|
On July 02 2013 07:11 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 06:41 ZackAttack wrote:
lol. Your right, asking for a logical reason to use the bible to make laws, means I "only care about disproving religious doctrines." I never said you could not use it, I said you need to have a better reason then it being the bible. Also, if you really think theft and murder wouldn't be illegal without religion to tell us it's wrong you are delusional. All I ask is that a real reason for the bible being applicable is shown instead of "you'll go to hell for killing your baby." All you do is question my motives for asking obvious questions. You can't just say the bible is applicable because its kind of a big deal. I am not ignoring "data" because it is from a holy text. I am ignoring it because there is no reason to include it, no one has a reason to include it, and it's accuracy is highly questionable. Saying that the bible has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the actual court cases that ruled on this very issue is completely wrong. I've never argued that theft and murder would be legal without the bible. But a lot of them are there *because* of the bible. I would never try to make them legal just because I dislike the Bible. You can't change a law simply because you don't like the source it came from--you need to prove why the current law is bad. But if you really want to see a good argument from the Bible when it comes to abortion. Thou shall not kill. According to the bible, Murder is bad. Do you support murder? If you don't support murder then you don't support abortion. Case closed. Do you see how easy it is to use the bible? Now this is where you either say that a fetus isn't human or that the bible isn't needed for murder to be illegal. If you go the fetus route, then you have to prove that a fetus isn't human. If you go the "bible isn't needed to make murder illegal" route, then prove to me why murder has to be allowed just because you dislike the reason murder was made illegal in western history? Because remember, just because history *could* have come to the conclusion without the bible, does not change the fact that it did get to that legal ground because of the bible. Remember, this is law, and law only deals with what actually happened, not hypothetical timelines. The real response to someone saying abortion is murder and murder is evil is "Roe V Wade decided that abortion is legal and hence the definition of abortion is not murder, by law." You don't need to bring up science, or disprove religion. Abortion being legal in the US means the only argument that can be made on it is Roe v Wade until it gets brought up again by the Supreme Court. Why? Because a law cannot be changed willy nilly, being old is a good enough reason for it to exist. Saying that the bible is against murder is not an argument against murder. That is the point. You can't just say something is bad because it says so right here in this book. You have to have some reason. It's abundantly easy to use the bible to make arguments that are statements with no backup. The only thing I am arguing against is exactly that. I'm not saying the bible is wrong, I'm saying it can't just be right because someone thinks it is. Actual arguments have to be made. Saying that the bible is against something and that's it is not good enough. I might as well say, "abortion is wrong because I said so." This is not me trying to disprove dogma. The argument hasn't even started. I am asking for an honest discussion, and I can't get one.
At some point some idiot made murder illegal because some holy book told him so. Now, sure, he's an idiot, but at least the law in place works for the society at large. Him being an idiot and his source being something you don't find credible doesn't make the law he passed bad.
There are a lot of laws like that. Passed for seemingly random and usually holy/cultural reasons. Because it "made sense at the time."
If those laws work--it's because they work as laws. To get rid of those laws you need to prove that they are bad. Since they're already law a lot of those religious texts don't need to argue *why* it's still there; because you have to show them why its bad to keep it in the books. You have to show why changing the law helps people.
Roe v Wade was not won because the Supreme court said "fuck the bible, I do what I want," it was because the arguments showed that civil liberties of women is important. A law being present can't be overturned just because the bible made it; because that doesn't prove that changing the law betters society.
Seatbelt laws bettered society.
Suffrage laws bettered society.
Etc...
The reason Roe v Wade isn't overturned is *because* you can't get rid of a law just because you disagree with it.
