September 13, 2004
Interesting that someone whose ideology is so opposed to christianity whould be so quick to used such images in a poliical manner.
Perkel, your so very transparent.
Posted by: BushWon at September 14, 2004 01:34 AMMarc, be reminded that Jesus was crucified at the age of 33. Should we all be whipped and crucified in the name of turning the other cheek/
You also forgot to put in there Jesus' stand on abortion. Everybody does agree on everything, but I think Jesus would be on George Bush's side on the abortion issue. And the murder of babies would rank higher than taxes, welfare, crime, and terror. I believe that in this election Jesus would be voting for George W. Bush.
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 03:29 AMI doubt Jesus would vote for any candidate.
And what precisely is Jesus' stand on abortion? He'd likely disagree with it, but it annoys me no end how the lunatic religious fringe always try to put words in the mouth of God.
I also disagree with the assertion that the murder of babies ranks higher than such things as terrorism, war and crime. The world isn't black and white.
Posted by: dmpk2k at September 14, 2004 07:01 AMTHOU SHALT NOT KILL is one of the commandments.
What do you think Jesus' stand on abortion is?
I find it hard to think that murder is LESS a crime than terrorism, war, and crime.
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 07:25 AMJesus is a mythical figure. He doesn't really exist. He is no more real than the tooth fairy.
Posted by: Marc Perkel at September 14, 2004 07:36 AMJesus may be against abortion, but that doesn't mean he would prevent people from the FREEDOM to do it... Freedom of Choice is a big thing in the book called "the book" (the bible).
And Marc, it is hard to argue that Jesus never existed... but the "Jesus" that many religious organizations claim to have a personal relationship with is most definitely a mythical figure.
So Marc, you think that a mythical figure could beat Bush. Get James Carville on the phone, they have run the wrong candidate.
Paul, do you think that Jesus the Myth was pro-choice, or pro-abortion?
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 08:12 AMtomocius: you're claiming that killing a baby is a greater crime than a war?
All things being equal, if you had to choose between the life of a single baby and 50 adults, which would you pick? How about one baby to five adults? Two?
What about just one for one? And if, all thing being equal, you still choose the baby, please state your reasons why.
No, I disagree with your assertion. War is the greatest crime. After all, war is usually just state-sanctioned mass-murder. Claiming that the death of a baby is a greater crime than a war where hundreds or thousands die is both illogical and hypocritical if you truely believe and abide by the Ten Commandments.
I'm not against religion. I believe in God although I have heavy agnostic leanings. But this inane reasoning you present is one reason why I regard some religious nuts as dangerous. If you ignore the existence of God you must justify your actions to others by appealing to reason. If you claim that God is your guiding light you can justify anything.
I'm sure the last thought going through the minds of the terrorists who flew aircraft into the towers on 7/11 was "In the name of Allah".
Posted by: dmpk2k at September 14, 2004 08:35 AMtomocius: you're claiming that killing a baby is a greater crime than a war?
YES, ABSOLUTELY
All things being equal, if you had to choose between the life of a single baby and 50 adults, which would you pick?
A SINGLE BABY
How about one baby to five adults? Two?
A SINGLE BABY
What about just one for one? And if, all thing being equal, you still choose the baby, please state your reasons why.
I WOULD PICK THE BABY, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE/SHE HAS NOT BEEN FUCKED UP BY EARTHLY THINKING, YET. THAT BABY MAY BE THE ONE THAT LEADS US TO PEACE, NO ADULT ALIVE TODAY IS GOING TO DO THAT. THERE IS NO HOPE FOR THE ADULT WORLD, AND LOOK WHAT IS COMING BEHIND US ... WE HAVE JOSH AND WILLS AS THE NEXT GENERATION OF ADULTS.
No, I disagree with your assertion. War is the greatest crime. After all, war is usually just state-sanctioned mass-murder.
ABORTION IS STATE SANCTIONED MASS MURDER.
