Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 05:16:10 AM
I am uncompromising pro life conservative.
So you believe in life except in the case where someone has shown themselves to be a negative impact on society (ie, criminals, death penalty). Sorry, but I don't think you are really in favor of life, you are too inconsistent.
A tough question for all of you that you probably don't want to answer - if it is good to use the death penalty to remove a criminal who is a bad thing, then explain why it is not ok for a mother to kill an unwanted baby when it is bad thing? Not saying babies are criminals, just saying that you're being inconsistent with your approach to pro life. Both babies and death row inmates are unwanted things and killing them removes the unwanted factor. Most people will deflect this question or attack something about the question. I will take that as proof that you're unable to disprove my assertion of your hypocrisy.
And since you don't seem to be able to remember these things, I am vehemently pro life - anti-abortion, against the death penalty and I despise when it's necessary to shoot criminals. Life is sacred and created by God. Or if you are not religious, then society did not give you life and it does not have the right to take it from you. You and I do not have the right to destroy life. There are cases of self defense when we must, but those really are very rare. In our society, most people can go through life without ever having a situation where they might practice lethal self defense.
All Lives Matter means that everyone's life is important, even the most vile despicable person you can think of. If you can't say that everyone's life matter, then what you're really saying is that only the lives that are important to you matter.
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2018, 05:38:47 AM
Congratulations, you’re even full-er of shit than normal.
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 05:43:50 AM
Only a liberal could come off with such hypocrisy and demand an explanation.
Congratulations, you’re even full-er of shit than normal.
That didn't take long. Candidate #1 has failed to answer the question because he doesn't want to confront his inconsistency.
You didn't even try, you just threw an insult and abdicated thought. I suppose it is the easier path.
BTW, All Lives Matter comes from Glenn Beck. He leans strongly libertarian, but I don't think anyone except a very strong fanatic right winger could call him Liberal.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2018, 05:59:45 AM
An unborn child is 100% completely innocent, it has done literally nothing to deserve death, 'deserve' being the key element with respect to someone like myself who is pro-life/anti-abortion but also pro death penalty.
A criminal who has been found guilty of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death has been judged in accordance with the laws we all agree to abide to by, the laws which make our society possible.
The death penalty is not used willy nilly and is in fact extraordinarily difficult to actually enforce. There are a myriad of protections for criminals, far too many in my opinion, as I believe someone who is found guilty of a crime that the death penalty can be applied for deserves to die, but it is the system we have, perverse as it sometimes seems.
The issue with abortion on demand is that it is being used as an afterthought method of birth control, with two victims, the mother and the unborn child - one will carry mental/emotional scars for a period of time, but only one of them actually dies, and for no cause of their own, no deliberate decision to harm someone else, no violence.
While I don't like the result, I see a reasonable allowance for cases where the physical health of the mother is in actual imminent jeopardy to take the pregnancy to term.
When you understand how the death penalty is enforced you see that it is reserved for a special class of crimes where intent is important, this is why mental competency is an important element in determining whether or not to push for the death penalty - it provides an unfortunate and undeserved out for clever criminals and defense teams, but is important because there are potentially a small number of perpetrators who don't understand their actions, but that is not most violent criminals.
The real aggravation for me is out of all the people effected by crime and abortion, there are significant protections under the law for the violent criminal or the mother (not making a one-to-one equivalency here), but there are not as strong protections for the victims of violent crimes (or their survivors), and there are NO protection for the unborn who are by definition the most innocent of all, and that is an abhorrent moral travesty to me.
This is not even apples and oranges.
'Gimp
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2018, 06:04:12 AM
That didn't take long. Candidate #1 has failed to answer the question because he doesn't want to confront his inconsistency.
You didn't even try, you just threw an insult and abdicated thought. I suppose it is the easier path.
BTW, All Lives Matter comes from Glenn Beck. He leans strongly libertarian, but I don't think anyone except a very strong fanatic right winger could call him Liberal.
A virtue signaling, snowflake, accusing others is the only route you have to any pretense of decency.
It’s ok that you have no moral base. I understand that. Progressives have no moral base beyond selfishness. This mentally deranged attempt to equivocate capital punishment with abortion, or worse yet, babbling about the sanctity of the life of a mass shooter is just like having your skull opened so everyone can se that there is nothing but bovine excrement inside.
Post by: Anthony on March 22, 2018, 06:15:42 AM
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2018, 06:20:53 AM
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 06:40:02 AM
If you have to ask there is literally no reason to engage in good faith because the outcome is sadly predictable but I'll try quickly.
An unborn child is 100% completely innocent, it has done literally nothing to deserve death, 'deserve' being the key element with respect to someone like myself who is pro-life/anti-abortion but also pro death penalty.
A criminal who has been found guilty of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death has been judged in accordance with the laws we all agree to abide to by, the laws which make our society possible.
The death penalty is not used willy nilly and is in fact extraordinarily difficult to actually enforce. There are a myriad of protections for criminals, far too many in my opinion, as I believe someone who is found guilty of a crime that the death penalty can be applied for deserves to die, but it is the system we have, perverse as it sometimes seems.
The issue with abortion on demand is that it is being used as an afterthought method of birth control, with two victims, the mother and the unborn child - one will carry mental/emotional scars for a period of time, but only one of them actually dies, and for no cause of their own, no deliberate decision to harm someone else, no violence.
While I don't like the result, I see a reasonable allowance for cases where the physical health of the mother is in actual imminent jeopardy to take the pregnancy to term.
When you understand how the death penalty is enforced you see that it is reserved for a special class of crimes where intent is important, this is why mental competency is an important element in determining whether or not to push for the death penalty - it provides an unfortunate and undeserved out for clever criminals and defense teams, but is important because there are potentially a small number of perpetrators who don't understand their actions, but that is not most violent criminals.
