View Full Version : I believe
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
- in a strong military for national defense.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions.
Let's hope your house never gets broken into by a pregnant woman
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
darkangel
18-09-2003, 20:33
Originally posted by Jerrek
I believe:
juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
unfortunately this is what happens when u base the things on religious dogma
Sweet Jesus .... who let the pro life nutter loose?
Here's what I believe, the woman has the right to choose, if they want to get rid of an embryo for WHATEVER reason, then it is entirely up to them, thankfully most of us live in a society that respects this basic human right and not in some backwardassed religious poke hole that's still residing in the dark ages.
Originally posted by Bifta
Sweet Jesus .... who let the pro life nutter loose?
Here's what I believe, the woman has the right to choose, if they want to get rid of an embryo for WHATEVER reason, then it is entirely up to them, thankfully most of us live in a society that respects this basic human right and not in some backwardassed religious poke hole that's still residing in the dark ages.
Watch your tone please.
homealone
18-09-2003, 21:19
Hi Jerrek
I respect your beliefs, but don't agree with all of them -
Death Penalty - don't agree.
Abortion - It's the womans right to choose.
Marriage - ideally yes, for life - practically, why live a lie? (I've been married for 23 years btw).
Self protection - yes, but with "reasonable" force.
Carrying a gun - don't agree.
Strong Military - up to a point, but not over the top. Personally would like to see nuclear disarmament. (sorry Atomic22:) )
National Service - hmmm, unsure, - but why only men?
Smaller Government - well I agree ours needs a major overhaul, MP's should be able to reflect the views of their constituents more & not have to "toe the party line".
Free enterprise - agree with that.
Social benefits - don't agree, our system includes support for "at risk" children, for example, ok it doesn't always work as it should, but, imo, fragmenting welfare support out to loads of churches & charities would lose "traceability".
Personal Responsibility - of course:)
On the subject of abortion - imagine you are 15 and your mother suddenly does not want you alive any more. She puts a gun to your head and blows you away. That's acceptable, right? After all, it's the mother's choice?
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:27
Originally posted by Jerrek
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
No,
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
No - overpopulation. Babies are innocent though, including clones.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
Should, but it doesn't work
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
So if someone steels a car or even a chair you can shoot them?
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
Trouble when you 'take' the responsibility everyone is dead.
- in a strong military for national defense.
Being an empire nation (in the past at least) we would be fine with this, but we would rather have the trains run on time.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
God no, save me
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
I haven't really thought of this - can't comment
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
Absolutly not, privatetisation for us has been hell
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
I thought you lived in canada with a health service. Taxes should serve the people, if the people are poor you need more taxes - so be it.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions. fair on that, if you are in the right mind
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:34
Originally posted by Russ D
On the subject of abortion - imagine you are 15 and your mother suddenly does not want you alive any more. She puts a gun to your head and blows you away. That's acceptable, right? After all, it's the mother's choice? Imagine you live in an overpopulated world, where you have to watch your children stave to death, long and painfully.
Then you deal with it appropriately - culling is not the way!
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:36
Originally posted by Russ D
Then you deal with it appropriately - culling is not the way! What is appropriate?
As they do in China - a limit on the number of children a family can have. Not sure how they enforce it but I don't think they kill any subsequent babies.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:39
Originally posted by Russ D
As they do in China - a limit on the number of children a family can have. Not sure how they enforce it but I don't think they kill any subsequent babies. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: poor poor misguided russ http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-prchina.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/14/202119.shtml
http://www.abortiontv.com/ChinaAbortions.htm
homealone
18-09-2003, 21:41
Originally posted by Russ D
As they do in China - a limit on the number of children a family can have. Not sure how they enforce it but I don't think they kill any subsequent babies.
Hi Russ
don't know how prevalent it is, but read Tom Clancy's "The Bear & the Dragon" for an example of how it is (allegedly) enforced.
Gaz
Ok then - a limit on the number of children. This 'overpopulation' scenario of yours IMO will never happen but if it did, there would be plenty of ways to combat it without murder being brought in to it.
It's funny that the majority of anti-abortionists are parents. Actually maybe it's not so funny, perhaps that's bloody obvious. All I can say is that I've never been so anti-abortion since my daughter was born.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:46
Originally posted by Russ D
Ok then - a limit on the number of children. This 'overpopulation' scenario of yours IMO will never happen but if it did, there would be plenty of ways to combat it without murder being brought in to it.
It's funny that the majority of anti-abortionists are parents. Actually maybe it's not so funny, perhaps that's bloody obvious. All I can say is that I've never been so anti-abortion since my daughter was born. If you were a teenage mother;) or living in a slum with 6 children already, you may see it differently.
Do you have children? I suspect you do not.......
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:49
Originally posted by Russ D
Do you have children? I suspect you do not....... Nope, I'm just mind-numbingly realistic. Some parents love their children unconditionally but, there are the odd few who don't. Again it is damaging (the US word) freedom, if you enforce the will of the majority on to the minority all the time - that's how communism started.
Anyway, this arguement is too easy - what about the one about taxes?
Without wishing to sound like I'm taking the easy way out, when you have children of your own it really does change you in ways you cannot understand otherwise. If/when the day comes you DO have kids of your own, you will also experience that change in your outlook to life which will allow you to see things this way.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:54
Originally posted by Russ D
Without wishing to sound like I'm taking the easy way out, when you have children of your own it really does change you in ways you cannot understand otherwise. If/when the day comes you DO have kids of your own, you will also experience that change in your outlook to life which will allow you to see things this way. Maybe, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. I had opinions as a child I don't have now, but I that doesn't, mean I was wrong then. People do change, but that doesn't mean the most recent one is 'right'.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 21:55
Anyway, how can Jerek be so pro-life yet support the army??
Absolutley, I'm not for one moment suggesting that my way of thinking is the ONLY one, but I made the point of most of the anti-abortionists seemingly being parents and you appeared to question it and I'm backing up what I say.
Originally posted by downquark1
Anyway, how can Jerek be so pro-life yet support the army??
And the right to bear arms (and use them), and the death penalty... :confused:
Originally posted by Jerrek
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
I don't get it, abortion is wrong because its murder, but capital punishment ir right because its justice. please take your head out of your behind and think about things please.
Originally posted by Russ D
Without wishing to sound like I'm taking the easy way out, when you have children of your own it really does change you in ways you cannot understand otherwise. If/when the day comes you DO have kids of your own, you will also experience that change in your outlook to life which will allow you to see things this way..
Without wishing to sound like i'm taking the easy way out, when you are raped and fall pregnant with a child because of it, this may change you in ways you cannot understand otherwise. That day will never come, but imagine it happening to a member of your family, and then think about it.
The right to bear arms - I think it's an American thing that we'll just never understand......
Originally posted by Russ D
The right to bear arms - I think it's an American thing that we'll just never understand......
He posted a pic of his guns a while back :spin:
Originally posted by col d
Without wishing to sound like i'm taking the easy way out, when you are raped and fall pregnant with a child because of it, this may change you in ways you cannot understand otherwise. That day will never come, but imagine it happening to a member of your family, and then think about it.
The fact that the father was a scumbag does not mean the child has to take the brunt of the consequence. You are right that I do not know what that experience is like but until I do, the fact that adoption is available means I cannot and will not agree with that chain of thought.
Originally posted by Russ D
Do you have children? I suspect you do not.......
I do though, I don't "like" abortion, but that's not for any reasons you don't like it. I still however believe it's the woman's right to choose, I'd be quite happy to have the legal maximum time limit on abortion reduced however
Originally posted by Russ D
The fact that the father was a scumbag does not mean the child has to take the brunt of the consequence. You are right that I do not know what that experience is like but until I do, the fact that adoption is available means I cannot and will not agree with that chain of thought.
It could also be argued that the woman would be taking the brunt of the consequence if she is forced to keep the child.
but that's not for any reasons you don't like it.
:confused:
You don't know my reasons :erm:
It could also be argued that the woman would be taking the brunt of the consequence if she is forced to keep the child.
Although I imagine it would be emotionally damaging for her, I think I'd rather she take the brunt than an unborn child.
Originally posted by Russ D
Although I imagine it would be emotionally damaging for her, I think I'd rather she take the brunt than an unborn child.
I can see your point, but I think the decision should be up to her. Like she should have the right to decide not to keep a child which would be severely handicapped.
homealone
18-09-2003, 22:17
Originally posted by col d
<snip>Without wishing to sound like i'm taking the easy way out, when you are raped and fall pregnant with a child because of it, this may change you in ways you cannot understand otherwise. That day will never come, but imagine it happening to a member of your family, and then think about it.
well put col d - "that day may never come", but.....
it is for that reason the mother is the "sole arbiter" in this case - and don't get me wrong, Russ, or anyone, - I would never support abortion as a "convenience" - but a "blanket" ban is wrong - imo.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 22:18
Originally posted by Russ D
:confused:
You don't know my reasons :erm:
Although I imagine it would be emotionally damaging for her, I think I'd rather she take the brunt than an unborn child. Don't make me make the 'we're all just a pile of atoms' argument again.
Hate is not optional, if the child is the reason for the parents poverty they will hate it, and it will affect their behaviour to it.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Here are my beliefs
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
I don't believe the death penalty is a good idea. It is too easy for the legal system to be wrong. I know criminals on death row can appeal, but the appeals can take months or years, and I have heard that being on death row can actually be considered a form of torture.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
It should be the woman's choice. Abortion should not be taken lightly, and actually has a massive emotional impact on the mother (I have actually seen this), but a desperate woman will try and abort her baby anyway. It is better to have legally sanctioned and monitored abortion clinics than for a woman to try and abort the baby herself.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
Nice idea in theory. Doesn't always work though.
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
I'll deal with these two together.
Put simply, although I believe I should have the right to protect all the things listed above.
But, I do NOT believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Because not all people are reliable (or even sane) and may still have access to arms. The only people I believe should have access to arms are those that need access because of their jobs.
- in a strong military for national defense.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
I actually agree with both of those.
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
Any large beauracracy (hope that is spelled OK) seems to cause problems.
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
I believe in this too.
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
I think the govenernment should work to ensure people are able to have a minimum standard of living (food, a roof over there heads etc) . Basically, the way the Social Security system in the UK is supposed to work.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions.
Good for you! So do I!
I'm afraid this is another "agree to disagree" scenario - we all have a view on this and neither side will move. Contrary to popular belief my stance on abortion is nothing to do with my being a Christian - I have always been against it but moreso since Alyssa was born. There are plenty of non-belivers who would agree with me.
Shall we move on now? :):D
downquark1
18-09-2003, 22:24
in a strong military for national defense.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
I disagee with this, it should be a choice. I'm honourable and have intergrity - people treat me like %$@$ but I still help them with things (no that's no one here) - if I was in the army I'd just end up shooting them and me.
If you have the right to disagree with your government, surely you shouldn't be forced to fight for their decisions.
EDIT: Also, if the army is full of people who don't want to be there it becomes very unprofessional. This is again a typical American idea - why are so many US polititions war vetrens? people have gone insane from seeing such horror - oh right that's why they are polictions ;)
Originally posted by Russ D
I'm afraid this is another "agree to disagree" scenario - we all have a view on this and neither side will move.
There's nought wrong with a debate though. ;)
homealone
18-09-2003, 22:28
Originally posted by Russ D
I'm afraid this is another "agree to disagree" scenario - we all have a view on this and neither side will move. Contrary to popular belief my stance on abortion is nothing to do with my being a Christian - I have always been against it but moreso since Alyssa was born. There are plenty of non-belivers who would agree with me.
Shall we move on now? :):D
"taken as read"
- np Russ:)
Originally posted by Russ D
I'm afraid this is another "agree to disagree" scenario - we all have a view on this and neither side will move. Contrary to popular belief my stance on abortion is nothing to do with my being a Christian - I have always been against it but moreso since Alyssa was born. There are plenty of non-belivers who would agree with me.
Shall we move on now? :):D
I believe we'll have to...:D
(Paragraph deleted)
Lord Nikon
18-09-2003, 22:38
I will say that I do support the right to bear arms.
In the UK we removed firearms from the general population, net result - people who legitimately owned firearms, used them at registered shooting clubs, were responsible in their use and storage, were allowed to by law, and after inspection by the police, are no longer allowed to.
The criminals with the unlicensed weapons, which the police never knew about, STILL own them... And use them, safe in the knowlege that no-one they attempt to rob who is legit, can own one themselves.
downquark1
18-09-2003, 22:42
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I will say that I do support the right to bear arms.
In the UK we removed firearms from the general population, net result - people who legitimately owned firearms, used them at registered shooting clubs, were responsible in their use and storage, were allowed to by law, and after inspection by the police, are no longer allowed to.
The criminals with the unlicensed weapons, which the police never knew about, STILL own them... And use them, safe in the knowlege that no-one they attempt to rob who is legit, can own one themselves. Yes, but the numbers are severly reduced from legal handguns. I agree that the law for property defense needs to be changed every so slighty, but not the guns.
homealone
18-09-2003, 22:43
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I will say that I do support the right to bear arms.
In the UK we removed firearms from the general population, net result - people who legitimately owned firearms, used them at registered shooting clubs, were responsible in their use and storage, were allowed to by law, and after inspection by the police, are no longer allowed to.
The criminals with the unlicensed weapons, which the police never knew about, STILL own them... And use them, safe in the knowlege that no-one they attempt to rob who is legit, can own one themselves.
- so keep the guns at the club, not in the home - you are right that driving things "underground", does not prevent them!
downquark1
18-09-2003, 22:48
When I went to America and saw a policeman with a gun, it was just on his belt in the open, anyone could to reach out for it and kill a few people instantly.
Later that day, we got lost and pulled into an estate to read the map, as I look out the window I saw "trespassers will be shot!" Do we want to live like this?
Lord Nikon
18-09-2003, 23:20
Originally posted by homealone
- so keep the guns at the club, not in the home - you are right that driving things "underground", does not prevent them!
and what is wrong with keeping them at home in a LOCKED steel gun cabinet in a secure location within the home, which has been inspected and approved by the police for gun storage?
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
and what is wrong with keeping them at home in a LOCKED steel gun cabinet in a secure location within the home, which has been inspected and approved by the police for gun storage?
Nothing I suppose, provided the Police keep the key;)
Lord Nikon
18-09-2003, 23:27
who says the police would be responsible?
homealone
18-09-2003, 23:27
Originally posted by danielf
Nothing I suppose, provided the Police keep the key;)
fund the police by gun cupboard unlocking - I suspect that may be controversial?
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
who says the police would be responsible?
;) My point was that keeping guns in the house is always going to be a risk. Yes, if the gun is securely locked, there should be no problem, but people do screw up. But then again, I just don't like guns.
Originally posted by Jerrek
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
I was with you up to that last sentence.
If we take away someone's freedom of movement, we can restore it if we discover we have made a mistake.
If we have taken away their life, we cannot.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
I agree that abortions should not be carried out for convenience's sake, but there should be greater education and opportunity given to ensure that unwanted pregnancies do not happen such that the abortion would be less likely in the first place.
However to force a woman to bear a child that resulted from an act of rape is punishing the mother for being a victim and that is something which nobody should have to endure because it is not *her* fault either.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
And if that partner turns out to be abusive? Or the couple simply cannot live together? Why should people be forced to stay in an unhappy relationship just to satisfy someone else's religious dogma?
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
We have police and courts and a legal system to protect us from our own worst instincts. People must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands because that goes from Justice to Lynch Mobs.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
Good for you. Unfortunately some people don't have the same sense of responsibility and moral duty as you do and whilst *you* may be entirely safe to have a firearm, others may not be.
We cannot prevent irresponsble people from using firearms irresponsibly, IMO it is better to ensure that the temptation is not placed in their way by ensuring that firearms are only ever kept in secured locations eg at registered and licenced gun clubs and *don't* leave those premises except under strictly controlled conditions.
- in a strong military for national defense.
Personally I prefer the Roman style of military organisation, where IIRC the legions from one country were only ever deployed in *other* parts of the Empire. In modern terms, this would mean that military force would *only* ever be used under UN control.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice.
And graft, intimidation, bullying, racism, corruption, patronage, nepotism and all the other little bits of military life that people don't tend to talk about...!
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
Governments should listen to the people more than they do.
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
Free enterprise has its place. Public ownership also has its place. Amenities such as water supply should not be run for profit to be distributed to shareholders.
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
And who supports the charities and the churches? And who is entitled to the benefits?
We have as much responsibility to our fellow citizens as we do to ourselves and our families. A civilisation is not "every man for himself", it is a group of people living together and supporting one another.
Nobody should be excluded for the "crime" of being poor, doing so only causes greater exclusion.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions.
And so should everyone.
Lord Nikon
18-09-2003, 23:52
Keeping 8 inch steak knives in the house is also a risk, especially since you don't lock them away, and put them in drawers kids have ready access to......
They are also significantly quieter than guns
In the US, where handguns ARE legal... you are 400 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a handgun.....
Perhaps we should legalise guns, and keep doctors locked in steel cabinets....
