So guys, what's it like living in a boring echo chamber nowadays?

[annabenedetti]

I'm not so sure that is as ironic as you make it out to be.

It is, but also not something I plan on debating.

That's like many of us, but usually because of lack of better choices, not worse. Did you think, for 32 years, that the Republicans you voted for, straight ticket, were righteous and honest?

I believed, through church and family, that even a bad Republican was better than a Democrat. Obviously a lot of people still believe that.

Could you flesh this out in your own voting choices for us? From what I understand about the principle of double effect, it wouldn't allow voting for someone who proposes to kill children to make life easier or to progress in your vocation, which is what Democrats have proposed for quite a number of years in their party platform.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

--Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict

No, it isn't. There isn't a period there, and for good reason.

Wasn't talking about free exercise. It wasn't relevant.

And you think the Democrats you have vited for are not infringing on a baby's right to his own belief when they allow the killing of one for convenience's sake?

Get back to me when you're ready to have the state support the unwed mother throughout her pregnancy, childbirth, and the baby's early childhood years. I've never had an abortion, nor have I aided anyone else in getting one. Maybe take a look at the 70% of women obtaining abortions who professed to be Christian. That study was conducted by a pro-life group, by the way. Glass houses and all.

You should probably help us understand who you think "Dominionists" are, since ut isn't a term that has already entered the conversation at any point.

Surely I can't tell you what you don't already know.

 

[Derf]

It is, but also not something I plan on debating.



I believed, through church and family, that even a bad Republican was better than a Democrat. Obviously a lot of people still believe that.

Wrongly, of course. But that was my point--that such a course allows people wholly antithetical to a movement or ideology to pretend to be part of it and corrupt the movement. Republicans are in danger of promoting the very things the party complain about.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

--Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict

So if you don't agree with murder, the pope says it's ok to vote for a candidate that openly supports and promotes murder? And how is that supposed to bring about the thing you are hoping to achieve? What is it you are/were hoping to achieve by voting for democrats?

Wasn't talking about free exercise. It wasn't relevant.

Glad you got it off your chest then.

Get back to me when you're ready to have the state support the unwed mother throughout her pregnancy, childbirth, and the baby's early childhood years.

So, because a state doesn't "support" an unwed mother, we should allow her to kill her baby?

I've never had an abortion, nor have I aided anyone else in getting one.

You have if you supported democrats who support and encourage abortion, which is the whole party, since it's part of the party platform.

Maybe take a look at the 70% of women obtaining abortions who professed to be Christian. That study was conducted by a pro-life group, by the way. Glass houses and all.

Not my family. So, no, not in a glass house.

Surely I can't tell you what you don't already know.

Surely that's the only purpose for being on a forum: to either tell somebody something they didn't know, or be told by someone something you didn't already know.

Sounds like you've negated any reason for being here. I'm not saying you should leave, but you should be honest with yourself--something Democrats and many Republicans don't do very well.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know, you eat and breathe their brain washing. Been there, done that for you for decades, right?

That's like "knowing" that I get my news from a bunch of talking heads on the likes of YouTube & TikTok. Doesn't happen man, sorry to disappoint.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is, but also not something I plan on debating.



I believed, through church and family, that even a bad Republican was better than a Democrat. Obviously a lot of people still believe that.



"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

--Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict



Wasn't talking about free exercise. It wasn't relevant.



Get back to me when you're ready to have the state support the unwed mother throughout her pregnancy, childbirth, and the baby's early childhood years. I've never had an abortion, nor have I aided anyone else in getting one. Maybe take a look at the 70% of women obtaining abortions who professed to be Christian. That study was conducted by a pro-life group, by the way. Glass houses and all.



Surely I can't tell you what you don't already know.

That's the thing when it comes to abortion on here. I've heard plenty on here go on about the rights of the unborn but they seem to end at birth. After that it's up to the parent/s to provide for the child and they're not up to the task it's just bad luck for the kid. Obviously this doesn't apply to those who are anti abortion and believe that the child has a right to food/water and the essentials and should be provided for regardless.

 

[Right Divider]

That's the thing when it comes to abortion on here. I've heard plenty on here go on about the rights of the unborn but they seem to end at birth.