The real aggravation for me is out of all the people effected by crime and abortion, there are significant protections under the law for the violent criminal or the mother (not making a one-to-one equivalency here), but there are not as strong protections for the victims of violent crimes (or their survivors), and there are NO protection for the unborn who are by definition the most innocent of all, and that is an abhorrent moral travesty to me.
This is not even apples and oranges.
'Gimp
What if "deserve" doesn't really come into the equation? A mother who is killing a baby isn't saying "this baby deserves to die", they're saying "I don't want this baby to exist". For a criminal, we can argue semantics about deserve or earned or just being inconvenient, but it doesn't change the final outcome of saying "I don't want this criminal to exist".
It also doesn't change the inconsistency of whether or not you endorse all life or do you only endorse the life you approve of because that is the reality of abortion vs death penalty. It is a hard question to face.
You cannot put a limit on the death penalty. Why not kill more criminals, society would be better off without them and surely it would make it a stronger deterrent - those are the reasons for having the death penalty, right? How about 1000 a year? 100,000? 10 million? All we have to do is change the law because that is what you said is holding it back.
If I claim that there is a Right to Life, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, then it make no sense for me to say that I'm judging that this person should die but that one shouldn't. This is why I'm vehemently pro-all life...because I couldn't reconcile these things. I either say all life matters or else I'm saying that only acceptable life matters.
You have not convinced me otherwise. Nor have you convinced me that you are consistent yourself.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2018, 06:54:09 AM
Fortunately, your comprehension, agreement or opinion of my beliefs is irrelevant and not required.
'Gimp
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 22, 2018, 07:01:22 AM
What if "deserve" doesn't really come into the equation? A mother who is killing a baby isn't saying "this baby deserves to die", they're saying "I don't want this baby to exist". For a criminal, we can argue semantics about deserve or earned or just being inconvenient, but it doesn't change the final outcome of saying "I don't want this criminal to exist".
It also doesn't change the inconsistency of whether or not you endorse all life or do you only endorse the life you approve of because that is the reality of abortion vs death penalty. It is a hard question to face.
You cannot put a limit on the death penalty. Why not kill more criminals, society would be better off without them and surely it would make it a stronger deterrent - those are the reasons for having the death penalty, right? How about 1000 a year? 100,000? 10 million? All we have to do is change the law because that is what you said is holding it back.
If I claim that there is a Right to Life, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, then it make no sense for me to say that I'm judging that this person should die but that one shouldn't. This is why I'm vehemently pro-all life...because I couldn't reconcile these things. I either say all life matters or else I'm saying that only acceptable life matters.
You have not convinced me otherwise. Nor have you convinced me that you are consistent yourself.
Then why concieve in the first place, if not a rape case?
Post by: invflatspin on March 22, 2018, 07:05:43 AM
Most Americans have a high value on individual life, and that's a good thing for advanced societies. Maybe I've seen the underbelly of societies where abortion is not available and seen my share of dead end lives, or unwanted, and unloved youth. All other situations considered, I would certainly be pro-life provided each new life were to be cherished, loved, taught, raised, and advanced in good health. The other issue I have with pro-life is having a state actor making decisions on such a personal level. This does not square with my libertarian/anarchy ideals. If the state can decide on such rights women are allowed, it portends poorly for individual liberty.
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2018, 07:17:38 AM
I am against the death penalty unless justice can be error-free. Thus, since we know factually that the innocent are sometimes "proven" guilty, I am against the death penalty.
I am in agreement with you except when the facts are impossible to deny. Courts, governments and activists have used the death penalty for all sorts of inappropriate reasons for as long as there has been one.
In the case of abortion, it is nothing more than a mirror into the soul of liberals, thirsty to prove how important they are by murdering helpless children. The damage to our society caused by devaluing human life is all on the heads of leftists, lazy, entitled sluts and people with such invisible moral compasses that they would rather millions die than one person think that they are judgemental about it.
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 07:38:13 AM
Like I said, sadly predictable.
Fortunately, your comprehension, agreement or opinion of my beliefs is irrelevant and not required.
'Gimp
I do comprehend what you are talking about because I used to be there. Then I started critically examining my beliefs. I eliminated the inconsistency and the only remaining logical course was to reject the death penalty.
Question - If you can reject someone else's claim to the right to live, how can life be an inalienable right as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Your premise is that they broke society's rules, but that means that you don't believe in an inalienable right. Inconsistency again.
One of my external influences was with an organization that has a stated core value of respect...not uncommon. Except here, they take that further and claim that respect is NOT earned, because earned respect is not core. Earned respect is granted only after you do the correct steps and for it to be a core belief, respect must always be present, even and especially for people you disapprove of. It's the same with your examination of the death penalty...you hold that life is only acceptable if it meets your approval, you just have a very broad scope of what is acceptable. There cannot be a core belief in life.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 22, 2018, 08:06:45 AM
He said I was not, therefore, pro-life. But I am.
It isn't only "sluts" and irresponsible mouth breathers who find themselves pregnant and unable to bear the thought of raising another child, with the tremendous levels of resources and care that entails for years.
If you look into the history of abortion, it is lurid and shocking. If legal, it becomes an industry. If illegal, women who ARE going to have one WILL do so however they can. Historically, the shame associated with abortion drove all women overwhelmed by an unwanted pregnancy, even upper class women, to abortion doctors operating under any sort of health standard oversight. Sometimes women just disappeared, with frantic husbands having no idea their wife was even pregnant until the back-alley operators were caught. Often the wives returned home after the abortion very ill, but refused respectable medical care lest their decision to kill their child would be revealed.
All that said, I would of course prefer that women and girls were thoroughly educated and mentored to not have sex before they are married to a loving man who will accept the consequences of intercourse, and to know as much as possible about birth control. And to view adopting the child out to a loving family as the first and best option if they can't care for it.