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Keeping 8 inch steak knives in the house is also a risk, especially since you don't lock them away, and put them in drawers kids have ready access to......
They are also significantly quieter than guns
You must eat very large steaks :) Fair point though
In the US, where handguns ARE legal... you are 400 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a handgun.....
Perhaps we should legalise guns, and keep doctors locked in steel cabinets....
What does being 'killed by a doctor' means? Die because the doctor couldn't save you? Or because the doctor was negligent?
As far as I know, the majority of people dying through guns in the US are accidental deaths. (Kids playing around with their father's guns). I don't know the stats on steak knifes in the UK though...
Originally posted by Lord Nikon In the US, where handguns ARE legal... you are 400 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a handgun.....
There are lies, damned lies and statistics...!
carlingman
19-09-2003, 00:10
Originally posted by Jerrek
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
- in a strong military for national defense.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions.
Well some interesting points there.
To cover them briefly.
I believe you are very young and have a lot of life yet to experiance before you make sweeping statements like that.
:)
homealone
19-09-2003, 00:32
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Keeping 8 inch steak knives in the house is also a risk, especially since you don't lock them away, and put them in drawers kids have ready access to......
They are also significantly quieter than guns
In the US, where handguns ARE legal... you are 400 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a handgun.....
Perhaps we should legalise guns, and keep doctors locked in steel cabinets.... :D
homealone
19-09-2003, 00:52
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Keeping 8 inch steak knives in the house is also a risk, especially since you don't lock them away, and put them in drawers kids have ready access to......
They are also significantly quieter than guns
In the US, where handguns ARE legal... you are 400 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a handgun.....
Perhaps we should legalise guns, and keep doctors locked in steel cabinets....
I stand in awe - and look forward to your presence, m'lord.
A few generic points:
- I believe in the concept of the death penalty. I also believe it should be expanded in its current form in the United States to include rape and kidnapping. I realize that the judicial system is not perfect, but if that is your excuse your problem lies with the judicial system, not the death penalty. Of course there are improvements we could make to the system, but I still believe in the concept. I'd advocate executing anyone that has committed murder (different from killing), rape, or kidnapping.
- I do not agree with abortion because I do not believe in murdering innocent children. A woman, regardless of it being her body, cannot go to a doctor and ask him to amputate a perfectly good arm and leg. Why murder a baby?
Why do I advocate death penalty but not abortion? Simple. One is a guilty man, a murderer or rapist, and the other is an innocent child.
Regarding the protection thing, please don't go pull it out of contect and take extreme cases. All I'm saying is that if I find someone with an axe in my house in the middle of a night, I should have the option of shooting him in the leg to put him out of commission. His excuse of looking for work isn't acceptable. If he attacks me or my family, I should have the option of killing him. I do not adovate putting people that defend their family in jail, like that guy in Britain.
National Service - hmmm, unsure, - but why only men?
Women are free to join, but I do not believe in forcing them to enlist.
Anyway, how can Jerek be so pro-life yet support the army??
How am I pro-life?
abortion is wrong because its murder, but capital punishment ir right because its justice
Exactly.
The right to bear arms - I think it's an American thing that we'll just never understand......
:)
I disagee with this, it should be a choice. I'm honourable and have intergrity - people treat me like %$@$ but I still help them with things (no that's no one here) - if I was in the army I'd just end up shooting them and me.
downquark1, you're separating fly**** from pepper. When you go through basic training and 2 years in the military, you are a different man. THAT is what I'm after. It teaches you more than the few things I've mentioned. Survival skills, how to use and operate firearms, first aid, and so on.
In the UK we removed firearms from the general population
That is true. In Canada, we have not, and we still have a lower crime rate.
so keep the guns at the club, not in the home - you are right that driving things "underground", does not prevent them!
No. I want to carry a gun with me at all times, under my jacket. If a situation ever arose that I might need a gun, I want to have it on me.
When I went to America and saw a policeman with a gun, it was just on his belt in the open, anyone could to reach out for it and kill a few people instantly.
When I went to UK and saw people selling knives, it was just lying there in the store and anyone could reach out and start stabbing people.
However to force a woman to bear a child that resulted from an act of rape is punishing the mother for being a victim and that is something which nobody should have to endure because it is not *her* fault either.
So instead you commit murder and punish the innocent baby instead. Great.
And who supports the charities and the churches? And who is entitled to the benefits?
People. I know I do. In fact, I give 10% of my income to charities and the church.
I started this thread just to state what I believe. I am not really interested in defending my beliefs because I've done it millions of times.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I started this thread just to state what I believe. I am not really interested in defending my beliefs because I've done it millions of times.
Well, you did post your beliefs on a -discussion- forum. I don't think people are wrong in expecting you to discuss it.
homealone
19-09-2003, 01:16
Originally posted by Jerrek
I started this thread just to state what I believe. I am not really interested in defending my beliefs because I've done it millions of times.
:cool: jerrek - remind me what "time" you have "there"
it is 01.25 here
Oh I'll discuss it a bit, but the thread covers far too many topics for an indepth discussion. I actually felt like writing something, and I came up with this, and now I'm modifying it a bit to put in the school's newspaper.
Are you taking the p**s or what?
Originally posted by Jerrek
Why do I advocate death penalty but not abortion?
Who knows, but when rednecks like yourself start spouting all this sort of tripe I can't help thinking of those 5 hospital workers killed by anti-abortion activists ....
edit: Maybe you could explain something to me, in your's (and people like Russ's) eye's the baby is a baby from the point of fertilisation, agreed? Please tell me why they don't have funerals for miscarriages ...
homealone
19-09-2003, 01:37
Originally posted by Bifta
Who knows, but when rednecks like yourself start spouting all this sort of tripe I can't help thinking of those 5 hospital workers killed by anti-abortion activists ....
please don't abuse Jerrek, Bifta - he may represent an opposing view - but we would not be here, but for that?
Fair enough, I would still like both him and Russ and any other pro lifers to answer my question however.
Please tell me why they don't have funerals for miscarriages ... Well, over here we typically have memorial services if no body is available for burial. When my aunt's baby died before he was born there was a memorial service.
but when rednecks like yourself Redneck? Me?
Having worked in a surgery for over 3 years let me assure you that a decision to have a termination is never an easy one for a lady. Until you can truly know what it is like to be in her situation then I am afraid you chaps will never fully understand, if that sounds harsh then sorry but it is true.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Well, over here we typically have memorial services if no body is available for burial. When my aunt's baby died before he was born there was a memorial service.
Redneck? Me?
Even if the baby was miscarried only a couple of weeks into the pregnancy? Highly doubtful.
And yes, you, A Canadian i met ... in Canada (spooky) with literally mirroring views of what you originally posted for some reason once told me he was proud to be a redneck, guns, death penalty, shootin' intruders and all of your other views when compounded together they kinda .. stink of the deep south. Confirm my views and tell me you like either Wrestlin', Drinkin', Monster Trucks, Muddin' or Huntin' (or any combination of) ;)
edit: or Country (And or Western)
Originally posted by Debsy42
Having worked in a surgery for over 3 years let me assure you that a decision to have a termination is never an easy one for a lady. Until you can truly know what it is like to be in her situation then I am afraid you chaps will never fully understand, if that sounds harsh then sorry but it is true.
i do understand i know as you say im a male but i do understand but im not a supporter of abortion but would let it happen depending on the circumstance it is a very painful time to choose and then live with the fact that you have terminated someones life...........
Confirm my views and tell me you like either Wrestlin', Drinkin', Monster Trucks, Muddin' or Huntin' (or any combination of) Eeeehh.... all of them except hunting. I'm vegan.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Eeeehh.... all of them except hunting. I'm vegan.
Vegan eh? Like in Star Trek! (kidding). Not many Vegan Hillbillies about, you're a rare breed.
Originally posted by Jerrek
A few generic points:
- I believe in the concept of the death penalty. I also believe it should be expanded in its current form in the United States to include rape and kidnapping. I realize that the judicial system is not perfect, but if that is your excuse your problem lies with the judicial system, not the death penalty. Of course there are improvements we could make to the system, but I still believe in the concept. I'd advocate executing anyone that has committed murder (different from killing), rape, or kidnapping.
No justice system is perfect (ie produces correct convictions 100% of the time). Until such time as there is a perfect justice system, I don't think there should be a death penalty. Basically because the state could theoritcally murder an innocent person.
- I do not agree with abortion because I do not believe in murdering innocent children. A woman, regardless of it being her body, cannot go to a doctor and ask him to amputate a perfectly good arm and leg. Why murder a baby?
There can be many reasons. The woman may have a condition that will kill her, or the baby may be seriously injured if carried to full term. The baby may be the result of a rape. The woman may be poor enough that she is barely able to feed herself, let alone her and her baby. That's just a few.
I don't agree that abortion should be an option for conveniance, but I do believe it should be an option.
In Canada, we have not, and we still have a lower crime rate.
How many Accidental gun deaths?
No. I want to carry a gun with me at all times, under my jacket. If a situation ever arose that I might need a gun, I want to have it on me.
I can honestly say that in all my 32 years, I have never been in a situation where I have needed a gun. And, I have been in some nasty areas...
People. I know I do. In fact, I give 10% of my income to charities and the church.
That sounds exactly like our National Insurance contributions.. Apart from you have a choice wether to do it
Originally posted by Debsy42
Having worked in a surgery for over 3 years let me assure you that a decision to have a termination is never an easy one for a lady. Until you can truly know what it is like to be in her situation then I am afraid you chaps will never fully understand, if that sounds harsh then sorry but it is true.
I agree. I have seen what having an abortion did to a friend of mine. She came out of the clinic feeling like a murderer. Even years later, she still feels like she murdered the baby.
She also accused me of murdering the baby (which was extremely upsetting for me, and she later apologised) because we worked together and she had the abortion because she couldn't afford to stop work. As she explained it later, it wasn't anything personal, she just saw me as representing her job, and had a go because of that.
So, I can understand some (possibly a small part) of what a women goes through in this decision and I can honestly say, I don't think any women would find the decision easy.
And before anyone does this to me. I'll :notopic: myself..
Who was it who said that alot of the anti-abortion protestors are walking adverts for abortion?
The sort who think it's bad to abort a child, but ok to bomb a clinic
Fair enough, I would still like both him and Russ and any other pro lifers to answer my question however.
It is considered 'inappropriate' for an aborted foetus to be automatically given a funeral because legally life begins at birth.
That's not to say I agree with the above. Yes there certainly should be a funeral. They are available for stillborn births, why not abortions?
going on what someone said earler russ, if the mother of your child was raped and became pregnant would you make her keep the baby
I could not 'make' her do anything. Even though I cam imagine I'd go through a mixture of extreme emotions, I certainly would not encourage her to have the unborn child aborted.
downquark1
19-09-2003, 07:58
It is considered 'inappropriate' for an aborted foetus to be automatically given a funeral because legally life begins at birth.
So when abort you are not killing life.
On abortion I think I must take my harsh realism stance again. This maybe insensitive and shocking but if you look at it as 'nothing agained nothing lost' - the baby has not been born, it has no 'life' and hasn't acompleshed anything or has any responsibilities, therefore it isn't really murder. Of course, you are preventing the baby from ever doing those things, it depends if you look at things for what they are or what their potential is, of course it could die in a miscarriage anyway causing a great deal more pain.
I appologise if I have offended anyone.
downquark1
19-09-2003, 08:00
Women are free to join, but I do not believe in forcing them to enlist.
Ahh great, I have to consider that operation again :blush:
I'm sorry but that is pure sexism
Originally posted by downquark1
So when abort you are not killing life.
And my very next line says I don't neccessarily agree with the 'legal' viewpoint which says life begins at birth.
downquark1
19-09-2003, 08:36
Originally posted by Russ D
And my very next line says I don't neccessarily agree with the 'legal' viewpoint which says life begins at birth. I know, I was merely continuing the point, we can't say when life begins but if you take things from potential then every egg and sperm has the potential to become a baby - women would have 1 or 2 babies a year.:(
You could say any time a woman has a period, that's a baby dieing.
I didn't think this was an abortion thread !!!:notopic:
timewarrior2001
19-09-2003, 09:41
Originally posted by Jerrek
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
- in a strong military for national defense.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions.
Some interesting points jerek. You can tell by reading that you from the US/Canada.
Take my response as a response from a different culture form a different continent.
- No one has the right to take life, neither a murderer nor a state sanctioned executioner. No one (except for maybe god*) has the right to judge someone fitness to deserve a life.
*I do not beleive in religion
-what happens if the pregnancy is a result of a rape, or the baby sufferes form something like cystic fibrosos, spina bifida. What of the baby has very little chance of survivng more than a few hours when born?
Theres no way the right to abortion should be removed, we live in a democracy and a democracy is all about freedom and choice.
-any force is acceptable? difficult questions arise form this debate, I tend to agree with you.
-if you didnt have the right to bear arms and you had similar gun laws to the UK you would find people didnt need to protect themselves as much with deadly force. The right to bear arms creates this unhealthy fascination a lot of North Americans seem to have with firearms. I could have a gun if I was a)properly trained b) properly licensed c) needed one.
I dont need one, I manage to live daily wihtout the need to go shoot something/anything/anyone. Therefor whats the use in a right to bear arms.?
-a strong miliatry for national defence.....good point, but doesnt a strong military provoke some enemies into a non conventional war? Terrorism cannot be stopped by conventional warfare as the US is currently finding out.
-Military service......take a bunch of delinquents off the street, teach them how to kill, 2 years later let them back onto the street, where thye no longer have to maiuntain discipline, still have their new found skills and possibly no income.
Not really a good Idea is it?
Cant comment on the next three, but I agree whol eheartedly with your last comment.
Regards
Timewarrior2001
what happens if the pregnancy is a result of a rape, or the baby sufferes form something like cystic fibrosos, spina bifida. What of the baby has very little chance of survivng more than a few hours when born?
I was waiting for someone to mention that! No, I do not think anyone has the right to control life in that way. Each child should have the right to a life, which kind of gets blown away when you mentioned.....
we live in a democracy and a democracy is all about freedom and choice.
Freedom and choice - unless of course you are an unborn child.
timewarrior2001
19-09-2003, 11:33
Originally posted by Russ D
I was waiting for someone to mention that! No, I do not think anyone has the right to control life in that way. Each child should have the right to a life, which kind of gets blown away when you mentioned.....
Freedom and choice - unless of course you are an unborn child.
Well, I would much prefer to know and be able to make the descision if the child was to require 24 hour care 7 days a week for what? up to 20 years generally in the case of cystic fibrosis.
Some parents are unable or unwilling to do such a thing, they may have other children to consider.
Legally a fetus isnt a child until x amount of weeks. which is why an abortion is only permitted up until a certain stage.
Also in a democracy you technically dont have a choice until you turn 18.
Whats would be better for a child anyway, living in a home, wondering why your parents didnt want you, having that torment for 75 years, or be terminated before you were anywhere near fully developed?
Also the fetus develops within the womans body, what about her rights over her own body? WOuld you bring up the child of the person that raped your partner? constantly showing love, never allowing the pain of what happened to enter into your head for fear it may prejudice you to the child?
Anyway, russ, I dont want to start a war of words over beleifs in this topic, as it is only one of many I chose to answer.
As Parents (myself included....looking at possible having to go to court for access to my son) we sometimes have to make difficult descisions, be it MMr jabs or something worse. I assume (dangerous I know) that your daughter will be taken to church, will be christened, beacuse thats your choice they are your beleifs. I have nothing against any of this, but you are then making decisions based on your wants and needs.
To reply to Jerrek ...
Death penalty: Don't agree. It removes all possibility of reform and can only be seen as the state taking vengeance on the criminal. Personally I believe vengeance belongs in God's hands alone.
Abortion: The 'pro choice' lobby has precious little to say about the child's right to life. It takes no account of medical advances that could improve the quality of life for a disabled child, doctors misdiagnosing a disability, and abortion as contraception just makes my blood boil. As for some of the pricqlier (swear filter!!!) issues ... well, for example, if my father were a convicted rapist, should his crime be my death sentence?
Marriage: Agreed, although I recognise this is a Christian ideal. If people who are not Christians would stop pretending they are just so they can get married in a church, and start lobbying the Government for a fixed-term civil marriage contract instead, then perhaps this wonderful gift from God would be a little less abused.
Personal Defence: Nope. My ideal is to turn the other cheek, although I am scared about how well I might live up to that when it came to it. I certainly don't accept that anything other than minimum possible force is reasonable, and I don't think killing is justified.
Arms: No way. For a start, the only reason you Americans have the right to bear arms is in case your government needs to call up a people's army in response to a British invasion. Any other argument you can advance has been developed since then to justify holding on to them. Guns are dangerous and unneccesary in a civilised society.
Military: In a secular society, that goes without saying. The nations of the world should do what they must in order to feel safe. As a Christian I consider myself a citizen of heaven and I feel safe because God is my army. No matter what happens, I am safe with him; if I die, I go to him.
