BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003

[rasputen]

I must address Novice here very quickly:

"Well, first things first. Rasputen writes and formats his posts extremely similar to a long time TOL'er. But that is a topic for another show.

But more importantly, all three Columbine seniors agreed with the host (Bob) on almost EVERY single point brought up on the show EXCEPT the tactic of the pro-life protesters.

The conversation with Bob was friendly, non-confrontational and all three kids claimed to be Pro-life Christians. Again, this does not match at all the tone of rasputen.

Nothing that rasputen has typed to date sounds remotely similar to what was being discussed on the show."
-novice


Now to my refutation. You know, there are other message boards with a format similar to this. TOL isn't the only message board on the internet.

Second, you'll notice that by making sure it was clear on the show that I valued the respect of the opinions of all, I believe that is sufficient evidence enough that I am Greg Schreier. You also say the conversation was non-confrontational. Surely you aren't that foolish; Bob and I went back and forth the ENTIRE SHOW disagreeing on the tactics. If that wasn't confrontational, I'm not certain what is.

Third, I did claim to be pro-life, but I am also an objectivist in the vein of Ayn Rand. Meaning that I formulate my own moral opinions, but also allow others to have conflicting opinions. Put simply, I'm not an absolutist. That was also quite clear on the show, if I'm not mistaken, considering I stressed the respect of opinions and the importance of the dialectic. In addition, you will notice that on the show, when asked my religion, I skirted the question. This is because I didn't wish to be addressed as a heathen, as I am certain Bob would have considered me as if I would have admitted to being an agnostic with largely Christian influenced beliefs. I said, and I quote, "I was raised Christian... I am a Christian, but I am open to everything." That is very much what I seem to be saying here- a lot of openness regarding my beliefs. Everything I've said is relevant to the show. Furthermore, BuckyKatt is not me, but a friend of mine that I told about the message board. He is a freshman at Columbine on the debate team with me.

Finally, I was much more enticed to be cordial to a knowledgable man on a very reputable radio show than people on an internet message board who have never so much as seen my face. In spite of this, I've been very appreciative of the opportunity to converse with you all, and despite the fact that I am argumentative, I don't feel I've been rude (if I have, I extend my sincerest apologies). If you would like to converse with me further about my identity, you may message me and I'll be happy to disclose my instant messenger screennames and continue dialogue.
Cheers!
~Greg Schreier

 

[rasputen]

"Is it absolutely wrong for a man to violently rape a woman?"
I don't advocate unwarranted aggression. Perhaps a more pertinent example would be a man stealing food to feed his children. I certainly wouldn't consider that to be immoral, but stealing a person's stereo to sell for drug money would certainly be reprehensible. POINT: Stealing is neither absolutely moral nor immoral. Hence my disbelief in absolutism.

"And God condemns them for it: "You shall not do according to all that we do here today, each doing whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). We are not supposed to do what we think is right. Instead, we have an obligation to find out what is right and do that."
- I'm sure he will. So how about you stop being so self-righteous and leave the judging to your creator?


"So, as a Christian you don't think the Bible is a superior standard?"
-My point was that the only thing that can truly gauge superiority is practicaly applicability. In Asia, Confucian beliefs govern many nations, and dictate the laws (basically, self sacrifice for the good of the whole- individuality is looked down upon). Western society places the importance on the development of the individual, and denying individual rights is immoral in our society. But in many eastern societies (i.e. China) this is not considered immoral. Furthermore, how can a person use the Bible as a standard if it simply is not part of their culture? (again, Asia- largely Hindu/Buddhist/Islamic cultures). There simply cannot logically be a universal standard for morality, and absolutism fails again.


"But one decision can be evil or foolish (hence worthy of ridicule), whereas another decision can be moral and wise (hence worthy of respect)."
-Even foolish or "evil" decisions bring about consequences that are an integral part of the learning process called life.

"Harris and Klebold were murderers. Likewise, people who abort their own children are also murderers. How is that comparing apples to oranges?"
- Two teenagers armed with semi-automatics in a high school is comparable to an abortion clinic? Circumstances are substantially different, methinks.


"That statment would probably prevent more abortions at Columbine than any other location in the world. Why would any student at Columbine want to be a murderer like Klebold or Harris?"
- They don't want to be a murderer, and hence don't purchase guns. Plus, why does it HAVE to be Klebold and Harris? Why not Jeffrey Dahmer or the Boston Strangler, or Timothy McVeigh? Why? Because Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh are IRRELEVANT. Just like Klebold and Harris.