It's an imperfect world we're dealing with here. Am I inconsistent? Very well, then, I am inconsistent. And that's without even venturing into capital punishment....
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2018, 08:30:27 AM
The truth about abortion is its become an easy after-the-fact birth control. That is specially true now that the actual producers of income get to pay for it on behalf of lazy, incompetent, stupid people.
The idea that as long as someone has a sob story to tell, they are free to commit homicide is one strongest points of how deranged our society has become, to allow people to get away with claiming that being upset is justification enough to murder your children.
If simply being upset, or angry is justification for this murder, then why isn't it justification for all murders? Why is THIS child's slaughter 'good' and that child's slaughter 'not good?'
If you are going to use finances as justification for being too stupid and lazy to see to your own birth control, why isn't being too stupid and lazy to STOP gambling not justification for killing your other children - you know - to reduce financial stress?
The slippery slope has become a bobsled run for those too blind to see the truth.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 22, 2018, 10:02:52 AM
Post by: invflatspin on March 22, 2018, 10:37:04 AM
libs love to make policy based on corner cases.
True of both parties. Bush gave us Patriot act, TSA, DHS, and revived the FISA court to heights it was never intended to support. All derived from the awful but singular event of 9/11. Temperance movement and prohibition was another glaring example of using a nuclear bomb to solve a mosquito problem.
Post by: invflatspin on March 22, 2018, 10:45:25 AM
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2018, 11:09:54 AM
I do comprehend what you are talking about because I used to be there. Then I started critically examining my beliefs. I eliminated the inconsistency and the only remaining logical course was to reject the death penalty.Then enjoy your self-appointed superior consistency which is also meaningless to me. My beliefs are consistent and were I interested in further dialogue I would point out that moral equivalency arguments always fail.
Question - If you can reject someone else's claim to the right to live, how can life be an inalienable right as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Your premise is that they broke society's rules, but that means that you don't believe in an inalienable right. Inconsistency again.
One of my external influences was with an organization that has a stated core value of respect...not uncommon. Except here, they take that further and claim that respect is NOT earned, because earned respect is not core. Earned respect is granted only after you do the correct steps and for it to be a core belief, respect must always be present, even and especially for people you disapprove of. It's the same with your examination of the death penalty...you hold that life is only acceptable if it meets your approval, you just have a very broad scope of what is acceptable. There cannot be a core belief in life.
The right to life is inalienable, but life itself is not without consequence, were that not the case there would be no such thing as justifiable self-defense such as you have previously stated you believe in, the death penalty is the societal equivalent of individual self-defense, a person has been deemed a threat that cannot be tolerated, philosophically the same as self-defense, even if you consider it being done solely in a punitive, after the fact way.
Dedicated Buddhists for example will not consider self-defense because they take the concept of innate respect as opposed to earned to th extreme - may work for them but not my play book.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2018, 11:16:32 AM
If you have to ask there is literally no reason to engage in good faith because the outcome is sadly predictable but I'll try quickly.Well said. Bflynn has an agenda and has already drawn a conclusion, so no point in debating him.
An unborn child is 100% completely innocent, it has done literally nothing to deserve death, 'deserve' being the key element with respect to someone like myself who is pro-life/anti-abortion but also pro death penalty.
A criminal who has been found guilty of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death has been judged in accordance with the laws we all agree to abide to by, the laws which make our society possible.
The death penalty is not used willy nilly and is in fact extraordinarily difficult to actually enforce. There are a myriad of protections for criminals, far too many in my opinion, as I believe someone who is found guilty of a crime that the death penalty can be applied for deserves to die, but it is the system we have, perverse as it sometimes seems.
The issue with abortion on demand is that it is being used as an afterthought method of birth control, with two victims, the mother and the unborn child - one will carry mental/emotional scars for a period of time, but only one of them actually dies, and for no cause of their own, no deliberate decision to harm someone else, no violence.
While I don't like the result, I see a reasonable allowance for cases where the physical health of the mother is in actual imminent jeopardy to take the pregnancy to term.
When you understand how the death penalty is enforced you see that it is reserved for a special class of crimes where intent is important, this is why mental competency is an important element in determining whether or not to push for the death penalty - it provides an unfortunate and undeserved out for clever criminals and defense teams, but is important because there are potentially a small number of perpetrators who don't understand their actions, but that is not most violent criminals.
The real aggravation for me is out of all the people effected by crime and abortion, there are significant protections under the law for the violent criminal or the mother (not making a one-to-one equivalency here), but there are not as strong protections for the victims of violent crimes (or their survivors), and there are NO protection for the unborn who are by definition the most innocent of all, and that is an abhorrent moral travesty to me.
This is not even apples and oranges.
'Gimp
I used to be pro-death penalty. Especially after a monster raped and tortured a beautiful young girl to death in an abandoned manufacturing building in Rock Island, Illinois, and took her mangled body to dump it in Iowa so if he got caught, he could say she was killed in Iowa, which had no death penalty.
I was also in Chicago when John Wayne Gary was caught there. I would have fried these two myself.
Since then, my trust for the State has fallen to nil, and I now believe that the state has no business executing anyone, regardless of how evil, sick, or non-human these things are.
I’m an imperfect human and would welcome the chance to go medieval on these creatures, but I have no interest in the state doing this on my behalf as a citizen.
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 12:38:53 PM
The right to life is inalienable...
Maybe we don't mean the same thing by inalienable. I think it means nobody can take it away from you.
You propose an idea by which society can agree to take someone's life away, so I have to ask, what do you think inalienable means?
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 12:44:08 PM
Since then, my trust for the State has fallen to nil, and I now believe that the state has no business executing anyone, regardless of how evil, sick, or non-human these things are.