National Service: It is beyond doubt that national service created a largely disciplined society in the UK and from that point of view is a good thing. However I would object as I have no intention of allowing anyone to teach me how to kill another human being. Germany has an intriguing national service programme which allows its young people to choose a military or civil (e.g. firefighting) option.
Government: Too true. No nanny state!
Economy: Agreed. There's nothing like human greed for getting a job done.
Tax and social security: Dsagree. Not everyone is down and out by choice. A great deal of problems that society has failed to tackle contribute to poverty and depravation, and thus society has an obligation to do something about it. Churches and charities are useful sources of help but there aren't enough of us.
Personal responsibility: Absolutely. I loathe the compensation culture and McDonald's coffe cups that say 'caution, contents may be hot!'
Originally posted by towny
Personal responsibility: Absolutely. I loathe the compensation culture and McDonald's coffe cups that say 'caution, contents may be hot!' [/B]
Sorry, but whilst I entirely agree about the compensation culture, I have to point out that the McDonald's Case (and the so-called "Stella Award" that came from it) is based on a large amount of myth.
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
Originally posted by Graham
Sorry, but whilst I entirely agree about the compensation culture, I have to point out that the McDonald's Case (and the so-called "Stella Award" that came from it) is based on a large amount of myth.
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
Having read the link, I see no myth ... only exactly what I understood the story to be about. A culture in which everything is someone else's fault and accidents are a chance to cash in at the expense of big corporations 'who can afford it anyway'. Sorry, coffee is hot, it is made with hot water, and until the day we have thermometers built into our fingers, any reasonably intelligent adult should treat hot coffee as a scalding hazard.
Alan Waddington
20-09-2003, 10:00
...Gets on soapbox.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I believe:
- everyone has the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the rest that goes with it. Just like we can revoke a person's right to freedom of movement (imprisonment), juries and judges should have the option of revoking a person's right to life.
I also agree, except for reservations about the death penalty. The trouble is that you can't revoke it if new evidence comes to light & if you postpone it for years to allow the possibility that new evidence may appear, then the sentencee has to live with hopeless future for years, which I personally find unacceptable.
- babies are innocent and do not deserve death, especially not for convenience's sake. All unborn babies are human beings, and has a right to life. Murdering a baby should be punishable by death. Women, you are given the responsibility for carrying our young for its first 9 months. Because men sometimes abuse that you may end up carrying an unwanted child. Don't take it out on the baby. It is not his or her fault.
Difficult one this. I certainly don't agree with the concept of abortion as an alternative to contraception, but feel that it is acceptable on medical grounds. The issue is 'when does the fertilised egg become a human being?' I don't know. I think the Morning After pill is probably OK.
- marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Marriage should be forever and one should have one partner for life.
I think Marriage is a convenient stable relationship to bring up children and that parent's should endeaver to make them work until their kids are 16. But forever? I don't see that this is essential or even desirable if the marriage isn't working.
- in a right to protect my family, my friends, my property, and myself. When it comes to these things, any force is acceptable.
I think most of us would do what is necessary to protect family members. Friends perhaps not quite to the same extent. Using force to protect property is a big issue here at the moment. I certainly believe that lethal force is not appropriate in that case.
- in a right to keep and bear arms. I also believe in acting responsibly when using a firearm, and to store it in a safe place, unloaded, separated from ammunition, unless it is used for personal defense, in which case it will not leave my holster. This right brings responsibility, and you must be prepared to take that responsibility.
An unloaded gun isn't much use in personal defence. While you're unlocking the ammo store, the burglar will probably jump you to avoid being on the receiving end of the weapon once its loaded. If the burglar is armed (because he or she knows you will be), you will probably get shot at this point. Generally it doesn't add to personal safety because everyone has guns and so no-one has an advantage. However if the criminals in your area are already carrying guns as a matter of course, then perhaps you would need one as well, as well as training in how to use it. - My view: Avoid escalating the gun problem.
- in a strong military for national defense.
I believe we need an adequate military force for our defence. This is really the gun-carrying issue on a larger scale. We need an army because the other guys have one. However if we build ours up to get an advantage, the other guys get worried and have to do the same. Soon everyone has an atomic bomb. - My view again is to avoid escalating the problem.
- that the military provides valuable training to men that enter service, and that all males reaching age 18 should serve two years in the military. This will teach them respect, honor, integrity, and justice. If a person objects to using a weapon, he may be given a different assignment (medic, cook, and so forth).
This might be necessary in times of international tension, when war may be around the corner, but in more peaceful times I would prefer a smaller professional army. If you teach everyone how to fight, then disagreements will be more violent.
- government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. A smaller government is better for everyone.
I agree, provided that the government is accountable to the people.
- in the free enterprise economic system. I accept the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.
I agree, despite problems, it has been shown to work better than a command economy.
- in low taxes and no social benefits. Social benefits can better be given by society, charities, and churches.
Interesting thought. Certainly social benefits should be no more than an emergency net as anything more is too expensive to sustain. Charities and Churches already provide additional support, particularly in areas missed by the formal system. However, they would not have the resources to cover all social needs, without a significant cultural shift, which seems unlikely.
- in personal responsibility. I accept the consequences of my actions.
Totally agree.
...gets off soapbox
Originally posted by towny
Having read the link, I see no myth ... only exactly what I understood the story to be about. A culture in which everything is someone else's fault and accidents are a chance to cash in at the expense of big corporations 'who can afford it anyway'. Sorry, coffee is hot, it is made with hot water, and until the day we have thermometers built into our fingers, any reasonably intelligent adult should treat hot coffee as a scalding hazard.
You missed the point. The fact is that McDonalds *knew* there was a danger. "McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns..."
They had deliberately chosen *not* to change their practice "The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee."
The damages were subseqently reduced because on appeal the woman was determined to be 20% at fault, but the judge called McDonald's conduct "reckless, callous and willful".
This is *not* a simple case of someone "cashing in" because "big corporations can afford it", had McDonalds not been to blame, the compensation would not have been awarded in the first place.
Anyway, this is off topic for this thread, so I think I should leave it here.
Originally posted by Graham
You missed the point. The fact is that McDonalds *knew* there was a danger. "McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns..."
They had deliberately chosen *not* to change their practice "The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee."
The damages were subseqently reduced because on appeal the woman was determined to be 20% at fault, but the judge called McDonald's conduct "reckless, callous and willful".
This is *not* a simple case of someone "cashing in" because "big corporations can afford it", had McDonalds not been to blame, the compensation would not have been awarded in the first place.
Anyway, this is off topic for this thread, so I think I should leave it here.
I don't think it's off topic; personal responsibility is one of the many themes Jerrek established when he started this thread.
I didn't miss your point although perhaps I didn't make mine well enough. It's not just the 'victim' in this case that is overtaken by the USA's all-pervasive compensation culture. It's the judge and the jury as well. Otherwise a debate about the relative dangers of 140 vs 180 degrees F as a holding temperature for coffee would have been entirely irrelevant - as I believe in any sane society it should be. Both these temperatures are VERY HOT. They will both hurt you. The degree to which they hurt you (no pun intended ;) ) is neither here nor there. When I pour myself a cup of coffee I know it is going to be very hot; I don't stop to think whether it will cause me first- or third-degree burns should I spill it. Hot is hot, it is potentailly dangerous and I treat it as such.
I see no reason for McDonald's to change the holding temperature of its coffee. I do see a reason for its customers, and the judges and juries of the USA, to recognise that boiling water is dangerous and people trying to open styrofoam cups full of it while wedged between their knees, deserve whatever they get. And I don't mean a nice fat damages cheque.
Towny: If you think that *anyone* deserves getting third degree burns, let alone in an incredibly sensitive part of their anatomy then I can only assume that you are an incredibly callous and unfeeling individual.
homealone
21-09-2003, 13:05
Originally posted by Graham
Towny: If you think that *anyone* deserves getting third degree burns, let alone in an incredibly sensitive part of their anatomy then I can only assume that you are an incredibly callous and unfeeling individual.
To be fair, Graham, I don't think Towny was saying that anyone "deserves" to be injured by anything. My understanding of his post was that we should take more responsibility for our lives - and I agree with that - imagine an injured skydiver sueing because the ground didn't have a sign on saying "danger may be a bit hard".:)
While corporations and organisations have a responsibilty to ensure they provide safe products, or at least adequate warnings on their products (which, IMO, McDonalds do), there comes a point where we have to take reponsibility for our own safety.
Mrs Leibeck had the coffee on her lap when she opened it, and it spilt.
Surely, it would be more sensibile (bearing in mind the warnings on the cup) for her to have put the coffee on the parcel shelf?
Still, this is vaguely on topic. It is about taking personal responsibility..
Originally posted by homealone
To be fair, Graham, I don't think Towny was saying that anyone "deserves" to be injured by anything.
Sorry, but it certainly looked a more than a bit like that to me.
My understanding of his post was that we should take more responsibility for our lives - and I agree with that - imagine an injured skydiver sueing because the ground didn't have a sign on saying "danger may be a bit hard".:)
I have no problem with people being required to take responsibility for their actions.
That goes for consumers *and* multi-national corporations.
AFAICS McDonalds were quite happy to continue to allow their customers to face the risk of serious burns because it was easier for them to pay off the victims than chance people stop buying their coffee because it didn't taste so good!
Lord Nikon
22-09-2003, 02:39
Well, there is nothing like a good cup of coffee... and McDonalds serve nothing like a good cup of coffee
Towny: If you think that *anyone* deserves getting third degree burns, let alone in an incredibly sensitive part of their anatomy then I can only assume that you are an incredibly callous and unfeeling individual.
This reminds me of the darwin awards thread, IMO anyone that stupid does deserves everything they get.
For example........
Towny: If you think that *anyone* deserves getting third degree burns, let alone in an incredibly sensitive part of their anatomy then I can only assume that you are an incredibly callous and unfeeling individual.
.........When I was reading this post I had my laptop Carelessley balanced on my chest while lying on my bed, as I read the last line I laughed out loud and dropped my laptop (Fortunatley I caught it :D) however had my laptop dropped to the floor and smashed does that make Homealone responsible and liable to pay me compensation??? (didnt think so)
I do realise this is not the same as being injoured but it has the same Moral implications IMO.
As others have stated when you buy a HOT Drink you expect it to be HOT, placing it near your genitals is just asking for trouble, then to take the company to court for serving a Hot drink at a hot temperature is bordering on rediculous.
I would also like to delve into the Abortion part of this topic but I think this is an unwinable debate, I'll give it my best shot though :D
I am deffinatley pro-choice, while I would never want My GF, sister etc to have an abortion I certainly wouldnt stop her.
I became an uncle for the first time 11 months ago and I couldnt immagin what it would be like if my Niece hadnt been born, she is so Cheerful, has a loveley smile and she also seems very fond of me :D
I am however of the school who believe life does not begin at conception, you see life has one key element (Self awareness) This cannot be achieved without a Nervous system and since the nervous system does not develope in a fetous until after 3 months how can this be taking a life?? (Could be wrong about the number of months, I am niether a doctor or a midwife :D allthough I do know it is not for sometime after conception).
Now most religous folks argue that the child, unborn, or not has a soul and thus killing the unborn child means killing its sole wich equals murder, but since this is your Belief and cannot be proven one way or another it is not solid ground to be controlling someones decisions with.
I dont even want to comment about the firearms section of the first post. I will just say that considdering we have had drive-by shootings and industrial rockets launched within 10 miles of where I live immagine what it would be like if these firearms where legalised :eek:
Also Ido not believe that compulsary time in the armed services is a good Idea. I know many people who may have even gone as far as taking thier own lives rather than go into the millitary.
Allthough I do like the idea of Civil (i.e. fire department) this would be very helpful and would increase awareness of fire hazards and probably reduce the amount of fires caused by neglegence. I do not agree with the length of time though (I think a year at the most).
Now most religous folks argue that the child, unborn, or not has a soul and thus killing the unborn child means killing its sole wich equals murder, but since this is your Belief and cannot be proven one way or another it is not solid ground to be controlling someones decisions with
I'm not trying to control anyone's belief - this is a thread for giving opinions and I'm giving mine.
And to say that an unborn child does not have a soul is slightly irresponsible, don't you think?
zoombini
22-09-2003, 08:28
Seeing as your all quoting Jerrek, I will give it a go to.
I
Remember folks that these are just Jerreks views & not the rest of the US/Canadian population.
There are just as many there that would oppose as agree with them.
I think the bit about the forcing the men to go into the Army is highly sexist, after all even the army has washing up to do. :D
Originally posted by zoombini
I think the bit about the forcing the men to go into the Army is highly sexist, after all even the army has washing up to do. :D :rofl:
Originally posted by zoombini
Seeing as your all quoting Jerrek, I will give it a go to.
Remember folks that these are just Jerreks views & not the rest of the US/Canadian population.
There are just as many there that would oppose as agree with them.
I think the bit about the forcing the men to go into the Army is highly sexist, after all even the army has washing up to do. :D
Heh c'mon, how bad could the Canadian Army be ... isn't this the country with no ships in their navy?
Originally posted by Graham
Sorry, but it certainly looked a more than a bit like that to me.
I think I'll let the fact that you're the only one who seems to think so speak for me on that point.
Originally posted by Russ D And to say that an unborn child does not have a soul is slightly irresponsible, don't you think?
This is liable to be a bit controversial, but...
You could (well, I could!) equally argue that to say that *anyone* has a "soul" without being able to prove it or demonstrate what a soul actually *is* is equally irresponsible.
You are asking us to believe in the existance of this putative soul on faith, and not even *our* faith, but *your* faith!
There are other religions in this world that don't believe in "souls", nor in "heaven" etc, so why should your beliefs over-ride theirs?
downquark1
22-09-2003, 13:23
I see now why religion is blamed for all the war.
Originally posted by ZrByte
I am however of the school who believe life does not begin at conception, you see life has one key element (Self awareness)
However, a child is not self aware until several months after birth. The brain has a lot of development to do and while the central nervous system exists from fairly early in pregnancy, it is still developing many months after birth. The exisence of a CNS is therefore not a good measure of the point at which a foetus is a 'person' who must not be killed by abortion.
In fact, the medical reasoning behind the point at which abortion ceases to be an option is 'viability' ... i.e. could the child, with the best available medical care, survive if born at that point? This causes a major problem for medical ethics because as medical science improves, ever more premature babies can be kept alive in an incubator. The most premature baby ever to survive, if I remember correctly, was born only a couple of weeks after the date at which he/she could have been aborted. It is only a matter of time before this date is crossed.
(It's worth bearing in mind that abortion can legally be carried out almost to the point of full term, provided medical opinion in the individual case supports it).
I dont even want to comment about the firearms section of the first post. I will just say that considdering we have had drive-by shootings and industrial rockets launched within 10 miles of where I live immagine what it would be like if these firearms where legalised :eek:
The Wirral has obviously gone right down the tubes since I left - but maybe I led a sheltered life in Meols. Whereabouts are you?!
Originally posted by downquark1
So when abort you are not killing life.
that all depends when you believe life begins really........could it be when conception occurs, if thus aborting a conceptus is killing.........or is it when the child starts to grow and its dna is developing.......killing again......or is it when the child takes its first breathe...abortion is thus not killing
i am against abortion in most cases.......the only tricky one is when someone is raped.....or when the person (mother) could risk her health or death for the sake of the child.....however if it was me, i think i would still not abort the child.......
ive seen the effect abortion has on people and its not pretty, and it winds me up that people have 2+ abortions in their lifetime
as for captial punishment i am against it
holding hand guns.....up until recently i would have said a big no no....but discussed it recently with someone and they had some persuasive answers.....when all is said and done it is the person that cases the risk not the gun.......a fork can be used as a killing machine if the person is psycho enough
Originally posted by Graham
You are asking us to believe in the existance of this putative soul on faith, and not even *our* faith, but *your* faith!
There are other religions in this world that don't believe in "souls", nor in "heaven" etc, so why should your beliefs over-ride theirs?
Nice attempt at bringing religion in to this. Did I mention *my* faith?
So you don't believe that a child that is due to be born tomorrow has a soul?
I see now why religion is blamed for all the war
Yes, quite ignorantly too. After all, religion didn't start the Falklands War.
And to say that an unborn child does not have a soul is slightly irresponsible, don't you think?
I was going to answer this but Graham has already said pretty much what I wanted to.
However, a child is not self aware until several months after birth. The brain has a lot of development to do and while the central nervous system exists from fairly early in pregnancy, it is still developing many months after birth. The exisence of a CNS is therefore not a good measure of the point at which a foetus is a 'person' who must not be killed by abortion.
In fact, the medical reasoning behind the point at which abortion ceases to be an option is 'viability' ... i.e. could the child, with the best available medical care, survive if born at that point? This causes a major problem for medical ethics because as medical science improves, ever more premature babies can be kept alive in an incubator. The most premature baby ever to survive, if I remember correctly, was born only a couple of weeks after the date at which he/she could have been aborted. It is only a matter of time before this date is crossed.
(It's worth bearing in mind that abortion can legally be carried out almost to the point of full term, provided medical opinion in the individual case supports it).