Claiming that the death of a baby is a greater crime than a war where hundreds or thousands die is both illogical and hypocritical if you truely believe and abide by the Ten Commandments.
AMERICA HAS ENTERED SEVERAL WARS AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF US CASUALTIES STANDS AT 1.5 MILLION. IF YOU WANT TO COUNT THE CASUALTIES OF BOTH WORLD WARS THERE HAVE BEEN 85 MILLION CASUALTIES (30 MILLION IN WWI, AND 55 MILLION IN WWII). NOW, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN 40 MILLION ABORTIONS, BUT WE HAVE ONLY BEEN COMMITTING ABORTIONS FOR 32 YEARS. IF WE STARTED ABORTIONS IN 1917 AT THE BEGINNING OF WWI, AT THE SAME RATE AS THE LAST 32 YEARS, WE WOULD HAVE COMMITTED 108 MILLION ABORTIONS. IF WE STARTED PERFORMING ABORTIONS AT THE START OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR (1775) WE WOULD HAVE PERFORMED 286.25 MILLION ABORTIONS. THE DEATH OF WAR PALES IN COMPARISON.
YOU HEARD THE THE OLD SAYING ...BASE HITS WIN THE GAME! KILLING ONE AT A TIME ADDS UP PRETTY QUICK WHEN NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION.
I'm not against religion.
I believe in God although I have heavy agnostic leanings.
I AM THERE
If you ignore the existence of God you must justify your actions to others by appealing to reason.
IF THERE IS NO GOD I DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING. WITHOUT GOD, WHAT IS JUSTICE. IF THERE IS NO GOD THIS IS JUST A JUNGLE, AND IF THIS JUST A JUNGLE IT IS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. IF YOU COULD PROVE TODAY THAT THERE WAS NO GOD, THIS WORLD WOULD TAKE A NASTY TURN FOR THE WORSE (IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT). THE FEAR OF GOD KEEPS MORE PEOPLE IN LINE THAN RESPECT FOR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS.
I'm sure the last thought going through the minds of the terrorists who flew aircraft into the towers on 7/11 was "In the name of Allah".
\
AND THAT MAKES IT OKAY?
Rational thinking of the illogical mind.... Josh and I, who like to read and discern facts for ourselves, are obviously "(censored) up". Personal opinion must belong to the masses now huh?
By the way, I'm happy you're back to the personal attacks Tom, it really fits you.
Posted by: M. Wills at September 14, 2004 10:16 AM"who like to read and discern facts"
I must have missed that post.
Glad to be back to the personal attacks. Thicken up your skin a bit. Personal attacks fit me? I never knew what a personal attack was until I hit this site. Happy that I make your day.
Maybe you should blame the parents for not using a condom for the abortion not the state? Sometimes abortion is necessary. There are cases where both mother and unborn child would not survive and abortion is necessary to save at least the mother's life.
And if you think it is okay to kill someone grown who has never hurt anyone and minded their own business, then that's okay? Most of the Iraqis who were killed minded their own business. How about the teacher who died to save a student in the recent Russian tragedy. ANY killing of innocents is wrong. Don't just put abortion up on a high pedestol. If you can rationalize war, then you can rationalize abortion. In the end it's all death.
There are cases where both mother and unborn child would not survive and abortion is necessary to save at least the mother's life.
YES, THAT WOULD BE 4,000 OUT OF 40,000,000
And if you think it is okay to kill someone grown who has never hurt anyone and minded their own business, then that's okay? Most of the Iraqis who were killed minded their own business.
IF YOU ALLOW ME TO USE YOUR LAME BRAIN EXCUSE FROM ABOVE, IF KILLING ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE SAVED ONE MORE PERSONS LIFE THAN IT WAS WORTH IT.
ANY killing of innocents is wrong.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT.
Don't just put abortion up on a high pedestol. If you can rationalize war, then you can rationalize abortion. In the end it's all death.