I’m an imperfect human and would welcome the chance to go medieval on these creatures, but I have no interest in the state doing this on my behalf as a citizen.
So other than making mistakes and killing the wrong person, you're all for society killing people?
Assuming they could do it perfectly, what if it's just a subset of society, say just a state or maybe just in a particular city? I'm hearing that you say it Ok for a subgroup of society to kill others as long as they could be 100% assured they're killing the right people, is that right?
Three questions here, no statements.
Post by: invflatspin on March 22, 2018, 12:48:27 PM
The other awkward, but inevitable companion argument is the typical hypocrisy of the pro-life stalwarts. I believe the Palin family got dinged by this, I also recall some 80s woman activist who was out marching one day for pro-life, and the next month she was in the OB office getting one herself. Plus, we always have the men of all ages with their pro-life policy - right up to the moment an unwanted pregnancy gets in the way, then it's 'no abortion for YOU, but for US - well it's ok.'
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/10/03/rep-tim-Murphy-pro-life-sought-abortion-affair-shannon-edwards-susan-mosychuk-pennsylvania-chief-of-staff-congress-emails-texts/stories/201710030018
The little inset there about office conduct and abusive behavior is worth a look. He double dipped there with a dose of hypocrisy layered with plenty of judgment, and lording his position. Not what I look for in a spokesperson.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2018, 12:54:10 PM
If liberty is inalienable then I should be free to do anything, period, and should be immune from incarceration using your apparently consequence-less belief system.
If the pursuit of happiness is inalienable and I get happiness from killing, say as a psychopath, you would deny the state the right to prevent that person from performing violent acts or being locked up for doing it (happiness and liberty).
It is pure philosophy 101 nonsense in my opinion.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 01:14:37 PM
Extrapolate to liberty and the pursuit of happiness then, as the other enumerated inalienable rights, and your position falls to dust as completely irrational and untenable - a right, even one that is inalienable, will still have possibility of consequence for actions taken/not taken which is what you are completely ignoring with respect to the death penalty.
If liberty is inalienable then I should be free to do anything, period, and should be immune from incarceration using your apparently consequence-less belief system.
If the pursuit of happiness is inalienable and I get happiness from killing, say as a psychopath, you would deny the state the right to prevent that person from performing violent acts or being locked up for doing it (happiness and liberty).
It is pure philosophy 101 nonsense in my opinion.
So in other words, you do not have an explanation for your inconsistency other than "that is how I want it"? Rational meaning is what drove me away from that position. If you believe in life, then you must always believe in life. If you don't, then that is your choice, but it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
In the language of the founders, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness did not mean what the words mean today and were tempered both by the church and by the notion of equal station. You are not free to interfere with my Liberty in the exercise of yours. You are allowed to pursue your happiness, which means to secure the fruits of your labor.
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 01:28:20 PM
The two other issues I have with the pro-life 'movement' are the effrontery that anyone else could hold a counter opinion. It's not just judgmental, it is beyond that. It represents a slavish devotion to one and only one policy. Much like the kind of devotion and slavish attention the left is accused of.
The other awkward, but inevitable companion argument is the typical hypocrisy of the pro-life stalwarts. I believe the Palin family got dinged by this, I also recall some 80s woman activist who was out marching one day for pro-lie, and the next month she was in the OB office getting one herself. Plus, we always have the men of all ages with their pro-life policy - right up to the moment an unwanted pregnancy gets in the way, then it's 'no abortion for YOU, but for US - well it's ok.'
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/10/03/rep-tim-Murphy-pro-life-sought-abortion-affair-shannon-edwards-susan-mosychuk-pennsylvania-chief-of-staff-congress-emails-texts/stories/201710030018
The little inset there about office conduct and abusive behavior is worth a look. He double dipped there with a dose of hypocrisy layered with plenty of judgment, and lording his position. Not what I look for in a spokesperson.
What I take from you not answering my pointed questions is that you don't want to acknowledge the implicit answers in the questions. I don't believe that you are OK with a subset of society agreeing to kill some of it's members, but you can't figure out how to reconcile that with the belief that we must kill certain people. The answer is simple, we should not be killing anyone.
The nazi party was a subset of German society that agreed it was ok to kill some people. They set up the rules for it, followed their rules and according to their rules, they were doing it the right way and to the right people. Of course we condemn this, but we cannot condemn it for any reason other than killing people is wrong. We do it all the same way, we just have much stricter rules and a lower body count.
Not getting anywhere close to the nazi party is one reason I reject capital punishment.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2018, 01:31:40 PM
So in other words, you do not have an explanation for your inconsistency other than "that is how I want it"? Rational meaning is what drove me away from that position. If you believe in life, then you must always believe in life. If you don't, then that is your choice, but it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.Again, it was clear from the beginning this was not meant to be an actual discussion or exchange of ideas but a means to attack folks of belief systems other than your own. I get it, I know lots of folks who have that need in their lives and I simply no longer engage with them on issues of meaning because it is impossible to have an actual meaningful discussion due to their need to judge and look down and such.
In the language of the founders, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness did not mean what the words mean today and were tempered both by the church and by the notion of equal station. You are not free to interfere with my Liberty in the exercise of yours. You are allowed to pursue your happiness, which means to secure the fruits of your labor.
I see no inconsistency in my belief because of the concept of consequence and the need for rules/laws in order for a society to function - you have ignored all of that because you are apparently incapable of considering alternatives to your position which is fine or it highlights the utter irrationality of your position. You always twist statements to extremes in your little diatribes, funny to see you react when it comes back your way.
This ends my last attempt at any rational discussion with you on anything, you are not, have not been and show no signs of engaging in a respectful or good faith manner, from being simply a contrarian to outright hostile, I call it trolling.