|
On July 02 2013 07:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:11 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 06:41 ZackAttack wrote:
lol. Your right, asking for a logical reason to use the bible to make laws, means I "only care about disproving religious doctrines." I never said you could not use it, I said you need to have a better reason then it being the bible. Also, if you really think theft and murder wouldn't be illegal without religion to tell us it's wrong you are delusional. All I ask is that a real reason for the bible being applicable is shown instead of "you'll go to hell for killing your baby." All you do is question my motives for asking obvious questions. You can't just say the bible is applicable because its kind of a big deal. I am not ignoring "data" because it is from a holy text. I am ignoring it because there is no reason to include it, no one has a reason to include it, and it's accuracy is highly questionable. Saying that the bible has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the actual court cases that ruled on this very issue is completely wrong. I've never argued that theft and murder would be legal without the bible. But a lot of them are there *because* of the bible. I would never try to make them legal just because I dislike the Bible. You can't change a law simply because you don't like the source it came from--you need to prove why the current law is bad. But if you really want to see a good argument from the Bible when it comes to abortion. Thou shall not kill. According to the bible, Murder is bad. Do you support murder? If you don't support murder then you don't support abortion. Case closed. Do you see how easy it is to use the bible? Now this is where you either say that a fetus isn't human or that the bible isn't needed for murder to be illegal. If you go the fetus route, then you have to prove that a fetus isn't human. If you go the "bible isn't needed to make murder illegal" route, then prove to me why murder has to be allowed just because you dislike the reason murder was made illegal in western history? Because remember, just because history *could* have come to the conclusion without the bible, does not change the fact that it did get to that legal ground because of the bible. Remember, this is law, and law only deals with what actually happened, not hypothetical timelines. The real response to someone saying abortion is murder and murder is evil is "Roe V Wade decided that abortion is legal and hence the definition of abortion is not murder, by law." You don't need to bring up science, or disprove religion. Abortion being legal in the US means the only argument that can be made on it is Roe v Wade until it gets brought up again by the Supreme Court. Why? Because a law cannot be changed willy nilly, being old is a good enough reason for it to exist. Saying that the bible is against murder is not an argument against murder. That is the point. You can't just say something is bad because it says so right here in this book. You have to have some reason. It's abundantly easy to use the bible to make arguments that are statements with no backup. The only thing I am arguing against is exactly that. I'm not saying the bible is wrong, I'm saying it can't just be right because someone thinks it is. Actual arguments have to be made. Saying that the bible is against something and that's it is not good enough. I might as well say, "abortion is wrong because I said so." This is not me trying to disprove dogma. The argument hasn't even started. I am asking for an honest discussion, and I can't get one. At some point some idiot made murder illegal because some holy book told him so. Now, sure, he's an idiot, but at least the law in place works for the society at large. Him being an idiot and his source being something you don't find credible doesn't make the law he passed bad. There are a lot of laws like that. Passed for seemingly random and usually holy/cultural reasons. Because it "made sense at the time." If those laws work--it's because they work as laws. To get rid of those laws you need to prove that they are bad. Since they're already law a lot of those religious texts don't need to argue *why* it's still there; because you have to show them why its bad to keep it in the books. You have to show why changing the law helps people. Roe v Wade was not won because the Supreme court said "fuck the bible, I do what I want," it was because the arguments showed that civil liberties of women is important. A law being present can't be overturned just because the bible made it; because that doesn't prove that changing the law betters society. Seatbelt laws bettered society. Suffrage laws bettered society. Etc... The reason Roe v Wade isn't overturned is *because* you can't get rid of a law just because you disagree with it.
I am not arguing that anything be overturned or that any law made by the bible be changed. You are completely lost in this conversation and just repeating the same thing over and over. The only thing that I am arguing is that actual reasons be put forward when arguing, and you just keeping reading that I hate the bible. You are arguing that you can't change laws because I don't like the bible, and I am arguing that you can't refer to the bible to make laws just because you like it. We agree. I promise.
|
So. does xMZ actually believe what he's saying? Or is he a troll here to amuse both himself and us? I mean... you'd think a troll would've gotten bored by now, but it's just so utterly unbelievable that someone really thinks the way he claims to :O
|
Why are people still arguing on the basis of religion?
|
xMZ, I see you did not reply to my last post. I'm glad we agree your scenario did not support your point.
|
All right, I'll speak seriously for a bit.
The bible is pro-abortion and always has been. The punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is a fine, not death like it is for murder. That is the literal law. Furthermore, life throughout the bible is based on breath (specifically taking air in through the nose). So interpretively speaking, life begins at first breath, so that's birth. The bible really doesn't consider it a life until it is born. Not that I particularly care what the bible says.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
The rules against abortion were determined by some pope or something somewhere. It's not from the bible.
Speaking seriously about Mr. Pleasure over there, you should notice that he has a very adversarial position on sex. That it's essentially the goal of men to try to take sex from women however they can, and that women's goal is to protect it from bad men. This is one of the more problematic and common viewpoints of sexists and misogynists. Women and men are not adversaries. Women and men pleasure each other and work together. Relationships are a very important part of society, and this idea that we should treat our fellow humans as untrustworthy and constantly sex-driven is extremely harmful.
