The Bill of NON-rights

[jinjuku]

Im pretty sure i could beat you about the head with facts (and vice versa)
and it wouldnt change your mind......Im pretty tired of debating it to be honest. Continue if you like......

Peace,
Tommy

Then why don't you back up your statement: "The fact that it is immoral"

You talk like you have game. Again you said something is a fact. You should be able to bring up some shred of evidence. I am all ears. Seriously.

 

[jinjuku]

Im pretty sure i could beat you about the head with facts (and vice versa)
and it wouldnt change your mind......Im pretty tired of debating it to be honest. Continue if you like......

Peace,
Tommy

I have no problem letting it drop either. You made my point for any of the browsing public to see in post 91.

 

[unreal.freak]

Thou shall not kill?

Plus I bought ammunition the other day and I don't think I can afford to kill anyone anymore. Like over a buck a cartridge for .45 hollowpoints and not much cheaper for target ammunition.

I didnt mention killing I usually keep my fair share of ammo on hand as well. I often buy some .223 and 9mm when im at the sporting goods store.
I love shooting sports. Just last month there was a big get together sponsored by Hibernia Baptist Church called "The real mens event" there was pheasant hunting, Skeet shooting, Preaching, Monster truck action ("God, Guts, and Glory), great food, free prize giveaways (truck, rifles, RC cars, airsoft BB guns), paintball action. Everything but skeet and pheasant hunting was totally free. Its nice to meet someone else who likes shooting sports.

Tommy

 

[unreal.freak]

I have no problem letting it drop either. You made my point for any of the browsing public to see in post 91.

im glad i could help.

 

[Davemcc]

You can't oversimplify these great issues by taking the stance that "what I do is my business."

I guess we should give up any pretense of the US being a free country then. For isn't that the nature of freedom, that I am responsible for the decisions and actions that affect me with the only restriction that I cannot infringe the rights of another. Getting back to the original post, you do not have the right to not be offended. If my taking my own life is in my interest given my circumstances, why would it matter that somebody else is offended by that action. It doesn't affect them.

In my view, you can't oversimplify freedom, but a whole lot of people seem to spend a whole lot of time rationalizing restrictions on other people's freedoms.

 

[MidnightSensi]

I didnt mention killing

...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree

I havent been witness to any riots....should i be rioted upon i will excercise my second amendment right and get unrioted on.....LOL

... I wouldn't just threaten to shoot them or go for a leg or something... in the heat of the moment it isn't really possible to choose that a lot of times in that situation you are within arms reach of the attacker.

I usually keep my fair share of ammo on hand as well. I often buy some .223 and 9mm when im at the sporting goods store.
I love shooting sports. Just last month there was a big get together sponsored by Hibernia Baptist Church called "The real mens event" there was pheasant hunting, Skeet shooting, Preaching, Monster truck action ("God, Guts, and Glory), great food, free prize giveaways (truck, rifles, RC cars, airsoft BB guns), paintball action. Everything but skeet and pheasant hunting was totally free. Its nice to meet someone else who likes shooting sports.

Tommy

Unfortunetly I only really have guns for protection. I grew up in a **** neighborhood and now don't anymore (yay education) but still work in a place that is a bad area... I've never really tried a shooting sport but I'd like to some time. I really want to try skeet shooting, that looks really fun. First time I shot a gun I was 7, I could barely hold the thing, sigh. When I was in high school my friend worked for a guy who made those crappy fiberglass silencers, and we'd tinker in the back of this yard I worked at. When the glass would blow out (which didn't take long) and you could hear the shot we'd leave in case a gunshot was reported. Fortunetly for the world I'm not as dumb now and go to a range to practice, a lot better of a shot too.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I call BS on homosexuality being no worse than a fetish that that invovles feet or S&M.

Then you are flat-out wrong.
There is no point in arguing with you about it, because you are clearly to stubborn to even consider the truth.

