BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
You have a problem with that because you are trying to force your subjective view of morality on others under the false banner of "absolute morality." Christian morality is far from absolute. Your views of morality are not universally accepted as truth by Christians around the world.

So what? You've set up a straw man. The existence of absolute morality has nothing to do with weather it is universally accepted by any group. If you’re arguing that all Christians must agree on every matter for the Bible to be true, then why would the Bible have accounts of believers disagreeing, being fooled, coming to wrong conclusions, being slow to understand, and even being unthruthful about the gospel?

Of course, the next line in the religionist script is to descend into a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Wrong again. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean we should expect him to have a perfect understanding of every issue. If it were that simple, the Bible probably would not be so thick.

Example: Paul wrote letters to Christians correcting them on a wide variety of issues. Yet he didn’t doubt their salvation or accuse them of being false believers.

Originally posted by Zakath

Unlawful - noun
1. Not lawful; illegal.
2. Contrary to accepted morality or convention; illicit.
3, Of, relating to, or being a child or children born to unmarried parents.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Note that definition number 2 uses the term "accepted morality or convention". That hardly supports your absolutist view.

My view is that your original post about “legalized murder” is false:

“An action cannot be both legal and unlawful.” - Zakath, 3/18/2003

The entry for unlawful from your dictionary supports my view.
Don’t you agree?
Concede, Zakath. Come on! You can do it! (Or did Orion have you pegged?)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well said Turbo!

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
He had to do his own work then, or pay somebody else to do it.

He had to pay somebody to find the slave not the people giving them safehaven, and the slave was justified in his act because the slave owner was forcing his values on another. By supporting forcing a value upon another you support slavery.

Originally posted by Jefferson Here it is again: "Why is it okay for TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines to display bloody photographs of war, terrorism and capital crimes right on their front covers?"

Well first off you never asked me this question before but obviously i will answer it anyway. If i do not wish to see a magazine cover i do not need to, and if i find horrible images so unappealing i can even not go by places magazines are sold. There is a fine line between a magazine cover on a shelf that i can stray away from and a man literally shoving a giant poster in front of my face as i try to leave a parking lot. We have had people come to our schooland hand out bibles by merely holding it out or asking politely, not shoving a picture of the crucifixion in my face and saying "Take the Bible you flaming heathen or burn eternally in hell!"

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Sage
Does breaking a law necessarily imply forcing your opinion over anothers?

Not always.

Sage, are you against our laws against rape because those laws "force our opinions" over wannabe rapists? Are you against our laws against murder because those laws "force our opinions" over potential murderers?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Sage
Well first off you never asked me this question before but obviously i will answer it anyway.

Oops. Got you confused with rasputen.

If i do not wish to see a magazine cover i do not need to, and if i find horrible images so unappealing i can even not go by places magazines are sold. There is a fine line between a magazine cover on a shelf that i can stray away from and a man literally shoving a giant poster in front of my face as i try to leave a parking lot.

Hardly. People have to go grocery shopping. TIME and NEWSWEEK are in the checkout lanes of every one of them. They are unavoidable.

Sage, you said you are pro-life. Yet I get the impression that you are more angry with people like me than with those butchers who tear a baby's arm off while it is sucking its thumb. Why is this?

 

[ebenz47037]

I am posting this picture for Jefferson. Jefferson, feel free to add your comments following this post.

 

[Jefferson]

The type in the first picture above is pretty small but it says, "Would Jesus use bloody pictures to make His point?"

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Sage


He had to pay somebody to find the slave not the people giving them safehaven,

I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but okay.

and the slave was justified in his act because the slave owner was forcing his values on another. By supporting forcing a value upon another you support slavery.

How does one force a value on someone else? Even a slave can reject his master's values.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Oops. Got you confused with rasputen.

Hardly. People have to go grocery shopping. TIME and NEWSWEEK are in the checkout lanes of every one of them. They are unavoidable.

