If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Richard Hertz wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Richard Hertz wrote: "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't require religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard time comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time. I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire for happiness) could be a negative trait. It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is criminal. That has nothing to do with religion. Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing and killing were OK? Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without those it is anarchy. What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need government? Who said anarchy was bad? I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to kill/steal? Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion. Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion. Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary. Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live given the nature of people. This has nothing to do with religion. The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you base yours on .... what? What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians" A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently opposed to religion as she is. the word 'religion' here is being tossed about to mean any passing interest or affinity. That is not its meaning and cannot be in spite of yours and others' attempts to make it so. Matt |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Richard Hertz wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... jls wrote: "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message .cv.net... "Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , "Peter Duniho" wrote: Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so. not for the children killed during the abortion. What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint) -- Bob Noel He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e., capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being within the purview of the homicide laws. foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about. You are truly an idiot Does writing this make you feel better? Superior? No. You blasted the poster and you were incorrect, so perhaps that accusation/question should be directed at yourself. Matt |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:23:46 -0500, " jls"
wrote: "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message .net... "Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , "Peter Duniho" wrote: Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so. not for the children killed during the abortion. What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint) I always thought it was 21, at least for some. Higher for others. Roger -- Bob Noel He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e., capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being within the purview of the homicide laws. There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at the instant of conception. My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M. Forster) |
#534
|
|||
|
|||
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message ... Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He is hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is. Peterson was, in fact, convicted of second degree murder of his unborn son. Personally, I would not like to see a general prohibition against abortions. I think at some point, though, you have to say that you know, you had plenty of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy up until now. But now the child, if it was born, has some viability of a human being, and you begin to have a duty to protect and care for it. In particular, I would like to see a ban on partial birth abortions. |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: snip The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law. This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This whole 'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up in traffic court. To be honest, I think some of them are. But I think in controversial issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage, it would be nice if judges were relying on some sort of law. Abortion in particular was declared a constitutional right without any precedent whatsoever, no written law to support it, and contrary to what was public policy and all legal precedent before it. It is no wonder that a significant portion of the population was outraged. Similarly, much of tort law was created out of thin air by judges who defied all precedent before them and who by fiat simply invalidated many state and federal laws without even bothering to claim a constitutional right. The harm that did to the aviation industry, among others, is very well known. |
#536
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion. Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion. The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you base yours on .... what? The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These people who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would do well to remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe in God from participating in the political system. However, I have found that it is too much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend the same courtesy to me. |
#537
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message . net... A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently opposed to religion as she is. Ms. Rand, although I admire much of her thought, was wrong about many things. The least she could have done was to check her own premises once in awhile. |
#538
|
|||
|
|||
I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire for happiness) could be a negative trait. Rather than happiness as the motivation for killing and stealing, it's likely survival is the reason for that behavior. Clearly you've not met many common criminals. In this country no one steals for "survival". They're stealing because they have no morals -- period. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#539
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Hertz wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Richard Hertz wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Richard Hertz wrote: "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't require religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard time comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time. I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire for happiness) could be a negative trait. It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is criminal. That has nothing to do with religion. Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing and killing were OK? Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without those it is anarchy. What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need government? Who said anarchy was bad? I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to kill/steal? Not to me, but it obviously is to a lot of people. I'm making the point that Christians believe there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. Most liberals believe it is all relative - situation ethics and all that crap. Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion. Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion. Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary. Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live given the nature of people. I never said that. Read it again, Sam. This has nothing to do with religion. The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you base yours on .... what? What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians" Such as? Matt |
#540
|
|||
|
|||
Trent,
I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious. Well, in that case, I just have to wonder what you think about the current president? The issue of President Bush's lying is open to debate because no one has all the facts here and only time will tell. You've got to be kidding... -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
aero-domains for anybody in the aviation community | secura | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 26th 04 07:37 PM |
Unruly Passengers | SelwayKid | Piloting | 88 | June 5th 04 08:35 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |