581 Forum Posts by "Ezgamer"
At 2/1/08 05:08 PM, LordJaric wrote:At 2/1/08 12:28 PM, zoolrule wrote: In our galaxy i dont, because most of the our galaxy have been mapped already.We have just began to discover other worlds out there. There is with out a dout that there is other life in our galaxy.
If its without a doubt, you must have some proof. Could you provide me with some?
At 2/1/08 06:55 PM, Drakim wrote: Well, that might be true, but I was using the ultra correct form, God(s), which includes both terms, but Zoraxe7 was making so little sense that I didn't bother to put a full effort into my posts to him anymore.
Ok. Its just that it would be much easier to understand and grammatically correct if you used both terms separately and it would lower the amount of effort you'll need to post as you won't have to hit the Shift key as much...
But the argument still stands. You can't somehow say that Thor wasn't a real God for his religion. He was a powerful-human kinda God, exactly like how I describe us compared to ants. That kind of God is just as valid as the omnipotent force kind of God.
Ok.
Saying that you personally believe that all Gods are one big God doesn't change this at all. It's irrelevant at the very best.
I never said that I personally believe that. My example was to make Zoraxe7's argument make more sense (if it was how you presented it in your summary).
At 2/1/08 06:04 PM, Drakim wrote: Drakim: We are like Gods to the ants, because we are so much more powerful.
Zoraxe7: God isn't just a powerful human, having more power doesn't make you a God.
Drakim: Many religions have Gods that are just powerful humans, like Thor.
Zoraxe7: I believe all those religions are just reflection of one true God.
Zoraxe7's argument would be more convincing if he used a Hindu approach to it as they believe that there is God and all other "gods" are simply manifestations or aspects of it.
The term God is often used for human-like Gods, which are just like us, only a lot more powerful.
Thus, using this common, normal and wildly accepted definition of the word "God", there is nothing wrong with the statement, "we are like Gods to ants".
You're using the wrong form of the word "god". When using the uppercase form (God), you are referring to a Supreme Being, and is usually attributed to creating the universe. The lowercase form (god) simply refers to a deity or a person/thing that is very powerful (a dictator, money, etc).
The lowercase form is what you should be using when talking about "we are like gods to ants", human-like gods and such.
Using Embryonic stem cells: No
Using Umbilical Cord stem cells: Yes
I haven't heard of anything negative about UC stem cells and any shortcomings in comparison to ESC's.
Embryo gets to develop, researchers get MUCH more stem cells to work with, and pro/anti-ESC researchers quit bitching. Everyone wins.
At 1/30/08 04:47 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Can god create a stone that he cant lift?"
Yes and then he'll lift it. If God is all powerful, he wouldn't be restricted by paradoxes and contradictions. God would be able to do things that would mindfuck us all.
I may believe that aliens may exist, but I have no good reason to believe that they do since there is no evidence for their existance. I (and everyone else that believes aliens may exist) have faith that they do, but it is quite possible that we can be the only planet with life on it.
Anarchy will never work unless there was one person left on Earth. If everyone was left to run wild, it would be utter chaos as there would be no one to enforce any rules and regulations, leading people to do whatever they want, when and wherever they wanted. And as we all know, that doesn't really turn out so well.
To survive, people will form groups or gangs/tribes which lead to tribalism, possibly the earliest forum of government. Rival tribes will form to try to defeat each other and the surviving tribes will get bigger and form towns, then city-states and then countries and superpowers and such.
And eventually we'll get some 14 year old kid talking on a random internet forum about how anarchy will be the best system like its some revolutionary idea that no one has thought of or tried before and everyone else tells them why it won't work and "lol anarchy GTFO".
At 1/22/08 11:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote: now if we believe Lucipher and the devil are one and the same, as is commonly mistaken, then how is it that this being locked away in hell is able to get out and do evil in this world?
Actually, according to the story, Lucifer wasn't cast to hell as most seem to think, but actually fell to Earth. So there was no escaping involved as he was already here to wreak havoc upon the world.
Just wanted to point that out.
At 1/22/08 06:33 PM, DeathAura wrote: umm dude, its there dicision if they want to fuck up they're baby. Why are assholes going up to them and saying "OUR WAY IS BETTER!@!!!, NO ABORTION!!! GPD DOESN'T LIKEZ YOU ANYMORE" i mean its just gay. Most religions are fucking stuck up.
Who here has mentioned religion in this thread for a reason for/against abortion? Most of us haven't mentioned religion at all. Go back to general if you want to troll, dumbass.