We should not be trying to "get things" from each other. We should be trying to live side-by-side as men and women.
|
On July 02 2013 07:35 S:klogW wrote:
Why are people still arguing on the basis of religion?
I'm technically arguing that we should only consider data points of information with logical arguments on why we deny certain data points and accept others.
It doesn't really matter what book/pantheon/study the data point comes from.
|
On July 02 2013 07:35 Acrofales wrote:
So. does xMZ actually believe what he's saying? Or is he a troll here to amuse both himself and us? I mean... you'd think a troll would've gotten bored by now, but it's just so utterly unbelievable that someone really thinks the way he claims to :O
Every time I think I understand what xM(Z is thinking, he says something more ridiculous.
So no, I don't think he believes what he's saying. I think what he believes is way more hilarious than what he's saying. I think he's toned it down for us so he doesn't look crazy. Wrap your head around that one.
|
On July 02 2013 07:36 kwizach wrote:
xMZ, I see you did not reply to my last post. I'm glad we agree your scenario did not support your point.
i agreed with: your scenario doesn't support my point other then that, i'm just a theoretician ahead of my time.
|
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-)
|
What the fuck. Murder isn't illegal because of the bible.
Murder was illegal in pagan times, what the heck is going on here. The Bible is not fucking why murder is illegal in western history, man. Not even close. The legal forbidding of murder predates the bible and exists in areas untouched by Jewish and Christian theology for centuries before the bible hit any sort of popularity in western legal discourse
|
EDIT: OK, nevermind. This thread is a fucking shitstorm. These conversations don't even make sense anymore.
|
On July 02 2013 07:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:11 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 06:41 ZackAttack wrote:
lol. Your right, asking for a logical reason to use the bible to make laws, means I "only care about disproving religious doctrines." I never said you could not use it, I said you need to have a better reason then it being the bible. Also, if you really think theft and murder wouldn't be illegal without religion to tell us it's wrong you are delusional. All I ask is that a real reason for the bible being applicable is shown instead of "you'll go to hell for killing your baby." All you do is question my motives for asking obvious questions. You can't just say the bible is applicable because its kind of a big deal. I am not ignoring "data" because it is from a holy text. I am ignoring it because there is no reason to include it, no one has a reason to include it, and it's accuracy is highly questionable. Saying that the bible has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the actual court cases that ruled on this very issue is completely wrong. I've never argued that theft and murder would be legal without the bible. But a lot of them are there *because* of the bible. I would never try to make them legal just because I dislike the Bible. You can't change a law simply because you don't like the source it came from--you need to prove why the current law is bad. But if you really want to see a good argument from the Bible when it comes to abortion. Thou shall not kill. According to the bible, Murder is bad. Do you support murder? If you don't support murder then you don't support abortion. Case closed. Do you see how easy it is to use the bible? Now this is where you either say that a fetus isn't human or that the bible isn't needed for murder to be illegal. If you go the fetus route, then you have to prove that a fetus isn't human. If you go the "bible isn't needed to make murder illegal" route, then prove to me why murder has to be allowed just because you dislike the reason murder was made illegal in western history? Because remember, just because history *could* have come to the conclusion without the bible, does not change the fact that it did get to that legal ground because of the bible. Remember, this is law, and law only deals with what actually happened, not hypothetical timelines. The real response to someone saying abortion is murder and murder is evil is "Roe V Wade decided that abortion is legal and hence the definition of abortion is not murder, by law." You don't need to bring up science, or disprove religion. Abortion being legal in the US means the only argument that can be made on it is Roe v Wade until it gets brought up again by the Supreme Court. Why? Because a law cannot be changed willy nilly, being old is a good enough reason for it to exist. Saying that the bible is against murder is not an argument against murder. That is the point. You can't just say something is bad because it says so right here in this book. You have to have some reason. It's abundantly easy to use the bible to make arguments that are statements with no backup. The only thing I am arguing against is exactly that. I'm not saying the bible is wrong, I'm saying it can't just be right because someone thinks it is. Actual arguments have to be made. Saying that the bible is against something and that's it is not good enough. I might as well say, "abortion is wrong because I said so." This is not me trying to disprove dogma. The argument hasn't even started. I am asking for an honest discussion, and I can't get one. At some point some idiot made murder illegal because some holy book told him so. Now, sure, he's an idiot, but at least the law in place works for the society at large. Him being an idiot and his source being something you don't find credible doesn't make the law he passed bad. There are a lot of laws like that. Passed for seemingly random and usually holy/cultural reasons. Because it "made sense at the time." If those laws work--it's because they work as laws. To get rid of those laws you need to prove that they are bad. Since they're already law a lot of those religious texts don't need to argue *why* it's still there; because you have to show them why its bad to keep it in the books. You have to show why changing the law helps people. Roe v Wade was not won because the Supreme court said "fuck the bible, I do what I want," it was because the arguments showed that civil liberties of women is important. A law being present can't be overturned just because the bible made it; because that doesn't prove that changing the law betters society. Seatbelt laws bettered society. Suffrage laws bettered society. Etc... The reason Roe v Wade isn't overturned is *because* you can't get rid of a law just because you disagree with it.
