her life has been destroyed once already, do we ask her to be reminded of this daily?

These two points are seriously contradictory. As a result there is only one solution. Legalize it and leave it up to the moral values of the individual in question. Personally, unless it was life threatening to me, I would keep the child in all circumstances except rape. I cannot be the judge for anyone else. Nor should you be. Let each individual decide. That's what freedom means.

EDIT: PS - The second amendment only allows you to wield weapons, not to use them against anyone. That's still classified as murder or at least manslaughter most of the time.
1 We only call it a double murder in some states, and the reason we do is because conservative, theocratic politicians have pushed for laws like that in order to weaken protections for abortion. Sorry, I'm smart enough to think circles around the idiot fundy politicians. And we don't mourn for the miscaried fetus, we mourn for the parents who have lost an opportunity for a child.

2 Taking a life isn't the same as taking a human life. It's not a person if it can't think or feel. It's just human tissue. Like an appendix.

3 Exactly. It's up to the personal morals of the people involved. The parents and the doctor. It's not government's business. It's good that people with different points of view can agree. I respect people like you.

Morality is subjective to each person. Your morality is not mine.

To Potaria,
The Lady thanks you for the cookie. Good choice; chocolate chip is my favorite. Care for some chocolate milk to dunk the cookies in?

To The Philosophes,
Check out my name; I'm a Pagan, not a christian; good, bad or otherwise.

And since I don't see the original post from Itake I'm not sure what s/he was implying, but I was referring to a person whose brain no longer functions due to accident or illness. If I was in that condition, I would not want my family and friends to see me like that, to feel obligated to spend thousands of dollars or more just to keep my body alive. I would want to die peacefully and donate my organs to someone who has a chance at a real life.

1 We only call it a double murder in some states, and the reason we do is because conservative, theocratic politicians have pushed for laws like that in order to weaken protections for abortion. Sorry, I'm smart enough to think circles around the idiot fundy politicians. And we don't mourn for the miscaried fetus, we mourn for the parents who have lost an opportunity for a child.

2 Taking a life isn't the same as taking a human life. It's not a person if it can't think or feel. It's just human tissue. Like an appendix.

3 Exactly. It's up to the personal morals of the people involved. The parents and the doctor. It's not government's business. It's good that people with different points of view can agree. I respect people like you.

In regards to the bolded text in #1: I disagree there. There are quite a few graves out there for miscarried foetuses (foeti?), including one within my own family.

In regards to the bolded text in #2: I disagree completely. That's why I'm also vegan. Taking a life - any life - in my opinion is still murder. I am also of the opinion that a human foetus can think and feel once it has a brain. Since the brain is one of the first things to develope, only earliest term abortions would be acceptable to me.

The fact remains that each of the above are my opinions, not necessarily yours or anyone else's. Which is exactly why I am pro-choice/pro-child, not purely pro-choice. I don't believe I have the right to impose my version of morality on anyone. I don't recall that being in the bill of rights... Seems like some people believe it is there though.

In regards to the bolded text in #2: I disagree completely. That's why I'm also vegan. Taking a life - any life - in my opinion is still murder. I am also of the opinion that a human foetus can think and feel once it has a brain. Since the brain is one of the first things to develope, only earliest term abortions would be acceptable to me.

Plants are alive too you know. By eating vegetables you are complicit in herbicide. Unless you only eat plant matter that has fallen to decay on its own, except for rotting fruit which is in the process of fertilizing the seeds that will grow from its site.

You can also supplement your diet with dirt, but this poses a dilemma. Do you filter out the parasites to keep from consuming them, or do you have to leave them in because getting consumed by unwitting hosts is how they survive, meaning that if you filter them out of the dirt that you eat you are, after a fashion, killing them?

Also, murder is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law. Granted it's becoming a finer and finer line these days, but wether or not something is murder is a matter of fact, not opinion.

This thread promises to answer the zen questions of "Is a NS thread causes posters to scream, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" and "What is the sound of a head hitting a keyboard, repeatedly?"

"yhuyybyyb7y6y76" That's 7 repititions.

I was thinking along these lines... of course, there are points he put out that I don't agree with. (Bolded are NOT things I agree with especially the point about Liberals being the Cause, Underlined are unsure areas for me. I think it's more about the Morals of the core civilization changing.) but it does beg to question why so many Empires collapse and more it seems from Internal failure than by foreign power. Currently researching and hope to post my findings here one day.

BTW. I really don't agree with most of what Commando[whatever number] posts.

Jared Diamond wrote a book called collapse that I haven't had a chance to read yet, but if it's anything like Guns, Germs, and Steel I expect it to be pretty compelling. I've heard that his central thesis is that governments loose touch with their people when they become too big. They start doing things that the people don't really want, either by not telling them, or by telling them that the thing they're doing is actually something else.

For example the Romans didn't want to fight wars of agression and conquest, but they wanted to conquer. So the government hired barbarians as mercenaries. This cost huge amounts of money and the conquest was more than the Roman economy could support. Americans don't want to fight wars of agression and conquest, so the government hires mercenaries from companies like Blackstar and CACI. These mercenaries cost about 100 times the price of the real military and are costing the country billions of dollars with no noticable benifit to anyone other than Halliburton, KBR, and Lockheed Martin.

This would be the absolute morality that the original poster was alluding too and getting completly wrong. The liberals and subversives, like the Christians, in Rome were against wars of aggression and brutality directed at political subversives that the Roman conservatives were in favor of (collusea and warfare in general). The conservatives of the day thought that enemies of Rome deserved the most brutal and cruel punishment available. They had it coming for not supporting the empire.

Today "liberals and subversives," like moderate Christains and secular humanists are against the wars of conquest and brutal privatized prison complexes that conservatives are in favor of. The conservatives of today favor war and harsh prison sentences because they are cruel people at heart, but they moralize it as "they had it coming for being Bush Bashers" or "9/11 changed everything, we can't try to be nice to the terrorists anymore" when what they really mean is "I want to kill people, and it's probably best that they're not Americans, or at least not the right kind of Americans."

OH yes rome that pedestall of morality, im sure all the slaves, they had hated jesus and were going to hell anyways so you know they had it comming. Oh right this is the same society that hunted down christiens then relesed them into lion pits for the amusement of others. They also also had alot of sex slaves whic is way worse than prostitition. they also burned several cites to the ground then salted the earth but they were probly heatens and had it comming. gee doesent that sound like a great society to bas modern morals after, well im off to get some sex slaves and toss some heatens into lion pits cause im sure that what jesus would want.