Sage, you said you are pro-life. Yet I get the impression that you are more angry with people like me than with those butchers who tear a baby's arm off while it is sucking its thumb. Why is this?

1) On Time and Newsweek pictures,

The graphic photos on Time and Newsweek ,which i do not see very often or at all, is not a gigantic sign that i have to look at. If i see it and dislike it i may turn away. It is not inherently imposing itself upon me. Even website pornography has more courtesy than those protestors. If i wanted to see porn i could look for it if not i would not be bothered. You on the other hand have the nerve to shove sometihng in my face that i do not want to look at when i am turning onto Pierce. The difference is that when i go to school it is not to look at posters of dead babies. Nor do i think i may see that during the day when i go to school. But, if i go shopping and want to buy Newsweek i can go to the Magazine section and open myself up of my own free will to such photos.



2) On me,

Not necessarily, i absolutely hate abortion not because the Bible and its followers think so it is because i enjoy life and believe it is wrong to kill unless your life is being threatened. I believe that you are right in hating abortion but wrong in your ways of sending that message to others.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack


I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but okay.



How does one force a value on someone else? Even a slave can reject his master's values.

1)I guess you hve to read a couple posts back.
2)You force a value on someone be disallowing them to be exposed or accept on their own free will.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Not always.

Sage, are you against our laws against rape because those laws "force our opinions" over wannabe rapists? Are you against our laws against murder because those laws "force our opinions" over potential murderers?

When you belong to a society you adhere to codes set forth by that society and if that societies actions are immoral you try to stop it or no longer become associated with that society. Basic Social Contract Theory.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Sage
1) On Time and Newsweek pictures,

The graphic photos on Time and Newsweek ,which i do not see very often or at all, is not a gigantic sign that i have to look at.

Look at the current (April 7) front covers of both Time and Newsweek. You will see photographs of bloody faces of our soldiers in Iraq.

If i see it and dislike it i may turn away.

But you won't turn away, will you? Those bloody pictures don't bother you nearly as much as bloody pictures of aborted babies, do they? Why not?

But, if i go shopping and want to buy Newsweek i can go to the Magazine section and open myself up of my own free will to such photos.

Wrong. Time and Newsweek are not just in the Magazine section. They are in the check-out lanes. You can't get out of the store with your groceries without walking right by them.

I asked if you hate me more than abortionists and you replied:

Not necessarily,

That wasn't a "no." Very telling.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Sage


When you belong to a society you adhere to codes set forth by that society and if that societies actions are immoral you try to stop it or no longer become associated with that society. Basic Social Contract Theory.

Exactly. That is what I am trying to accomplish. Our society's laws regarding abortion are immoral and I am trying to change enough minds to change those laws. Basic Social Contract Theory.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Sage


1)I guess you hve to read a couple posts back.

So you weren't responding to the quote directly preceding your statement?

2)You force a value on someone be disallowing them to be exposed or accept on their own free will.

Since most values are abstract concepts, how does one disallow someone else from accepting or rejecting such a thing? I'm just not so sure it's possible to force one's values on someone else.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Jefferson Look at the current (April 7) front covers of both Time and Newsweek. You will see photographs of bloody faces of our soldiers in Iraq.

I have seen those and that was far from anything i would consider graphic. It is not a mangled body of a baby.

Originally posted by Jefferson But you won't turn away, will you? Those bloody pictures don't bother you nearly as much as bloody pictures of aborted babies, do they? Why not ?

Obviously i do not see mangled corpses very often. The point that i have made was still not addressed. That is no matter what you say i can turn from that picture on the cover. If i WON'T turn away that is my CHOICE.

Originally posted by Jefferson Wrong. Time and Newsweek are not just in the Magazine section. They are in the check-out lanes. You can't get out of the store with your groceries without walking right by them.

So, if iknoe its there then i do not go to the grocery store. You know there were times when there were not such a thing as a grocery store.

Originally posted by Jefferson That wasn't a "no." Very telling.

Don't be an immature little name calling jerk.