I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT AS WELL. I WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE ELSE THAT ABORTION IS WORSE THAN WAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. IN THE END, ALL DEATH IS DEATH. I AM JUST BAFFLED WHEN SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE SO AGAINST DEATH LINES UP TO SUPPORT A "WOMAN'S CHOICE" TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE'S LIFE SUCKED OUT OF THEM.
Jesus IS pro-choice/abortion... it is (was) not up to him to make up people's minds for them... if that was the case there would be NO choice whatsoever... you can be against something without making it illegal.
Posted by: Paul at September 14, 2004 11:57 AMYou all are getting out of hand, damn. Marc didnt make this picture, it looks like it was mad magazine or somethin, if u look at the top, its got that kids face.
Anyways, the whole point of the picture is to show how Bush will look for anything and say anything possible to win. He will make his competitor look as bad as he can, even if he is worse.
Posted by: BumontheRun at September 14, 2004 12:49 PMI wouldn't call it out of hand. It's entertaining to debate. ^^
Back to the fray:
With all due respect, tomocius, posting all caps does nothing for your argument. It makes you look, uh...
Regarding God as the absolute source of all Good, I refer you to the continuing debate of naturalism vs positivism. Even those who accept natural law do not necessarily accept God as the source. So this issue isn't as cut and dried as "WITHOUT GOD, WHAT IS JUSTICE".
You've also missed that IF you ignore God that will not make God cease to exist. If God is truly the source of all Good and you ignore him, Good won't run away. Last I checked most atheists also have morals.
You also competely missed what I was saying regarding the terrorist comment. I was indicating that they used God to justify their actions. Does that make it right? No. But many people think just like that. The problem is that you can attribute anything to God, but God apparently isn't going to come down there personally and tell you "it ain't so".
The moon is made out of green cheese and is covered in flamingos. God say so.
Finally, if you're willing to sacrifice 500 adults for a single baby I'm afraid it's unlikely we'll ever agree on this issue. Your willingness to sacrifice untold numbers of Iraqis for a single American life is also worrisome. A fair number of them were innocent.
With such thinking is it any wonder the twin towers are rubble? Not only is such thinking wrong, and contrary to anything Christ taught, it's the exact same thinking the terrorists on those aircraft used. It's also making a fertile breeding ground of hatred that will be used by terrorists for new recruits.
Posted by: dmpk2k at September 14, 2004 03:52 PM*sigh* Abortion is not worse than war. It's the same thing. You're killing someone or in the case of pregnancy - an eventual someone. And my "lame brain" excuse to rationalize abortion can not be used for a grown person who put no one in danger on the other side of the world where in a justified abortion, a baby puts the mother in danger -therefore technically not innocent. Maybe I should use your words and say it was right for the terrorists who committed 9/11 to do what they did. After all it was Imperialist Americans who attacked them and kill their people with their military. Killing 3000+ Americans to save their lives was a good thing to them. Because if you look at it from their stand point and using YOUR logic, that is what you are agreeing to. Also, I never said I was so against death. I just said death is death which is a fact. You are letting your arrogant judgement and emotions illogically make illogical statements. Maybe when someone comes up to kill you and says it will save many lives, then that is justified. You did say it yourself after all. You're an adult and apparently according to your logic, lesser than a "baby" and killing people to save lives is okay.
Also, some people consider a certain time frame in pregnancy before they consider a fetus a human being. Grown adults are already considered human beings so in some peoples' view, war is worse. Another reason why people of other countries dislike Americans are because of Americans like you. Your post in reply to mine infers that Iraqis are less human and it's okay to kill any number of them to save your own skin when they are verified "alive" and "human" and no one can argue against that unlike abortion and a fetus (which develops into an eventual human). Also shouting your arguement just shows how weak it is.
Marc is correct. Jesus is a myth. If Jesus was real, his mythical father would have left real evidence that both of them existed. But there is absolutely no evidence. Zero. Zilch.
