Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I prefer to be the lone voice crying out against anyone supporting either one of them, and hoping enough people will grow the cajones to stand with me one day and refuse to accept the 90,000 guy over the 100,000 guy. And btw, that wasn't just an abortion analogy. Presidential policies don't cause more or less abortions to happen. If someone pointed to a practical law that might end up getting put in place to help to move us towards illegalizing abortion, that'd be a good or decent argument for supporting them on the Life issue; but there's not really anything that amounts to "slowing down the slaughter" when it comes to abortion on a political level. the only "slowing down" of the slaughter that one can do happens in crisis pregnancy centers and sidewalk counseling. I was referring to all of the areas in which the government is directly involved in the killing of men, women, and children around the planet; some of them American citizens, many of them non combatant civilians because we send in drones. The idea that supporting the 90,000 guy over the 100,000 guy amounts to "saving 10,000 lives" is just unbelievable to me. But even if you believe it, can you really stand there and tell me it's a morally obligatory course of action? That it's ever morally obligatory to cause one group of 90,000 people to die rather than a different group of 100,000? I can maybe understand making that pragmatic decision, but to act like it's the required moral course of action, when we have early Church martyrs who were martyred for deserting their Roman Military posts, that's just so far removed from the logic of Christianity that it's unrecognizable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 Yes, I've heard your argument many many times now. I disagree with it. I save 10,000 lives. You allow 10,000 people to die. I suppose I am not logically Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 That's a lot of saves. I'm impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351716044' post='2501395'] I prefer to be the lone voice crying out against anyone supporting either one of them, and hoping enough people will grow the cajones to stand with me one day and refuse to accept the 90,000 guy over the 100,000 guy. [/quote]We all have our preferences... That's not the question with 2 options that are being presented. I don't disagree with you at all on your long term goals, the problem you see, the solutions you propose, but that isn't the immediate question. It's a different problem. You don't fix a flat tire by changing the oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 voting for romney is counter-productive to those long term goals. and considering the kinds of wars the two idiots running now are trying to pull us into, the theoretical question I asked is not exactly all that far from reality. dUSt, you didn't save 10,000 lives. You killed 90,000 people who would not have otherwise been killed, and kept a different 100,000 people from being killed. That's not saving 10,000 lives, not at all. The type of reasoning that has made you think that it is, that's poisonous and yes, quite frankly, it is a very non-Christian line of reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351719436' post='2501415'] dUSt, you didn't save 10,000 lives. You killed 90,000 people who would not have otherwise been killed [/quote] So, now you are saying that if I would not have voted for either one then neither of them would have been elected? I misunderstood your analogy then. I was under the impression that it was going to be one or the other. Your trickery is uncanny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351719436' post='2501415'] voting for romney is counter-productive to those long term [/quote]In your convoluted and hypothetical scenario. Giving a pro abortion party additional power for four more years is productive? [quote] dUSt, you didn't save 10,000 lives. You killed 90,000 people who would not have otherwise been killed, and kept a different 100,000 people from being killed. That's not saving 10,000 lives, not at all. The type of reasoning that has made you think that it is, that's poisonous and yes, quite frankly, it is a very non-Christian line of reasoning. [/quote]Catholic idea of Double Effect. Attempting ti save thousands of doesn't save them alll so it's immoral? It's the same as your idea to abdicate a victory to pro abortionist political powers and writing off a chance for 1 or 10,00 for a possible better political outcome? If you could vote before 18, I could guess what in womb persons would vote for right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 Aloysius, there is no way to fidget the scenario in order to make your stance make logical sense. At least 90,000 die. I vote to save 10,000 lives, and then hope for a better choice in the future. You non-vote to save nobody, and hope it creates a better choice in the future. Either way, at least 90,000 people die. You are the one willing to sacrifice the extra 10,000 lives. I am not. People are not numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It's