Okay, I'll do one of my little comparisons :D
If someone has been in a horrific car accident and are being kept alive by machines, There is no Brain activity, the heart and lungs are kept working pureleyby the machines (Much like how a mother supports the fetus until the CNS developes) is this man anymore alive than the fetus is, if yes how do you define this?? I really dont see much of a difference.
I do however belive that the time that abortions can be carried out should be greatly reduced. It also might be interesting to have women requesting an abortion attend a one day self help group, Call it the ABA :D (Abortions Anonnimous).
To help women get some perspective about what they are about to do, also alow women to speak to women who have allready been through the procedure, even allow them to stay on if they have problems afterwards, and even to offer thier experiences to help others who will be going through the same.
The Wirral has obviously gone right down the tubes since I left - but maybe I led a sheltered life in Meols. Whereabouts are you?!
Im In good ol' Birkenhead, actually the Drive-by and the Industrial Fireworks attack all happened in Liverpool over the last week so its probably a little further than 10 miles (Allthough I do live very near the Wirral coastline facing Liverpool). Im not used to people actually knowing the area I live in :D if I just say Liverpool unless a person is from here they just think the Wirral is part of Liverpool or something :D
holding hand guns.....up until recently i would have said a big no no....but discussed it recently with someone and they had some persuasive answers.....when all is said and done it is the person that cases the risk not the gun.......a fork can be used as a killing machine if the person is psycho enough
Thats actually a very interesting point, whats that T-Shirt?? I think its......
"Guns Don't Kill people.........
.......I Kill People!!!!!"
Allthough I really dont see the point in legalising firearms, maybe if they where allready legal I wouldnt really see the need to illegalise them but things are probably best left as they are.
I was going to answer this but Graham has already said pretty much what I wanted to.
In that case please see my reply to him.
Originally posted by ZrByte
Thats actually a very interesting point, whats that T-Shirt?? I think its......
"Guns Don't Kill people.........
.......I Kill People!!!!!"
Allthough I really dont see the point in legalising firearms, maybe if they where allready legal I wouldnt really see the need to illegalise them but things are probably best left as they are.
thats exactly my point :D
Originally posted by ZrByte
If someone has been in a horrific car accident and are being kept alive by machines, There is no Brain activity, the heart and lungs are kept working pureleyby the machines (Much like how a mother supports the fetus until the CNS developes) is this man anymore alive than the fetus is, if yes how do you define this?? I really dont see much of a difference.
I'm not at all sure there is much difference, but that surely is a reason not to do an abortion. It's not for nothing that people in a Persistent Vegetative State are kept on ventilators for a very long time before being allowed to die. It is well known that a brain might recover even after a lengthy period of apparent inactivity. In the case of a foetus, except in a few medically diagnosed cases an abortion is carried out in the full knowledge that, in 7-8 months, a perfectly healthy child will be born.
timewarrior2001
22-09-2003, 14:47
Originally posted by bexy
thats exactly my point :D
you'd be hard pushed to shoot someone without a gun though wouldnt you?
Ban on guns means one less way for nutters to kill you.
Is it Eddie Izzard that does the "guns dont kill people" sketch?
Very funny it was.
walk up behind someone and shout BANG see them drop down dead....from fright I s'pose.
In that case please see my reply to him.
So you don't believe that a child that is due to be born tomorrow has a soul?
As I said earlier though, I dont believe the child is alive until the Central Nervous system developes and this is long before birth so your reply is irrelevent to me.
I'm not at all sure there is much difference, but that surely is a reason not to do an abortion. It's not for nothing that people in a Persistent Vegetative State are kept on ventilators for a very long time before being allowed to die. It is well known that a brain might recover even after a lengthy period of apparent inactivity. In the case of a foetus, except in a few medically diagnosed cases an abortion is carried out in the full knowledge that, in 7-8 months, a perfectly healthy child will be born.
Okay :D I guess my example wasnt very good then :D My Bad (Good answer BTW)
Allthough it still wont sway my opinion that a child is not alive until the Central nervous system has at least started to develope.
At the early stages of pregnancy (As in first few weeks) the child doesnt even look like a child, it is simply a collection of cells. nothing more than a positive cancer one could argue at this stage.
I'm a mother of two great kids.However it's MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE not anyone elses.
Luckily these days the stigma attatched to illigitamate births has vanished and most girls and women make a determined choice for life.
However IF we ever go back to the days when abortion is denied to all women then that is the day when back street abortionists WILL return make no mistake about that.Not something I care to see the return of.The good old days-You can keep them.
Incog.
Originally posted by ZrByte
At the early stages of pregnancy (As in first few weeks) the child doesnt even look like a child, it is simply a collection of cells. nothing more than a positive cancer one could argue at this stage.
Which is why ethics rather than science can't be discounted as a valid consideration. If one accepts the existence of a soul, one has to ask at what point that soul becomes part of the person. And how do you decide that?
Incidentally, when I say 'soul' I am talking metaphysically. I know some people say that the human 'soul' can ultimately be defined as a sense generated by part of the brain, but if that is the definition of soul, the answer to abortion would be simple - aborting a foetus which has not yet begun to develop that part of the brain.
downquark1
22-09-2003, 15:51
So you don't believe that a child that is due to be born tomorrow has a soul?
Russ, you really need to be more open minded - some people don't believe there is such a thing as a soul. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by downquark1
Russ, you really need to be more open minded - some people don't believe there is such a thing as a soul. :rolleyes:
OK then, how about I explain what I consider a soul to be?
The lifeforce which gives you awareness of your surroundings, that which enables all your sense, especially pain.
It is others who have incorrectly assumed I'm referring to anything spiritual.
So to recap - anything which brings death to an individual who is able to feel that pain is morally repulsive to me.
anything which brings death to an individual who is able to feel that pain is morally repulsive to me
But if the child has no Central nervous system it cannot feel pain so do you find early abortions before the developement of CNS exceptable??
We have a wee problem here people - I think our definitions of 'soul', 'spirit' and the like are getting crossed.
Biblical Christianity holds to the idea of duality of soul and spirit, that is, despite being tightly related to each other they are ultimately separate and distinct. Other philosophies hold that there is no difference between the two. Whether you believe one or the other (or even if you believe it's all a red herring) the terms are often used almost interchangeably, and I'm as guilty as anyone else in this thread of that...
The significance of this arises when you attempt to distinguish between the different 'functions' of soul and spirit. In Christian thought it is the spirit which defines what you are. It is the fundamental you, your consciousness. The soul is as Russ describes, that part of a person's life force in which their physical senses feed inwards to their consciousness. The soul has wants and desires that can be satisifed by either spiritual or physical means. It is also the seat of emotion.
The difficulty in using 'soul' once thus defined, in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of anything, is that (in Christian thought at least) animals are also reckoned to have a soul. They have a life force not fully explained by mere physical processes, they think, sense and feel. The only thing lacking is a fundamental self-awareness and spiritual existence allowing them to relate to their creator.
This, then, is the Christian objection to abortion: every human is pro-created physically by its parents but the spirit is unique and created for each individual by God. As we do not know exactly at what point a human embryo becomes endowed with a spirit, it is safest to assume that this happens at conception, and therefore abortion at any stage is extremely difficult to justify.
Now this is where I'm coming from - feel free to disagree (I know you will anyway!) but it would be useful if you could also post some background on the definitions and assumptions that underpin your view.
downquark1
22-09-2003, 16:57
OK then, how about I explain what I consider a soul to be?
The lifeforce which gives you awareness of your surroundings, that which enables all your sense, especially pain.
In this case do animals have souls? My cat can jump on things, it is aware of it's surrounds and if I hurt it, then it would certainly react by hurting me back so it can feel pain.
Originally posted by downquark1
In this case do animals have souls? My cat can jump on things, it is aware of it's surrounds and if I ***** it, then it would certainly react by hurting me back so it can feel pain.
According to the definition I outlined above, they do.
downquark1
22-09-2003, 17:01
and if I ***** sorry, swear filter - that was suppose to be the thing you do with a pin.
Originally posted by downquark1
sorry, swear filter - that was suppose to be the thing you do with a pin.
I've been caught out by this ... when trying to discuss the *****lier issues of one thing or another. So we can't post on here that a hedgehog is *****lier than a cactus ...
Are people from S****horpe allowed to say so?
EDIT: Apparently not.
Originally posted by ZrByte
But if the child has no Central nervous system it cannot feel pain so do you find early abortions before the developement of CNS exceptable??
Certainly not - now that's where my Christian beliefs come in to it.
philip.j.fry
22-09-2003, 18:32
Originally posted by towny
According to the definition I outlined above, they do.
What about robots or computer programs that have these qualities also?
Just interested as am doing my final year dissertation on artificial life
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
What about robots or computer programs that have these qualities also?
Just interested as am doing my final year dissertation on artificial life
They don't. They've just been programmed to emulate those qualities by someone who does.
downquark1
22-09-2003, 18:51
Originally posted by towny
They don't. They've just been programmed to emulate those qualities by someone who does. Have people just be programmed through experience and evolution to follow the rules of life?;)
Originally posted by downquark1
Have people just be programmed through experience and evolution to follow the rules of life?;)
I believe so.
Hey, there's an interesting philosophical question: Are we alive, or are we just programmed to think we are alive?
Originally posted by scastle
I believe so.
Hey, there's an interesting philosophical question: Are we alive, or are we just programmed to think we are alive?
But programmed would assume a programmer. Consciousness might be an emergent property of some very simple and basic processes in the brain which have evolved as a result of man's interaction with the environment.
Originally posted by scastle
Hey, there's an interesting philosophical question: Are we alive, or are we just programmed to think we are alive?
thats a very good philosophical question and one which is actually used as a thought experiment in theoretical philosophy
its kinda the whole matrix thing isnt it?
well if you think about it, regardless of whether we are actually alive or being tricked by some evil being, we know no different, unless theres someway to get out of the illusionary world.........
Originally posted by danielf
But programmed would assume a programmer. Consciousness might be an emergent property of some very simple and basic processes in the brain which have evolved as a result of man's interaction with the environment.
Very true, and DNA is at the end of the day a biochemical 'program', written in a 'code' that consists of strings four possible characters while computers run electronic programs written in code that ultimately boils down to strings of two possible characters.
Makes you think, huh? ;)
It doesn't matter whether you think abortion wrong or not folks.Unless you are a woman it's not your choice to make.
Incog.
Originally posted by Incognitas
It doesn't matter whether you think abortion wrong or not folks.Unless you are a woman it's not your choice to make.
Incog.
As the child is 50pc from the man and 50pc from the woman, I find that point of view impossible to understand, and not a little bit selfish.
philip.j.fry
22-09-2003, 19:20
Originally posted by danielf
But programmed would assume a programmer. Consciousness might be an emergent property of some very simple and basic processes in the brain which have evolved as a result of man's interaction with the environment.
There are also programs, which A-Life is concerned with, that only have a very simple rule set and complex behaviours emerge from the interaction of those rules. A good example is the game of life, try searching on google (try the words game life cellular automata) if you want to read more. With these programs, no-one actually explicitly programmed them to do what they do.
Maybe in a few months when I've produced something you can all be my guinea pigs :D
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
There are also programs, which A-Life is concerned with, that only have a very simple rule set and complex behaviours emerge from the interaction of those rules. A good example is the game of life, try searching on google (try the words game life cellular automata) if you want to read more. With these programs, no-one actually explicitly programmed them to do what they do.
Maybe in a few months when I've produced something you can all be my guinea pigs :D
I know, it's known as emergent behaviour, which why I called consciousness an emergent property ;)
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
There are also programs, which A-Life is concerned with, that only have a very simple rule set and complex behaviours emerge from the interaction of those rules. A good example is the game of life, try searching on google (try the words game life cellular automata) if you want to read more. With these programs, no-one actually explicitly programmed them to do what they do.
Maybe in a few months when I've produced something you can all be my guinea pigs :D
But their actions still arise out of the program...the behaviour may be complex but surely can't be said to have given rise to anything novel. The machine has not bettered itself in any way. All that happened is the programmers weren't as good as they might have been in plotting all the outcomes of their programming.
Example - I had a BBC computer. (Still have, in the loft). The games available for it generally got better over the five-six years I used it. In that time, the machine itself remained the same, therefore its capabilities remained unchanged. But the games got better. If the people who designed the BBC knew its full potential when they first built it, surely they would have said to Acornsoft, Superior and the like, 'stop wasting your time, it can do much better than that, here, write your programs like this...' - and utilities like Speech, which wowed the industry because it allowed schoolboys to make their computer say f*** without a hardware speech synth, would have been around from day one.
The only conclusion is that the folks that designed the BBC computer were not fully aware of its potential at the time they built it. In the same way, the AI program was not intelligent; just better than the programmers thought it was.
Originally posted by towny
As the child is 50pc from the man and 50pc from the woman, I find that point of view impossible to understand, and not a little bit selfish.
It's not selfish it's the law.Thus far no woman has been forced to continue a pregnancy because the father has objected to an abortion.
Incog.
Originally posted by towny
But their actions still arise out of the program...the behaviour may be complex but surely can't be said to have given rise to anything novel. The machine has not bettered itself in any way. All that happened is the programmers weren't as good as they might have been in plotting all the outcomes of their programming.
Example - I had a BBC computer. (Still have, in the loft). The games available for it generally got better over the five-six years I used it. In that time, the machine itself remained the same, therefore its capabilities remained unchanged. But the games got better. If the people who designed the BBC knew its full potential when they first built it, surely they would have said to Acornsoft, Superior and the like, 'stop wasting your time, it can do much better than that, here, write your programs like this...' - and utilities like Speech, which wowed the industry because it allowed schoolboys to make their computer say f*** without a hardware speech synth, would have been around from day one.
The only conclusion is that the folks that designed the BBC computer were not fully aware of its potential at the time they built it. In the same way, the AI program was not intelligent; just better than the programmers thought it was.
But the point is that seemingly purposeful behaviour may not actually be goal driven. As such the behaviour may actually be novel, especially in interaction with a changing environment.
You may only need a few very simple rules, a changing environment, some randomness in the basic processes, and some type of learning mechanism to kick things off, and you might end up with novel behaviour.
Anyone else think this thread is straying too close to The Matrix?? :D
It's certainly getting:notopic:
I think I'll go and find a thread I can understand.
Incog. :)
orangebird
22-09-2003, 19:44
I believe, that until you experience a situation first hand, although you are perefecty entitled to your opinions, you have absolutly no right whatsoever to judge another persons actions given that situation..
Now while the subject of AI and such things facsinates me, It really does its one of those things that really intrigue me, that and Nano Technology. It is however off-Topic and a new thread should be created IMO.
I believe, that until you experience a situation first hand, although you are perefecty entitled to your opinions, you have absolutly no right whatsoever to judge another persons actions given that situation..
The force is strong with this one :D
Certainly not - now that's where my Christian beliefs come in to it.
So now your saying Abortion is not neccesarily wrong it's just against your Beliefs.
Originally posted by ZrByte
So now your saying Abortion is not neccesarily wrong it's just against your Beliefs.
Where did I say that? No, I've always thought abortion is wrong.
Originally posted by ZrByte
Now while the subject of AI and such things facsinates me, It really does its one of those things that really intrigue me, that and Nano Technology. It is however off-Topic and a new thread should be created IMO.
A tangent, perhaps, but not off-topic. A consideration when discussing abortion is what we are. Spirituality and the existence of the soul is one part of that; a counter-argument is that a soul is not necessarily anything special if you can recreate it using a machine. Hence discussion of AI.
It is mind-bending tho' ...:spin:
Originally posted by Incognitas
It's not selfish it's the law.Thus far no woman has been forced to continue a pregnancy because the father has objected to an abortion.
Incog.
I know it's the law - but there is such a thing as a bad law. I think this is one of those.
philip.j.fry
22-09-2003, 21:56
Originally posted by towny
It is mind-bending tho' ...:spin:
It is :) but also incredibly interesting (to me at least) which is why I chose to study it, it brings in elements of philosophy, psychology, compsci, biology etc etc. One of the briefs for my dissertation is 'to create something that can be argued to be alive', so it helps to have peoples views on the subject, sorry to have hijacked the thread though :D
p.s. it is very Matrix like, I think the reason I seemed to enjoy the Matrix 2 more than most people was because of the reading I'd been doing and it provoked some ideas, otherwise it was pretty pants ;)
Originally posted by towny
I know it's the law - but there is such a thing as a bad law. I think this is one of those.
So you as a male would force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want?Possibly even to a physically damaged child?This is what used to happen when there was no abortions under any circumstances.Might be a different story if men were the ones who had to be pregnant.
When I think to the the old back street abortionists I feel disgusted but that was all that women had before the abortion laws.
Incog.Who feels so strongly about this!!!!!!
Originally posted by Incognitas
So you as a male would force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want?Possibly even to a physically damaged child?This is what used to happen when there was no abortions under any circumstances.Might be a different story if men were the ones who had to be pregnant.