"I thought you said all opinions are worthy of respect. This doesn't sound like you are respecting my opinion. Doesn't this make you a hypocrite?"
- Intentionally doing mental and emotional harm to innocent students is NOT expressing your opinion, good sir. Explaining your platform is, and I welcome that. Explain to me, intelligently, why abortion is absolutely immoral (something the protestors again fail to do).

"So you think those protestors should be given a life sentence in prison or even the death penalty?"
- If you've seen the terror in someone's eyes when they have a flashback, you would want to. When my friends are reminded unnecessarily that their friends died in a terrible manner, it is a pain I wish to heal. But it cannot be healed. It causes pain just as great as the shooting itself, which is something one CANNOT understand unless one has been exposed to such a situation first hand.

"So you're saying that you think those abortion photographs are fake? Are you joking? How pleasing to the eye do you think a real photograph of an aborted baby would be compared to the photographs that were displayed at Columbine?"
- I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your statement. You assumed that all pictures are true. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that any image is open to interpretation, and thus are susceptible to being inefficient.


"Now you're going off into lala land. I'm beginning to agree with novice that you are not Greg Schreier. "
- Sorry, I just take my philosophy class too seriously. But you ignore the moral implications of my statement. Christians seem to advocate the absence of pain and evil; evil would cease to exist if we all as humans ceased to exist. But that certainly is a flawed standard. And the only thing I haven't done in proving my identity is give you my social security number.


"Oh, we comprehend it, we just disagree with it. Since there were no protests about the Nazi holocaust on the Jews, what does that say about the citizens of Germany during that time? Now, what if our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests? Would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?"
- What can I say, I'm an idealist. But a history book, being unbiased, would do neither. My history book neither condemns or praises abolitionists or slaveholders- as well it should. It serves only the purpose of reporting facts. What is your obsession with textbooks? Furthermore, you'll notice no citizens tried to logically persuade the Nazis that they were incorrect either. So you can't say that my proposed method failed.s


"You were free to walk up to them and discuss the issue with them."
- You are correct, I can't disagree with that. But their methods were so inflammatory that they lost credibility on face, and I don't debate with cretins. At least not when I am angry.

"Yeah right. You're the only teenager in America who just hates watching those bloody horror movies. Yeah, I'll believe that when Hell freezes over."
- Please, I spend my evenings watching Nick at Nite. I find Hollywood to be unintelligent and equally inflammatory. However, you AGAIN compare apples and oranges. Hollywood is fake. Furthermore, I again CHOOSE to view these films. I was not given said option with the protests.


"So you think our tactics are ineffective. Big deal. We disagree. We think they are effective."
- That's grand. On what backing? I've shown you how inflammatory and counterproductive they are. Keep using the tactics, and keep turning America's youth against you. Because I assure you that's all that happened at Columbine.


"Wrong:



I Corinthians 6:2-5 - Don't you know the saints will judge the world?

Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the Judgment with this generation and shall condemn it.

Daniel 7:21,22 I watched, and that horn made war with the saints and overcame then until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them."
- The self-righteousness is cute. I'm still waiting for my maker to evaluate my conduct here on earth.


"They were in my text books. And I guarantee you, they are in the Columbine library. "
- Well if you like, you may finger through my textbook. Because I have yet to see them. Even still, I'm still given choice.


"And you are free to look away from our pictures. What's the difference?"
- The posters are in every direction. The north, south, east, and west corners. Of the only exit to my school. I must turn out onto pierce, and they are on every corner. The posters are larger than the individual holding them; how does one "ignore" that?


"Oh please. Stop being so melodramatic. No one put a gun to your head and "forced" you to "stare" at the photographs like in the movie "A Clockwork Orange." All you had to do was turn your head and look the other way. It's simple. "
- I could look the other way, right at another poster. If you weren't there, I fail to see how you could say my assessment is incorrect.

"I wasn't there. But I doubt they blocked anyone's view of oncoming traffic. But if they did, you could have simply informed them that they were a traffic hazard. All they needed to do was to simply move a mere 5 feet down the side of the road. Another simple solution. "
- You're right. Next time I'll either A.) tell them to kindly move or B.) run them over.