Enjoy the ivory tower and your superiority, hope it doesn't get too lonely up there.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2018, 01:56:53 PM
So other than making mistakes and killing the wrong person, you're all for society killing people?Three rhetorical questions, upon which you’ve already drawn your opinion. And you’ve read things into my statements that don’t exist, and then prepared a premise that you asked me to refute. Fuck off.
Assuming they could do it perfectly, what if it's just a subset of society, say just a state or maybe just in a particular city? I'm hearing that you say it Ok for a subgroup of society to kill others as long as they could be 100% assured they're killing the right people, is that right?
Three questions here, no statements.
Post by: invflatspin on March 22, 2018, 02:11:05 PM
What I take from you not answering my pointed questions is that you don't want to acknowledge the implicit answers in the questions.
No, what you should take is that I've stopped replying to you on general principle. Frankly, I don't give a wet, dribbly shit if you ask me or anyone else 'pointed questions'. I'm not on this earth to sate your boundless lack of knowledge. So, aside from clearing up your misunderstanding that I owe you an explanation or any kind of defense - go ahead and ask. It's a semi-free country.
Post by: LevelWing on March 22, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
What I take from you not answering my pointed questions is that you don't want to acknowledge the implicit answers in the questions. I don't believe that you are OK with a subset of society agreeing to kill some of it's members, but you can't figure out how to reconcile that with the belief that we must kill certain people. The answer is simple, we should not be killing anyone.You are over simplifying everything. First, in the modern context of "pro-life", it generally refers to the abortion debate, unless otherwise stipulated up front. I understand what the meaning of "pro-life" is (both the modern context and yours), but context is important.
The nazi party was a subset of German society that agreed it was ok to kill some people. They set up the rules for it, followed their rules and according to their rules, they were doing it the right way and to the right people. Of course we condemn this, but we cannot condemn it for any reason other than killing people is wrong. We do it all the same way, we just have much stricter rules and a lower body count.
Not getting anywhere close to the nazi party is one reason I reject capital punishment.
Acrogimp is spot on with his assessments of pro-life and capital punishment. Children are innocent; they have done absolutely nothing wrong and every unborn child is important, because every life is important. Every life holds value, which is why the death penalty is neither easy to receive nor be carried out. You cite the Declaration of Independence in your posts, which is interesting because the follow-on document was the Constitution, and specifically the Fifth Amendment which describes due process. Clearly the framers considered the value of life when they added that part in there.
If you want us to take into consideration your concept of "pro-life" then you must extend the same courtesy to others.
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2018, 04:48:45 PM
What I take from you not answering my pointed questions is that you don't want to acknowledge the implicit answers in the questions. I don't believe that you are OK with a subset of society agreeing to kill some of it's members, but you can't figure out how to reconcile that with the belief that we must kill certain people. The answer is simple, we should not be killing anyone.
The nazi party was a subset of German society that agreed it was ok to kill some people. They set up the rules for it, followed their rules and according to their rules, they were doing it the right way and to the right people. Of course we condemn this, but we cannot condemn it for any reason other than killing people is wrong. We do it all the same way, we just have much stricter rules and a lower body count.
Not getting anywhere close to the nazi party is one reason I reject capital punishment.
Listen, nancy, the fact that you expect an answer and then choose to invent facts to substitute for the actual reason people refuse to play your self-centered, pathetic little game of gotcha, is not to be mistaken for any of us giving a shit what you think of our convictions, or how comfortable you are inventing them for the rest of us.
However, if your ego DEMANDS that people respect your marginal intelligence with replies and explanation to open ended, poorly thought out questions, then there is a place at Harvard for you, where they will let you sit in a circle with the rest of the losers and pretend to feel important, while oyu play with crayons and play-doh.
They'll probably change your diapers too, if you ask nicely enough, or throw a sufficiently ugly tantrum.
Post by: bflynn on March 22, 2018, 06:58:07 PM
Again, it was clear from the beginning this was not meant to be an actual discussion or exchange of ideas but a means to attack folks of belief systems other than your own. I get it, I know lots of folks who have that need in their lives and I simply no longer engage with them on issues of meaning because it is impossible to have an actual meaningful discussion due to their need to judge and look down and such.
I see no inconsistency in my belief because of the concept of consequence and the need for rules/laws in order for a society to function - you have ignored all of that because you are apparently incapable of considering alternatives to your position which is fine or it highlights the utter irrationality of your position. You always twist statements to extremes in your little diatribes, funny to see you react when it comes back your way.
This ends my last attempt at any rational discussion with you on anything, you are not, have not been and show no signs of engaging in a respectful or good faith manner, from being simply a contrarian to outright hostile, I call it trolling.
Enjoy the ivory tower and your superiority, hope it doesn't get too lonely up there.
'Gimp
If you're able, then refute me.
I do not understand how you can claim that an inalienable right exists, but that you can also remove that right. That looks like a contradiction to me, that you are holding two conflicting beliefs. If you could explain it then you'd have a chance at me agreeing with you. I'm where I am because I'm unable to accept the contradiction.
If you look at my previous posts, I just asked a lot of questions. I understood you from the beginning. I had the same beliefs in the past and changed them because of the very contradictions that I asked about.
Obviously it is more than a semi-free country.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2018, 07:03:46 AM
So in other words, you do not have an explanation for your inconsistency other than "that is how I want it"? Rational meaning is what drove me away from that position. If you believe in life, then you must always believe in life. If you don't, then that is your choice, but it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
In the language of the founders, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness did not mean what the words mean today and were tempered both by the church and by the notion of equal station. You are not free to interfere with my Liberty in the exercise of yours. You are allowed to pursue your happiness, which means to secure the fruits of your labor.
You gave your understanding of the meaning of Liberty and Pursuit, but you did not really address AcroGimp's point, here. I'll give this a whirl.