Anyone who defines their entire world view based on 4000 year old middle-eastern tribal mythology is emotionally immature.
Anyone who speaks for Jesus is an asshole of the highest order. Hey, let's change the name of the GOP to be the Assholes of the Highest Order Party (AHOP).
Posted by: Stinky Pete at September 14, 2004 05:53 PMI used upper case to differentiate between what you said, and my response. Sorry that you did not recognize the pattern. Next time I will insert a pattern key.
Pro-choice? Can I choose anything that I want to choose? Then I choose to take my real estate taxes that go toward funding schools and use that to send my children to a school of my choice.
Can't do that.
Pro-choice? Can I choose to take the Social Security money withheld from my check and put it into a vehicle of my choice so that the money is there for me when I retire.
Can't do that.
Pro-choice is a soft way to say Pro-abortion. Liberals do not like the word abortion, it is to harsh. Pro-choice is easier to live with. Just don't get carried away with that choice idea, for it has limits.
And who then makes the distinction between right and wrong? Where do morals come from? What gives mankind the right to decide what is right or wrong. Can I not decide for myself what is right or wrong for me?
Finally, we will never agree. Not because I am willing to sacrifice 500 adult lives for one single baby's life, but because you are willing to sacrifice a single life. In all the years that I have debated the issue of baby murdering I have never changed the mind of someone who is pro-baby murdering.
I think that if you are pro-baby murdering, you always will be, and if you are anti-baby murdering you always will be. I have seen only a few people change their minds about the issue, and almost everytime that has happened it has been a woman who had an abortion and realized later that it was wrong to do so. It is super stupid to even talk about the subject.
It is also going to be very hard to live in a ever shrinking world with people who believe that if they kill me for believing in God that they will go to their final place to live eternity with 70 virgins. These types of people have been blowing up cafes in the Middle East long before they knew the US even existed. DO NOT blame the US for the way they feel. Most of these Al Quida (I hope I spelled it right) cannot read. They have only read one book, the Koran. They only know how to recite the book, it has been fully interpreted for them. And they think that I should die because I believe in God.
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 05:57 PMdid i shout? let's not call it murder any more. anytime a life is taken it will now be referred to as an abortion. anybody who is killed after the day of their birth is nothing more than a late-term abortion. it is choice.
how many people did the imperialist americans kill to justify 9/11?
anyone who thinks that it is okay to abort me, is abortable (i may have just made that word up). may the best abortionist win.
what peaceful nation do you reside in kain?
was that quiet enough for you.
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 06:33 PMtomocius:
I never said I'd agree to sacrifice a single individual. But if I ever were in such an artificial situation where the balance of a single life existed aginst 500, I'd almost certainly pick 500.
Which, by the way, is what you're doing regarding the us vs them of your previous posts. Please clarify your statement, "IF KILLING ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE SAVED ONE MORE PERSONS LIFE THAN IT WAS WORTH IT". How is this any different?
What about the babies who died in Iraq? And why do you treat them differently from any innocent adults that died?
Also, the Middle East situation is like it is because of the past. The Middle East used to be an amazing place 75 or even 50 years ago, but now it's heavily populated by extremists. Why do you think that is?
In any case, ignoring my arguments because I'm "pro-murder" is asinine. I don't support abortion. Nor do I stand against it. Both sides have valid arguments. Stop assuming you know what I am.
Posted by: dmpk2k at September 14, 2004 06:43 PMI live in Canada thank you very much. Most of the world pays attention to international news and look at all sides. Besides the Iraq mess USA made, do not forget that USA trained and supplied all the terrorists which are now after your country.
"anyone who thinks that it is okay to abort me, is abortable (i may have just made that word up). may the best abortionist win."
