Trump and Obama by the Numbers

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

So murder is justifiable in some circumstances?

Do you support the death penalty or war of any kind?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Do you support the death penalty or war of any kind?

I'm a Contractualist. Murder is violating the social contract in a particularly egregious way. I only support war to keep the peace like a pre-emptive strike on a notoriously aggressive country building nuclear weapons.

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

What if a citizen dies in those wars, or pre-emptive strikes? Would that be counted as murder or as would it be counted as a casualty? (Not murder)

And back to abortion what if it is to save the mother's life. Would it be murder to save the mother? or to sacrifice the mother and allow the baby to live would that be counted as murder?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

What if a citizen dies in those wars, or pre-emptive strikes? Would that be counted as murder or as would it be counted as a casualty? (Not murder)

It can only be considered murder if it was pre-meditated,intentional and theoretically avoidable for the killed by for example leaving a war zone

4 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

And back to abortion what if it is to save the mother's life. Would it be murder to save the mother? or to sacrifice the mother and allow the baby to live would that be counted as murder?

Only 3% of abortions are related to health problems. It's irrelevant for the vast majority of abortions.

 

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Is a fetus life or not?

 

3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

So murder is justifiable in some circumstances?

I'm referring to these two quotes not to the vast majority of abortions.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

 

I'm referring to these two quotes not to the vast majority of abortions.

The answer to #1 is yes and #2 was posed as a question to @ThePotatoWalrus.

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

What would your answer be to that question? If you don't mind answering.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

What would your answer be to that question? If you don't mind answering.

Pre-meditated intentional killing would only be justifiable if the behavior that'd be prevented by such killing would pose a serious threat to the social fabric of society.

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

What of the ten commandments "thou shall not kill"? and would the death of one woman to save the baby pose a serious threat to the social fabric of society? OR the vast majority of abortions? Do they cause or prevent a serious threat to the social fabric of society? Causing ~ Making a moral depreciation in the world. Preventing ~ Stopping children from growing up in horrible conditions of an unwanted pregnancy, preventing poverty, etc.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

What of the ten commandments "thou shall not kill"?

The ten commandments don't say "do not kill" it says לא תרצח (lo tirtzach) "do not murder" which is very different. If it meant "do not kill" it'd say לא תהרג (lo teharag), that comes from the King James bible which was written when kill and murder were synonymous in English which they aren't nowadays.

The Bible also advocates the death penalty for murder meaning if it said "do not kill period" it'd be contradicting itself

וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מוֹת יוּמָֽת׃

If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death.(Leviticus 24:17)

19 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Would the death of one woman to save the baby pose a serious threat to the social fabric of society? OR the vast majority of abortions? Do they cause or prevent a serious threat to the social fabric of society?

Yes, I believe it leads to a more egotistical view centered solely on what's best for me, what's best for others be damned.

19 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Preventing ~ Stopping children from growing up in horrible conditions of an unwanted pregnancy, preventing poverty, etc.

I, place a high value on the sanctity of life and believe it outweighs issues regarding quality thereof as quality can always be improved and has been improving in recent decades while once you're gone, you're gone.Period.

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

Alright thanks for clearing that up.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

@NYrepublican nevermind God is dead:

[Reagan04 658]

@ThePotatoWalrus Didn't I already explain the fallacious nature of the "unsafe abortion" argument and you seemed to accept what I said?

[Patine 470]

23 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

The ten commandments don't say "do not kill" it says לא תרצח (lo tirtzach) "do not murder" which is very different. If it meant "do not kill" it'd say לא תהרג (lo teharag), that comes from the King James bible which was written when kill and murder were synonymous in English which they aren't nowadays.

The Bible also advocates the death penalty for murder meaning if it said "do not kill period" it'd be contradicting itself

וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מוֹת יוּמָֽת׃

If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death.(Leviticus 24:17)

Yes, I believe it leads to a more egotistical view centered solely on what's best for me, what's best for others be damned.

I, place a high value on the sanctity of life and believe it outweighs issues regarding quality thereof as quality can always be improved and has been improving in recent decades while once you're gone, you're gone.Period.