"Burning?" So you're a book burner? You're in favor of censorship? "
- Oy vey, not this tripe again. Don't take the point literally. I was simply pointing out how bothersome the whole bloody thing was.

"I must say, you do sound very different than the Greg Schreier on Bob's show the other night. Let me ask you novice's question: The Greg Schreier on Bob's show was in favor of the war. You seem to be against it. Which is it?"
- I'm in favor of ousting a tyrant who kills his own people; I disagree with the motives of the sometimes ethnocentric American people. Bush wants oil. We all know this. Not to mention the fact that I am bothered that we drop propaganda over Iraq on a daily basis. Here's my idealism again... I'd like to see an unbiased, global agent do the dirty work in Iraq. But if America must be the agent to oust this tyrant, then so be it.
It's also quite simple for me to sound different on the internet when I have time to plan my arguments, and when I am not limited in my speaking time.
Good day.
~Greg Schreier

 

[rasputen]

"No, I asked a question to which no one has yet been able to answer. Here is the question: If our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests, would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?"

Since you are so anxious for an answer, here is the clearest I can give. A history book, being an agent that presents FACTS, would merely explain that people protested the Nazi effort (or at least ideally SHOULD do that). It would leave the independent judgment to the individual. My history book does not seem to coerce me into believing a particular thing. I condemn the protestors because of their coercive nature. Because, unlike the textbook, they do not merely present the facts, but they present a coercive standpoint. That is the reason many of us stand in such staunch opposition to the protestors, and have no issues with our textbooks.

 

[knightfall]

Hello, a little about me:

I am a:

Columbine senior
Friend of those on the show
Atheist
Moral Relativist
Pro-lifer

Let me try and clarify a few things that have become extremely muddled in this argument:

First my take on the whole sign thing. I tried to turn left out of my parking lot on the day in question and was obstructed by a large sign of an aborted fetus. whether or not it was a fetus, whether or not it was intentional, and whether or not asking them to leave made a lick of difference, those protestors both endangered my life and broke laws doing it.

If they didn't block the road, they didn't offend me. That is something (abortions) that happens in real life, many, many times daily. I don't shy away pictures of reality regardless of the subject matter, but these signs are designed for people who do, which is my very problem. These pro-lifers make their argument not through direct logical argument, but rather by building EMOTIONAL feelings of disgust and even hatred for those who do have abortions.

Heres the thing: IT WORKS. Or i should say, for most people, for a short time. Will those kids leave the scene disgusted of dead babies? Absolutely. But when the girls are faced with the real-life situation of unwanted pregnancy, that picture will not prevent them from doing anything. What might actually prevent them is deep ethical conversation where the causes and effects of abortion can be played out. This is why this site is beneficial; it opens the door to logic, something a sign cannot do. "dead babies are gross" is not a logical argument.

A word or two about moral relativism:

Morals are derived from goals, i.e. "what is most beneificial to me in the long run". For most here, that is obedience to God's will. Now God's will is absolute, as is an afterlife in heaven. In a world where everyone's ultimate destiny is not attached to his goals but to God's, morals are absolute.

However: Moral relativism comes in to play when one recognizes that a person's goals can be both legitimate and different from another's at the same time. Under Xianty, goals are wrong if God doesn't like them. If you want to discuss right and wrong here, you must decide whether your goals lie in God's heaven or in your own hands, here and now on earth.

So to clarify my abortive decision:

I choose life because it would be a shirking my own responsibilites; something that won't lead to my happiness. Will it lead to another's happiness or salvation? I don't know. I determine it immoral (for me) to try and tell other people what is right and what is wrong for them. Other people's actions say nothing about who i am and what i stand for. Let them decide, i'm taking the moral high-ground alone if i have to.

Thanks

 

[rasputen]

I'm sorry, I thought I was done, but then I saw this and became enraged. I must defend my fellow community members.

"But some of the kids at Columbine do murder their own children."