At 1/18/08 11:37 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: #1 "And political and social. Are you saying that if they are truly a result from natural human desires we should allow such acts?"
Political and social by the way, are general dominance. Remember that evolution doesn't KNOW things, it favors those who are most ambitious, there is no difference between social and political dominance with other 'dominations' of sorts.
"allowed' is an incorrect term; they happen because this new invention called morality [New as in only been around for the 10,000 years of the many millions that animals have been around] Is not stronger than the desire of humans to dominate one another. There is no reason why it should or should not be tollerated, but when you say 'allowed' you make it sound like people actually have a say in the matter.
So what your saying is that we should allow slavery and genocide because, according to you, they're human desire and evolution? And yes, we humans actually do have a choice in whether or not we should kill or enslave each other.
Our morality changes the rules for the most part. If we relied on pure instinct as you seem to be getting at that we should, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as we have as a species.
#2 "Child molestation has been around for quite along time too. Does that make it justifiable?
And many male animals eat their babies; what do you have to say about that? Think about it for a second...
Not my cup of tea.
#3 "Umm... How about continuing our races existence for one"
I might agree with you if this was the year 15,000 B.C.E and the entire human race was commiting infanticide, number one is that if this was ingrained in the human specie's mind we would have died out a long time ago; I beleive something in a woman's body makes them more protective of their childeren, [human race survival tactics]
However, the parents Aborted Fetuses come from the ranks of individuals who had no intention of raising a child in the first place, most likely because they are in a perpetual mating season due to the easiness of their lifestyles and also possibly the food they eat. It's not like every abortion clinic is equal to one less birth clinic; people are still going to want to have children.
If they had no intention of having kids, they should have taken precautions to prevent the women of getting pregnant. Condoms when used properly will have a ~2% failure rate. If the woman doesn't want kids now but may later, she can use a progestogen implants like Norplant or Implanon. Both have a failure rate of %0.05 and last for 5 and 3 years respectively and are fully reversible.
#4 "well, if the baby where to have a horible life if it was born, it would be more mercyfull to abort it"
The happiness of a persons life is irrelevant; it's the lacking of a desire to want to father/mother that particular child. The misery of a persons life is not a factor in deciding whether or not they deserve to live, it's how well they can think, act, and reproduce.
And you can't find out how well they can think, act, and reproduce when they're a fetus. At the very least you should let them live until you can see how well they do them before you kill them.
#5 Stuff
And lastly, people don't have a 'Right' to live, a right is an unyielding ability given by an individual who controls the area that you reside in.
Even under that, we all have the right to life, liberty and security of person under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was made by the most powerful leaders of world, who control most areas people reside in.
At 1/20/08 01:50 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Never had I said this thread is strictly for athiest beliefs, you people can question athiests also.
Leftover or Incorrectly answered questions:
(Creationism Question) that 99% of the Earth's lifeforms are extinct so what is the intellect of the designer?
Not a creationist, so....
Other users questions:
If Adam and Eve weren't to blame for taking the apple off the forbidden tree, why were they still kicked out of Eden? By mythical jake.
It was their faults for getting kicked out of the Garden as they chose to eat the fruit (never says which fruit specifically). Yea, Eve was tempted to eat it, but she could have chose to obay God's earlier demand and ignore the serpent.
Can God truly punish an individual who was raised not knowing the difference between good and evil? By thaleaf.
Adam and Eve may not have had knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, but they at least knew the concept of true and false.
Lets look at Genesis 3:2-7
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
In verse 3, we can see that Eve accepted what God said as true. But in verses 4-5 that the serpent wants her to think that what it says is true and what God says is false. Verse 6 shows that she see is tempted by the fruit now and the powers it contains and accepts what the serpent says to be true and eats the fruit and gives some to Adam and in verse 7 they gained the knowledge of good and evil.
Looking at this, it seems like God could have justifiably punished them without knowing the difference between good and evil.
New Questions:
(Once again, a question) After Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, how did their child find other humans? DId God create other people without us knowing?
Adam and Eve weren't expelled from Eden, just the Garden. Cain was expelled from Eden and wondered around which is probably the way he found his wife and her people.
As I stated in my earlier post, they probably knew about other people as before Cain left Eden, He said to God that whomever finds him will kill him. If they didn't know about these other people, why would he be worried about being killed by anyone? The only other people around would have been Adam and Eve and if he leaves, he wouldn't need to worry about them.
