I love it when somebody drives common sense home. Oh, they will backpeddle and try to justify their point of view, but man way to hit it. +1 to SP 7M, and I wish I could make it a triple.
Plan B
- Thread starter Supracentral
- Start date
- Status
Is slavery against your morals, Mike? Why should you force that upon anyone else?
Why does the Constitution protect us from that? It doesn't have anything to do with morals, does it Mike?
Yeah, you're right, though, I look so childish right now. You've got to be kidding me.
Why does the Constitution protect us from that? It doesn't have anything to do with morals, does it Mike?
Yeah, you're right, though, I look so childish right now. You've got to be kidding me.
LouKY said:
Qualify your statment cheerleader.
Show me a backslide or creative justification.
My position has not changed, nor have I backpedaled on any of the issues. As a matter of fact I've been accused of being redundant as I've had to restate the same thing over and over since basic reading comprehention seems to be a lost art around here these days.
What common sense? Where? If I see any around here I'll be sure to take note of it...
You're completely ignoring my point, Mike. You must think it's acceptable to murder or rape somebody.
SP 7M said:
Followed directly by...
SP 7M said:
I really didn't want to get into this thread...but here's some food for thought. How the hell do you expect to see change if you don't have people, as you so elegantly put it, "whinning and complaining?"
Do you honestly think that say, maybe the Demcratic/Republican party will one day just say..."Hey, you know what? We need some change in this country, so...in order for that to happen we're going to give up all of our seats in congress and across the country in order for a new party to come in and give them a chance."
Hell no that wouldn't happen. It takes whinning and complaining to make change happen.
SP 7M said:
Slavery is the abrogation of one persons will to another via the use of force. In some aspects, you are trying to become the slavemaster of women's reproduction, as you would remove thier rights and will and replace it with your own. If they don't listen, will you use a whip too? Oh wait, you've got government to wield the whip for you, nevermind...
SP 7M said:
Has quite a bit to do with the tenants our laws were founded upon. We can call them morals if it makes you feel like you've one some sort of petty victory in that area. We are talking about truths that are self evident. No one grants them, but the Consitution was designed to protect them.
SP 7M said:
If I found anything funny about your point of view, I'd probably be kidding. However I do not. I find your willingness to subjugate liberty disturbing. I only hope that you never see the day where your liberty has been taken from you as well. Those of us who value liberty will contine to try to prevent you from destroying the very thing that protects you. Today it's a womans reproductive rights, tomorrow it could be something you hold dear. Hopefully there's enough liberty left at that point where you'll be able to complain about it...
Mike, I have to agree that this thread is one of many where you post something simply to jump into the same old fight. You end up regurgitating the same point of view on a variety of touchy topics you know will get a response and then act self-righteous and victimized by it. Since it can be said that silence is acceptance I will continue to face off with you if you feel the need to go through the exercise again, but why?
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2003/12/22/smallb3.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2003/12/22/smallb3.html
SP 7M said:
Everyone take note of this. This is a rare display around here these days and I'd like for you all to play VERY close attention to this.
This is what is know as a "Straw Man Arguement". It's one of the basic logical fallacies that is engaged in when someone feels they cannot win a debate based upon the merit of thier postion.
You will note that he's decided to assign to me a position that is indefensible, and will then attack that invented position. As any of you know from my writings in the past, murder and rape violate the basic tennants of my philosophy, and assigning those to me is laugable at best.
When your debating reduces itself to misrepresentation of an opponent's position, you should probably just quit.
This is really rich. First I get the strawman and immediately after I get passive aggresive sarcasam:
But then, since that felt a little weak, we'll go right into an Ad Hominem attack.
I mean if you can't debate the issue, point out some (percieved or real) personaitly flaws in your opponent and then attack those...
You guys are really funny, thanks for the laugh.
LouKY said:
But then, since that felt a little weak, we'll go right into an Ad Hominem attack.
LouKY said:
I mean if you can't debate the issue, point out some (percieved or real) personaitly flaws in your opponent and then attack those...
You guys are really funny, thanks for the laugh.
Here's rich: Take a hint from the link in my last post. Nothing passive aggressive about pointing out your 'toxic personality' displays. There's plenty of good reading if you google the term. Enjoy.
Last edited:
Separation of church and state is not possible in America and that fact will never change, as if I need to restate that. If you don't believe me, read the Ten Commandments and see how many of them apply to our laws.SupraDerk said:
There is a difference between whining and complaining and actively and professionally working toward fixing our problems. The ACLU trying to bring down the cross at the Korean War memorial in San Diego and trying to ban all other forms of public displays of religion isn't going to help anything. All that does is shut down our freedoms. Or does that make perfect sense?
What will help is the respectable, cooperative behavior between the Democratic and Republican party. This is getting even further off topic, though, so I'll stop there.
LouKY said:
I'm sure you dislike me, however it doesn't change anything that has been written here so far. Your position lacks logical merit, and I fail to see how my being a complete asshole has anything to do with the matter at hand.
You're the one that walked into this discussion with a toxic chip on your shoulder. Let's go all the way back to your first comment (reply #4 to this thread):
LouKY said:
Wow, that sounds just like something someone with a toxic personality would come up with, doesn't it? Holier than thou? Everyone who doesn't agree with me is my moral inferior?
LOL - again, thanks for the laughs.