I will have to agree with that statement you made since you think it is okay to kill people in other lands who had no connection to 9/11 and who actually did not like bin Laden. Since you can agree with adult murder then you agree with child/baby murder. Nice to know it took a couple people here to make you realize that. Saying killing an adult is more acceptable than baby makes you hypocritical since now you just said, it is a "late term abortion".
Also how many have USA killed on international ground? You can't blame them for being perpetually pissed at your country. 3000+ people at 9/11 was nothing to them compared to the damage done by USA and thanks to the Iraq war, your country gave bin Laden and his cronies more excuses to hit your country because they will be looking for any excuse and avenging 10k Iraqi civilians makes them all look better.
USA had the green light after 9/11 to go after the true threat and your president screwed it up. The world was very sympathetic with USA. What is it like now? Think about it. When USA goes after countries with real threats (N.Korea, Iran etc) it will not be supported as well since your country decided that you couldn't catch bin Laden so let's find another target to get in the mean while.
Also on the abortion issue, to have choice such as in the ability to abort (especially if the mother's life is endangered) is better than having no choice at all. USA is about freedom right? I do not like abortion but I do know it is necessary in extreme cases because the mother is directly in danger so the choice and option should always be available. Instead of taking choice away, there should be a screening process to make sure that it is not just a way of last minute birth control when stuff like the pill and condoms are so readily available and less dangerous.
Posted by: KainNero at September 14, 2004 07:43 PMin the following post anything ( ) is my response
I never said I'd agree to sacrifice a single individual. But if I ever were in such an artificial situation where the balance of a single life existed aginst 500, I'd almost certainly pick 500.
(i would have to see who those 500 people were)
Which, by the way, is what you're doing regarding the us vs them of your previous posts. Please clarify your statement, "IF KILLING ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE SAVED ONE MORE PERSONS LIFE THAN IT WAS WORTH IT". How is this any different?
(because you said that if a mother's life was in danger abortion is understandable to save her life. the same should apply if someone is a danger to another life, killing that person to save a life has to be understandable.)
What about the babies who died in Iraq? And why do you treat them differently from any innocent adults that died?
(are we talking about the iraqis that Saddam killed, or just the ones that Bush killed. was killing 3.5 million germans in WW II to stop them at 6 million jews better or worse then letting them kill the rest of the jews?)
Also, the Middle East situation is like it is because of the past. The Middle East used to be an amazing place 75 or even 50 years ago, but now it's heavily populated by extremists. Why do you think that is?
(tell me how nice of a place it was 50 years ago. what made it so nice? why do extremist heavily populate it now? ignorance, that is how. those people need to be educated. just look how woman are treated over there. oh, all you liberal couldn't care less that women were taken out to the middle of a soccer field to have their heads blown of on friday evening.)
In any case, ignoring my arguments because I'm "pro-murder" is asinine. I don't support abortion. Nor do I stand against it. Both sides have valid arguments. Stop assuming you know what I am.
(you do not support abortion and you do not stand against it? okay. when is an abortion an abortion, and when is murder, murder?)
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 07:55 PMIf Bush was smart and went after bin Laden only, there would be less USA intolerance in the world because he would've only gone after the true murderers and the world agreed with that. The world does not agree with going after another country "out of the blue" just because you can and letting 10 k civilians die because it was a rush planned war with no post war plan and your country and its soldiers are paying dearly for it. Also back in Afghanistan, a USA pilot killed Canadian soldiers in friendly fire by jumping the gun and not confirming the enemy before blowing them up. We know mistakes can happen and were willing to take it in stride. All the country wanted to hear was an apology from that pilot, nothing else since we're so mellow up here and oh so very understanding (who else gave shealter in their personal homes for Americans during 9/11's no fly rule?). He didn't bother to say "I'm sorry I made a mistake." In Iraq, the Brits were killed by American "friendly-fire". Is it strange that Americans are the main causes of friendly-fire? That jumping the gun attitude and arrogance is what the rest of the world doesn't like and what is causing your country to go into debt and is getting your people killed unnecessarily.