When I think to the the old back street abortionists I feel disgusted but that was all that women had before the abortion laws.
Incog.Who feels so strongly about this!!!!!!
As a man, I feel that the decision is for the woman to take. She's the one that has to carry the baby for 9 months, so I don't think the 50/50 argument is very valid.
No matter how much it might hurt me if I were in a situation where a child of mine would not be born, at the end of the day, it's the woman's body. Men should not be allowed to force it on a woman to continue the pregnancy, if she does not want to. Especially if they then decide to change their mind and loose interest in the child and the cost of it's upbringing...
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
It is :) but also incredibly interesting (to me at least) which is why I chose to study it, it brings in elements of philosophy, psychology, compsci, biology etc etc. One of the briefs for my dissertation is 'to create something that can be argued to be alive', so it helps to have peoples views on the subject, sorry to have hijacked the thread though :D
It is indeed (I'd say fascinating rather than interesting). I think the philosophical debate will be around for the next couple of centuries at least. And I don't think that computers will rule the world because they lack one thing that psychologists so far have very little to say about: creativity.
But, I'm also sorry for hijacking the thread. In penance, I've posted my feelings about abortion and male/female right thing.
As a man, I feel that the decision is for the woman to take. She's the one that has to carry the baby for 9 months, so I don't think the 50/50 argument is very valid.
No matter how much it might hurt me if I were in a situation where a child of mine would not be born, at the end of the day, it's the woman's body. Men should not be allowed to force it on a woman to continue the pregnancy, if she does not want to. Especially if they then decide to change their mind and loose interest in the child and the cost of it's upbringing...
I wonder though, when it is possible to keep a fetus alive in an artificial womb just hours after conception (And It will be) will the man have the choice or will it still be the womans descision, I have a feeling it will still be the womans descision and that shouldnt be the case.
Originally posted by Incognitas
So you as a male would force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want?Possibly even to a physically damaged child?This is what used to happen when there was no abortions under any circumstances.Might be a different story if men were the ones who had to be pregnant.
When I think to the the old back street abortionists I feel disgusted but that was all that women had before the abortion laws.
Incog.Who feels so strongly about this!!!!!!
The danger here is that you appear to be trying to frame the debate as some aspect of women's lib. I 'as a male' (how dare I be a male ....) would dare to have an opinion on something that affects a woman. However the notion that someone cannot make a decision that profoundly affects someone else is completely bogus. It happens in every sphere of life. Parliament - about 650 people - makes laws that affect the whole population (about 57 million people), or sections of it. Sometimes for the good, sometimes not so good, but we accept the system as a whole. In the military, planners send men on missions knowing that whle they themselves are safe, some of those they send will die.
And as for 'physically damaged' - this is an aspect of abortionist apologetics that I find impossible to understand. Until the day someone invents a working crystal ball, who are any of us to determine the potential a disabled child might reach? Pro-choice campaigners talk about the child's 'right not to be born' - this is a perverse argument designed to mask the reality - that we are indulging in legalised eugenics.
I believe a man, as the father of his unborn son or daughter, has the natural right to be heard when the fate of the child is in question. I believe a woman, as well as her partner, should accept all possible consequences of having sex in the first place (and I don't just mean the possibility of unwanted pregnancy; I include the possibility of a wanted child who turns out to have a disability). Even in tragic cases of pregnancy arising out of rape, it is unfair to sentence a child to death based on the crime of its father.
To sum it up, the child's right to life is higher than the woman's right to choose.
orangebird
23-09-2003, 09:27
Originally posted by towny
<snip>Parliament - about 650 people - makes laws that affect the whole population (about 57 million people), or sections of it. Sometimes for the good, sometimes not so good, but we accept the system as a whole<snip>
It doesn't 'affect the whole population' - it gives people a choice. If some people don't like that choice, then fair enough. At least with the law in place, as Incog says, back street abortions and all the dangers that are associated with them are a thing of the past.
Originally posted by orangebird
It doesn't 'affect the whole population' - it gives people a choice. If some people don't like that choice, then fair enough. At least with the law in place, as Incog says, back street abortions and all the dangers that are associated with them are a thing of the past.
I was talking about lawmaking in general, not specifically abortion. The budget, for example, affects everyone one way or another. It was an analogy intended to suggest that one person should not be disbarred from making a decision that affects other people. Just because it is the woman's body carrying the baby, doesn't mean that the man who helped put the child there should have no say.
As for back-street abortion, I didn't address that issue. My post was about the fundamental issue of whether abortion is right or wrong. However, on that issue, I believe that it is wrong to kill an unborn child and it is wrong to hold the lives of unborn babies to ransom with dire predictions of women harming themselves if they are not given access to abortion services. In any case, society has changed a lot since abortion was last illegal and being pregnant 'out of wedlock' is not the stigma it once was. Would nearly as many women want a 'back street abortion'?
homealone
23-09-2003, 09:53
originally posted by towny<snipped>Just because it is the woman's body carrying the baby, doesn't mean that the man who helped put the child there should have no say.
I don't think the "woman's right to choose" implies that the man has no say, just that in the event of an impasse, the woman has the "casting vote".
Originally posted by homealone
originally posted by towny
I don't think the "woman's right to choose" implies that the man has no say, just that in the event of an impasse, the woman has the "casting vote".
.....which is exactly the same as us men having no say whatsoever, only packaged nicely.
homealone
23-09-2003, 11:13
Originally posted by Russ D
.....which is exactly the same as us men having no say whatsoever, only packaged nicely.
fair point, however the choice may be to keep the child against pressure for termination - as the physical consequence has to be borne by the woman, either way, I do feel that confers an extra "right" to have the final say. Having said that, my personal view is that abortion is wrong.
Originally posted by homealone
Having said that, my personal view is that abortion is wrong.
Same here, but the fact that a man has no say in whether his unborn child gets murdered/aborted just goes to show how much of a "man's world" it really is.
imo fathers should have a 50% say. A Mother having to go through an unwanted pregnancy (as opposed to an abortion) is nothing compared to the joy a father could get from having a child, or the joy a child could have living their life with a father who loves them. The "its the womans body" argument is selfish imo. An unwanted pregnancy (as opposed to abortion) im sure would be horrible for a woman, but is it worse that taking away a child from the father as well as depriving a child of life?
Same here, but the fact that a man has no say in whether his unborn child gets murdered/aborted just goes to show how much of a "man's world" it really is.
I still dont get how abortion is murder, you are stopping the life before it becomes life, so it is not alive in the first place to be murdered.
Infact by this logic that proventing a potential person existing is murder, everytime a man goes for a, hmm, 'pipe cleaning session', he is infact commiting mass murder because each one of those sperm is a potential person, also by this logic a woman commits involuntary manslaughter every 3 - 4 weeks.
As for the bit that you said about how much of a mans world this really is, I do agree but not in this particular instance, until the child can be developed in some type of artificial womb (Thus not affecting the woman) the man cannot have any say in wether the woman has an abortion or not.
I would hate to be in that situation as I would not want the mother of my child to have an abortion, it is unfortunatley something we have to accept, and is a situation when even if I had the right to stop her aborting I would not.
I still dont get how abortion is murder, you are stopping the life before it becomes life, so it is not alive in the first place to be murdered.
So at what point do you consider life to become life?
Infact by this logic that proventing a potential person existing is murder, everytime a man goes for a, hmm, 'pipe cleaning session', he is infact commiting mass murder because each one of those sperm is a potential person
Some people believe this very thing, Catholics in particular.
As for the bit that you said about how much of a mans world this really is, I do agree
You don't recognise sarcasm then......
Originally posted by ZrByte
I still dont get how abortion is murder, you are stopping the life before it becomes life, so it is not alive in the first place to be murdered.
This surely requires a definition of life.
Infact by this logic that proventing a potential person existing is murder, everytime a man goes for a, hmm, 'pipe cleaning session', he is infact commiting mass murder because each one of those sperm is a potential person, also by this logic a woman commits involuntary manslaughter every 3 - 4 weeks.
No, each bit individually is not a life, mixing the two together can produce a life.
This surely requires a definition of life.
That is true but how can something without a Brain be alive. I only believe abortion is acceptable up until the point the CNS developes, after this time abortion could be classed as murder.
No, each bit individually is not a life, mixing the two together can produce a life.
I never said they where alive, I said they are potential life, just as an undeveloped fetus is potential life, it is not alive until it can support its own systems wich until the Developement of the CNS relias 100% on the mothers existing CNS.
downquark1
23-09-2003, 16:59
Some people believe this very thing, Catholics in particular.
Of course they die over time anyway and are constantly being made, so the catholic view would mean you would have to impregnant several thousand women a week to not be a muderer.
This reminds me about a family guy quote, but since this is a serious thread I'll just post a link
http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/WiLdFiRe6999/FamilyGuyQuotes.html#204
Sorry for the double post but im getting page cannot be displayed when ever I try and edit my previous post.
I missed Russ D's Reply when I posted my last response.
You don't recognise sarcasm then......
I was actually agreeing with you :rolleyes:
Men have no freedom anymore it would seem, I was saying that I disagree with you in this instance because this is a situation where a man cannot be left with the freedom to make this choice, There are some sadistic scary people who would abuse this ability just to put the mother through immense pain of labour if for example a marrage had fallen apart.
Some people believe this very thing, Catholics in particular.
As I said earlier a Belief is not good grounds to judge good Vs Bad or Right Vs Wrong, stupid Vs Dumb etc.
So at what point do you consider life to become life?
I have allready said this about 3 other occasions in this thread so I dont think I will repeat myself again (Allthough the third time I repeated myself actually came after your post so I will let you off ;) )
Originally posted by ZrByte
That is true but how can something without a Brain be alive. I only believe abortion is acceptable up until the point the CNS developes, after this time abortion could be classed as murder.
But in cases where the developing child is known to be disabled, abortion can legally be carried out at any point before the child is born, even if labour is expected to begin imminently, provided enough doctors agree.
By your definition, such abortion is murder, even though it is legal in the UK.
I never said they where alive, I said they are potential life, just as an undeveloped fetus is potential life, it is not alive until it can support its own systems wich until the Developement of the CNS relias 100% on the mothers existing CNS.
This relies on a wholly humanistic view of who we are and the absence of any soul/spirit/life force not explainable purely by natural cerebral processes. It's your belief, just as the existence of the human spirit is my belief. And my belief leads me to conclude that just because a body is not ready to support itself yet, it doesn't mean that person doesn't exist yet, if their spirit has come into existence.
But in cases where the developing child is known to be disabled, abortion can legally be carried out at any point before the child is born, even if labour is expected to begin imminently, provided enough doctors agree.
By your definition, such abortion is murder, even though it is legal in the UK.
Yes I agree, this is wrong, and I would considder it murder.
This relies on a wholly humanistic view of who we are and the absence of any soul/spirit/life force not explainable purely by natural cerebral processes. It's your belief, just as the existence of the human spirit is my belief. And my belief leads me to conclude that just because a body is not ready to support itself yet, it doesn't mean that person doesn't exist yet, if their spirit has come into existence.
Yes but we know to an extent that my belief as you put it is at least mostly true, the existance of a soul, spirit etc has never been proven (And I doubt ever can be, seems like a lot of theological things are like this, makes me wonder if it is a coincedence sometimes), and im just curious are you implying that anything can think, feel pain and fear without a brain??? (Excl politicians of course)
Originally posted by ZrByte
Yes but we know to an extent that my belief as you put it is at least mostly true, the existance of a soul, spirit etc has never been proven (And I doubt ever can be, seems like a lot of theological things are like this, makes me wonder if it is a coincedence sometimes),
This is where we start to go round in circles because while I can't prove empirically that 'soul' exists, you cannot prove that it does not. Advances in physiology will never prove that it does not because it is not a physical thing. 'Advances' in theology will never prove it does because although I maintain that Christian exerience is so real that it amounts to conclusive proof for the believer, that proof is non-transferable. Each individual has to take their own step of faith to arrive at that point.
and im just curious are you implying that anything can think, feel pain and fear without a brain??? (Excl politicians of course)
Christian thought is that the body is merely a 'tent' in which lives the real essence of the person. That essence is capable of existence outside of the physical body but cannot interact with the created physical universe without that body. Thus, the brain is the interface between a spiritual being and the physical universe. The brain requires the functions that it has because the spirit would have no way to live in the world without them.
So, people, as spiritual beings, can think and fear without a body - whether dead or through some kind of out-of-body experience. I couldn't say about physical pain, although it seems unlikely as a disembodied spirit would by definition not have a physical existence to feel pain with. Animals and plants, as lower creatures in the created order, do not have a spirit and thus can't experience anything outside of the body. Once they are dead, they cease to exist.
downquark1
23-09-2003, 18:59
This is where we start to go round in circles because while I can't prove empirically that 'soul' exists, you cannot prove that it does not. Advances in physiology will never prove that it does not because it is not a physical thing. 'Advances' in theology will never prove it does because although I maintain that Christian exerience is so real that it amounts to conclusive proof for the believer, that proof is non-transferable. Each individual has to take their own step of faith to arrive at that point.
If you can't prove it does exist, you must conclude it doesn't. Otherwise I could say there is an invisible, very light spider on your arm, and you would be unable to prove me wrong.
Of course they die over time anyway and are constantly being made, so the catholic view would mean you would have to impregnant several thousand women a week to not be a muderer
Aww come on, you can do better than that!! I'm not saying I agree with the catholic view but they do NOT see you as a muderer that way!! And who says sperm dies if it's not used?
As I said earlier a Belief is not good grounds to judge good Vs Bad or Right Vs Wrong, stupid Vs Dumb etc
I disagree. A belief is what would give you your point of view, which in turn sets the ground for what you think is good or bad.
downquark1
23-09-2003, 19:46
Sperm can live for 3-5 days (or longer) in fertile †˜sperm-friendlyââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ mucus And I never said you believed it - I was just pointing out the flaw in their logic
Originally posted by slysy
imo fathers should have a 50% say. A Mother having to go through an unwanted pregnancy (as opposed to an abortion) is nothing compared to the joy a father could get from having a child, or the joy a child could have living their life with a father who loves them. The "its the womans body" argument is selfish imo. An unwanted pregnancy (as opposed to abortion) im sure would be horrible for a woman, but is it worse that taking away a child from the father as well as depriving a child of life?
No the upshot would be that women would turn to back street abortionists if the law was changed in that way.
Incog.
Originally posted by Incognitas
No the upshot would be that women would turn to back street abortionists if the law was changed in that way.
While I think we all agree it's extremely unfair that men get no say, Coggy has a point there.
Originally posted by Russ D
While I think we all agree it's extremely unfair that men get no say, Coggy has a point there.
in a realtionship if its still a viable relationship both should mutually agree to make that decision...
Originally posted by Incognitas
No the upshot would be that women would turn to back street abortionists if the law was changed in that way.
Incog.
This is obviously a problem, but I can't get away from the feeling that the 'backstreet abortion' argument is essentially saying 'let me have my way or I'll hurt myself.' It's just not right to play with the lives of unborn children like that.
Look you seem like a nice guy.However not all men are Mr Niceguy.Some are ****s who would use a law set up this way as a form of abuse.We all know of the men who take a hike when a child is born.How many men would insist then b*gger off having insisted on their parental rights.
I love children,I teach children but there is nothing worse than a child who is so obviously unwanted.
Anyway how would you enforce such a ruling?Women will do what they will and they will do it in enough numbers that jailing them won't be an option.Whether you think abortion is wrong or immoral the fact is no government is going to look like a fascist state imprisoning women to force them to give birth.
I am truly sorry for any man who was looking forward to being a father who has been denied this because the mother to be has decided on an abortion.We would all love to live in a world that is so utopian that a woman would agree to carry the child to term before leaving it with the father.I hope that each and every man here is lucky to have a good relationship with every woman that is the mother of their children.You truly deserve it.BUT if a woman doesn't want your child is she the woman for you?
Incog.
I disagree. A belief is what would give you your point of view, which in turn sets the ground for what you think is good or bad.
I disagree, principles are what give you your point of view beliefs do not, I might believe there is a pink unicorn living at the end of my bed called snuffles, that doesnt make snuffles good and everything else bad. It may also be my belief that abortion is bad but that does not mean I think it is wrong.
And while a principle can be influenced by a belief they are not mutually exclusive.
Has anyone ever noticed that The Theological Vs Atheological debates always seem to involve the Theists trying to interfere with someone elses lives based on a belief and the Atheists defending peoples right to make thier own descisions?? (Providing it doesnt harm anyone else)
Its just something I seem to be noticing more and more often :shrug:
Btw everybody Snuffles says "Hi" :wavey:
EDIT:
Christian thought is that the body is merely a 'tent' in which lives the real essence of the person. That essence is capable of existence outside of the physical body but cannot interact with the created physical universe without that body. Thus, the brain is the interface between a spiritual being and the physical universe. The brain requires the functions that it has because the spirit would have no way to live in the world without them.