- I will not tolerate the slander of my school and community, which is full of many individuals who consciously do good for others and for their community. They do so not expecting reward, and WITHOUT a sense of self-righteousness. They do so not fearing punishment, but out of the goodness of their heart. Two students made a poor choice (these two students could have been ANY two students at ANY high school). To blame Columbine for all the world's woes as is continually done is nauseating. Two individuals made poor choices, but that does not obliterate the selflessness and charity of many young adults. Why must you keep pointing out the fact that they killed people? We know already. It was four years ago. Drop it. This does NOT make the Columbine community one of savages and heathens. We are not animals without any common sense. We are capable of the judgment to not do harm to our fellow humans, and 99.99% of us exercise this judgment. They do so without condemning their fellow individuals; they act for the betterment of humankind. Many of these young adults act without expectation of ultimate rewards, but with a true sense of human decency. Granted, not all at Columbine act in a prudent or selfless manner all the time. Such is the nature of human imperfection. But to continually insinuate that the students at Columbine are heinous murderers without regard for human life is disgusting and absurd. Perhaps you could take a cue from some of my fellow students, and stop worrying about the ultimate reward in heaven that you believe you are entitled to, the judgments that you are entitled to make, and step back and evaluate the concept of human decency. I assure you that no advancements will be made in society with slanderous statements such as this one.

 

[rasputen]

"If they didn't block the road, they didn't offend me. That is something (abortions) that happen in real life, many, many times daily. I don't shy away pictures of reality, no matter what the subject matter. BUT, these signs are designed for people who do., which is my very problem. These pro-lifers make their argument not through direct logical argument, but rather by attempting to build EMOTIONAL feelings of disgust and even hatred for those who do have abortions."

Well said Knightfall. This is my problem; the intent of these protests is nowhere near logical, but simply aims to disgust, anger, and evoke other emotions unnecessarily. Also, thank you for explaining moral relativism. If it wasn't clear, my moral standpoint is very similar to knightfall's here. I am very much against absolutism of any kind.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
Even though you claim there is no absolute morality, surely you recognize by now that Knight does.

And I feel that it's incumbent on Knight, even if he is TOL's owner, to support his statements when they contradict common usage.

I find it disingenuous when religionists create new meanings for words in common usage and then jump on non-religionists for using the words in their standard meaning. If his case is so strong, why does Knight need to re-define words so they mean the opposite of their current meanings, unless he's seeking to obsfuscate things.

I wonder if you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder. Perhaps you'd also argue that because the unborn are not defined as human by current US laws, abortion cannot be called murder. And since Jews were not humans according to the laws of Nazi Germany, no Jews were murdered.

That illustration demonstrates the non-absolute nature of legal terms. Whether or not you agree morally with the actions in the camps (and let's be clear, I believe the killing of civilians in the camps was a terrible crime) the actions were seen as legal by the German government and illegal by their enemies. The enemies won the war, and the senior German officials were prosecuted for war crimes. If the Germans had won the war, history (written by the winning side) might describe the scenes very differently. It is not absolute. The legality was dependent on which side you see it from.

A Jew is a human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human. Would you agree, Zakath?

Two points:

1. While that is quite a piece of hyperbole, I would concur with your statement since I maintain my own personal moral code. Such a pronouncement violates my individual ethical and moral code.

2. You appear to be confusing the difference between the terms "legal" and "real" or "true". There may not be any relationship between observable, empircally verifiable truth and a specific law. This kind of thinking is common with those who appeal to some allegedly absolute standard of behavior as "correct". For those people there are laws that cannot be changed. For the rest of us, all laws can be changed and we have to deal with it.

The greatest problem with your illustration is that it is commonly used by anti-abortionists to describe the current situation in the US regarding the rights of unborn children.

I would ask you two questions, as a religionist:

a. Do your religious views (laws, rules, ordinances, whatever term you care to use) allow for intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?

b. Do those religious views require intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?

Waiting your reply.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by rasputen
"Is it absolutely wrong for a man to violently rape a woman?"
I don't advocate unwarranted aggression.

Is that a "YES" or a "NO"?

So how about you stop being so self-righteous and leave the judging to your creator?

Because God commands me to judge.

Two teenagers armed with semi-automatics in a high school is comparable to an abortion clinic?

Yes, except the Columbine teenagers who abort their own babies are worse. People who are shot with semi-automatics usually die instantly. The baby, however, is often tortured to death as his arms and legs are ripped from his body or via being burned to death with a salt or saline solution.

They don't want to be a murderer, and hence don't purchase guns.

No, they just hire paid assassins who work in abortion clinics to do their dirty work for them.

Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh are IRRELEVANT. Just like Klebold and Harris.

How are they irrelevant? They are murderers. So are people who abort their own babies. What's the difference?

Intentionally doing mental and emotional harm to innocent students is NOT expressing your opinion, good sir.

"Innocent?" Students who murder their own babies are not "innocent." They are guilty of murder and should be legally executed by the government.

Explain to me, intelligently, why abortion is absolutely immoral (something the protestors again fail to do).

Let me see where you are coming from. Do you think it was absolutely immoral for people to own black slaves? Also, do you think it was absolutely immoral for the Nazis to murder 6 million Jews?

My history book neither condemns or praises abolitionists or slaveholders- as well it should. It serves only the purpose of reporting facts.

Would people today praise or criticize German citizens who displayed graphic photographs of the holocaust? Which one?

However, you AGAIN compare apples and oranges. Hollywood is fake.

So you are saying you believe the photographs were not faked?

Furthermore, I again CHOOSE to view these films. I was not given said option with the protests.

Just as you can change a channel on your television, you can look away from the photographs. There is no difference. As you are channel surfing you come across a gruesome scene. Although you can quickly change the channel, it's too late. That gruesome scene is stuck in your mind. So what's the difference?

"So you think our tactics are ineffective. Big deal. We disagree. We think they are effective."
- That's grand. On what backing?

http://www.abortionno.com/AbortionNO/web_response.html

- The self-righteousness is cute. I'm still waiting for my maker to evaluate my conduct here on earth.

Those verses say that you will either repent and become a Christian and judge with me or you will be judged by me.

"The posters are in every direction. The north, south, east, and west corners. Of the only exit to my school. I must turn out onto pierce, and they are on every corner. The posters are larger than the individual holding them; how does one "ignore" that?

Makes it pretty difficult. Good. There will be no child killing with tranquility on our watch.

Next time I'll either A.) tell them to kindly move or B.) run them over.

Run over them? I thought you were pro-life.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by knightfall
These pro-lifers make their argument not through direct logical argument, but rather by building EMOTIONAL feelings of disgust and even hatred for those who do have abortions.

Good. Mission accomplished.

Heres the thing: IT WORKS. Or i should say, for most people, for a short time. Will those kids leave the scene disgusted of dead babies? Absolutely.

Thank you. Please inform rasputen of this.

"dead babies are gross" is not a logical argument.

But pictures of dead babies show the incredible pain the babies go through as they are being murdered. It also shows the immorality and out right evil of their mothers and boyfriends who pay for the murders.

I determine it immoral (for me) to try and tell other people what is right and what is wrong for them. Other people's actions say nothing about who i am and what i stand for. Let them decide, i'm taking the moral high-ground alone if i have to.

You're right. As an atheist you don't know right from wrong. Therefore you are right to refrain from judging. Keep sitting on the sidelines and leave the judging to the Christians. You're doing the right thing knightfall.

 

[rasputen]

Jefferson, I really cannot argue with your logic anymore. Or lack thereof, I should say. You are simply convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You fail to address the fallacies of moral relativism, while I believe I've provided sufficient evidence as to why, at the very least, moral relativism is logically sound. Furthermore, you do not address cultural differences that play a big part in moral relativism.

"Thank you. Please inform rasputen of this."
- I never said I wasn't disgusted. I, and many people are. But you STILL fail to address the effectiveness, and you seem to think that promoting hostility that you are doing a good deed.

"You're right. As an atheist you don't know right from wrong. Therefore you are right to refrain from judging. Keep sitting on the sidelines and leave the judging to the Christians. You're doing the right thing knightfall."
- Just because he does not believe in a religious deity he isn't capable of moral decision making? Please tell me you aren't that naive in your beliefs. You seem like one of the ignoramuses who would have fought in the crusades. Are you saying that murdering alleged "heathens" is consistent with the Bible? Methinks not.

Furthermore, you keep insinuating that people at Columbine High School murder their babies. What evidence do you have that abortions have come out of Columbine??? WHAT???? You have no exposure to the area, and you consistently make assumptions about the area. Well, allow me to inform you. The pregnancy rate at that school is unbelievably low. Furthermore, the vast majority of the very few who do get pregnant actually have their babies (a girl I know of recently gave birth, as a matter of fact). So you are preaching to the converted, and furthermore only making them hostile to your message.