Even the Founders recognized that rights -- including inalienable rights -- were, necessarily, not unlimited in a functioning society. So, to be clear, no one here except you (maybe?) is talking about unlimited rights. And, therefore, your suggestion that we're all inconsistent doesn't fly. To address AcroGimp's point, we need to understand whether you are proposing that rights be umlimited. This would mean that no one could ever be arrested or jailed; that a person's prosperity could never be hindered, whether gotten by fraudulent means or not; etc.
Also, your tendency to act like a shrink/fortuneteller is off-putting.
Post by: bflynn on March 23, 2018, 11:37:55 AM
your tendency to act like a shrink/fortuneteller is off-putting.
I have no idea what that means, but I'm not really here to make friends. Political discussions rarely do that.
I still don't see that he made a point, other than refusing to respond to questions. I still don't know what he means by "inalienable". An inalienable right is something that you always have or else it isn't inalienable. Everyone has the right to live. Your life is yours, it is not owned by society.
Or maybe that is actually what he is saying - that he believes the Republic owns our lives and therefore the law can legitimately remove our lives according to the rules in place. I don't buy that, but it would explain how he believes the government is entitled to take what isn't theirs.
Ultimately we either have protection against the State taking our lives or else we have a set of rules in place by which the State can kill us. That isn't an exaggeration, it's just the two options. German Jews during WW-II were in that situation and by the viewpoint of many at that time, it was legitimate to kill them. Our only difference between us and the Germans is the set of rules we use.
You either believe life is important or you don't.
Post by: Little Joe on March 23, 2018, 11:52:10 AM
German Jews during WW-II were in that situation and by the viewpoint of many at that time, it was legitimate to kill them. Our only difference between us and the Germans is the set of rules we use.But that is a HELL of a difference.
You either believe life is important or you don't.Whether life is important or not is not a yes or no question.
As far as I'm concerned, only my life and the lives of my loved ones are absolutely important.
Others, such as you guys here on PS are also important, but not as important to me as my own life.
There are other people that I know or know about who's life are on the higher end of the "important scale".
And there are also scum on the bottom of that same scale who's life means nothing to me. I wouldn't take their lives without justification, but I can see many types of justifications that would make me agree with the taking of their life.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2018, 12:21:55 PM
I have no idea what that means, but I'm not really here to make friends. Political discussions rarely do that.
It is your tendency to tell people what they think/feel/mean as if you were their shrink or reading their palms. Here is an example -
What I take from you not answering my pointed questions is that you don't want to acknowledge the implicit answers in the questions. I don't believe that you are OK with a subset of society agreeing to kill some of it's members, but you can't figure out how to reconcile that with the belief that we must kill certain people. The answer is simple, we should not be killing anyone.
I still don't see that he made a point, other than refusing to respond to questions. I still don't know what he means by "inalienable". An inalienable right is something that you always have or else it isn't inalienable. Everyone has the right to live. Your life is yours, it is not owned by society.
Or maybe that is actually what he is saying - that he believes the Republic owns our lives and therefore the law can legitimately remove our lives according to the rules in place. I don't buy that, but it would explain how he believes the government is entitled to take what isn't theirs.
Ultimately we either have protection against the State taking our lives or else we have a set of rules in place by which the State can kill us. That isn't an exaggeration, it's just the two options. German Jews during WW-II were in that situation and by the viewpoint of many at that time, it was legitimate to kill them. Our only difference between us and the Germans is the set of rules we use.
You either believe life is important or you don't.
You've missed the point again. I'll try it another way -
What is the difference between these two things, with respect to an inalienable right being taken away
- Man is imprisoned for life after jury conviction and sentencing.
- Man is put to death after jury conviction and sentencing.
Post by: bflynn on March 23, 2018, 04:44:24 PM
It is your tendency to tell people what they think/feel/mean as if you were their shrink or reading their palms. Here is an example -
What I take from you not answering my pointed questions is that you don't want to acknowledge the implicit answers in the questions. I don't believe that you are OK with a subset of society agreeing to kill some of it's members, but you can't figure out how to reconcile that with the belief that we must kill certain people. The answer is simple, we should not be killing anyone.
You've missed the point again. I'll try it another way -
What is the difference between these two things, with respect to an inalienable right being taken away
- Man is imprisoned for life after jury conviction and sentencing.
- Man is put to death after jury conviction and sentencing.
Is that what it is? Hey, I'm just saying how I feel. If it comes across as a command to follow me, then I'm not sure why. WTH would anyone do what I say just because I say it?
You have the right do whatever you want, but you cannot take someone else's rights away. Say whatever you want, but don't silence others.
Post by: invflatspin on March 23, 2018, 05:56:32 PM
Almost sure no one here cares what you feel.
Post by: asechrest on March 24, 2018, 06:38:33 AM
Is that what it is? Hey, I'm just saying how I feel. If it comes across as a command to follow me, then I'm not sure why. WTH would anyone do what I say just because I say it?
You have the right do whatever you want, but you cannot take someone else's rights away. Say whatever you want, but don't silence others.
You did not answer my question.
Post by: Lucifer on March 24, 2018, 06:43:58 AM
You did not answer my question.
He won't. I think you laid everything out very well.
BFlynn is trolling.
Post by: bflynn on March 24, 2018, 04:10:06 PM
What is the difference between these two things, with respect to an inalienable right being taken away
- Man is imprisoned for life after jury conviction and sentencing.
- Man is put to death after jury conviction and sentencing.
Been away and not focused for the past few weeks. Missed the question.
Question #1, you're obviously targeting liberty. Question #2 obviously targets life.
