ironmonk Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) [quote name='iKonstantin' post='1133116' date='Dec 1 2006, 05:38 PM']We decline abortion and allow capital punishment. Pharisees at their finest. bpat konstantin[/quote] Wrong. Capital punishment is completely acceptable when it is needed to protect society. In today's times, most capital punishment is really not needed, we can lock them up and throw away the key... but people like Osama, Hussain, Hitler, etc... would need to be killed because more lives would be at stake if they were allowed to live. Edited October 22, 2007 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Please post a link to the so called "racists" website. Calling him a racist without showing us the evidence that he actually is, could make some of us think there might be a misunderstanding somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 [quote name='catholicinsd' post='1406910' date='Oct 21 2007, 11:33 PM']Are you saying racism is OK?[/quote] That is a seriously STUPID question. [img]http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/cluelessness.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) voting for a prochoice person isn't necessarily a sin, except to narrow minded people like ironmonk. t depends on the situation. even for those who are adamently prolife do not have ot necessarily vote prolife. it depends on the situation. people like ironmonk just need to wise up. right now, it's not unreasonable to think nothing will happen if you vote repub generally as per abortion. regan, the repub god, ws one of biggest proabort presidentas far as justices go in terms of number appointed. and most other repub appointees just follow prior decisions. so, even if you got a repub over and over, nothing would change necessarily. plus, a prolife person called me once. i expresed my desire to rid abortio from the country much like him and we were happily bashing prochioce. but, when i asked him who's suppose to be educating what the agenda was for the prolife camp, he didn't even know. the strategic legal agenda etc. if i could find this out i might change my position. they're not likely to say health of the mother only means physical health, cause the case decided with Roe is that health includes anything. i've heard they want to take bits and peiceds approach, but what does that include? just parentla consent and such? will they continue saying it's a state issue and ignoring the natioal prob? seems like less and less of a substantial basis to base a vote on. the population is generally prolife. but they simply do not have enough people in hte masses to get the constitution changed, which is the only way to effect real change. Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1407985' date='Oct 23 2007, 06:11 PM']voting for a prochoice person isn't necessarily a sin, except to narrow minded people like ironmonk. t depends on the situation. even for those who are adamently prolife do not have ot necessarily vote prolife. it depends on the situation. people like ironmonk just need to wise up. right now, it's not unreasonable to think nothing will happen if you vote repub generally as per abortion. regan, the repub god, ws one of biggest proabort presidentas far as justices go in terms of number appointed. and most other repub appointees just follow prior decisions. so, even if you got a repub over and over, nothing would change necessarily. plus, a prolife person called me once. i expresed my desire to rid abortio from the country much like him and we were happily bashing prochioce. but, when i asked him who's suppose to be educating what the agenda was for the prolife camp, he didn't even know. the strategic legal agenda etc. if i could find this out i might change my position. they're not likely to say health of the mother only means physical health, cause the case decided with Roe is that health includes anything. i've heard they want to take bits and peiceds approach, but what does that include? just parentla consent and such? will they continue saying it's a state issue and ignoring the natioal prob? seems like less and less of a substantial basis to base a vote on. the population is generally prolife. but they simply do not have enough people in hte masses to get the constitution changed, which is the only way to effect real change.[/quote] Voting for baby killers over someone who is pro life is a sin. Christian teachings... 1st priority... Life. 2nd priority... Family. 3rd priority... Social Justice. - racism is a social justice issue... but one must first define what one means by racism. 4th priority... Global Solidarity. There is the ignorant enslavement racism point of view... there is also the darwinist superior via evolution racism... then there is mistaken racism. One should first establish if the guy is actually a racist. Narrow minded? BAH HAHAHAHA God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'd just as soon not vote. I have major difficulty understanding in what sense some racist P.O.S. (I most certainly can it's part of the fun of being a Catholic) can be pro-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I vote that we turn this country into a monarchy so we don't have to vote anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1407985' date='Oct 23 2007, 05:11 PM']narrow minded people like ironmonk.