(Related to thaleaf's question) How can God punish people who don't have faith in him, if the have never heard of Him?
From my knowledge, people who have never heard of God's word wouldn't be punished for that and will be judged based on how they lived. On the other hand, those who have heard God's word and reject it would be judged with that in mind.
At 1/20/08 07:38 AM, Tomsan wrote:At 1/19/08 09:20 PM, deslona wrote:well it has already been answered by someone who actually red the bible.At 1/19/08 04:57 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: (Science Question) How Could Adam and Eve reproduce the entire world without inmating?Inbreeding. And I have always wondered this myself.
But I want to add, that this is a insane hole in the bible story. The bible specifically says that adam and eva were the first humans made by god, the first and the only.
Adam and Eve may have been the first humans according to the Bible, but it never said they were the only.
It is indeed true that cain (first generation) traveled the world and encountered people, but nowhere in the bible is there a logical explaination for these encounters.
It seems obvious that they (or at least Cain) knew that there were other people around the place as Cain says in Genesis 4:14:
Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.
Why would he worry about someone killing him if he didn't know about them or if they didn't exist?
As I see it, it is possible that Adam, Eve and their kids (at least after they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden to the rest of Eden) knew that there were other people but didn't want to interact with them too much, if at all (other could have been possibly hostile. Otherwise, why would Cain be worried about being killed?).
At 1/20/08 12:04 AM, HaloKing336 wrote:At 1/19/08 09:51 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: To try and say there is nothing else out there, that all those other galaxies were just there, is a very close minded and ignorant thing to say.You are just as close minded because you only believe in one god and deny the thousands of others.
By your logic, wouldn't it then be even more close minded to deny all gods in totality?
At 1/19/08 09:46 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Umm Elz you forgot my last question. I'll certainly try to think of more questions. I happy the trolls haven't cometh yet.
Sorry about that.
(Last Question) Why is your religion any better that the Greeks or Romans, and why do you feel the need to convert everyone you know, by force if sometimes (Reconquista) or burn them for witchcraft or other things because your religion is "all forgiving"?
Why did the Greeks and Romans find their religions were better then the Jews and Christians? Why do Protestants think their understanding of the Bible is better then the Catholics? Why do Atheists think that atheism is better then theism and vice versa? Its all about personal opinions and viewpoints on life and existence.
Christians aren't suppose to force people to join they should be able to join freely of their own will. Jesus didn't endorse violence and any violence done in his name is in vain as he preached peace, love, health, and life.
Religion can't do anything on its own. It takes people for it to distort its messages for their own agendas and cause things like the Inquisition, Crusades, burning accused witches, fundies and such.
At 1/19/08 08:58 PM, Ezgamer wrote:At 1/19/08 04:57 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: (Trust Question) Why do you trust the Bible if the stories fom it was made up atBy that logic, we shouldn't trust many from 2000+ years ago (and even later)
least 2000 years ago(New Testement)
Whoops, forgot to complete this part...
What I mean by that is that we really don't have much to go on when talking about ancient history to say that they are truly accurate.
DNA? Fingerprints? Pictures? Don't have any.
Stories, books, notes, other documentation? Could have been forged or have been hyperbole.
Monuments, statues, paintings and stone carvings? People make those things for and of fictional people all the time.
There really isn't much to go on in the authentication of ancient history besides things like carbon dating which just gets us the approximate date of origin.
At 1/19/08 04:57 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:
(History Question) There are fossil records proving that the Earth is not 6000 years old so how could your book be correct,
Point me to the part in the Bible that says that the Earth is 6000 years old?
(Science Question) How Could Adam and Eve reproduce the entire world without inmating?
Genesis never says that Adam, Eve and their dependence were the only people on Earth. It kinda makes it obvious that there were more then just them (Cain getting married and building a city after being exiled from Eden for one).
(Literal Question) Adam and Eve only had two Children; Cain and Abel, one killed the other, how did Humanity reproduce without a female?
You seem to not have read the first few pages of the Bible as it says that they had more then just Cain and Abel and they even identify one of them (Seth anyone?). And as I said before, after getting exiled from Eden, Cain got married and built a city, indicating that there were more people around then just Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, and Adam and Eves other kids as Cain was the first one of them to leave Eden.
(Chruch Question) If you are Christian you repent correct, repention desended from Indulgences which was paying for your sins, this turned into repention because of the Reformation, which Catholics turned into Protestants, so how trustworthy is your forgivement?
Wah?
(Hypocrite Question) If Jesus said all will be forgiven, does that mean that all sinners have a chance to go to Heaven as Non-sinners? If you are forgiven regardless of your actions what is the purpose of being good?
Jesus said that all sins can be forgiving besides those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, as in claiming that Jesus' workings were the work of Satan. Yes, all are suppose to have an equal chance of going to heaven if they repent and follow Jesus' teachings (Note: I didn't say the whole Bible as the Bible is composed of many different books made by many different authors of different times and styles of writing. Just the ones that contain Jesus' teachings). But if you reject Jesus' teachings and don't repent, your sins won't be forgiven and will be judged based a upon them.
(Killing Question) Killing is obvisouly a sin, but what about wars? Is fighting in a war, especially to gain some holyland, good?
No.
(Trust Question) Why do you trust the Bible if the stories fom it was made up at
least 2000 years ago(New Testement)
By that logic, we shouldn't trust many from 2000+ years ago (and even later)
Of Course this just a game; don't get too angry at me.
K
At 1/16/08 10:36 PM, Antimatter500 wrote:At 1/16/08 10:09 PM, Ezgamer wrote:At 1/16/08 12:00 AM, Antimatter500 wrote:At 1/15/08 11:38 PM, Ezgamer wrote:At 1/15/08 11:09 PM, Antimatter500 wrote:No they shouldn't be forced, even though I personally find that the baby shouldn't have to pay for the rapist's crime and if one of the 2 of them had to be "terminated", it should be the rapist instead of the baby as the baby did nothing wrong.yes but that dosent solve anything. the woman is still pregnant, why should she have a baby she dosent want?
\
I'm not saying she has to keep it, I'm just saying making the baby pay for the actions of the rapist to me seems unethical. In one of my earlier posts, I proposed a system for rape victims if they want to abort the kid:
Rape victims should report to the police that they were raped and at the same time report their assailant(s) if they can. And if they get pregnant from the assailant/one of the assailants, then they'll be a candidate for an abortion if still within the legal time limit.
Yea, I know that most rapes go unreported, but if they're unreported, then there is no more proof that they got the kid from consensual sex. The wise thing to do is to go and report it asap. It would get the rapist behind bars and its said that the victims may feel a little better from it.
And to add to the last paragraph, It would also be wise to report the rape to the police asap because if you wait too long, it could be to late to have an abortion it they wanted one.
At 1/16/08 12:00 AM, Antimatter500 wrote:At 1/15/08 11:38 PM, Ezgamer wrote:okay, I understand your views on abortion and even though they differ from mine, i respect them.At 1/15/08 11:09 PM, Antimatter500 wrote:
Thank you. I respect yours as well.
if someone is stupid enough not to youse birth control, the pregnancy is their fault and therefore should not be terminated.
I agree.
but lets say someone got raped, should they be forced to have the baby?
No they shouldn't be forced, even though I personally find that the baby shouldn't have to pay for the rapist's crime and if one of the 2 of them had to be "terminated", it should be the rapist instead of the baby as the baby did nothing wrong.
Us in the developed world can try to do something about the shit going on in said country (for the good coughcough) so that said child would be able to live and grow up in much better conditions.very very good idea
Too bad no one seems to be picking up on this...
At 1/16/08 01:14 AM, Musician wrote:At 1/16/08 12:53 AM, Ezgamer wrote: God can be a non-religious oneLmao, No it can't, and even if it could (which it can't) it wouldn't matter because the "In God we trust" on the dollar bill refers to the God of Abraham.
Do you have any proof to back up your claim that God can't be a non-religious one? I can prove that their can be as Deism exists.
You are right about the "In God we trust" as it was added because of pressure of the increased Christian fundamentalism existing during the Civil War. But my point on "Under God" still stands.
At 1/16/08 12:32 AM, Musician wrote:At 1/16/08 12:29 AM, Ezgamer wrote: I agree. Of course, I could argue that 'under God' and 'in God we trust' aren't endorsements of Christianity as "God" can be any religions god or not be a religious god at all.I doesn't matter, no form of religion should be an integrated part of our government.
Reread the last part of the quote:
"can be any religions god or not be a religious god at all."
"God" doesn't need to be a religious one. I know people like to interchange "God" and "religion" all the time but they are not synonymous with each other as God can be a non-religious one and there are religions that don't have gods in them (see Taoism or Raëlism).