Posted by: KainNero at September 14, 2004 07:57 PMCODE KEY: ( ) tomocius' response
If Bush was smart and went after bin Laden only, there would be less USA intolerance in the world because he would've only gone after the true murderers and the world agreed with that. The world does not agree with going after another country "out of the blue"
("out of the blue?" be reminded that there was a UN security council vote that authorized going into Iraq. It is just that UN squirrelled away from the vote when Saddam called their bluff)
Also back in Afghanistan, a USA pilot killed Canadian soldiers in friendly fire by jumping the gun and not confirming the enemy before blowing them up.
(can I apologize, "Sorry sir, I wish that war allowed more time for accuracy. It trully is a shame that happened.)
Is it strange that Americans are the main causes of friendly-fire?
(isn't it strange that quarterbacks throw more interceptions than any other football player? France is never going to be the country that is guilty of friendly-fire. Not possible when your gun is on the ground and your arms are in the air.
America has HAD to do most of the fighting in the last 200 years. The guy who throws the most passes inevitably throws the most interceptions.)
That jumping the gun attitude
(i take it that you have never been in a war situation?)
Posted by: tomocius at September 14, 2004 08:48 PM(i would have to see who those 500 people were)
So do you agree that under some circumstances sacrificing one life for many lives is appropriate?
If so, please explain why the life of a single baby is more significant that 500 lives. Earier you stated "YES, ABSOLUTELY". Please reconcile the differences in your reasoning.
Now, please explain how war is a lesser crime, considering that children will be killed in any war.
(because you said that if a mother's life was in danger abortion is understandable to save her life)
No, I didn't. Please read and understand my replies before you comment. You're referring to someone else's reply.
Besides that though, your reasoning is flawed. We are discussing all casualties in a war, both aggressors and innocents. You claimed that killing a single baby is a greater crime than a war, yet you doddle around the issue when it's alright to kill other people in order to save others.
Please stick to the issue, arguing with someone who constantly redefines themselves is pointless. And please answer my questions. You answer questions with other questions, questions with irrelevant dodges, and similar ilk which prove nothing.
(are we talking about the iraqis that Saddam killed, or just the ones that Bush killed)
Irrelevant. As was your WWII red herring. Answer the question.
(ignorance, that is how)
Cop-out statement without much basis in reality. Are they ignorant? Please clarify your assertion and why you believe that to be the case.
If ignorance is indeed the case (it could well be), examine the deeper issue. Why did it change? They suddenly decided to?
( all you liberal couldn't care less that women were taken out to the middle of a soccer field to have their heads blown of on friday evening.)
Please explain how this is relevant to our discussion. And I'm not liberal either.
(okay. when is an abortion an abortion, and when is murder, murder?)
I don't know. This isn't a false dichotomy, you know?
Regarding the issue of friendly fire: the pilot who opened fire and killed several Canadian soldiers ignored direct orders radioed back to not fire. He contacted base regarding sighting them, and was ordered to hold off. It's important to realise the Canadians were training so weren't anywhere near known hostiles.
Why did this happen? Probably because the pilot was high as a kite. In case you weren't aware, the US military is using drugs to enhance soldier performance over long durations. Naturally their judgement is affected.
A soldier who recently came back from Iraq told me there's a simple way to tell the US soldiers from all the others: they're coked to the gills. If they aren't drugged out it's fairly likely they're from a foreign unit.
In conclusion, you are making several absolute claims. Now back them up. All I'm seeing in this thread from you is plain trolling. While I hesitate to direct any personal comments, you appear unable to hold a coherent argument. If your next reply doesn't provide some basis for your assertions as well as a logical train of thought I'll relegate you to the idiot heap.
Posted by: dmpk2k at September 14, 2004 09:56 PM
So do you agree that under some circumstances sacrificing one life for many lives is appropriate?
