Leaving the community

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

not for the children killed during the abortion.

"Children" who in large numbers were dying anyway (making abortion illegal
doesn't get rid of abortion), or who if born would have suffered their
entire short life in many cases.

so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
anyway? (after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).
Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?



Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group of
people who don't feel that way, of course

I made no such claim.



In any case, since you're clearly "anti-choice", you should know as well as
anyone that no thread about abortion is going to get anywhere, not even on
an abortion newsgroup, nevermind a piloting one.

Then why did you bring up abortion?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
anyway?

I am not of the opinion that a child dies in an abortion. I don't like
abortion, but I don't equate it to slitting the throat of a newborn.

(after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).

Legalizing murder doesn't provide any benefit. But even if it did, we have
clear examples of legalized murder as well, right here in the US.
Ironically, the people who are generally most against abortion are the same
people most in favor of legalized murder.

Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?

What kind of reasoning? The kind of reasoning you falsely ascribe to me?

Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group
of
people who don't feel that way, of course

I made no such claim.

Well perhaps you'd like to explain why you say abortion involves killing a
child then. What "child" is being killed, if not the fertilized egg?

Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did. Foolishly, I believed we could stay focused on the
already off-topic discussion without getting mired in an impossible debate,
and responded to his reference to abortion.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did.

ah. I must of missed that. My apologies.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did.

ah. I must of missed that. My apologies.

Accepted. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

The Greeks and Romans, had legends, but they were not based in
superstition.

They had religions and worshipped various Gods.

Their gods were not based on superstitions, but were super-humans.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
(Malcolm Teas) wrote in message
. com...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a
hard-earned
surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion
dollar
DEFICIT.

That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
accusing
Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

-Malcolm Teas

Matt Barrow says:
And his role in those surpluses was...?

Well, looking at the data, he proposed and succeeded in passing a
budget that reduced the overall deficit for the country.

If you're talking about how the surpluses came about, he took
advantage of the boom to propose budgets - and get them passed - that
created the surpluses.

Matt Whiting:
Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First

Huh? Perhaps that was luck, perhaps not. I don't, for example,
remember any effort under Bush senior to, for example, make
governement more cost efficient. There was that under Clinton. But,
all presidents have some good luck and some bad. But not all
presidents use the good luck effectively.

John Theune:
I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton
got
to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet
bubble
and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!

Inflation fell during the Clinton years. It was higher, often
significantly higher in the Bush (senior) and Reagan years. Sure,
there was a boom or bubble. There were booms and bubbles in years
past. Several times in the 60's and 70's too. However, those
presidents didn't take advantage of it to lower our deficit then.

Bob Noel:
it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
Government is responsible for appropriation.

Well, the president proposes the budget, Congress passes it. But,
it's also high time we recognize how these things get done too.
There's plenty of negotiation between the two branches on what gets in
and what doesn't. A successful president knows how to negotiate as
well as propose a budget.

Matt Barrow:
And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
CAUSATION.


Well, there's something interesting in that Clinton was the ONLY
president that had a budget with a surplus since 1962 (possibly
earlier, that's how early the data I looked as was).

Think: Regan peace dividend, Republican cost saving via Welfare reform,
Internet bubble/gobs of tax revenue...

Also, On the Origins of the Long Boom
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-27-00.html

This was across
both parties, across differing Congresses, and across boom and bust
cycles. Sounds like correlation to me.

Bill Gates was not personally responsible for the boom.

Not personnally, no.

If any single
person was it's Tim Berners-Lee who came up with HTML, HTTP, and the
initial versions of web technology. But, it's not just one person.

Except the liberal statists want to give Bubba the credit. And web
technology would have been stillborn with out Gates to give it life.

As far as Reagan laying the groundwork, well, he was the one who
proposed & got passed the budgets that caused the significant deficit
in the first place.

Not quite; it was the Democratic congress that spent all the money (and then
some) that his tax policies generated (a doubling of revenue in about eight
years). In addition, his de-regulation engendered the shift into new
technologies that Bubba's re-regulation helped to kill the technology rise.
For example, Bubba'sFCC essentially killed the telecomms and that led to the
bubble burst.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/eps...ransition.html

and http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...mm-telecom.htm

All prior deficits pale to his. Deficits raise
interest rates and slow investments.

Is that why we're still at 4% interst? Is that why Japan is at 1% interst
rates?


In any case, that's it for me on this debate. Believe what you want.

And you do (and do now) likewise. Well, at least you believe what your
MSM/academic handlers shoved down your throat.'

I enjoy a good debate as a way of better understanding of what each
other thinks. But this isn't it.

Not when all you do is barf back what the folks mentioned above feed you.
You've got to dig a bit further on your own.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I didn't. CJ did. Foolishly, I believed we could stay focused on the
already off-topic discussion without getting mired in an impossible
debate,
and responded to his reference to abortion.

And even I did not want to start a debate on abortion. Foolishly, I thought
that using it as an example of judicial activism would not do that.
Undeniably, I have to agree with Peter here. The thread is far enough off
topic as it is.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief,
what
is
it?

It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We
come
pre-wired to desire happiness.

Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

Really? Basic happiness comes about from several instinctual urges:
procreation, hunger, and protection from elements. Humans, being the
socially complex animals that they are, have managed to find a host of other
ways to stimulate those pleasure centers, but in many cases, those
activities still benefit the human animal in a positive way.

Furthermore, there is a very real health advantage to happiness. A feeling
of happiness is correlated with low stress, while conversely a person who is
not happy has increased stress. Higher stress levels cause problems with
one's immune system (stress stimulates the adrenal glands, which causes the
hormone cortisone to be produced, suppressing the immune system), and
general ability to cope with life (interferes with mental processes,
including problem solving and decision making, for example).

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.

Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

Pete

"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.

Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable. I think the role
of religion should be to increase happiness.

Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
conviction. But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
(at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things where
there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes a
religion, albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to me
what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level. Nevertheless, I
hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
have defined it.

I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
accepted, except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition religious
belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.

I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do think
that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.