So, people, as spiritual beings, can think and fear without a body - whether dead or through some kind of out-of-body experience. I couldn't say about physical pain, although it seems unlikely as a disembodied spirit would by definition not have a physical existence to feel pain with. Animals and plants, as lower creatures in the created order, do not have a spirit and thus can't experience anything outside of the body. Once they are dead, they cease to exist.
Now this is one of those things I dont get, now while I admit it has been a few years since I read it and even then not fully, where the hell in the Bible (The only source for your faith) does it say that??
Its reminds me about the bit in the bible about Christianity Being against Gays, this is actually a translation error from the original alameic (spelling?) script wich is actually speaking out against a ritual performed around the time the bible was writen.
I hope I'm a nice guy ... I do try :)
The rotten state of many people in this world bothers me a lot. I don't have all the answers, or even most of them. I just think that, above all discussion of whether the man has his say or whether the woman has the right to choose, should come the child's right to life, regardless of who that child's parents are, what they have done and whether or not they want the child. I can't accept that we have the right to take a wholly innocent life.
Think of the children in your class. Even the most unloved of them. Is there any among them who you can honestly say would have been better off dead before they were even born? Or does the fact that they have been born, and have a chance to make the best of a bad situation, not make up for it? And what if one of them - think about your star pupil this time - suffered an horrific accident and was set to live the rest of their life with serious mental or physical disability, or both? Such disability is grounds for abortion in the unborn, so is it justified to inject poison into that child's heart rather than to do everything possible to give them the best life circumstances will permit?
Ultimately the only answer to this is, where does life begin? If it is at conception, then abortion is killing. If it is some time afterwards, then you really are just disposing of a set of cells and there is no problem - unless you get into the very sticky area of the late abortion of disabled children. This is legal in the UK and frankly it boggles my mind. It's nothing short of eugenics, one of many activities for which the Nazis were infamous.
I have no problem believing that life starts at conception because I believe we are more than just highly-evolved chemicals. I think those who believe otherwise have a far harder time deciding what is 'alive' and what is not.
Originally posted by ZrByte
Has anyone ever noticed that The Theological Vs Atheological debates always seem to involve the Theists trying to interfere with someone elses lives based on a belief and the Atheists defending peoples right to make thier own descisions?? (Providing it doesnt harm anyone else)
Its just something I seem to be noticing more and more often :shrug:
Well, in some people's defense: this is a quote from the sanctity/quality of life thread:
Originally posted by towny
For me sanctity is very important indeed, but like some of the other threads that are about at the moment my reasoning is faith-based so while I have no problem believing what I do, I am nervous about advocating legislation that forces people who believe otherwise to do as I believe.
Sorry for quoting you out of context Towny, but I think it's relevant, and that point stood out for me in that discussion (which is why I remembered ;)).
Originally posted by ZrByte
Has anyone ever noticed that The Theological Vs Atheological debates always seem to involve the Theists trying to interfere with someone elses lives based on a belief and the Atheists defending peoples right to make thier own descisions?? (Providing it doesnt harm anyone else)
Its just something I seem to be noticing more and more often :shrug:
Without wishing to be glib, if I saw you standing on a level crossing and I also saw an express train hurtling towards you at 100mph (a rare sight in the UK but bear with me), I hope you would understand if I took every opportunity to warn you about it. However in recognition of the fact that you don't want my faith rammed down your throat, myself, Russ and others do not start threads of this nature. We offer an opinion when asked. And we are careful to try to prefix our comments with phrases like 'Christians say...', 'I believe...', 'I think that...'.
Now this is one of those things I dont get, now while I admit it has been a few years since I read it and even then not fully, where the hell in the Bible (The only source for your faith) does it say that??
Its reminds me about the bit in the bible about Christianity Being against Gays, this is actually a translation error from the original alameic (spelling?) script wich is actually speaking out against a ritual performed around the time the bible was writen.
It would be totally and utterly off topic for me to go into this in any detail here. Suffice it to say that Biblical Christianity is not anti-gay people but it is anti homosexual practice; it does not hold homosexual activity to be any worse a sin than heterosexual activity outside of marriage; the Old Testament language you're thinking of is Aramaic; and you will find no-one apart from a few Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims claiming any of the Bible as presented in today's languages has been mistranslated from the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek in any way. As for discussion by the Apostle Paul (who uses the actual word 'tent') and others about Christian duality, PM me if you really want to know - it will involve a lengthy Bible study as the topic is not fully covered in any one paragraph. This is why not reading the Bible fully leads to misunderstandings. ;)
Originally posted by towny
I think I'll let the fact that you're the only one who seems to think so speak for me on that point.
And...
... oh gods, I can't be bothered...
Ultimately the only answer to this is, where does life begin? If it is at conception, then abortion is killing. If it is some time afterwards, then you really are just disposing of a set of cells and there is no problem - unless you get into the very sticky area of the late abortion of disabled children. This is legal in the UK and frankly it boggles my mind. It's nothing short of eugenics, one of many activities for which the Nazis were infamous.
I have no problem believing that life starts at conception because I believe we are more than just highly-evolved chemicals. I think those who believe otherwise have a far harder time deciding what is 'alive' and what is not.
I can certainly agree with that, this is not one of the circumstances I think abortion is acceptable, and It really sickens me to think people can actually have an abortion this late into a pregnancy with a clear conscience. I also agree we (As in my point of view) do have a harder time defining exactly when life beggins.
I hope I'm a nice guy ... I do try :)
I dont think there is a single person on these BB who is not nice, allthough unless we all know each other in person it would behard to tell but you seem like an honest decent person :tu:
Now I know we are still on topic but we seem to be stuck on this particular part of the topic, seems to generate some really strong feelings.
EDIT:
it will involve a lengthy Bible study as the topic is not fully covered in any one paragraph. This is why not reading the Bible fully leads to misunderstandings.
Most debates I have seen come from misunderstandings, this can be said from both sides of the debate, infact sometimes reading these sources can lead to more misunderstandings due to misinterpretation.
Originally posted by Russ D
[B]Nice attempt at bringing religion in to this. Did I mention *my* faith?
Anyone who has read your messages in other threads can hardly not be aware of your faith. Even though you didn't mention it specifically, it colours your views.
So you don't believe that a child that is due to be born tomorrow has a soul?
I don't know.
Tell me what a "soul" is, first.
Addendum: Ok, I've just caught up on your message where you do just that, so let's carry on from there...
OK then, how about I explain what I consider a soul to be?
The lifeforce which gives you awareness of your surroundings, that which enables all your sense, especially pain.
Ok, so is that unique to human beings? Does an ape have a soul? A Dolphin? A dog? A Hamster? A Cockroach? A Fish? An Amoeba?
Where along the line from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms does a "soul" come in?
And if it is unique to humans, *why* is it so? What makes us so special out of all the species of animals on this planet?
It is others who have incorrectly assumed I'm referring to anything spiritual.
In which case I suggest you don't use the word "soul" since it is loaded with spiritual and religious over-tones.
So to recap - anything which brings death to an individual who is able to feel that pain is morally repulsive to me.
So you're a vegan?
Theodoric
25-09-2003, 19:00
Originally posted by downquark1
If you can't prove it does exist, you must conclude it doesn't.
Interestingly, our Prime Minister takes the completely opposite view, namely that if you can't prove that something does exist then it still does exist, but you have to be patient in waiting for the proof. :D
However in recognition of the fact that you don't want my faith rammed down your throat, myself, Russ and others do not start threads of this nature. We offer an opinion when asked. And we are careful to try to prefix our comments with phrases like 'Christians say...', 'I believe...', 'I think that...'.
Aww come on Towny, you know that when we answer peoples' questions we're still 'ramming it down their throats"..... :rolleyes:
Anyone who has read your messages in other threads can hardly not be aware of your faith. Even though you didn't mention it specifically, it colours your views.
So the fact I'm against drink-driving is based on my Christianity?
Ok, so is that unique to human beings? Does an ape have a soul? A Dolphin? A dog? A Hamster? A Cockroach? A Fish? An Amoeba?
No/yes/yes/yes/yes/yes/yes.
What makes us so special out of all the species of animals on this planet?
Read in Genesis about the first things God said to Adam.
In which case I suggest you don't use the word "soul" since it is loaded with spiritual and religious over-tones
To some people maybe.
So you're a vegan?
Yep :)
If you can't prove it does exist, you must conclude it doesn't
I saved this one til last - that's got to be the best one I've heard in a looong time. Can you *prove* the Big Bang theory? No you can't. So going on your logic, it never happened.
Can you *prove* there's a planet called Pluto? No? So it doesn't exist.
Ahh, but scientists tell you it's there. So you believe them. Therefore your knowing it's there is based on faith. Which is exactly what my belief in God is based on.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 08:54
I saved this one til last - that's got to be the best one I've heard in a looong time. Can you *prove* the Big Bang theory? No you can't. So going on your logic, it never happened.
Can you *prove* there's a planet called Pluto? No? So it doesn't exist. Russ I advise you to stay out of that region. We have devices that actually detect the left over 'heat' from the big bang. Thats evidence today to see, the evidence for God is an old book.Download Failed (1)
Download Failed (1)
Originally posted by downquark1
Russ I advise you to stay out of that region. We have devices that actually detect the left over 'heat' from the big bang. Thats evidence today to see, the evidence for God is an old book.http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/guidry/violence/gifs/COBE2.gif
http://www.oldbook.co.uk/images/antiquer.gif
You haven't proved the big bang ... all you have is evidence that happens to fit a theory. There are plenty of scientists that do not accept the big bang.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 10:18
Originally posted by towny
You haven't proved the big bang ... all you have is evidence that happens to fit a theory. There are plenty of scientists that do not accept the big bang. Granted I'm saying is isn't no evidence for the big bang unlike .. . what were we talkng about again?
EDIT: oh yeah, the soul, what evidence for the existance of the soul (by soul I mean immortal kind)
Originally posted by downquark1
Granted I'm saying is isn't no evidence for the big bang unlike .. . what were we talkng about again?
No no, you said if it cannot be proven that it exists then you must concede it doesn't. Unless of course you wish to change what you said.... :D
Of course, there is no evidence of a big bang. Indeed, we do not need evidence of God but if someone did, then a good start would be to look at the beauty of a sunset and then say that was an accident.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 12:27
Of course, there is no evidence of a big bang.
Sorry my bad grammar and rushing strikes again, But you see that picture it shows left over heat (well, microwave radiation) this suggests a huge explosion to produce such energy.
Also, the galaxies move apart from a centre, again suggesting an explosion.
philip.j.fry
26-09-2003, 13:11
Originally posted by Russ D
Indeed, we do not need evidence of God but if someone did, then a good start would be to look at the beauty of a sunset and then say that was an accident.
For me, knowing that it's simply the revolution of the Earth, makes a sunset no less beautiful. I just experience it from a different perspective to a believer is all.
How did we get from Jerricks original post to the Big Bang?Talk about topic drift!!!:D
Incog.:D
downquark1
26-09-2003, 13:32
Originally posted by Incognitas
How did we get from Jerricks original post to the Big Bang?Talk about topic drift!!!:D
Incog.:D Because Russ assumes things about scientific theory and I feel oblieged to put him right.
Originally posted by downquark1
Because Russ assumes things about scientific theory and I feel oblieged to put him right.
What do I assume?
For me, knowing that it's simply the revolution of the Earth, makes a sunset no less beautiful. I just experience it from a different perspective to a believer is all.
It's actually nothing to do with the revolution of the earth. Can anyone really view the beautiful sight of a sunset and really believe it was created by accident?
philip.j.fry
26-09-2003, 15:17
Originally posted by Russ D
It's actually nothing to do with the revolution of the earth. Can anyone really view the beautiful sight of a sunset and really believe it was created by accident?
What does cause it then?
I can believe it was created at random.
What does cause it then?
IMO, Big G.
I can believe it was created at random.
I simply cannot agree that something as incredible as a red sunset can be a random creation. I'm not saying you have to believe this, but again, we are giving our opinions :)
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
What does cause it then?
I can believe it was created at random.
How can you believe it happened by accident? As far as I'm concerned, to accept the beyond-astronomical odds of the universe happening entirely by itself you have to be willfully blind to what surrounds you.
philip.j.fry
26-09-2003, 15:46
In your opinion.
For me, I find it incredibly beautiful that the universe has developed into what it is without any God to manage it. There is more wonder for me in accepting that it has happened even with the 'beyond astronomical odds'.
I don't think I'm blind to what I see around me in any way, like I said earlier, I just experience it from a different perspective.
Chances are that if the Universe would have developed into something completely different, any thinking species in it would find it incredibly beautiful as well.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 16:09
What do I assume?
1) China doesn't use abortions
2) Sperm are immortal
3) the theory of the big bang is just a stupid effort to explain creation
philip.j.fry
26-09-2003, 16:11
Originally posted by downquark1
2) Sperm are immortal
There can be only one!! :D :D :D
1) China doesn't use abortions
Erm, I didn't say that!
2) Sperm are immortal
I didn't say that either! I've never said that sperm 'lives' in the respect that we do.
3) the theory of the big bang is just a stupid effort to explain creation
I don't mind discussing beliefs with you but you will not put words in my mouth. I have never written off the 'big bang' theory as a 'stupid effort'.
So are you saying that because I believe in something that you feel has been 'proven' then I'm in the wrong? If that's the case, it certainly sounds like your views are being imposed on me :)
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 16:31
It's actually nothing to do with the revolution of the earth. Can anyone really view the beautiful sight of a sunset and really believe it was created by accident?
Russ D....
Why is the sky blue, and sunsets golden?
The color of our sky is caused by the interplay of blue-light-scattering by air molecules, and white-light-scattering by water drops and dust...
Blue wavelengths are generally scattered down toward the earth. This makes the sky appear blue wherever it is daytime (and the sun is high in the sky). At sunset, however, the opposite occurs.
Why are sunsets red?
Far on the horizon, to the West, it is daylight. The distant clouds and dust create a diffuse white glow (Mie scattering) with all wavelengths of light. As the daylight travels east toward your eye, the blue hues are scattered toward to ground (Rayleigh scattering). Sun rays have to traverse long distances through the dense parts of the atmosphere until they reach the eye of the observer with the sun close to or even below the horizon. The traversed layer of the atmosphere is more than 30 times longer compared to the sun standing directly above the observer.The violets and blues are lost (they make the sky blue to the West of you). The light you see is missing the violets and blues... leaving you with various shades of yellows, reds, aven purples.
:spin:
Having worked with "light displays" a lot in the past, this is what I choose to believe, to me it makes perfect sense. To others this theory may be complete clap trap, which is the beauty of each and every individual having slightly or more very different opinions.
Even within religious groups such as Christianity, no two individuals have the exact same beliefs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed how many different religous groups world wide claim that their way is the true way,and will fight till the loss of breath to prove that this is the case.
If people could accept that no two individuals beliefs are identical, instead of spending so much valuable time biccering with neighbours and trying to proove their theory to be true, the world would be a slightly better place.
In my opinion the one thing you can agree on, is to disagree.
Of course this is all my opinion:smokin:
Originally posted by danielf
Chances are that if the Universe would have developed into something completely different, any thinking species in it would find it incredibly beautiful as well.
In fact, 'scientists have worked out' (I normally hate that phrase) that only very minor changes in the laws of physics would have made a universe with anything in it at all completely impossible to sustain. The universe is as unique as it is beautiful.
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
Russ D....
<snip>
Would it be cynical of me to say it would appear from the wording of your post that you seem to think I do not allow other people the right to their own opinions?? because nothing could be further from the truth!!
There may well be religious types out there who will not allow you to an express an opinion other than their own but I can assure you they are in the minority!
All I am doing is answering questions which are put to me. If some users feel that means I am imposing my views on others then I suggest they ask the people who ask me such questions to stop!! :)
And btw - if you choose to believe what you say about light etc then good on you, that is your right!
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
Russ D....
Why is the sky blue, and sunsets golden?
<snip>
Why are sunsets red?
<snip>
You very ably describe what happens to cause these phenomena, but you don't say why things happen the way they do. Why does blue light scatter differently to red? Why does light behave in any particular way at all? How were the laws of physics established? Who or what was the first cause of the universe, setting it all in motion and in order? And why does it continue to be so?
Trust me Towny...give up on this one.... :spin:
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 16:58
Would it be cynical of me to say it would appear from the wording of your post that you seem to think I do not allow other people the right to their own opinions?? because nothing could be further from the truth!!
It was not aimed at you, or any other individual, so put your hand bag away Mr D. The reason your name is at the start is because the first paragraph was my opinion to your comment/question:
It's actually nothing to do with the revolution of the earth. Can anyone really view the beautiful sight of a sunset and really believe it was created by accident?
I apologise for not stating along side the spinning face that the rest of the post was general
:wavey:
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 17:04
Who or what was the first cause of the universe, setting it all in motion and in order? And why does it continue to be so?
How many times you want to go round this roundabout?
You have your beleifs in these areas, I have mine
It's nice that we are back to familiar territory....
philip.j.fry
26-09-2003, 17:12
Originally posted by Russ D
Trust me Towny...give up on this one.... :spin:
I don't know, so far it's been quite a friendly discussion on our varying beliefs. I think that it's important that our beliefs are challenged everyso often otherwise we cannot learn and grow as individuals.
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
I don't know, so far it's been quite a friendly discussion on our varying beliefs. I think that it's important that our beliefs are challenged everyso often otherwise we cannot learn and grow as individuals.
No, the reason I said that is because Ms Snug happens to be my housemate...... :erm: :spin:
You have your beleifs in these areas, I have mine
Tell me about it :eek:
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 17:18
Trust me Towny...give up on this one....
I'm sure Russ would be delighted to explain that comment:D
I think that it's important that our beliefs are challenged everyso often otherwise we cannot learn and grow as individuals.
Yes I agree, I myself am costantly expanding on my beliefs.
On the other hand there is a difference between having someone challenge your beliefs to a point where you can expand, and someone challenging your beliefs to a point where their opinions make you have doubts about your own faith. It can crush a person
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
Yes I agree, I myself am costantly expanding on my beliefs.
*cough*
Ok, that's a little unfair of me as the nthw.co.uk populous don't know you like I do....
I'll just leave them figure it out for themselves :)
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 17:30
Ok, that's a little unfair of me as the nthw.co.uk populous don't know you like I do....
Correction, that should read "Ok, that's a little unfair of me as the nthw.co.uk populous don't know you like I think I do....
Tell me about it
I have no idea what you're talking about :eek:
:wavey:
Originally posted by Russ D
Trust me Towny...give up on this one.... :spin: :rofl: :D
......btw, snugglebug.....are you Mrs Russ D?
sorry if I'm being slow here:)
*edit* just read your post on the last page:D
Originally posted by Russ D
Anyone who has read your messages in other threads can hardly not be aware of your faith. Even though you didn't mention it specifically, it colours your views.
So the fact I'm against drink-driving is based on my Christianity?
Sorry, I don't think the Bible says much about drink driving, does it?
Although ISTR it has the first mention of Road Rage, 2 Kings, Ch.9, v 20 IIRC...! :D
Ok, so is that unique to human beings? Does an ape have a soul? A Dolphin? A dog? A Hamster? A Cockroach? A Fish? An Amoeba?
No/yes/yes/yes/yes/yes/yes.
Ah, now that's interesting, because I've discussed this with Xtians elsewhere and some of them believe that *only* man has a soul.
So are you right and they wrong? Or vice versa?
What makes us so special out of all the species of animals on this planet?
Read in Genesis about the first things God said to Adam.
So you want me to believe something because I've read it in a book written by men?
What makes *that* book more accurate than any other? Not forgetting, of course, that bits that didn't fit the "party line" were taken out (eg the books of the Apocrypha).
In which case I suggest you don't use the word "soul" since it is loaded with spiritual and religious over-tones
To some people maybe.
I think if you took a poll of people and asked them if "soul" had religious connotations or not you'd get the vast majority saying "yes".
If you can't prove it does exist, you must conclude it doesn't
I saved this one til last - that's got to be the best one I've heard in a looong time. Can you *prove* the Big Bang theory? No you can't. So going on your logic, it never happened.
Can you *prove* there's a planet called Pluto? No? So it doesn't exist.
Ahh, but scientists tell you it's there. So you believe them. Therefore your knowing it's there is based on faith. Which is exactly what my belief in God is based on.
*HONK*
Sorry, nice try, but no cigar...!
Can you demonstrate the principles on which a car works? A TV? A micro-processor? Right down to the sub-atomic level? No? Then clearly, at some point you have to accept that they *do* work, even though you don't know how.
The point about science is that it is *independantly* verifiable and repeatable.
If I was to put enough time into learning it, I *could* design and build a car/ TV/ processor and explain the principles on which they work, right down to the most fundamental levels. Likewise I could prove the existance of the planet called Pluto (although these days many argue that it *isn't* a planet at all!)
However with religion, at some point you get to "God said 'Let there be Light'" and it is *not* possible for you, I or anyone to duplicate that, which is the point at which science and religion part company.
It was amusing that, some years ago, when a bunch of scientists visited the Pope and mentioned that they'd discovered what happened a billionth (or so) of a second after the Big Bang the Pope said "very good, but you mustn't go further back than that, because that was god's business!"
My response is that if "god" gave us the tools (ie our minds) to unscrew the inscrutable, then he would have *built in* limits beyond which we simply couldn't go, so we wouldn't need the Pope to tell us we shouldn't try to figure it out.
Of course, at present, we can't say what happened *exactly* at the moment of the Big Bang, so possibly that *is* where god said "Let there be Light", but that doesn't stop us trying, does it?
Originally posted by Russ D Can anyone really view the beautiful sight of a sunset and really believe it was created by accident? [/B]
Would that sunset exist whether or not we were there to watch it?
Answer: Yes.
Likewise for rainbows or any other natural phenomenon.
The principles behind that sunset can all be demonstarted and repeated scientifically. The only thing that *can't* be demonstrated is that it is "beautiful" because that is an artifact of the human mind.
You: Look at that beautiful sunset!
Someone else: Oh, yeah, big deal.
Originally posted by towny
How can you believe it happened by accident? As far as I'm concerned, to accept the beyond-astronomical odds of the universe happening entirely by itself you have to be willfully blind to what surrounds you.
Why are the odds of the universe happening by itself "beyond-astronomical"?
Even if they are, the fact that it *does* exist just proves that it *is* possible.
The odds of winning the lottery jackpot are over 14 million to one, yet people still enter and (incredibly!) actually win.
If you try something long enough, provided the odds are infinitessimally greater than zero, it *will* happen eventually.
Originally posted by Graham
Why are the odds of the universe happening by itself "beyond-astronomical"?
Even if they are, the fact that it *does* exist just proves that it *is* possible.
The odds of winning the lottery jackpot are over 14 million to one, yet people still enter and (incredibly!) actually win.
If you try something long enough, provided the odds are infinitessimally greater than zero, it *will* happen eventually.
So did it happen at the 'first attempt', or have there been a trillion failed universes before now? And how do you know? It seems to me that ultimately your cosmology is based on faith...
Originally posted by towny
In fact, 'scientists have worked out' (I normally hate that phrase) that only very minor changes in the laws of physics would have made a universe with anything in it at all completely impossible to sustain.
Ah, now this is a classic example of confusing cause and effect.
You, as many others, have worked backwards from "we are here to observe and experience this" to "therefore it must have been made for us", when, in fact, you ignore the fact is that it could still exist even though we *weren't* here to observe and experience it.
I recommend reading The Science of Discworld and TSOD II by
Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen for an "on the other hand" viewpoint.
For instance they give the example of a sentient puddle of water. It thinks "Wow! This hole I'm in fits me perfectly! It's ideally suited to my existance. Clearly this hole must have been made just for me!. Obviously there is a god who created it!"
We "fit" into an evolutionary niche and have developed the capability to think about our world and our existance and, so, some people think the world must have been made *for* us, when, in fact, we were "made" (ie evolved) *for* this world!
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 18:53
......btw, snugglebug.....are you Mrs Russ D?
:LOL:
I have the honour of running around picking up clutter he leaves about the house, and being guinea pig for any new mobile phone model he brings home.
If I was Mrs Russ D he'd be sleeping in the shed by now
If I was Mrs Russ D he would have lost what little hair he's got left on his head a long time ago!
:p
Nice to meet you Ramrod :wavey:
Originally posted by towny
You very ably describe what happens to cause these phenomena, but you don't say why things happen the way they do. Why does blue light scatter differently to red? Why does light behave in any particular way at all? How were the laws of physics established? Who or what was the first cause of the universe, setting it all in motion and in order? And why does it continue to be so?
And so you seem to argue that because *others* cannot answer your questions, you should not be required to answer theirs.
What is a "soul"? Why does it exist? How was it created? Where did they come from? Where do they go? How can you know this? Can you prove this?
The religious answer to all of the above is "God knows!" which doesn't *actually* answer anything, it just pushes the question one stage further back.
I cannot answer your questions above. However there are people who can. Or, at least, people who are *trying* to find out the answers to them.
Science tries to answer the questions. Religion, however, just dodges them by saying it's down to god and belief.
Originally posted by towny
Why are the odds of the universe happening by itself "beyond-astronomical"? Even if they are, the fact that it *does* exist just proves that it *is* possible.
If you try something long enough, provided the odds are infinitessimally greater than zero, it *will* happen eventually.
So did it happen at the 'first attempt', or have there been a trillion failed universes before now? And how do you know?
I don't know. And it *doesn't matter*!
The fact is that it *does* exist proves that it *can* exist whether this is the first time or the billionth time.
It seems to me that ultimately your cosmology is based on faith...
As I'm sure I've said before (quoting Philip K Dick): "Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, still exists!"
I don't "believe" in the universe, any more than I "believe" in this table that my computer is on, or this chair that I'm sitting on.
Yet still my computer doesn't fall down and the chair continues to support me!
As Galileo said "Eppur si muove" (And still, it moves!).
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 19:23
My response is that if "god" gave us the tools (ie our minds) to unscrew the inscrutable, then he would have *built in* limits beyond which we simply couldn't go, so we wouldn't need the Pope to tell us we shouldn't try to figure it out.
Like a robot? I would agree with that to a certain extent, but God also gave us free-will.
Science tries to answer the questions. Religion, however, just dodges them by saying it's down to god and belief.
Science constantly seeks answers, always trying to prove something, which is good! We are advancing, and with what (according to scientists) is coming in future, necessary for survival. But there are some areas that are sensitive, where morals and society comes in. What do you think would happen if the "truth" was actually proved?! Lets say (for example!) the big bang theory is proved right, Gods word proved wrong, where does that leave those who have lived their lives by Gods word? I know I wouldn't want that feeling.
Religion on the other hand (in most cases) has faith in what it can't prove, it doesn't need every aspect of every phenomina explained. A person can find great love and peace and be satisfied with "it's Gods word" and not feel need for question. This in my opinion takes amazing strength, and I have great respect for those who have that kind of faith and hope
Originally posted by Graham
[i]The fact is that it *does* exist proves that it *can* exist whether this is the first time or the billionth time.
Whether or not the universe can exist is not what we're discussing. It patently does exist. The question is, what can we infer from the fact that it exists? If you want to infer from the existence of the universe that, given enough time, even the unlikliest things can happen, you are free to do so - provided of course that you acknowledge that this is a faith position. Personally, I have no worries in accepting that my explanation is a faith position. Despite having had personal experience of God which takes my relationship with him a step beyond faith - more like knowledge - I still have to accept by faith that what he says about creation, etc etc, is true.
As I'm sure I've said before (quoting Philip K Dick): "Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, still exists!"
The man is absolutely right of course. The folly is with those who attempt to define a lesser, relative kind of truth into which they would like to categorise religion and anything else they choose not to believe to be true. But we've been there already in another thread... ;)
I don't "believe" in the universe, any more than I "believe" in this table that my computer is on, or this chair that I'm sitting on.
Yet still my computer doesn't fall down and the chair continues to support me!
As Galileo said "Eppur si muove" (And still, it moves!).
Very true, but again, I'm not asking you to account for your belief in the universe. The universe is manifestly real. I'm asking you to acknowledge that your belief that the universe arose by chance is a statement of faith.
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 20:50
The universe is manifestly real
Define real. Is real something you can see? touch? If so then real is just a series of impulses interpreted by your brain. What is real?
It takes faith of some extent to believe that what you feel from day to day is actually real, the world as we know it
As humans, most (cough) of us have the ability to think, to act on other factors other than instinct. With the ability to have thought, comes with a certain element of faith, whether it's faith in what is real - infront of us, another person, or a being greater than ourselves
Ah, now that's interesting, because I've discussed this with Xtians elsewhere and some of them believe that *only* man has a soul.
So are you right and they wrong? Or vice versa?
Neither - it means we are allowed a difference of opinion.
So you want me to believe something because I've read it in a book written by men?
Where the hell do I say that???? I am refering you to something which explains my point better than I could!! It's called 'providing a reference', which to me sounds a lot better than "this is how it is, and take my word for it".
The point about science is that it is *independantly* verifiable and repeatable
So where can the Big Bang idea be verified? Was anyone there to witness it? No, it's called a scientifically held belief. However if you are the type of person who requires proof before believing something then I wish you luck.
It was amusing that, some years ago, when a bunch of scientists visited the Pope and mentioned that they'd discovered what happened a billionth (or so) of a second after the Big Bang
They 'descovered' it, did they? What, was it hiding under a rock?
You seem pretty happy to believe something which no-one was around to witness. Fine, if that floats your boat then good on you. However I choose to believe things written in the New Testamant which were witnessed.
so we wouldn't need the Pope to tell us we shouldn't try to figure it out.
Sorry, but I don't really listen to the Pope and neither does anyone at my church.
Likewise I could prove the existance of the planet called Pluto
How?
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 21:14
You seem pretty happy to believe something which no-one was around to witness. Fine, if that floats your boat then good on you. However I choose to believe things written in the New Testamant which were witnessed.
witnessed by who? someone who existed hundreds of years ago?
In my opinion, to believe a witness takes just as much faith as to believe something that wasn't witnessed. It's still at the end of the day, the word of another
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
witnessed by who? someone who existed hundreds of years ago?
Oh I dunno, I'd say some group of fellas called the 11 Disciples!! Some of whom were willing to die for what they saw!!
downquark1
26-09-2003, 21:41
As they do in China - a limit on the number of children a family can have. Not sure how they enforce it but I don't think they kill any subsequent babies. They do kill babies. Do a quick google search
And who says sperm dies if it's not used?
see you did say/think sperm are immortal, if a sperm dies, therefore it must be alive
I saved this one til last - that's got to be the best one I've heard in a looong time. Can you *prove* the Big Bang theory? No you can't. So going on your logic, it never happened As I've said the background radiation suggests a large explotion several trillion years ago. Also the galaxies are moving apart from a 'centre' this can only be caused by an explosion because if galaxies started in the middle they would collapse in on themselves if not pushed apart, by say a big bang. So although you can't prove it by seeing, there is substancial evidence suggesting it has occured, there for it remains a theory but one that is generally excepted. It isn't some half baked excuse scientists came up with to replace God.
In fact some would say God caused the big bang.
They do kill babies. Do a quick google search
I said I didn't think they kill babies.
see you did say/think sperm are immortal, if a sperm dies, therefore it must be alive
Erm yeah right, if it brings a smile to your face then yes I said sperm is immortal. Only, no I did not say that. Without wishing to sound like a stuck record, I said I do not believe sperm is alive in the sense that you and I are. So do me a favour, please stop putting word in my mouth.
As I've said the background radiation suggests a large explotion several trillion years ago. Also the galaxies are moving apart from a 'centre' this can only be caused by an explosion because if galaxies started in the middle they would collapse in on themselves if not pushed apart, by say a big bang. So although you can't prove it by seeing, there is substancial evidence suggesting it has occured, there for it remains a theory but one that is generally excepted.
So that's twice in that paragraph you've said it is 'suggested'. 'Suggested' to me implies it has not been proven, but is a widely held belief.
It isn't some half baked excuse scientists came up with to replace God
And guess what - I haven't said or implied that either!!!
In fact some would say God caused the big bang.
And if some want to believe that then good luck to them.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 23:19
I was merely explaining to ingconitas how the discussion got on to the big bang, don't act like I started it.
I said I didn't think they kill babies. Exactly you assumed something and I corrected you, simple method of learning (same thing with the sperm). I hope we can all learn things from these discussions but don't start 'I sorry if you thought I said that but I really meant...' just because you have been wrong.
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
Science constantly seeks answers [...]But there are some areas that are sensitive, where morals and society comes in. What do you think would happen if the "truth" was actually proved?! Lets say (for example!) the big bang theory is proved right, Gods word proved wrong, where does that leave those who have lived their lives by Gods word?
You mean like, say, proving that the Earth is *not* flat...?!
Sorry, but if someone proves a scientific fact, they shouldn't hide it/ hush it up just because it's going to hurt someone's feelings!
Religion on the other hand (in most cases) has faith in what it can't prove, it doesn't need every aspect of every phenomina explained. A person can find great love and peace and be satisfied with "it's Gods word" and not feel need for question. This in my opinion takes amazing strength, and I have great respect for those who have that kind of faith and hope
Great, good for them. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should stop trying to unscrew the inscrutable just because *they* won't like it!
Originally posted by towny
Whether or not the universe can exist is not what we're discussing. It patently does exist. The question is, what can we infer from the fact that it exists? If you want to infer from the existence of the universe that, given enough time, even the unlikliest things can happen, you are free to do so - provided of course that you acknowledge that this is a faith position.
I would disagree that it is a faith position. It is something I hold true at the moment, but as has been mentioned before, it is a theory and therefore open to change/revision. Science progresses by posing theories which (and this is important) make non-trivial predictions, which makes them falsifiable. Whilst a theory can not be proven to be right, it can be proven to be wrong. The strength of the theory therefore lies in the combination of making strong predictions and not being falsified. While I belief the big bang theory to be a satisfactory model of the start of the universe, I am happy to revise this in the light of new evidence. In theory, someone could come up with a competely different theory which explains all the data we have so far (and some of the data the big bang theory might struggle with), and make strong predictions, and the big bang theory might be abandoned for the new theory. In practice, details are found to be incorrect, so the theory is amended, rather than abandoned. But, we may be due another Einstein...
