inunionwithrome Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 When I first read the title, I thought you were going to say for speaking up against aborition. How is it that Catholics, and now the other Christian denominations get discriminated against under the 1st Amendment which includes RELIGIOUS FREE SPEECH and the other's do not? I guess we will all have to be jailed for voicing our beliefs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1921761' date='Jul 16 2009, 02:35 PM']No, it just means that the elderly and disabled will die because they won't be able to afford to care for themselves or get the help they need. There is more than one kind of murder. [/quote] method You mean there is more than one 'method' of murder. Back to you Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1921851' date='Jul 16 2009, 04:28 PM']Everybody dies. And the definition of muder is "the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)". I'm pretty sure that governments aren't deliberately killing their own citizens. If they were then who would be left to pay for the nukes?[/quote] How many disabled infants were legally 'murdered' when the third Reich took power in Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1921851' date='Jul 16 2009, 04:28 PM']Everybody dies. And the definition of muder is "the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)". I'm pretty sure that governments aren't deliberately killing their own citizens. If they were then who would be left to pay for the nukes?[/quote] There is such a thing as death by neglect. Also the government will be intentionally selecting groups of people not worthy of heathcare. Such as the elderly, and many will likely die earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varg Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Didacus' post='1922708' date='Jul 17 2009, 10:58 AM']How many disabled infants were legally 'murdered' when the third Reich took power in Germany?[/quote]That's the worst counter-arguement I've ever heard Edited July 17, 2009 by Varg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Varg' post='1922711' date='Jul 17 2009, 11:04 AM']That's the worst counter-arguement I've ever heard[/quote] How? You used the keyword [i]unlawful[/i] in your definition. If it's done by the government and thus declared legal, well, that precludes it from being murder in your definition. So all of the millions killed in the holocaust were not murdered, in your view. Pray tell, were they mercy killings, or what? Edited July 17, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1922711' date='Jul 17 2009, 12:04 PM']That's the worst counter-arguement I've ever heard[/quote] Are you at least familiar with the history to which I am refering? The definition of 'murder' you have given is based in law. But I subscribe to the moral definition of murder. Even though abortion is legal, and thus accroding to the law is not 'murder', by my moral compass even if it is legal it remains 'murder'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varg Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ok, I kinda see where you're coming from now. I just thought your statement was slightly irrelevent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1922823' date='Jul 17 2009, 03:15 PM']Ok, I kinda see where you're coming from now. I just thought your statement was slightly irrelevent[/quote] No formal response? No apologies? Slightly irrelevent? Is that like partially stopped? [size=2][i] And USAirwaysIHS, thank you for your continued support. Pick up your free T-shirt in the back![/i][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Didacus' post='1922848' date='Jul 17 2009, 02:35 PM'][size=2][i] And USAirwaysIHS, thank you for your continued support. Pick up your free T-shirt in the back![/i][/size][/quote] (I think I may actually be on ignore, but it's ok. As our dear friend Sir Winston Churchill once said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deus te Amat Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Didacus' post='1922706' date='Jul 17 2009, 11:56 AM']method You mean there is more than one 'method' of murder. [/quote] Thank you for the correction. You are quite right. [quote name='Varg' post='1921851' date='Jul 16 2009, 05:28 PM']Everybody dies. And the definition of muder is "the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)". I'm pretty sure that governments aren't deliberately killing their own citizens. If they were then who would be left to pay for the nukes?[/quote] Ah, but you are withholding evidence, my friend. You merely give one definition of murder. [quote]Murder 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. [b]To kill brutally or inhumanly.[/b] 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.[/quote] I think what Obama proposes murders the elderly and disabled. Why? Because they are unable to get "universal" healthcare coverage. And he basically says that it stinks to be them. Essentially, they are then unable to get the medical help they so desperately need. And then they die. THAT is inhumane killing. That is murder. By the second definition of murder you [in]conveniently omitted from you post. Edited July 17, 2009 by Deus_te_Amat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faithfulrock3r Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Varg' post='1921735' date='Jul 16 2009, 03:49 PM']Nope, just edited to make it better. Oh and while they're editing it they should probably take out the million and one contradictions in there too [/quote] lol props on continuing the proad athiest tradition of silly and unsubstantial sweeping statements that once again prove to me and all the others here how shallow the athiestic worldview and morality can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I have no problem prosecuting someone for using sexual slurs and words such as "flower", "queen", "poofter" in an intentionally hateful way. Groups such as www.godhatesfags.com really need to be arrested. I do have a problem with prosecuting someone because they have a civilized, rational and thought-out opposition to homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie-Therese Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I am totally flummoxed by this proposition. I mean, I understand the liberal desire to outlaw all perspectives but their own (aka 'tolerance'). However, call me one of those crazy sticklers for that nutty stuff called law...but how is it possible to offer legal protection for an "orientation" which in and of itself constitutes a violation of law (pedophilia)?? Now, I understand that in the strictest sense of the term, to be oriented as a person attracted to children in and of itself is not a violation of law. However, in order to merit protection as a minority under federal law, should there not be some outward manifestation of that lifestyle to protect? Pedophiles cannot have relationships with children, they cannot view pictures of sexually related material in terms of children...the practice of the pedophilic "orientation" is by essence a violation of law. God, save us!! How can we live in a world where the free exercise of legitimate religious opinion is hate speech, but those who wish to rape children are now federally protected? The can of worms this could open boggles the mind. Will convicted sex offenders now be able to sue to avoid registration of their names because it is a violation of their protected minority status? And on, and on, ad nauseum. Now my brain hurts. 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