"Is that a "YES" or a "NO"? "
In that circumstance, it is morally reprehensible. However, you ignore the fact that when a man steals to feed his family it is not necessarily immoral, and hence absolutism fails. Thanks for addressing that.

"Because God commands me to judge."
- I think you have disgustingly misconstrued the words of the Bible, good sir. I didn't go through nine years of Catholic schooling to believe that my religious superiority entitled me to judge others. Your only mission, as a good Christian, ought to be to expose others to the word of God, and allow them to accept Christ into their hearts. From what I understand, the Christian God loves all of his creations equally. We are all his sheep, and he only wishes that we as sheep do not stray from the herd. If a sheep leaves the herd, the shepherd does not cast judgment upon the sheep and shun him for his poor decision. Rather, he accepts him back into the herd with open arms. My friend, your cold-hearted judgment will do nothing to pull anyone towards the open arms of God. Again, your perceived superiority is mere naivity and foolishness.

"How are they irrelevant? They are murderers. So are people who abort their own babies. What's the difference?"
- CIRCUMSTANCES. That was my entire point.

""Innocent?" Students who murder their own babies are not "innocent." They are guilty of murder and should be legally executed by the government. "
- Again, you incorrectly assume that students at Columbine who become pregnant have abortions. You are full of misinformation, and I suggest you get your facts straight. Furthermore, isn't all life valued by God, even the lives of sinners? You aren't even an absolutist yourself if you believe there are circumstances when it is moral to kill someone. "Thou shall not kill," ought to be an absolute standard according to Christian doctrine. If you admit that circumstances can allow it, then your entire argument here falls and you must agree with relativism.

"Let me see where you are coming from. Do you think it was absolutely immoral for people to own black slaves? Also, do you think it was absolutely immoral for the Nazis to murder 6 million Jews?"
- You really don't understand relativism, do you? In my mind, it was immoral. In the minds of many, it was immoral. But they justified it in their own minds. It allowed them to pursue the goals they wished and hence in their own minds was moral. Thus, different standards of morality. If people disagree, then the option is simple: don't conform to that standard. Such is the case with abortion. Those who don't believe it is moral (like myself and knightfall) simply will not have abortions or allow them in our personal lives.

"Would people today praise or criticize German citizens who displayed graphic photographs of the holocaust? Which one? "
- Depends on who you talk to. As long as it wasn't mindless propaganda, and only distributed undistorted facts, I would praise them. I praise anything that is a.) factual and b.) made public knowledge. A Neo-Nazi would want them hanged. A Jew would certainly praise them whether what they were distributing as facts were truly facts or not. (Ex.: If they were to distort numbers and say 20 million Jews were killed instead of the actual 6, I would condemn them for being untruthful, and being a detriment to the marketplace. Just as your assumption that all Columbine affiliates are pro-choice murderers is a detriment to the marketplace of ideas.)

"Just as you can change a channel on your television, you can look away from the photographs. There is no difference. As you are channel surfing you come across a gruesome scene. Although you can quickly change the channel, it's too late. That gruesome scene is stuck in your mind. So what's the difference? "
- Ok, I will try and explain this to you once more. I must look both ways to make a left turn. Whaddya know, the posters are in every direction! I have no alternative. I've spoken with these protestors, and their GOAL is to FORCE us to look at those pictures. THEY ADVOCATE FORCE. They take advantage of the circumstances to force us. The history channel at least posts tv listings that I may check in the event I wish to avoid a special on the Holocaust. Finally, the history channel is unbiased. It exposes the facts of our past, without trying to sway my opinion. The protestors are trying to do far more than that.

"Makes it pretty difficult. Good. There will be no child killing with tranquility on our watch."
- *Sigh*. Alright. First of all, you violate my right to make my own moral decision when one is forced upon me in such a manner. Furthermore, what tranquillity??? Do you have any idea what sort of hostility you spawned??? Pro-life and pro-choice people alike find this protesting despicable because it denies us the right to make our own moral judgments, condemns us if we disagree, and is simply blatantly illogical.

"Run over them? I thought you were pro-life."
- Thus is the beauty of relativism. I could justify it in my own mind in certain circumstances. Besides, I'd be certain merely to cripple them from the neck down. They'd still be alive.
Not to mention that pro-life merely applies to the abortion issue. If it applied to more, I'm certain you would not be in favor of the death penalty.
Good day.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by rasputen
"But some of the kids at Columbine do murder their own children."