SP 7M said:
I wasn't talking directly about the political parties, just using them as an example. So to use one of your examples, if I were to complain and whine about slavery and I were living during that time period, you're saying I should just shut up and take it and not complain or whine while I see people of my own race being treated as sub-human, have their families torn apart, and told that they can't have their own culture, a new culture or anything?
You have to start whinning and complaining in order to move torwards actively and professionally solving our problems.
Also, if I am an Atheist and I am taking the oath of office as an officer commissioning into the military, do you think that I should have to say this:
"I (Full Name) having been appointed a (Rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The atheist shouldn't be able to whine and complain about that right? But it's alright to take away their freedoms just so long as you're not losing yours right?
Mike, I don't like nor dislike you. I don't know you. As I said in another thread, you have the highest of my respect when it comes to cars. On life I think you're utterly off track. On top of that you are extremely opinionated and believe yourself above most others as a self proclaimed intellectual - the atheistic version of "holier than thou". I don't like that about you, but I might have a good time having a beer with you. Maybe you're funny. Who knows?
As for me being holier than thou based on reply #4, since you bring it up? Not really, and here's why: You've agreed that my methods are preferred. People who have lived a little longer are generally wiser and make wiser (preferred) decisions. I simply pointed out that one should make "preferred" decisions, which could be phrased as "grow up". Maybe not the best way I could've put it, but one way to say it. Guess at 36 I am obviously not as wise as I will be at 86, but I'm working on it.
As for me being holier than thou based on reply #4, since you bring it up? Not really, and here's why: You've agreed that my methods are preferred. People who have lived a little longer are generally wiser and make wiser (preferred) decisions. I simply pointed out that one should make "preferred" decisions, which could be phrased as "grow up". Maybe not the best way I could've put it, but one way to say it. Guess at 36 I am obviously not as wise as I will be at 86, but I'm working on it.
You are the one that's entertaining to me, Mike. I wouldn't doubt you've got the idea that at some point those of us that disagree with you will back down because you sponsor this forum, as if you're some sort of authority figure. You'll get no such satisfaction from me.
Oh yeah, and your name calling is such an upstanding display. Thanks for setting such a fine example for all of us.
I've got to go for now but here is something to think about (or just ignore, as you've done so far):
Moral (noun) - principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct
(adjective) - 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty
Morality (noun) - 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals
Now tell me none of our laws are based upon any of that.
Oh yeah, and your name calling is such an upstanding display. Thanks for setting such a fine example for all of us.
I've got to go for now but here is something to think about (or just ignore, as you've done so far):
Moral (noun) - principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct
(adjective) - 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty
Morality (noun) - 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals
Now tell me none of our laws are based upon any of that.
I didnt read the entire thread, but i'll chime in a bit.
I myself was almost aborted. My mother was 16 when she was prgnant with me, but my father talked her out of it. I guess for me, its a good thing it wasnt the womand choice, as i woudlnt be typing this right now.
Havign said that,though, i still 100% support pro-choice. plan b, early term abortions etc. i support. I guess im just lucky that i had a father who also had somewhat of a say in the choice (which often times nowadays the father isnt around). I dont think im making much sense, and im a little off topic, but basically anything that gives more options to irresponsible people, i guess i cant argue against....
Id hate to see someone use it a buunch of times though....maybe some sort of international database that wouldnt allow the person to purchase it more than twice or something?? Kinda dumb, but maybe theres gotta be soem sorta limit to people who may want to abuse the system. Maybe im a hypocrite??
I myself was almost aborted. My mother was 16 when she was prgnant with me, but my father talked her out of it. I guess for me, its a good thing it wasnt the womand choice, as i woudlnt be typing this right now.
Havign said that,though, i still 100% support pro-choice. plan b, early term abortions etc. i support. I guess im just lucky that i had a father who also had somewhat of a say in the choice (which often times nowadays the father isnt around). I dont think im making much sense, and im a little off topic, but basically anything that gives more options to irresponsible people, i guess i cant argue against....
Id hate to see someone use it a buunch of times though....maybe some sort of international database that wouldnt allow the person to purchase it more than twice or something?? Kinda dumb, but maybe theres gotta be soem sorta limit to people who may want to abuse the system. Maybe im a hypocrite??
Supracentral said:
I knew the "Strawman" and "Ad Hominem" references would make it into this thread somehow!:biglaugh:
Wiki is a "left wing" sponsored affair.:icon_surp
JustAnotherVictim
Supramania Contributor
I agree with Slow that it should be somewhat limited for use. More for mistakes and not for just being unresponsible. Only problem is that will never work.
SP 7M said:
You're so off base it's not funny. The day I use my position as sponsor of this forum to influence the way a thread like this runs, is the day I'll shut this site down and you folks can find another host.
SP 7M said:
Firstly, I'm not here to "set an example for you". Go call mommy and daddy for that, I have no time for it.
Secondly, I'd like you to point out where I've called you names in this thread?
Aside from this question to LouKY:
Supracentral said:
I don't recall any name calling. It is a long thread, so maybe I've just forgotten (and I honestly don't care enough to look). Please cite some examples.
SP 7M said:
As for the basis of our laws, what does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? I can show you parallels in Mein Kampf that mach current law and politics. Does that validate Mein Kampf? Yes, many laws are based upon some of the tenants of your religion. Which liberally stole them from preceeding religions... Do you have a point? Please make it.
- Status