[/quote] Ironmonk is not narrow minded. I mean, have you seen the hats he wears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathoholic_anonymous Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 This is not a reasonable question, as it's not possible to be a racist and truly pro-life. The whole pro-life movement is based on the knowledge that [i]all[/i] human life is sacred. Some pro-choice people argue that while abortion itself isn't desirable, it can be a necessity for people who are going to be born disabled or people who will be born into gross poverty. These 'but' clauses are based in the assumption that the value of your life is determined by who you are or what your circumstances will be like. Therefore the life of a seriously disabled foetus is not worth preserving, whereas the life of a healthy foetus is. The life of the foetus who belongs to Mr and Mrs Well-to-Do is worth presevering, but the life of the foetus who is going to be born to poor parents in a two-room slum is not. Racism operates on a very similar value judgement: the idea that one person is worth less than another just because of the colour of his skin or his ethnic group. Anybody who makes racist statements while claiming to be pro-life is living out a very peculiar oxymoron. If you truly recognise the worth of the unborn person, it would be very difficult for you not to see the worth of people from other nationalities and races. Similarly, if you can't recognise the worth of the people you can see and talk to, it is doubtful whether you can fully recognise the worth of those you can't see and can't talk to - yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1410647' date='Oct 28 2007, 01:36 PM']This is not a reasonable question, as it's not possible to be a racist and truly pro-life. The whole pro-life movement is based on the knowledge that [i]all[/i] human life is sacred. Some pro-choice people argue that while abortion itself isn't desirable, it can be a necessity for people who are going to be born disabled or people who will be born into gross poverty. These 'but' clauses are based in the assumption that the value of your life is determined by who you are or what your circumstances will be like. Therefore the life of a seriously disabled foetus is not worth preserving, whereas the life of a healthy foetus is. The life of the foetus who belongs to Mr and Mrs Well-to-Do is worth presevering, but the life of the foetus who is going to be born to poor parents in a two-room slum is not. Racism operates on a very similar value judgement: the idea that one person is worth less than another just because of the colour of his skin or his ethnic group. Anybody who makes racist statements while claiming to be pro-life is living out a very peculiar oxymoron. If you truly recognise the worth of the unborn person, it would be very difficult for you not to see the worth of people from other nationalities and races. Similarly, if you can't recognise the worth of the people you can see and talk to, it is doubtful whether you can fully recognise the worth of those you can't see and can't talk to - yet.[/quote] Bro... this statement is in error. There are many types of racism. The most common in America is the the ignorant race haters which simply want to "be with their own kind" but do not want people dead and there are ignorant race haters who want others dead... then there are the racists that simply think their nationality is better than others... this is a very common one worldwide, for example with Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans... then of course you have a lot of it in Europe too. Then you have the Darwinist racists who tend to be white and believe that they are a higher evolution than people from other nationalities that have darker skin... of course this is easily argued against using Darwinist thinking about humans adapting to their environment. Pro-life and racist is very possible... BUT like I posted eariler is this person really a racist or was there a misunderstanding... Where is the proof?! Edited October 29, 2007 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 [quote name='ironmonk' post='1410849' date='Oct 28 2007, 08:24 PM']Bro... this statement is in error. There are many types of racism. The most common in America is the the ignorant race haters which simply want to "be with their own kind" but do not want people dead and there are ignorant race haters who want others dead... then there are the racists that simply think their nationality is better than others... this is a very common one worldwide, for example with Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans... then of course you have a lot of it in Europe too. Then you have the Darwinist racists who tend to be white and believe that they are a higher evolution than people from other nationalities that have darker skin... of course this is easily argued against using Darwinist thinking about humans adapting to their environment. Pro-life and racist is very possible... BUT like I posted eariler is this person really a racist or was there a misunderstanding... Where is the proof?![/quote] While I do not disagree with your idea, I have to take issue with the example you have chosen to present. It is irresponsible for you to point out three specific Asian countries as examples of a universal bad behavior. Throwing in Europe as an afterthought helps, but not very much. When I was in a college psychology class, my professor chose to use "Catholics" as her pivot point when discussing discrimination based on religious beliefs. She stood at the front of a huge lecture hall and said, "You can have Catholics against Lutherans, Catholics against Jews, Catholics against Baptist, Catholics against Pentecostals, etc." It's not about being politically correct, it's about being respectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 [quote name='tgoldson' post='1413152' date='Nov 2 2007, 07:24 AM']While I do not disagree with your idea, I have to take issue with the example you have chosen to present. It is irresponsible for you to point out three specific Asian countries as examples of a universal bad behavior. Throwing in Europe as an afterthought helps, but not very much. When I was in a college psychology class, my professor chose to use "Catholics" as her pivot point when discussing discrimination based on religious beliefs. She stood at the front of a huge lecture hall and said, "You can have Catholics against Lutherans, Catholics against Jews, Catholics against Baptist, Catholics against Pentecostals, etc." It's not about being politically correct, it's about being respectful.[/quote] The fact is that there is a kind of very extreme chauvinism that is deeply rooted in East Asian cultures, expecially the Chinese. (I read about this, but forget the word for it). For instance, traditionally, the Chinese ruling class could not even be in the presence of the greatly inferior "barbarians" (anyone not Chinese). I don't think the idea is to show prejudice against Asians, as to give well-known examples, and show how the East Asian version of "racism" is somewhat different from those in the West., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) [quote name='tgoldson' post='1413152' date='Nov 2 2007, 09:24 AM']While I do not disagree with your idea, I have to take issue with the example you have chosen to present. It is irresponsible for you to point out three specific Asian countries as examples of a universal bad behavior. Throwing in Europe as an afterthought helps, but not very much. When I was in a college psychology class, my professor chose to use "Catholics" as her pivot point when discussing discrimination based on religious beliefs. She stood at the front of a huge lecture hall and said, "You can have Catholics against Lutherans, Catholics against Jews, Catholics against Baptist, Catholics against Pentecostals, etc." It's not about being politically correct, it's about being respectful.[/quote] There are many Asians that do not see it as a problem or bad. Who are you to say that what they do is wrong... you're the one calling it wrong... I am merely stating a fact. A child of mixed Korean and Japanese blood will be an outcast in both countries... I know Asians that left Korea because of this. I did not write anything disrepectful, and while you're on that kick how is it respectful to say someone is disrepectful. "irresponsible", not quite... you have absolutley no clue about things you try to attack on. As for your psychology professor, I would have loved to be in that class because I would have educated him. There is an old saying, and I have found it to be true for at least half of the professors I've met... there are some good ones, so the one's here please do not take offence.... "People who know, work. People who don't know, teach". Granted some people want to teach from a young age, but many who go from school to teaching miss out on a lot of experience on how things really are. If you knew your faith better you could school your professor on how wrong he was in his statements about Catholics... not to mention he would need to define what he meant by Catholic before you schooled him. I would say start a email dialog with him now if you didn't then, or give me his contact info and I will ) God Bless, ironmonk Edited November 4, 2007 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 [quote name='ironmonk' post='1413867' date='Nov 3 2007, 07:52 PM']If you knew your faith better you could school your professor on how wrong he was in his statements about Catholics... not to mention he would need to define what he meant by Catholic before you schooled him. I would say start a email dialog with him now if you didn't then, or give me his contact info and I will ) God Bless, ironmonk[/quote] Thanks for the offer, but I took care of it right away. She swallowed a big piece of humble pie and apologized to the entire class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 [quote name='Socrates' post='1413864' date='Nov 3 2007, 07:40 PM']The fact is that there is a kind of very extreme chauvinism that is deeply rooted in East Asian cultures, expecially the Chinese. (I read about this, but forget the word for it). For instance, traditionally, the Chinese ruling class could not even be in the presence of the greatly inferior "barbarians" (anyone not Chinese). I don't think the idea is to show prejudice against Asians, as to give well-known examples, and show how the East Asian version of "racism" is somewhat different from those in the West.,[/quote] When the term "ethnic cleansing" is mentioned, what continent enters your mind? Does Asia predominate? Is ethnic cleansing better or worse than economic privation or some other injustice? Different regions may have their own version of racism, but that wasn't the topic of the post. 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