- I will not tolerate the slander of my school and community

Slander is a false statement. Do you deny that some of the kids at Columbine murder their own children?

We are capable of the judgment to not do harm to our fellow humans, and 99.99% of us exercise this judgment.

If you think only 00.01% of Columbine students have abortions and/or pay for them, you are not living in reality.

 

[rasputen]

"If you think only 00.01% of Columbine students have abortions and/or pay for them, you are not living in reality."

- If you think you know anything about a community you have absolutely no interaction with, you are living a lie. Present me with statistics instead of your broad assumption that every community is full of heathens who murder their babies. Columbine is (sadly, I might add) an extremely conservative, Republican community. The vast majority of students and community members alike do NOT favor abortion. And an even fewer number actually even get pregnant, and a smaller number still have abortions. You paint with a very broad brush, assuming that no one can live up to your standards of righteousness. You may be right, maybe I nor anyone else is capable of your standards of righteousness. But quite honestly, good sir, I don't think I would want to.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by rasputen
"If you think only 00.01% of Columbine students have abortions and/or pay for them, you are not living in reality."

- If you think you know anything about a community you have absolutely no interaction with, you are living a lie. Present me with statistics instead of your broad assumption that every community is full of heathens who murder their babies. Columbine is (sadly, I might add) an extremely conservative, Republican community. The vast majority of students and community members alike do NOT favor abortion. And an even fewer number actually even get pregnant, and a smaller number still have abortions. You paint with a very broad brush, assuming that no one can live up to your standards of righteousness. You may be right, maybe I nor anyone else is capable of your standards of righteousness. But quite honestly, good sir, I don't think I would want to.

Rasputen are you really that naive? Or do you really know nothing about the school you claim to attend?

My guess is....
I myself know as much (if not more) about Columbine High School and the Littleton CO area than you do.

My wife was a Columbine Rebel and I attended nearby Lakewood High School and I have DOZENS of friends and associates that attended - and still do attend - Columbine High School.

Columbine High, is no different than most Denver area suburban high schools in that it has a tragic amount of young woman that have had abortions. And Columbine is certainly not immune from the problem of teen pregnancy.

Columbine High School is FAR from a Republican conservative community as you claim.

You are quickly losing your credibility as someone who has reliable information on this topic. Or at very least you are distorting the information in an attempt to make a point. Either way you are disseminating erroneous information.

 

[rasputen]

Well Knight, it seems we just aren't seeing the same things. I honestly and truthfully do not see many people getting pregnant at my school. And I don't know of many that have abortions. How could you say its not conservative? Honestly, I'm generally a liberal, and these people are so conservative they make me look like I walk through St. Petersburg wearing red. If they aren't conservative, I'd like to know what the bloody heck they are.

 

[rasputen]

"You are quickly losing your credibility as someone who has reliable information on this topic. Or at very least you are distorting the information in an attempt to make a point. Either way you are disseminating erroneous information."

- I'm giving what knowledge I have of the topic. And I don't know of many of my schoolmates becoming impregnated, and I really don't know of many who have abortions. And since you aren't a student there, and from what I can tell are not part of the community, I fail to see how your information can be any more credible than mine. I'm sure there is a girl here and there who gets knocked up and chooses abortion. I won't pretend there isn't. I know that students participate in unprotected sex all too often, just like any other community. No doubt about that. But I know a pretty good percentage of students, and I'm a pretty involved student and I know what's going on. There is really no evidence to directly prove that the community is as murderous as you think it to be. I also find it funny that you all are so skeptical that I am Greg Schreier. What benefit would anyone have by falsifying a claim? Finally, it is HILARIOUS that you attempt to diminish my credibility, when there are very few people here who have NOT decimated their credibility on face. Jefferson has made some very erroneous claims, but for some reason you do not feel the need to point them out. I suppose you are seated at the right hand of God along with him, poised to judge me now too?