At 1/15/08 11:32 PM, Kazuhiro wrote:And the pledge? Its all just useless dribble that wastes oxygen. Why don't we make it simple like the Nazis and just say "Heil USA!" a few times? Gets the job done, right?To be fair, the Pledge of Allegiance (even without 'Under God') wasn't exactly written by some burning patriot in a foxhole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_a llegiance
Anyway, I have to say I completely agree with Drakim's point here. You can't claim that 'under God' and 'in God we trust' are NOT endorsements of Christianity, and then turn right around and use those same two things as evidence that America is a Christian nation. I've seen both, and I should only be seeing one or the other.
I agree. Of course, I could argue that 'under God' and 'in God we trust' aren't endorsements of Christianity as "God" can be any religions god or not be a religious god at all.
It could be the Aramaic God (and the 3 views on he/she/it), the Hindu God, Sikh God, Bahá'í God, Deistic God, pantheistic god, panentheistic god, henotheistic god or any other god that is the creator and ruler of the universe (and it can be argued that they are all the same god looked at in different ways, but thats a whole different story and discussion).
They never give any incite of who's god they are recurring to and we automatically assume that they are referring to the Aramaic God, namely the Christian interpretation of God.
At 1/15/08 10:52 PM, Kazuhiro wrote:Let it be known that Royale was probably half joking, or possibly an idiot.I mean, You can TRY to kill something if you need to, but if they fight back; well... You made a dumb descision; But neither is more evil than the other; it's evolution.The thing is, in most cases, you don't need to kill the fetus, you want to. Evolution is survival of the fittest; where the strong live and the weak die. Killing babies before your even able to tell if its strong or weak isn't evolution, nor is it natural selection.
EZgamer, what's your opinion on women who are raped, or for whom childbirth would be dangerous? Or, to put a different spin on it, do you value the fetus' rights more than the mother's?
In rape cases, if the victims report their rape to the police and she get pregnant, she may have an abortion if its in the first trimester. Personally, I feel that the fetus should not have to pay for the sins/actions of their parents (rapists in this case). If anyone should get killed, it should be the rapist.
In the case of dangerous childbirth, I believe that, as I stated in an earlier post, the mother may choose to have an abortion or not as they may feel that they would rather have the baby live at the expense of theirs as they are risking their own body and life for another.
I believe that everyone should have the same rights and liberties as everyone else (besides those who gave up there own because they infringed the rights of another's (ex: criminals, rapists, murderers, etc.)), fetuses included.
At 1/15/08 11:09 PM, Antimatter500 wrote:At 1/15/08 11:00 PM, Ezgamer wrote:.
okay, what if the baby's parents where abusive alchaholics, the baby was to be born in extremely impoverished war torn country, and had verry little chance of living past childhood. Would you want to live in those conditions?
Here's one middle ground proposal for you: When the baby becomes old enough to logically choose for itself if its living a horrible life, it can report to the government that they are and they can give a mercy killing for them if they so choose. We'll give this choice to people born into "horrible places".
Probably not. I really doubt anyone does, but thats just a generalization as there's some weird people out there that may want to live in those conditions...
Another proposal: We kill all the kids in that country (since they won't live past childhood, you might as well cut out the middleman (time) and end their misery now, eh?) and sterilize all the adults so they won't make anymore kids that will suffer and probably not live past childhood.
OR
Us in the developed world can try to do something about the shit going on in said country (for the good coughcough) so that said child would be able to live and grow up in much better conditions.
At 1/15/08 10:40 PM, Antimatter500 wrote:At 1/15/08 10:09 PM, Ezgamer wrote:well, if the baby where to have a horible life if it was born, it would be more mercyfull to abort it
Umm... How about continuing our races existence for one.
If you want to do that, we might as well herd everyone that is living in poverty and drop a nuke on them to be merciful.
The baby should still have a right to live so then it can choose for itself if its living a horrible life. Also, its not like its impossible to get out of poverty and such.
Here's one middle ground proposal for you: When the baby becomes old enough to logically choose for itself if its living a horrible life, it can report to the government that they are and they can give a mercy killing for them if they so choose. We'll give this choice to people born into "horrible places".
At 1/15/08 09:44 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The bottom line is, some people need abortions, be it rape victims, or pregnancies that risk the mother's life and so on, but trying to create a system to make abortions available to only these situations is completely infeasible, and as such, they need to be made available to everyone.
Oh, its quite feasible. Rape victims should report to the police that they were raped and at the same time report their assailant(s) if they can. And if they get pregnant from the assailant/one of the assailants, then they'll be a candidate for an abortion if still within the legal time limit.