As for the other part of your post, you are only partially right. Certain things are wrong in a way that goes beyond the religious-based (and quite vacuous) concept of "sin". Specifically, the things that harm other people. Since gay sex cannot (even in theory) affect anyone other than the couple involved, it clearly does not fall in that category.

 

[bandphan]

I call dodgeball, believers vs the nons

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I think you will find most Christians are only against abortion as means of birth control. I would never vote to take the option of abortion off the table for those cases that involve the imediate Physical health of the mother. For instance a woman carring a Baby that is still born.

All of the anti-abortion activists that I have encountered want it to be 100% illegal, regardless of the circumstances.
Although the choice to have an abortion or not lies entirely with the mother (and is none of anybody else's damned business!), I certainly think that using it as a form of birth control is a bad choice.
There are many cases in which an abortion is the best choice, however. These include: when the baby results from rape, when the baby has an incurable disease, when the mother is unable to provide the child's basic needs, when the birth process would kill the mother, etc.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

My point was that 95% of the people in this country say they are people of faith. The percentage of aluminum beanie wearers is what? You can equate one with the other all you want but that equation is not supported by the numbers.

What do numbers have to do with it? Belief in irrational anti-scientific BS is belief in irrational anti-scientific BS. It makes no difference whether it is just one person believing it or a billion, it is still ridiculous.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Then why don't you back up your statement: "The fact that it is immoral"

He cannot back it up because it is a false statement. The belief that something is immoral (with the exception about harming others noted as above) is a purely personal choice, and thus cannot be a "fact".

 

[Davemcc]

What do numbers have to do with it? Belief in irrational anti-scientific BS is belief in irrational anti-scientific BS. It makes no difference whether it is just one person believing it or a billion, it is still ridiculous.

I think a more tactful way of saying this is:
"Can a billion people still be wrong? Yes they can."

Real is real. Truth is truth. The beliefs of a billion cannot make the unreal real. Refer to Schrodinger's Cat. It is either dead or alive. The belief of a billion people will not change the state of the cat. One must open the box to determine the actual situation.

Alas, the box of religion is yet to be opened so the debate continues without any reference to the actual state of the world. Yet so many people believe in the contents of the box that it exists, both alive and dead, until the box is opened to reveal the truth, just as Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Alex2507]

What do numbers have to do with it? Belief in irrational anti-scientific BS is belief in irrational anti-scientific BS. It makes no difference whether it is just one person believing it or a billion, it is still ridiculous.

You have to be kidding me. You really don't understand my point about numbers? Wow!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I think a more tactful way of saying this is:
"Can a billion people still be wrong? Yes they can."

Yes. And not just can be wrong, but are wrong.

Let's say someone visits a psychiatrist who is not familiar with christianity (don't sweat the reason: this is a thought experiment.)
Now suppose the patient says "A guy who died over 2000 years ago is still alive. He follows me 24/7, like a shadow, and watches/advises everything I do. When I die, he will give me a new body so that I can hang out with him. Oh, and when he was alive (the first time?), my guy routinely violated the laws of physics and biology."
Don't you think that the psychiatrist would declare the patient a paranoid schizophrenic and commit him to a mental hospital? Don't you think he would be entirely justified in doing so?

 

[Exit]

It is reasonable that the psychiatrist might be from India or Pakistan and doesn't know Christianity. The psychiatrist would just write you a prescription for pills. Thats what they do.

 

[unreal.freak]

Yes. And not just can be wrong, but are wrong.

Let's say someone visits a psychiatrist who is not familiar with christianity (don't sweat the reason: this is a thought experiment.)
Now suppose the patient says "A guy who died over 2000 years ago is still alive. He follows me 24/7, like a shadow, and watches/advises everything I do. When I die, he will give me a new body so that I can hang out with him. Oh, and when he was alive (the first time?), my guy routinely violated the laws of physics and biology."
Don't you think that the psychiatrist would declare the patient a paranoid schizophrenic and commit him to a mental hospital? Don't you think he would be entirely justified in doing so?