Faith/Religion differs from this in two major ways:
Firstly, it is not falsifiable. Religions typically make no or very few testable predictions. It is stated for instance that Jesus will return to Earth, but no date is given. Whilst the idea of an almighty/allknowing God might appeal to people as it can explain everything they encounter, it actually has no explanatory power in a scientific sense.
Secondly, faith is not amended in the light of conflicting evidence. Since religion can explain everything, there is no conflicting evidence.
My 'belief' in the Big Bang, is not faith. It is a decision based on evidence which I am quite happy to shed if evidence to the contrary were to emerge. What evidence would convince you to give up your faith?
Originally posted by towny
[B]Whether or not the universe can exist is not what we're discussing. It patently does exist. The question is, what can we infer from the fact that it exists? If you want to infer from the existence of the universe that, given enough time, even the unlikliest things can happen, you are free to do so - provided of course that you acknowledge that this is a faith position.
Ok, but first I have to make a distinction between "faith" with a small "f" and "Faith" with a capital "F".
Yes, it's faith (with a small f) because it's something I believe although I don't have definitive proof.
However I believe it not because someone has said "this is how it is, you will believe it", I believe it because smarter minds than mine have puzzled over the problem and this is the best theory that we have to fit the available facts *at the moment*.
Were someone to *prove* that some god actually *did* create the universe or that it was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure or if a message appeared in the sky saying "It was me all along! Signed - God", then I would say "ok, fair enough, that looks like a better theory that the one I accepted previously" and take that one on as the current model until a better version came along.
If, however, I was to have Faith, then it wouldn't *matter* what anyone proved, because *my Faith* would tell me that it's all a snare and a deception or some such and that what I believe in is *still* right.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 23:35
This is why I originally stayed in the tech support forums. lol
Originally posted by Russ D
I've discussed this with Xtians elsewhere and some of them believe that *only* man has a soul.
So are you right and they wrong? Or vice versa?
Neither - it means we are allowed a difference of opinion.
That's just dodging the question! Either *all* creatures have souls or only *some* creatures have souls or only *one* creature, man, has a soul.
Only *one* of these can be right. You may choose to believe something different that another person, but only one of those beliefs can be right.
The point about science is that it is *independantly* verifiable and repeatable
So where can the Big Bang idea be verified? Was anyone there to witness it?
If your parents, the midwife, the doctors, the nurses and everyone who witnessed your birth had died, how do we know that *your* birth happened?!
The Big Bang Theory is a based on a set of inferences ranging from the expansion of the universe to the "cosmic background radiation" and other such phenomena. They provide a "record" of events which, like your birth, can be inferred, even though it was not "seen".
No, it's called a scientifically held belief. However if you are the type of person who requires proof before believing something then I wish you luck.
Thank you. (Although I don't actually believe in luck because it's not scientifically provable...!)
when a bunch of scientists visited the Pope and mentioned that they'd discovered what happened a billionth (or so) of a second after the Big Bang
They 'descovered' it, did they?
No, they "discovered" it... (sorry, but that one was just *asking* for it! :) )
What, was it hiding under a rock?
Now you're just being silly.
You seem pretty happy to believe something which no-one was around to witness. Fine, if that floats your boat then good on you. However I choose to believe things written in the New Testamant which were witnessed.
Shall I start pointing out the numerous contradictions in the New Testament? Events that, seemingly, are very significant, yet are only reported in *one* of the gospels?
You see, unlike some people, if someone comes up with a fact that contradicts what I believe *now*, I'm quite happy to toss that out and say "ok, that was wrong, we have a better theory now".
Unfortunately there are others who will cling on to the same "beliefs" because they have "faith" no matter *what* anyone else does to prove that they're wrong. (Paging the Ufologists at this point!!)
Likewise I could prove the existance of the planet called Pluto
How? [/B]
The same way it was discovered in the first place, by observing small peturbations in the orbit of Neptune which hinted that there was another, as yet undiscovered, mass that meant that Neptune did not move in the way it should have according to strict and well known laws of motion.
downquark1
26-09-2003, 23:51
The same way it was discovered in the first place, by observing small peturbations in the orbit of Neptune which hinted that there was another, as yet undiscovered, mass that meant that Neptune did not move in the way it should have according to strict and well known laws of motion. Has a satalite seen it since then? I know they have got as far as pluto, I don't know if they were near it though.
That's just dodging the question!
No it's not.
Either *all* creatures have souls or only *some* creatures have souls or only *one* creature, man, has a soul. Only *one* of these can be right
It really would help if you knew something about the Bible, it really would.
I do not know if animals have souls, this is not stated in the Bible, so it is my opinion that they do. The christians you have apparently spoken to choose to believe they don't. So neither of us is right or wrong, we just have different opinions.
If your parents, the midwife, the doctors, the nurses and everyone who witnessed your birth had died, how do we know that *your* birth happened?!
Because I'm here? Because my birth was captured on film?
Shall I start pointing out the numerous contradictions in the New Testament? Events that, seemingly, are very significant, yet are only reported in *one* of the gospels?
I'm fully aware of these contradictions - but they are mostly comparatively minor.
Unfortunately there are others who will cling on to the same "beliefs" because they have "faith" no matter *what* anyone else does to prove that they're wrong.
There are many things I'm willing to be proven wrong about, but one thing I will not be swayed on is the fact that Jesus was sent to us as the son of God and died for our sins and was resurrected. Does that make me arrogant? If it does then I accept the compliment with pleasure.
The same way it was discovered in the first place, by observing small peturbations in the orbit of Neptune which hinted that there was another, as yet undiscovered, mass that meant that Neptune did not move in the way it should have according to strict and well known laws of motion
Ok so you believe in something you have not seen and could not possibly see or touch? Well done, we'll make a Christian of you yet :D
At the end of the day, I have my faith which is unshakeable. I don't ask others to agree with me, merely to respect the fact I have my views and do not wish to have other opinions imposed on me. :)
I'm off to Ireland now :)
Originally posted by Russ D
No it's not.
Oh yes it is! (Gosh, panto season already?!)
Either *all* creatures have souls or only *some* creatures have souls or only *one* creature, man, has a soul. Only *one* of these can be right
It really would help if you knew something about the Bible, it really would.
It would help if you really something about logic, it really would.
I do not know if animals have souls, this is not stated in the Bible, so it is my opinion that they do. The christians you have apparently spoken to choose to believe they don't. So neither of us is right or wrong, we just have different opinions.
And again you *totally* miss the point!
Whatever your opinions are on the subject, if we assume that souls *do* exist then there are three possibilities as I said:
1) All creatures have souls
2) Some creatures have souls
3) Only humans have souls.
Only *one* of these can be right. Therefore either *your* opinion matches the facts or *their* opinion matches the facts. So either you are right or they are right or you are both wrong.
This has *nothing* to do with the Bible, this is simply basic logic.
how do we know that *your* birth happened?!
Because I'm here?
Exactly! The universe exists, it is expanding, there is cosmic background radiation etc etc, so, just as you "being here" means we can infer that you most probably were born, the evidence that we can observe out in the universe demonstrates that the Big Bang took place.
Of course you could argue that "god made it that way" (cf the Magratheans burying the fake dinosaur skeletons when they built the Earth in the Hitch Hiker's Guide!) but I could equally argue that you were found under the gooseberry bush.
However the fact is that the observable data rather suggests that actually you were born of woman and so, by Occams Razor, we take the hypothesis that requires the least number of assumptions as being the one that's most likely to be correct.
Shall I start pointing out the numerous contradictions in the New Testament? Events that, seemingly, are very significant, yet are only reported in *one* of the gospels?
I'm fully aware of these contradictions - but they are mostly comparatively minor.
You wisely qualify that with "mostly"...!!!
Unfortunately there are others who will cling on to the same "beliefs" because they have "faith" no matter *what* anyone else does to prove that they're wrong.
There are many things I'm willing to be proven wrong about, but one thing I will not be swayed on is the fact that Jesus was sent to us as the son of God and died for our sins and was resurrected. Does that make me arrogant? If it does then I accept the compliment with pleasure.
And if I say that I will not be swayed from my belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden or that I have been abducted by aliens and taken off for experimentation in a UFO?
(Actually one of these is a little bit true, but ask me in another thread!)
The same way it was discovered in the first place, by observing small peturbations in the orbit of Neptune which hinted that there was another, as yet undiscovered, mass that meant that Neptune did not move in the way it should have according to strict and well known laws of motion
Ok so you believe in something you have not seen and could not possibly see or touch? Well done, we'll make a Christian of you yet :D
Oh, deary, deary me, Russ.
No, I haven't *seen* Pluto, but I *could* see it with a sufficiently good telescope and I *could* touch it if we had a space craft capable of reaching it, so another argument bites the dust.
At the end of the day, I have my faith which is unshakeable. I don't ask others to agree with me, merely to respect the fact I have my views and do not wish to have other opinions imposed on me. :)
And that's all well and good and something that I have no problem with.
However where does it change from someone imposing their views on you to you blinding yourself to the demonstrably correct simply because it doesn't fit in with your "faith"?
Only *one* of these can be right. Therefore either *your* opinion matches the facts or *their* opinion matches the facts. So either you are right or they are right or you are both wrong.
I really can see no reason for you taking this route but yes, I will concede that I may be wrong, but until I see otherwise, I stick with my given view.
Of course you could argue that "god made it that way" (cf the Magratheans burying the fake dinosaur skeletons when they built the Earth in the Hitch Hiker's Guide!) but I could equally argue that you were found under the gooseberry bush.
Such is the difference between one who believes and one who doesn't.
And if I say that I will not be swayed from my belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden or that I have been abducted by aliens and taken off for experimentation in a UFO?
If that is what you believe then that's entirely up to you, what's your point?
No, I haven't *seen* Pluto, but I *could* see it with a sufficiently good telescope and I *could* touch it if we had a space craft capable of reaching it, so another argument bites the dust
Yes it does bite the dust but it's certainly not MY argument! You do not KNOW Pluto exists, it is just a strongly held belief. You have heard the opinions and evidence given by leading scholars and your view is based on this. That's exactly how I see the Bible.
However where does it change from someone imposing their views on you to you blinding yourself to the demonstrably correct simply because it doesn't fit in with your "faith"?
One is invading my privacy, the other is a view I keep to myself until asked. You consider it to be 'demonstratably correct', that is your view and you would appear to be imposing that view on me. If I do not share your beliefs you should not try to impose what you consider to be the truth on to me.
downquark1
27-09-2003, 10:48
Does this prove pluto exists http://www.solarviews.com/cap/pluto/plutonor.htm
http://solarviews.com/cap/pluto/pluto3.htm
This is where Incog bows out.
Too much for my sleep deprived brain on a Saturday morning.
<unsubscribing>
Originally posted by Russ D
Only *one* of these can be right. Therefore either *your* opinion matches the facts or *their* opinion matches the facts. So either you are right or they are right or you are both wrong.
I really can see no reason for you taking this route but yes, I will concede that I may be wrong, but until I see otherwise, I stick with my given view.
THANK YOU!!
Now let me quote your words above again: "Until I see otherwise..."!
So you accept that if someone demonstrates a fact that shows that your belief is wrong, you *will* change your view!
And if I say that I will not be swayed from my belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden or that I have been abducted by aliens and taken off for experimentation in a UFO?
If that is what you believe then that's entirely up to you, what's your point?
That there are some people who, no matter *what* proof they are shown, no matter *how* contrary their views are to demonstrable facts, they will *still* persist in believing something.
This then ceases to be "faith" or belief", this becomes "delusion".
I haven't *seen* Pluto, but I *could* see it with a sufficiently good telescope and I *could* touch it if we had a space craft capable of reaching it, so another argument bites the dust
Yes it does bite the dust but it's certainly not MY argument!
Sorry? It isn't?
Then who was faking your identity in Post #238 when they wrote "so you believe in something you have not seen and could not possibly see or touch?"
You do not KNOW Pluto exists, it is just a strongly held belief. You have heard the opinions and evidence given by leading scholars and your view is based on this. That's exactly how I see the Bible.
But, unlike the Bible, I *can*, if I wish, reproduce the research that demonstrated the existance of Pluto. I could build a big telescope and see it. I could build a space craft and go and land on it!
Now, of course, if I *couldn't* reproduce the research or couldn't see it in a big telescope or I went to where it should be and found that it *wasn't* there, then I would have demonstrated that the established facts were wrong and, when I published my results, they would be subject to peer review and if, after scrutiny they were accepted as correct, everyone who wasn't blinded by "faith" would accept that as the correct version.
The question then becomes, if I could build a time machine, go back in time and *demonstrate* that actually Yeshua ben Yussef didn't exist, wasn't crucified and didn't rise again, would *YOU* or any other Xtian change their belief based on that research?
where does it change from someone imposing their views on you to you blinding yourself to the demonstrably correct simply because it doesn't fit in with your "faith"?
One is invading my privacy, the other is a view I keep to myself until asked. You consider it to be 'demonstratably correct', that is your view and you would appear to be imposing that view on me. If I do not share your beliefs you should not try to impose what you consider to be the truth on to me.
We are not talking about "Beliefs" with a capital "B" which are matters of religious dogma and not subject to question. We are talking about "belief" as in the best theory that currently fits the facts as we know them.
If I could build that time machine and go back to see if your "saviour" existed or not, I would do so. I would not refrain from doing so in case I hurt your feelings by finding out that what you believed in was, in fact, false.
The question, then, again, becomes "what are *you* going to do about it"? Change your views based on the facts, or stick to your "Beliefs" no matter what?
downquark1
27-09-2003, 22:07
But, unlike the Bible, I *can*, if I wish, reproduce the research that demonstrated the existance of Pluto. I could build a big telescope and see it. I could build a space craft and go and land on it!
:erm: erm have you seen those pictures I posted?https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2003/09/1.gif https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2003/09/2.gif
homealone
27-09-2003, 22:55
Originally posted by Graham
I have now! Thanks :)
that's one for a quiz - what's the moon called?
Originally posted by homealone
that's one for a quiz - what's the moon called?
Charon, but many like to think of Pluto as a double planet, rather than a planet and a satellite! ;)
oh, and also courtesy of the OU, heres a nice picture:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jason.rigby1/lastscan.jpg
ref: S194 - Course book Introducing Astronomy The Open University
Graham, I won't dignify your post with any kind of direct response. You have no idea what the Christian faith is about. When one person approaches a discussion with the sole notion of being critical of an opposing view, it's no longer a discussion, it's then more of a 'squabble'. You've done the same to Towny in the past and now doing the same to me.
What you are doing is imposing your views on me and others. Well, I don't want you doing that. If you want to believe that stuff then take it elsewhere.
You certainly appear to be the kind of person who feels the need to 'touch and feel' something before you will believe it. I've never derrided you for that. However I (and hundreds of millions of others) don't need need to be that materialistic, we're happy to believe what we believe.
I have taken the choice to make my beliefs - to ask if I would be willing to change that should someone be able to prove me wrong demonstrates quite clearly you have hopelessly missed the point and never will grasp it. In my opinion I never WILL be proven wrong about the existence of God, and neither am I interested in anyone's attempts to do so. I'm equally disinterested in trying to prove He's there - I neither need or have to.
downquark1
30-09-2003, 11:16
What you are doing is imposing your views on me and others. Well, I don't want you doing that. If you want to believe that stuff then take it elsewhere. The trouble with religion is that's it's impossible to prove, it has limited evidence and by it's nature infalible. If all religions are infalible then how can religions contradict each other, that's how wars are caused (at least in the past). As I said this is why I originally stayed in Tech support because an answer is either right or wrong.
If you restrict your views to what can be proved, you are less likely to be wrong (of course we will only find out when we die, I will discuss Russ' attitude with Zeus on mount olympus over a nice glass of Ambrosia). And in a country of free speech we can't say "your view is wrong".
So why continue the arguements, well this is a 'Job' test for Russ, our aim is to make a tiny amount of doubt in his mind (or break him).
The trouble with religion is that's it's impossible to prove, it has limited evidence and by it's nature infalible.
But you are talking to someone who has no need or desire to prove anything.
So why continue the arguements, well this is a 'Job' test for Russ, our aim is to make a tiny amount of doubt in his mind (or break him).
What the hell gives you the right to do that? Why the hell do you feel the need to try and plant doubt in my mind? If I tried to do that to you I'd be told off for imposing my views on you.
Some news for you and other like-minded individuals - you will NEVER break me or put doubt in my mind. I will not be shaken in my beliefs. Does that make me narrow-minded and arrogant? Fine, I'll accept those names with pride, the difference is, my mind-set does you no harm whatsoever, so what the hell gives you the right to try and change my mind.
Sorry downquark, I had respect for you once. As you've admitted your aims, thread closed.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.