What in the actual fuck? The bible is why murder was made illegal? Citation please.
The reason Roe v Wade isn't overturned is *because* you can't get rid of a law just because you disagree with it.
Uhh...you do realize if you used this logic before Roe v Wade you would have been saying "the reason abortion isn't going to be made legal is *because* you can't get rid of a law just because you disagree with it". I'm not saying it should be overturned, just that that is the dumbest reason I have heard for explaining why we aren't overturning it.
|
On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-)
nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one+ Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species.
|
On July 02 2013 16:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-) nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one + Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you'd realize that; but you didn't want to so that was it.
Calling something "logic" doesn't make it logical.
|
On July 02 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 16:42 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-) nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one + Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you'd realize that; but you didn't want to so that was it. Calling something "logic" doesn't make it logical.
calling something "sexism" doesn't make it sexism.
|
On July 02 2013 20:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 16:42 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-) nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one + Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you'd realize that; but you didn't want to so that was it. Calling something "logic" doesn't make it logical. calling something "sexism" doesn't make it sexism.
If it fits the definition of the word it does. The same can't be said for your logic.
|
On July 02 2013 16:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-) nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one + Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you'd realize that; but you didn't want to so that was it.
You didn't come to your scenario via logic, you came to your scenario via a "what's the worst that could happen?" approach. That's why following the same reasoning should lead you, if you were honest, to consider the exact same kind of scenario but this time for men. Since you are refusing to do so, it means you are hypocritical. I also already replied to the objection you put between spoiler tags:
No, I would not have to argue any of that, and certainly not "which is more likely and why". Your scenario is extremely unlikely, yet you defended it by saying that we had to imagine the worst that could happen. The exact same reasoning would apply here. The scenario I presented you with, with men forming an international body to control procreation, should therefore lead you to want to limit men's rights "to avoid the worse that could happen". Since you refuse to acknowledge this, you are very clearly being hypocritical in your attack of women's rights but not men's rights.
Finally, like I already showed, your scenario does not support your own point since making abortions illegal would be irrelevant in the context you imagine. Logic is therefore clearly not your strong point.
|
On July 02 2013 20:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 16:42 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-) nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one + Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you'd realize that; but you didn't want to so that was it. Calling something "logic" doesn't make it logical. calling something "sexism" doesn't make it sexism.
Dude, you called yourself sexist just a couple pages ago:
one can't help but be a sexist.
Disagreeing with yourself now? Soon you're going to be going full sexist gollum.
|
On July 02 2013 21:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:38 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 16:42 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 09:51 kwizach wrote:
Theoretician of what? I just showed you your own scenario did not support the point you were trying to make. I also showed you that following your own logic would lead you to restrict men's rights. If anything, all you theorized was how to shoot yourself in the foot ,-) nope, i came to my scenario via logic, you just blurted out yours. if you were to pass the rite of passage, this one + Show Spoiler +now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you'd realize that; but you didn't want to so that was it. Calling something "logic" doesn't make it logical. calling something "sexism" doesn't make it sexism. Dude, you called yourself sexist just a couple pages ago: Disagreeing with yourself now? Soon you're going to be going full sexist gollum.
one = 2. An unspecified individual; anyone
but i usually admit it just to shut people up since i don't care, especially when they don't know the meaning of a word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