Yea, I know that most rapes go unreported, but if they're unreported, then there is no more proof that they got the kid from consensual sex. The wise thing to do is to go and report it asap. It would get the rapist behind bars and its said that the victims may feel a little better from it.
If the pregnancy risks the mother's life, the mother may choose to have an abortion or not as they may (in the case that the mother may die in the process of birth) feel that they would rather have the baby live at the expense of theirs as in this case they are risking their own body and life for another.
At 1/15/08 09:49 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Oh don't sugar coat it, you know that there's no reason to spare a fetus in the first place.
Umm... How about continuing our races existence for one.
At 1/15/08 09:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:At 1/15/08 08:14 PM, Ezgamer wrote:Um... Yeh?At 1/15/08 06:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Sorry, but what even makes an unwanted life form worth saving?Using your logic, if you yourself is unwanted, we should have the right to kill you as you're "getting in the way" of the rest of our lives. You might as well go and use that same sentence to justify the Holocaust.
"Jew, gypsies, gays, other races? All just inferior lifeforms that are taking up our space, wasting our time and cause all our problems. Lets get rid of them since we are self-proclaiming ourselves to be superior to all others for no justifiable reason other then our own social stigmas and ignorance!"
Okay. Just keep that in mind.
I mean, You can TRY to kill something if you need to, but if they fight back; well... You made a dumb descision; But neither is more evil than the other; it's evolution.
The thing is, in most cases, you don't need to kill the fetus, you want to. Evolution is survival of the fittest; where the strong live and the weak die. Killing babies before your even able to tell if its strong or weak isn't evolution, nor is it natural selection.
Infanticide has been praticed since before even agriculture came about; as a result of population control.
And for ritualistic, social and personal purposes. Doesn't make it the best option. A better option to solve the population problem is to stop having sex or only have sex during the time woman aren't fertile.
Child molestation has been around for quite along time too. Does that make it justifiable?
Slavery and genocide are all the result of a natural human desire to want to establish a genetic prominence, if not dominance, in the world.
And political and social. Are you saying that if they are truly a result from natural human desires we should allow such acts?
At 1/15/08 12:28 AM, Musician wrote: I think it's time to remove those worthless add ons from our dollar bill and our pledge. We need to move away from the era of the Red Scare.
Yea lets get rid of all the useless shit on the bills! Lets take out that "In God we trust" part. In fact, lets go one further and take out all the text and just have USA in bold letters. Then replace the faces with the bills number! Just a huge 1 in the middle! And get rid of all the fancy shit. A damn eagle and a pyramid with the top part floating with a fucking eye in it? Get rid of it! Just make it simple: the number in the middle and USA in huge font. Thats what I'm talking about!
And the pledge? Its all just useless dribble that wastes oxygen. Why don't we make it simple like the Nazis and just say "Heil USA!" a few times? Gets the job done, right?
At 1/15/08 08:31 PM, Kazuhiro wrote: Cute, but giving a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy isn't endorsing the murder of people who society considers undesirable.
I never said it was. I was just pointing out that his phrase, like many others before it, can be used to justify any killing. Brother, sister, parents, cousins, teachers, classmates, neighbors, a random joe?
"Yea I killed them, but they were unwanted lifeforms so its okay."
Also, most abortions (as I showed in my one of my earlier posts) are caused by social reasons. The baby is unwanted or inconvenient, "What will my family/friends/neighbors/that guy think?", etc.
Although I respect the way you shut down that moron :3
Thanks.
At 1/15/08 08:21 PM, Kazuhiro wrote:Note: I know there's nothing inherently anti-gay about Christianity, but it's impossible to deny that bigotry against gays is mostly motivated by religion.
No its not motivated by religion. Its motivated by ignorance, homophobia and preachers that would say that the Bible says that being gay is wrong and/or gays will go to hell but in the same breath say that it also says that the Curse of Ham somehow says that blacks are an inferior race.
At 1/15/08 06:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Sorry, but what even makes an unwanted life form worth saving?
Using your logic, if you yourself is unwanted, we should have the right to kill you as you're "getting in the way" of the rest of our lives. You might as well go and use that same sentence to justify the Holocaust.
"Jew, gypsies, gays, other races? All just inferior lifeforms that are taking up our space, wasting our time and cause all our problems. Lets get rid of them since we are self-proclaiming ourselves to be superior to all others for no justifiable reason other then our own social stigmas and ignorance!"