Originally posted by Jefferson Exactly. That is what I am trying to accomplish. Our society's laws regarding abortion are immoral and I am trying to change enough minds to change those laws. Basic Social Contract Theory.

I know that. Your response has nothing to do with what i was responding to. You know the whole rape thing.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack So you weren't responding to the quote directly preceding your statement?

Huh? What i meant is that the conversation with that subject started earlier and that is what i was responding to.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Since most values are abstract concepts, how does one disallow someone else from accepting or rejecting such a thing? I'm just not so sure it's possible to force one's values on someone else.

For instance i value my right to speek. Someone else does not so they shoot me. His valuing my silence was forced over my right to speek. Or my right to see what i want to see of my own decision is overridden when an abortion protestor forces his value of speech/expression to show me something i do not want to. His value infringed upon my value and he forced it on me.

Then you might say is the visa versa true. No, my right not to see does not force him not to show. So basically, i am not stopping him from talking or showing he is stopping me from being able not to see. For instance if e tells me that he has something to say about abortion and gives me a choice to hear that would be fine. But when he does not he infringes upon my values by forcing his own.

By the way it is not like anti-abortion protestors do not have valid points it is they lose validity when they act the way they do.

 

[Sage]

Oh yeah, i posted something earlier and i do not know where it went. Did someone erase it or something.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Sage
Huh? What i meant is that the conversation with that subject started earlier and that is what i was responding to.

Oh ok. It looked like you were responding to what I said.

For instance i value my right to speek. Someone else does not so they shoot me. His valuing my silence was forced over my right to speek.

This isn't a good example. Aside from bad spelling (what do they teach you kids these days anyway?), the other guy has no guaranteed right to silence on public property. Now if you break into his house and start giving a speech, he can shoot you.

Or my right to see what i want to see of my own decision is overridden when an abortion protestor forces his value of speech/expression to show me something i do not want to. His value infringed upon my value and he forced it on me.

You can still reject his values though. I get people trying to force all kinds of stuff onto me, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Then you might say is the visa versa true. No, my right not to see does not force him not to show. So basically, i am not stopping him from talking or showing he is stopping me from being able not to see.

But the Constitution doesn't protect you from seeing things you don't want to see. I don't want a nanny-state. Do you?

For instance if e tells me that he has something to say about abortion and gives me a choice to hear that would be fine. But when he does not he infringes upon my values by forcing his own.

That's where you're making a mistake. You don't actually have a right not to hear that which you don't want to hear. That's the other side of the coin when it comes to freedom of speech.

By the way it is not like anti-abortion protestors do not have valid points it is they lose validity when they act the way they do.

I disagree. A valid point is a valid point, regardless. I think your problem is really the fact that the state doesn't prevent them from making these points, but that's what freedom of speech is all about. It doesn't just give you the right to speak your mind -- it gives it to everybody else too.

 

[Jefferson]

Sage, you wrote:

I have seen those and that was far from anything i would consider graphic. It is not a mangled body of a baby.

Oh, so now it's a question of degrees? Who is going to be our national arbiter, dictating to everyone else which pictures are acceptable for public display and which one's are not? You?

Obviously i do not see mangled corpses very often. The point that i have made was still not addressed. That is no matter what you say i can turn from that picture on the cover. If i WON'T turn away that is my CHOICE.

Are you saying that if the protestors at your school only had pictures on one side of the street (so that you didn't have to look at them) that you would not be complaining about them?

So, if iknoe its there then i do not go to the grocery store.

People have to go to the grocery store.

You know there were times when there were not such a thing as a grocery store.

Point being?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jefferson That wasn't a "no." Very telling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be an immature little name calling jerk.

Well, you just called me a "jerk." What "name" did I call you?

I asked you if you hated me more than abortionists and you could not bring yourself to answer with a clear, unambiguous, "no." Why not?

 

[Gerald]

Y'know, Jefferson, if your avatar was the mangled body of an abortion protester then you might get somewhere...

 

[Sage]

My whole post just dissapeared when i pushed the back button so i will respond later.