As much as I loathe to do this, I think you have a distorted view of things that I feel the need to correct. "Murder," by any moral and ethical person's definition of the word, has been committed in such absolutely HUGE amounts by people of pretty much EVERY religious group on the planet today or those extinct that have previously existed (except the religions of uncontacted and isolated tribes who had no, or next to no, contact with other human beings - though such murder occurred internally, as well - and Taoism and Jainism, but their whole philosophies, self-identities, doctrines, organization, and interactions with the world are immensely different fundamentally than the vast majority of others) have been committed - deliberately, maliciously, and sometimes in the most horrible of ways, in the NAME of their religious beliefs and doctrines (by personal interpretation of a flawed and usually angry, hateful, or otherwise emotionally unbalanced member or leader of said religion with ulterior motives or evil ends in mind), with a self-righteous fervor and a belief absolutely noting wrong was done at all, or has just been done so by someone believing themselves to be a highly pious and fervent of said religion whether or not acting in the name of said religion or not. The WORST religions in history for this are followers (or obstensibly so) of the three big Abrahamic Monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), three biggest South Asian Religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism), Shinto, Confucianism, and, formerly Manichaeism and Roman and Aztec Polytheism. The problem is shown, as shown by this discussion, a lot of these people (or those who support, agree with, or are otherwise behind such people or actions) like to do Mafia-style "virtue laundering," by constantly plowing issues like anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia incessantly, even using arguments for it, in a broad sense, that, when actually thought about, make many of the people they admire and consider heroes themselves just as bad and just as horrible, monstrous, bloody-handed murderers in their own right - but they continue this "virtue-laundering" much like someone who racks up a very large amount of money murdering horribly and robbing a bunch of people, and then gives a little of it to a charity it look and feel good.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

15 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

@ThePotatoWalrus Didn't I already explain the fallacious nature of the "unsafe abortion" argument and you seemed to accept what I said?

I didn't accept it as my own belief, I just thought that what you brought up was reasonable and I respected your differing opinion.

[Patine 470]

2 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I didn't accept it as my own belief, I just thought that what you brought up was reasonable and I respected your differing opinion.

It seems a more and more common phenomenon nowadays for someone to just take that as a capitulation.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

Just now, Patine said:

It seems a more and more common phenomenon nowadays for someone to just take that as a capitulation.

Is our political climate so polarizing that respecting someone's opinion, and declaring it a reasonable belief while still holding your previous views on the topic a capitulation?

LL
LL
LL
LL
LLLLLLL

@Patine can you hold this for me

[Patine 470]

Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Is our political climate so polarizing that respecting someone's opinion, and declaring it a reasonable belief while still holding your previous views on the topic a capitulation?

LL
LL
LL
LL
LLLLLLL

@Patine can you hold this for me

You misunderstood. It was moreso a comment on the stupidity so entrenched and deep-seated in modern society. I wasn't saying it made sense...

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

You misunderstood. It was moreso a comment on the stupidity so entrenched and deep-seated in modern society. I wasn't saying it made sense...

Alright boi. My bad fam. Guess I misread it. What's your favorite ice cream flavor? I like mint chocolate chip.

[Reagan04 658]

7 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Alright boi. My bad fam. Guess I misread it. What's your favorite ice cream flavor? I like mint chocolate chip.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

12 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

What about yours? You seem like Rocky Road or Oreo or something.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

As much as I loathe to do this, I think you have a distorted view of things that I feel the need to correct. "Murder," by any moral and ethical person's definition of the word, has been committed in such absolutely HUGE amounts by people of pretty much EVERY religious group on the planet today or those extinct that have previously existed (except the religions of uncontacted and isolated tribes who had no, or next to no, contact with other human beings - though such murder occurred internally, as well - and Taoism and Jainism, but their whole philosophies, self-identities, doctrines, organization, and interactions with the world are immensely different fundamentally than the vast majority of others) have been committed - deliberately, maliciously, and sometimes in the most horrible of ways, in the NAME of their religious beliefs and doctrines (by personal interpretation of a flawed and usually angry, hateful, or otherwise emotionally unbalanced member or leader of said religion with ulterior motives or evil ends in mind), with a self-righteous fervor and a belief absolutely noting wrong was done at all, or has just been done so by someone believing themselves to be a highly pious and fervent of said religion whether or not acting in the name of said religion or not. The WORST religions in history for this are followers (or obstensibly so) of the three big Abrahamic Monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), three biggest South Asian Religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism), Shinto, Confucianism, and, formerly Manichaeism and Roman and Aztec Polytheism. The problem is shown, as shown by this discussion, a lot of these people (or those who support, agree with, or are otherwise behind such people or actions) like to do Mafia-style "virtue laundering," by constantly plowing issues like anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia incessantly, even using arguments for it, in a broad sense, that, when actually thought about, make many of the people they admire and consider heroes themselves just as bad and just as horrible, monstrous, bloody-handed murderers in their own right - but they continue this "virtue-laundering" much like someone who racks up a very large amount of money murdering horribly and robbing a bunch of people, and then gives a little of it to a charity it look and feel good.

So what? Did I argue on a religous basis? This is mostly a rant.

[Patine 470]

2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

So what? Did I argue on a religous basis? This is mostly a rant.

So, making several quotes from scripture doesn't constitute any sort of religious basis to your argument?

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

@Patine seems like either a vanilla guy, or a full-on sherbert-only kind of guy. No in-between.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

So, making several quotes from scripture doesn't constitute any sort of religious basis to your argument?

I was just correcting a misquote @Harris/Ernst 2020 made that bugs me.