Wow now you are saying Christians ar mentally ill? LOL i think you might want to go see that same supposed psychiatrist and see where you stand.

You clearly dont know as much about Christianity as you think you do. Your post clearly shows it.

also abortion in the case where a mother cannot supply the basic needs of the child is Murder. If she cant afford the basic needs she needs to practice some sort of good birth control or abstinence. Otherwise she needs to have the child and put it up for adoption to someone who can and wants to care for the child. Im glad your your Momy didnt believe in abortion, if she did and had aborted you, we couldnt be having this discussion



Peace,
Tommy

 

[bandphan]

What do numbers have to do with it? Belief in irrational anti-scientific BS is belief in irrational anti-scientific BS. It makes no difference whether it is just one person believing it or a billion, it is still ridiculous.

I truly think you missed your calling

 

[Alamar]

I don't get the whole arguement going on here. The real question is "who owns you". If it is a given that "only you own yourself" then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that [more or less] as long as people don't harm others or take away from their rights then people whould be able to do what they want.

I don't get how people that espouse freedom don't really want people to be free. Of course on the other side of the coin if you are free you also must be responsible for your own actions. Trying to live with one without the other is only going to lead to disaster.

Examples:

-- I don't think that gay marriage should be recognized by the government for the most part because I do not think government should be recognizing a traditional marriage. Other than property division rights & child care I don't see why government is even in that business. It should be nobody's business as to who does what with each other. I.E. people should be treated exactly the same whether they are married or not / live together or not / etc.

-- Drug use -- I don't like it but why should I stop Steve from smoking something just because I don't like it. What if someone else doesn't want me having a beer [when I'm at home]? Even worse ... what if someone thinks my big screen TV sucks up too much electricity and thinks I shouldn't own one!!

-- Abortion -- The key point here is when is when is the baby a human life and when it's not. Once you define the critical point everything after that is easy. Anything done before the point, while regrettable, shouldn't be homicide. Anything done after that point should be some form of homicide [even if it's justifiable because the baby threatens the mother's life]. Any arguements implying otherwise have shaky foundations.

 

[MidnightSensi]

I don't get the whole arguement going on here. The real question is "who owns you". If it is a given that "only you own yourself" then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that [more or less] as long as people don't harm others or take away from their rights then people whould be able to do what they want.

I don't get how people that espouse freedom don't really want people to be free. Of course on the other side of the coin if you are free you also must be responsible for your own actions. Trying to live with one without the other is only going to lead to disaster.

Examples:

-- I don't think that gay marriage should be recognized by the government for the most part because I do not think government should be recognizing a traditional marriage. Other than property division rights & child care I don't see why government is even in that business. It should be nobody's business as to who does what with each other. I.E. people should be treated exactly the same whether they are married or not / live together or not / etc.

-- Drug use -- I don't like it but why should I stop Steve from smoking something just because I don't like it. What if someone else doesn't want me having a beer [when I'm at home]? Even worse ... what if someone thinks my big screen TV sucks up too much electricity and thinks I shouldn't own one!!

Werd. Well, a lot of them want to get married because it makes sense for tax reasons, allowing an estate to be transferred to a partner after death, family health care, etc. Given a gay couple that can't get married versus a straight couple that can, the straight couple has a financial advantage.


Regarding your second example, there was that "First they came for" poem from WWII... and NOFX did a song that ganked it .... I did a google search and found it:
First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.
Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

 

[Alamar]

Werd. Well, a lot of them want to get married because it makes sense for tax reasons, allowing an estate to be transferred to a partner after death, family health care, etc. Given a gay couple that can't get married versus a straight couple that can, the straight couple has a financial advantage.

The thing is NOBODY should be given a government-approved financial advantage whether they are married / not married / straight / gay / whatever.