[under SOME circumstances, do you agree that under some circustances sacrificing the 500 is better?]
If so, please explain why the life of a single baby is more significant that 500 lives. Earier you stated "YES, ABSOLUTELY". Please reconcile the differences in your reasoning.
[we have two million people in prison in this country, bundle them in groups of 500. we have two million street gang members, bundle them in groups of 500, we have religious extremist all over the world, bundle them in groups of 500. we have an entire religion who believe that they should kill all who do not follow, bundle them in groups of 500. the entire drug business, bundle them in groups of 500. Last month I had my car painted, the day after i picked it up some neighborhood kid left his bike in my driveway overnight. i ran it over, destryoed the bike and my new paint job. i told the kid that i was sorry it happened. i told him to have his father pay for his bike and i would pay for ANOTHER paint job on my car. Monday night in the school parking lot at parent/teacher night this kids father (42 years old have you) took his key and scratched every piece of sheet metal on my car. bundle that idiot with another 499 idiots like him, and there is another pack. and believe me there are plenty more like him. i'll bet you cannot think of one single person to add to the list]
Now, please explain how war is a lesser crime, considering that children will be killed in any war.
[numbers, pure numbers. i quantify it, and i have already made that argument.]
(because you said that if a mother's life was in danger abortion is understandable to save her life)
No, I didn't. Please read and understand my replies before you comment. You're referring to someone else's reply.
[you're right on that one, my bad]
Besides that though, your reasoning is flawed. We are discussing all casualties in a war, both aggressors and innocents. You claimed that killing a single baby is a greater crime than a war, yet you doddle around the issue when it's alright to kill other people in order to save others.
[in the war on babies ALL of the deaths are that of the innocent. the aggressor never dies. in the wars of man at least the aggressor suffers through his own death or that of his loved ones. i do not know what kind of man Khaddafi (spelling error allowed) would have turned out to be, but make no mistake in that when he came home and found his child blown apart he appeared to be a changed man. i'd prefer no war, but if i have to choose between a war i'll take the one where the aggressor dies as much or more than the innocent. subjective? maybe, but that is my feeling.]
Please stick to the issue, arguing with someone who constantly redefines themselves is pointless. And please answer my questions. You answer questions with other questions, questions with irrelevant dodges, and similar ilk which prove nothing.
[what question are you referring to, if it was a vague question allow it to be questioned. dmpk2k, if you were killing 50,000 people annually and this year tomocius decided that he was going to stop that, and in the process 10,000 more were killed. i would look at that as i save 40,000 people this year, and 50,000 next year. innocent iraqis no more deserve to die than innocent Americans. not irrelevant]
(ignorance, that is how)
Cop-out statement without much basis in reality. Are they ignorant? Please clarify your assertion and why you believe that to be the case.
If ignorance is indeed the case (it could well be), examine the deeper issue. Why did it change? They suddenly decided to?
[ignorance is a cop-out, but it could well be the case. and i redefine myself? at least not in the same answer. did it change? were these people not ignorant 50 to 75 years ago? were they intelligent people and some time within the last 50 years they went totally ignorant. not possible. these people live in the stone age. some do not even know that the world is round if we blew them into the 14 century we would bring them along 1300 years
( all you liberal couldn't care less that women were taken out to the middle of a soccer field to have their heads blown of on friday evening.)
Please explain how this is relevant to our discussion.
[because it is relevant to how a people think. why was it such a better place 50 to 75 years ago, because we did not know the atrocities that took place there. was our ignorance bliss?]
(okay. when is an abortion an abortion, and when is murder, murder?)
Regarding the issue of friendly fire: the pilot who opened fire and killed several Canadian soldiers ignored direct orders radioed back to not fire. He contacted base regarding sighting them, and was ordered to hold off. It's important to realise the Canadians were training so weren't anywhere near known hostiles.