This is a question that philosophers have been struggling with for centuries. Here's my personal take on it. I don't believe Liberty means "the right to walk around" and there is no inalienable right to move about. If you disagree then defend immigration, defend having private spaces and prove that you can move anywhere by walking into the oval office without permission. It simply isn't a right, you can legitimately be shot for walking in the wrong area.
The right to Liberty goes back to the notion that all people own the person of their their body and have the right to exercise their inalienable rights.
But on the original topic, you still have to decide if you value life. If so, then you should be against abortion and state sanctioned murder. If you don't value life, then you should be in favor of both. But to choose one and not the other, then you're just inconsistent.
BFlynn is trolling.
Try again bitch. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be a fracking genius.
Post by: Lucifer on March 24, 2018, 04:39:12 PM
Try again bitch. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be a fracking genius.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif)
Post by: bflynn on March 24, 2018, 05:22:46 PM
BTW, if you didn't catch it, you're recycling gifs. You've posted that one before.
Post by: Lucifer on March 24, 2018, 05:52:13 PM
Glad it was amusing. You have so little to add otherwise, but everyone needs humor.
BTW, if you didn't catch it, you're recycling gifs. You've posted that one before.
No, it's fun watching a troll get triggered.
Speaking of nothing to add, your contradicting hypocritical inane postings are getting tiresome, and notice I'm not the only one to point that out.
But keep playing the pseudointellectual, if nothing else it's entertaining.
Post by: bflynn on March 24, 2018, 06:37:53 PM
get triggered.
Triggered? Nah, you don't trigger me. I've been around doing this since Usenet was young and there was no web. If anything, you're just one more in a long line of guys who think he's the shits.
Not attempting to annoy you, but you really don't add much of anything to discussions. Low value, high volume. *shrug
Post by: Lucifer on March 24, 2018, 06:46:23 PM
Triggered? Nah, you don't trigger me. I've been around doing this since Usenet was young and there was no web. If anything, you're just one more in a long line of guys who think he's the shits.
Not attempting to annoy you, but you really don't add much of anything to discussions. Low value, high volume. *shrug
BTW, this describes you perfectly.
pseudointellectual : a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine” intellectual. It is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to win an argument or impress, rather than modestly trying to find the truth – a focus on surface and rhetoric over content. These often involve a superficial understanding of a subject and condescension to the audience, as well as possible self-delusion (not being consciously dishonest, but rather sincerely thinking oneself to be behaving as a genuine intellectual despite one's incompetence).
Post by: bflynn on March 24, 2018, 07:11:46 PM
BTW, this describes you perfectly.
That's nice. But by now you should understand that you've got no credibility. I don't care.
Post by: asechrest on March 24, 2018, 08:38:01 PM
Been away and not focused for the past few weeks. Missed the question.
Question #1, you're obviously targeting liberty. Question #2 obviously targets life.
This is a question that philosophers have been struggling with for centuries. Here's my personal take on it. I don't believe Liberty means "the right to walk around" and there is no inalienable right to move about. If you disagree then defend immigration, defend having private spaces and prove that you can move anywhere by walking into the oval office without permission. It simply isn't a right, you can legitimately be shot for walking in the wrong area.
The right to Liberty goes back to the notion that all people own the person of their their body and have the right to exercise their inalienable rights.
That's an interesting take on Liberty, but I think you've created circular logic. Liberty is an inalienable right that allows people to exercise their inalienable rights? That doesn't seem right, and you'll need to provide a lot more evidence to convince me that a forcefully imprisoned man has Liberty. The fact that you can't walk everywhere without repercussion is not a compelling argument.
Here is an interesting quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. — Thomas Jefferson
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-02-02-0303
This touches on both aspects of our discussion, giving a bit of Jefferson's idea of Liberty, as well as noting that this inalienable right is not unlimited.
Post by: bflynn on March 25, 2018, 05:53:45 AM
That's an interesting take on Liberty, but I think you've created circular logic. Liberty is an inalienable right that allows people to exercise their inalienable rights? That doesn't seem right, and you'll need to provide a lot more evidence to convince me that a forcefully imprisoned man has Liberty. The fact that you can't walk everywhere without repercussion is not a compelling argument.
Here is an interesting quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. — Thomas Jefferson
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-02-02-0303
This touches on both aspects of our discussion, giving a bit of Jefferson's idea of Liberty, as well as noting that this inalienable right is not unlimited.
Unobstructed action doesn't fit either. I'm not a fan of putting people in prison, but is there another alternative when people refuse to respect the rights of others? But then that begs the question that someone else didn't answer earlier, which is "how do you define inalienable". If you define Liberty as the right to move about and you can in fact restrain someone's right to move, then perhaps Liberty is not inalienable, but that gets into a worse situation. Hence, I an trying to understand liberty better.
Regardless of the stickiness of Liberty, the State does not own your life and therefore cannot justly take it under any circumstance
Post by: nddons on March 25, 2018, 06:11:53 AM
That's an interesting take on Liberty, but I think you've created circular logic. Liberty is an inalienable right that allows people to exercise their inalienable rights? That doesn't seem right, and you'll need to provide a lot more evidence to convince me that a forcefully imprisoned man has Liberty. The fact that you can't walk everywhere without repercussion is not a compelling argument.Asechrest, I’m a student of early American history and the founding fathers. I’ve read the Federalist papers, and anti-Federalist documents. Yet I’ve never read that definition from Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for posting it. It’s a perfect description of Liberty. Thank you.
Here is an interesting quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. — Thomas Jefferson
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-02-02-0303
This touches on both aspects of our discussion, giving a bit of Jefferson's idea of Liberty, as well as noting that this inalienable right is not unlimited.