 

[knightfall]

A couple of points on Jefferson's method of argument:

First, it seems Jefferson has missed the meaning of several of my points, or he felt they were sound and "edited" my words to make them support his side. I said that the pictures of babies work for a short time BUT they dont work in the longer term and don't work when it matters (in the abortion clinic). Jefferson did not respond to this fact, he simply took me out of context. (something I've noticed him doing in other posts, he seems to strive for one-liners and humorous attacks without addressing the issues)

I also argued that the only legitimate method for pursuasion is through logic. Jefferson did not argue that this was untrue, instead he only implied that he likes the fact that people hate abortionists. Why are scare tactics better than the use of logic?That is the question I was getting at, please address it.

I did find two things here I want to address though. The first is the standpoint that those pictures show immorality and evil the nature of abortionists. While the pictures clearly show babies in pain, they do not show the causality of the situation. That fetus died for a reason, and we ought to look at all the full causes and effects of that death. Instead, we are presented with a 'sound-bite' of pain with no real explanation. That picture does not directly link the mothers and boyfriends you speak of to the action of abortion; it is not a flow chart. For many, that picture is only saying "look what exists", and the response is merely "yes, I knew that".

The second thing Jefferson attacks is my ability to act morally, and he then makes a rather large presumption about other religions. He says I am unable to make moral judgements because of my atheism. This is untrue, I just have different standard of morality than him. My standard is based on logic and worldly evidence rather than spirituality and faith. If Jefferson wants to pursued me, he must tell me why his standard is the better one.

In addition, Jefferson says that moral judgements should only be left to the Xians. First, I want us to imagine a world where any non-Xians (the majority of the earth) gave up trying to act morally. Second, Jefferson should clarify which version of Xianity (out of the dozens of denominations) should make moral judgements, because that reduces the moral people in the world by much more. He should hurry: he might get murdered by one of those billions who cannot act morally.

One more thing to clarify my moral position:
I do in fact believe in moral absolutes, but they vary from person to person. It is absolutely immoral for me to rape, but can I speak for everyone else on earth in every situation that they may stumble acrost? Well, I'm not God. (Which some of you seem to think you are)

Also, I'd like to ask people not to bother using the quotes if they use them to cut the meaning out of my words. I'd much rather not be responded to then misrepresented.

Thanks

 

[Jefferson]

rasputen:

If you saw a child in the middle of a road with a car approaching, I'm sure you would sprint as fast as you could toward that child. If I was unaware of the situation and happened to be in your way you would have the right (even the moral obligation) to bowl me over (read: "offend" me) in order to get to that child as quickly as possible. Don't you agree?

 

[rasputen]

I'd be more enticed to respond if that question had a point. I don't have the "right" to do physical harm to you, regardless of the situation, but because the benefits would outweigh the harms in that particular situation, my lack of prudence would at least be justified. Don't confuse "rights" (which are either ineherent, or natural, or they are civil, granted by the government) with "justifications." God does not grant me the "right" to bowl over you, and nor does the government. But I could easily avoid punishment (assuming I didn't right piss you off) because of the benefits of my actions.
MORAL: Different circumstances bring about different consequences and different implications.

 

[rasputen]

KNIGHT:

I did some thinking about your inquiry regarding the Columbine community, and also conversed with my dad a bit. To begin, how could you say an upper-middle class, white, suburban community is not conservative? At least in comparison to poorer, urban neighborhoods that are most definitely liberal and in opposition to them. Inner city neighborhoods and lower-middle class neighborhoods will tend to be liberal as they favor many social programs, typically are anti-death penalty, and typically are pro-choice (as it is a solution to the overwhelming pregnancy rates in the inner city). ANY suburban community would be, at the most, moderate. There is no conceivable way, however, that they could be all that liberal (well, perhaps in relation to all of you here, but I swear some of you could make George Bush look like a commy walking through St. Petersberg wearing red). Good sir, I live a block away from Alameda High School (yes, I go to Columbine... long story), and if you want to talk about a liberal community with issues... that's your place. I hear all too often of pregnancy, rape, and similar afflictions at a school I don't even attend! You should be at many of the inner city schools, the poorer urban and suburban schools, if you really want to nip the issue in the bud. There is no denying that they will be far more liberal and pro-choice than Columbine and many of the surrounding areas. :nono:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by rasputen
I'd be more enticed to respond if that question had a point. I don't have the "right" to do physical harm to you, regardless of the situation, but because the benefits would outweigh the harms in that particular situation, my lack of prudence would at least be justified.

So would you knock me over in an attempt to save the life of that child or not? Yes, or no? What is your answer?