just such backwards reasoning that you're attempting to save thousands by supporting killing a different group of thousands? What if it was a guy who planned to kill 100,000 vs. a guy who planned to kill 99,999. Would voting for the 99,999 guy consist of "saving a life"? Why or why not? When does the number become significant enough to justify voting to "save lives"? Now I have already stipulated that a lesser of two evils to mitigate the evil argument is certainly permissible logic, even if I have been very indignant at how callously you've applied it to this example, but the main point I was hoping to illustrate when introducing this analogy was that EVEN IF you follow that logic and vote for the guy who will kill slightly less people (assuming you can discern who will kill more and who will kill less, the choice between Barack and Mitt is much less clear than the example, but I actually think Mitt is likely to kill MORE with his aggressive war-mongering, all the while the abortion rate remaining the same),but yeah, IF you follow that logic, you still cannot declare it morally obligatory to follow that logic. I have no moral obligation to support someone who will kill 99,999 people over someone who will kill 100,000 people as if that amounts to saving a life; and nor do I have such an obligation in any configuration of those numbers, I simply have a moral duty to oppose the killing on both sides whether I choose to accept your particular pragmatic strategy in voting or not. Anyway, no one has shown any way in which Mitt "I don't plan on any abortion related legislation for my agenda" Romney is in any way going to "slow down" the rate of abortions in this country. It's just not going to happen, the rate was steadily decreasing until it plateaued in 2005 and has been roughly even ever since and will continue to be even for the next four years no matter who gets elected. No one is saved by your vote for Mitt Romney. There is currently no discernible effect to a Mitt Romney victory over a Barack Obama victory on life issues. [quote]At least 90,000 die. I vote to save 10,000 lives, and then hope for a better choice in the future. You non-vote to save nobody, and hope it creates a better choice in the future. Either way, at least 90,000 people die. You are the one willing to sacrifice the extra 10,000 lives. I am not. People are not numbers.[/quote] You still have not answered the question: what if the 90,000 included your family, but the 100,000 included only complete strangers. You are going to vote for the guy that's going to kill your family on the basis of your twisted logic that it "saves" 10,000 lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351722875' post='2501440'] You still have not answered the question: what if the 90,000 included your family, but the 100,000 included only complete strangers. You are going to vote for the guy that's going to kill your family on the basis of your twisted logic that it "saves" 10,000 lives? [/quote] Already answered this. Yes. My family's lives are no more important than any other human's life. Of course I would save 10,000 lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 So, given the opportunity to vote for Stalin, or Hitler, you would look up the total number of people killed and then vote for Hitler on a clear conscience? Yeah, this guy killed a few less people, so obviously he is the only choice. I mean, not voting is just silly, or voting for the guy who hasnt killed anyone is just unrealistic, he cant win anyways.. A silly comparison to make to obama and romney and i apologize for the Godwin'ing, but just the logical extension of the side of the argument you are on currently[size=4][font="sans-serif"][color="#000000"][b] [/b]vis a vis the 90,000 dead vs 100,000 dead "debate":[/color][/font][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 Hey, blame the guy who made up the analogy, not me. My choice was between 90,000 people dead or 100,000 people dead. I choose 90,000. You guys choose 90,000 or 100,000. There is no third option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351725146' post='2501467'] Hey, blame the guy who made up the analogy, not me. My choice was between 90,000 people dead or 100,000 people dead. I choose 90,000. You guys choose 90,000 or 100,000. There is no third option. [/quote] There is ALWAYS a third option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351726279' post='2501482'] There is ALWAYS a third option. [/quote] Enlighten me. What was the third option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351726721' post='2501495'] Enlighten me. What was the third option? [/quote] Refuse to vote. Stage a coop. Be willing to put our lives on the line to stand against intrinsic evil. Be radical examples of the truth. We talk such a big game about the martyrs, about Catholic blood running in the streets. But do we have enough guts to stand up into the line of fire? Settling for a false dichtomy between two evils makes us no better than the Lukewarm Christians of the Church of Laodicea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now