Why did this happen? Probably because the pilot was high as a kite. In case you weren't aware, the US military is using drugs to enhance soldier performance over long durations. Naturally their judgement is affected.
A soldier who recently came back from Iraq told me there's a simple way to tell the US soldiers from all the others: they're coked to the gills. If they aren't drugged out it's fairly likely they're from a foreign unit.
[give me a break]
In conclusion, you are making several absolute claims. Now back them up. All I'm seeing in this thread from you is plain trolling. While I hesitate to direct any personal comments, you appear unable to hold a coherent argument. If your next reply doesn't provide some basis for your assertions as well as a logical train of thought I'll relegate you to the idiot heap.
[no absolute claims here. just my subjective opinion. you'll regulate me to the idiot heap? after your last comment about the coked up soldiers, you are already there. you are bent.]
Posted by: tomocius at September 15, 2004 08:04 AMHere:
relegate: To asign to a particular class or category
aka to the category of idiots...
Posted by: M. Wills at September 15, 2004 09:25 AMIs that Wills, the guy who is above personal attacks? Great job you little follower.
Posted by: tomocius at September 15, 2004 09:43 AMThat wasn't an attack, I was just clarifying a word, because you said regulate when he said relegate. I guess constructive criticism is also personal attacks. You have some serious issues taking everything that everyone says personally.
There is a difference between correcting a minor misreading and calling someone a jerk, dumbass, or follower.
Posted by: M. Wills at September 15, 2004 11:12 AM:-0 Oh you got me!
Posted by: tomocius at September 15, 2004 11:50 AMStop making Jesus look like a white man. I am so surprise to see so many white people (converts) praise Jesus. If Jesus was alive right now, he will be very surprised to see so many whites(barbarians) as his followers. I think if he was alive right now, he would try to help Palestinians( his own people ) . Also, he would be outraged by his own jewish people and americans for committing so much atrocities towards Palestinians.
Posted by: prakash singh at September 21, 2004 12:39 PMIt is only a matter of time before every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. He loves all of us, even the mean ones, even the murderers. He gave his own life - his ONE perfect life - so that we low lifes don't have to live in eternal death and damnation due to our own sins.
I cannot begin to explain the internal joy that Christ can provide. He is alive. God sent him here to save us. He forgives all sin - even when we humans utterly disrespect him by throwing him into categories with politicians for a tongue in cheek laugh.
You all know deep down in your guts that God exists - with every fiber of your being you KNOW. If you want to deny that, that is your choice - God still loves you anyway.
Posted by: Buxley at September 23, 2004 10:37 AMFirst, I find it interesting that anyone who believed in the traditional God (as many who have posted seem to)would be so egotistical as to think that they could speak for God or even begin to understand God's plans. If you honestly believe that you know what God thinks about anything, you can not be a true believer because you put yourself on the same level as God by speaking for God. The very nature of God is the greatest mystery and what sets God apart from the crappy humans who have over thousands of years twisted Christianity to serve their selfish needs is that no person can ever truly claim to know or understand God. The only issue that is important is how you act in relation to your personal belief system, whether it has come from your religion or has been developed by your upbringing and society. Those who speak for God are really trying to shirk their personal responsibility and allow God to take credit for mans follies.
This is the perfect example of how in modern times anyone can take anything and distort it to fit their views. I think it's hilarious and I hate Bush for attempting to force his psychotic right-wing conservative religious values on me, and I think it is vaguely disturbing and appaling that so many people don't see any problem with this but are so quick to argue against an funny ad involving Jesus. Screw all you who want to push your ideals on me but won't let me push mine back.
One thing about the abortion thing too, I am a scientist and have seen what an embryo looks like and let me tell you, during those first months, it resembles something I could blow out my nose and is the same as the embryo of any other animal, yet we have no problem killing those. During that time our embryo is not differentiated at all from the embryos of a monkey, a cow, a cat yet it is ok to kill an adult animal but not an embryonic human? Not logical...