You are lying, as per usual.

After that it's up to the parent/s to provide for the child and they're not up to the task it's just bad luck for the kid.

Sometimes, that's true. We don't all get perfect parents.

Your solution: Kill the innocent child.

Obviously this doesn't apply to those who are anti abortion and believe that the child has a right to food/water and the essentials and should be provided for regardless.

How generous of you.

 

[Idolater]

That's the thing when it comes to abortion on here. I've heard plenty on here go on about the rights of the unborn but they seem to end at birth. After that it's up to the parent/s to provide for the child and they're not up to the task it's just bad luck for the kid. Obviously this doesn't apply to those who are anti abortion and believe that the child has a right to food/water and the essentials and should be provided for regardless.

Christians are supposed to feed the hungry. As the people lose Christianity, it makes sense for the remaining Christians to support the government being involved in feeding the hungry, since the people, who are losing Christianity, aren't doing enough to feed the hungry anymore.

Problem with that is we don't have any photos of emaciated Americans, like those we have all seen coming outta the Holocaust. There aren't any emaciated Americans, there aren't any photos of emaciated Americans that make you go, "Wow it must be awful to live in America, they have no food". In fact among our poorest there is a problem of obesity. We overfeed our poor. They're so overfed, they're fat.

So it's perfectly reasonable for Christians to oppose killing children in the womb, and simultaneously oppose welfare, since there's an obesity epidemic among the poorest here. We can do with less welfare, and I think our poorest, are still going to be OK. They just might have to buy smaller clothes, which probably on average, will also be cheaper for them. So it's a win-win.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Christians are supposed to feed the hungry. As the people lose Christianity, it makes sense for the remaining Christians to support the government being involved in feeding the hungry, since the people, who are losing Christianity, aren't doing enough to feed the hungry anymore.

Problem with that is we don't have any photos of emaciated Americans, like those we have all seen coming outta the Holocaust. There aren't any emaciated Americans, there aren't any photos of emaciated Americans that make you go, "Wow it must be awful to live in America, they have no food". In fact among our poorest there is a problem of obesity. We overfeed our poor. They're so overfed, they're fat.

So it's perfectly reasonable for Christians to oppose killing children in the womb, and simultaneously oppose welfare, since there's an obesity epidemic among the poorest here. We can do with less welfare, and I think our poorest, are still going to be OK. They just might have to buy smaller clothes, which probably on average, will also be cheaper for them. So it's a win-win.

If you're opposed to welfare then by association - in any realistic sense - you're tolerating a rise in poverty and homelessness among other things. For plenty, it's the only available lifeline to try and make ends meet. Not sure where you're getting the notion that the poor are overfed exactly, cite? It's all well and good declaring that Christians are supposed to feed the hungry and in itself is commendable, but that's not going to reach many who need it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are lying, as per usual.

Sometimes, that's true. We don't all get perfect parents.

Your solution: Kill the innocent child.

How generous of you.

I'm not lying at all. I thrashed this out with JR a while ago who can comment for himself. The bottom line was that children once born are not entitled to essentials like food, water, shelter, warmth etc and that it was up to the parent/s to provide and if they don't then it's pretty much tough luck for the kid. He can wade in here if he likes. Oh, and that's not "my solution" at all so your accusations are surprisingly enough, without any merit.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm not lying at all. I thrashed this out with JR a while ago who can comment for himself. The bottom line was that children once born are not entitled to essentials like food, water, shelter, warmth etc and that it was up to the parent/s to provide and if they don't then it's pretty much tough luck for the kid. He can wade in here if he likes. Oh, and that's not "my solution" at all so your accusations are surprisingly enough, without any merit.

Telling that RD and JR seem only interested in chuckling drive by smiley's than actually addressing anything. Did I misrepresent your position Judge Rightly? By all means correct me if so.

 

[Right Divider]

Telling that RD and JR seem only interested in chuckling drive by smiley's than actually addressing anything. Did I misrepresent your position Judge Rightly? By all means correct me if so.

You are hilarious when you try to defend the indefensible.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are hilarious when you try to defend the indefensible.

Stick to your smileys, more substantive.