Post by: asechrest on March 25, 2018, 07:30:20 AM
Unobstructed action doesn't fit either. I'm not a fan of putting people in prison, but is there another alternative when people refuse to respect the rights of others? But then that begs the question that someone else didn't answer earlier, which is "how do you define inalienable". If you define Liberty as the right to move about and you can in fact restrain someone's right to move, then perhaps Liberty is not inalienable, but that gets into a worse situation. Hence, I an trying to understand liberty better.
Regardless of the stickiness of Liberty, the State does not own your life and therefore cannot justly take it under any circumstance
Yes, there is another alternative. Don't put them in prison; helo drop them in a RIB in the middle of the Pacific; expel them from the US, etc.
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not in favor of the death penalty at this point. But I am playing devil's advocate against your underlying premise by comparing it to other recognized inalienable rights.
Old law dictionary definitions of inalienable and unalienable outline those natural elements that cannot be bought, sold, or transferred. Liberty fits that awfully well. And yet we generally accept abridgement thereof in some circumstances, which is why I think the foundation of your argument in this thread is struggling a bit.
Post by: asechrest on March 25, 2018, 07:31:09 AM
Asechrest, I’m a student of early American history and the founding fathers. I’ve read the Federalist papers, and anti-Federalist documents. Yet I’ve never read that definition from Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for posting it. It’s a perfect description of Liberty. Thank you.
Welcome. It was a neat find.
Post by: LevelWing on March 25, 2018, 08:03:58 AM
Unobstructed action doesn't fit either. I'm not a fan of putting people in prison, but is there another alternative when people refuse to respect the rights of others? But then that begs the question that someone else didn't answer earlier, which is "how do you define inalienable". If you define Liberty as the right to move about and you can in fact restrain someone's right to move, then perhaps Liberty is not inalienable, but that gets into a worse situation. Hence, I an trying to understand liberty better.This is utopian drivel. Murdered victims had the right to live yet their right was taken away. But using your premises here, the State doesn't have the right to imprison them or execute them, which is just silly. One could even argue that by placing someone in prison for life, they are effectively taking their life away, in a sense, and thus that can't be allowed either. Where does it end?
Regardless of the stickiness of Liberty, the State does not own your life and therefore cannot justly take it under any circumstance
Also, you never addressed my previous post.
Post by: bflynn on March 25, 2018, 09:28:11 AM
This is utopian drivel. Murdered victims had the right to live yet their right was taken away. But using your premises here, the State doesn't have the right to imprison them or execute them, which is just silly. One could even argue that by placing someone in prison for life, they are effectively taking their life away, in a sense, and thus that can't be allowed either. Where does it end?
Also, you never addressed my previous post.
It appears that my attempt to reason out a conflict offends you. Perhaps it would help to understand that I'm debating what is real and how that interacts with what we actually do. The questions right now are how to reconcile 1) Life as an inalienable right when you support the death penalty and 2) imprisonment and other restraints such as immigration control when you claim Liberty as an inalienable right.
Maybe the issue is the definition of inalienable.
I cannot find your previous post. Perhaps in another thread?
Post by: nddons on March 25, 2018, 10:23:00 AM
It appears that my attempt to reason out a conflict offends you. Perhaps it would help to understand that I'm debating what is real and how that interacts with what we actually do. The questions right now are how to reconcile 1) Life as an inalienable right when you support the death penalty and 2) imprisonment and other restraints such as immigration control when you claim Liberty as an inalienable right.“Attempt to reason out a conflict”? You’ve got to be fucking with us. The title of your thread is “Inconsistent pro-lifers”. You had the fucking conclusion stated in the title, and the rest of your posts reinforced that conclusion and were designed to try to “trap” the rest of us. The fools like me who started to engage soon realized your little game had no goal in reasoning out anything.
Maybe the issue is the definition of inalienable.
I cannot find your previous post. Perhaps in another thread?
Troll.
Post by: bflynn on March 25, 2018, 12:24:25 PM
“Attempt to reason out a conflict”? You’ve got to be fucking with us. The title of your thread is “Inconsistent pro-lifers”. You had the fucking conclusion stated in the title, and the rest of your posts reinforced that conclusion and were designed to try to “trap” the rest of us. The fools like me who started to engage soon realized your little game had no goal in reasoning out anything.
If you don't want to read this, then don't. Go and do something else.
Quite a few months back, I posed an idea that one side doesn't dominate boards like this through superior thoughts, they do it through being such jerks that it becomes worthless to have a discussion with a dissenting opinion. I feel that is being more and more borne out.
I also feel that you only pull out inalienable rights when they support the argument of the day. You don't really believe in them, you fool yourself through the inconsistencies.
Whatever...I will figure this out without you.
Post by: nddons on March 25, 2018, 12:43:17 PM
If you don't want to read this, then don't. Go and do something else.Don’t start out a “conversation” charging inconsistency and hypocrisy in your opponents and you’ll go farther in this game.
Quite a few months back, I posed an idea that one side doesn't dominate boards like this through superior thoughts, they do it through being such jerks that it becomes worthless to have a discussion with a dissenting opinion. I feel that is being more and more borne out.
I also feel that you only pull out inalienable rights when they support the argument of the day. You don't really believe in them, you fool yourself through the inconsistencies.
Whatever...I will figure this out without you.
Not to worry. Your liberal cohorts don’t have this figured out either. Nothing brings two opposing parties together in the gun control debate better than calling your opponent baby killers and murderers.
Post by: bflynn on March 25, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
Your liberal cohorts...
The jokes on you. I'm not really liberal, I'm trolling the board. It was getting boring since you guys ran everyone else off.
Moderate is certainly right. I have some left positions and I have some right positions. Libertarian would also be pretty close.
Post by: LevelWing on March 25, 2018, 01:47:55 PM
The jokes on you. I'm not really liberal, I'm trolling the board. It was getting boring since you guys ran everyone else off.While there may be a little truth to that (not referring to Stan, however), you could've made your point differently.