This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 331332333 334335 ... 502
9961
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:04:01 AM »
Life begins at conception. To kill a pregnant woman who has thus far decided to keep the baby is, as far as it matters, ending two lives.
Wait..........are you serious right now?
>_> <_<
Of course. There's no other decent definition for when life should begin.
9962
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:17:20 PM »
The country has denied involvement but praised the attacks. Made me laugh.
9963
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:10:49 PM »
I consider him the better Caesar.
9964
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:04:06 PM »
I don't know. Anyone who says that selfishness is good pretty goddamn evil if you ask me.
And I think altruism is stupid. Ultimately, however, it's a game of semantics. People will always act within their self-interest; they simply cannot do otherwise.
9965
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:02:27 PM »
Who would you pick? Assuming they were brought up to speed and able to tackle the problems of today in a timely manner. Would you oppose any sort of leader on principle? Would you support a candidate in principle but doubt their ability to actually govern?
I think I'd let Caesar, Napoleon and Frederick II to govern the country - despite their prevalent executivism which some people would surely be upset by. I'd like to see Nietzsche have a stab at it, too, but he'd probably be fucking awful.
9966
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:54:28 PM »
Yes, just for the sake of it.
9967
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:51:54 PM »
I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged. I'm not too far into it - only about 100 pages, but come on. It isn't shit-flingingly awful. It doesn't seem enough, for most people, to just criticise her philosophy but they have to criticise her as a writer as well.
She isn't that bad. I'm actually enjoying the book; it flows nicely, I like the characters and the imagery is good. She's by no means great, but she's certainly good.
I'm no Objectivist, but it seems like there's a cult of hatred around her as much as there is a cult of personality. It's all very polarised, but it seems to me that Rand doesn't deserve all the hatred (and adoration) she gets.
I mean, hey, Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist, so it can't all be bad.
9968
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:46:48 PM »
The Tea Party really stemmed from the passing of Obamacare, and the far right Republican's anger over the Democrats in Congress.
What? No way. I've no doubt that broadened its support base but it certainly wasn't created in response to Obamacare.
9969
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:37:31 PM »
Because Ron Paul's views, in general, only catered to a very minor, extremely hardcore, group.
Well the guy's failed bid did spawn the Tea Party, I don't know if I'd characterise them as "minor" or "extremely hardcore".
Ron Paul's failed bid is not what spawned the Tea Party. >.>
Wrong word. Galvanised would be a better word. The Tea Party certainly wasn't created as a result of Paul's bid.
9970
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:28:28 PM »
For the love of got take him back. We don't want him.
We don't fucking want him back.
9971
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:27:42 PM »
Because Ron Paul's views, in general, only catered to a very minor, extremely hardcore, group.
Well the guy's failed bid did spawn the Tea Party, I don't know if I'd characterise them as "minor" or "extremely hardcore". Although, in saying that, Austrian economics have a very weird and very disturbing grip on the American libertarian/conservative demographics >.> Even I find it too much.
9972
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:24:37 PM »
That's a different story.
Killing a kid for no reason is always bad. Hell, even to save 300 people it's bad. Necessary, but bad.
You fall into a games of semantics there. Sure, it's bad, but it certainly isn't immoral. It's not so bad as to be absolutely condemned on principle.
9973
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:22:17 PM »
Well, that's depressing. Although, how come Ron Paul didn't pull through with his conservative credentials? He criticised Reagan for his budget deficits - now that's pretty fucking conservative. Or did his foreign policy ideas shut him out of the opportunity?
9974
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:11:02 PM »
I'm welcome to explain why if you like.
Sure, had the election dates been a bit different, we probably would've studied the invisibles in more detail in my politics class but unfortunately I haven't >.> On a piece of work where I hate to collate the views of potential runners, though, Rubio struck me as a rather nice chap. Why won't he succeed?
9975
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:59:56 PM »
I see the two of you are not going to convince me otherwise, nor will I convince you.
That's a bad mindset with which to enter a debate, man. It should be about gathering information and personal knowledge, as much as convincing other people. My goal isn't to dominate you, but to understand how you think.
Not how I entered this debate. But we are essentially going in circles now on this argument.
That's fair enough. If you don't want to continue then I won't hold it against you.
9976
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:57:33 PM »
I see the two of you are not going to convince me otherwise, nor will I convince you.
That's a bad mindset with which to enter a debate, man. It should be about gathering information and personal knowledge, as much as convincing other people. My goal isn't to dominate you, but to understand how you think.
9977
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:51:35 PM »
Likewise, blaming Islam for the Taliban is like blaming Catholicism for the IRA.
Except the Taliban quite explicitly identifies as Muslim. In the same way ISIS identifies as a caliphate-founding organisation - hence the name.
Yet the Taliban does plenty of shit that Islam prohibits: drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.
You're welcome to call it a "glorified mafia ring" if that'll make you feel better, but they are just as pick and choosy with what they want to follow as Catholic extremists are.
They have to be picky and choosy. Trying to literally follow scripture absolutely will turn you into a straight-up hypocrite. The problem is that such fundamentals exist to be latched onto in the first place, and doesn't diminish the fact that their beliefs are primarily motivated by their religion. You'll never find a fundamentalist Jain who murders people for his religion.
9978
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:46:16 PM »
I fucking hate Piers Morgan. Besides discussing how much Piers got absolutely hammered, discuss who you think won the debate.
9979
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:43:19 PM »
The Lord is not pleased
The Lord looks suspiciously European.
9980
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:41:25 PM »
Life begins at conception. To kill a pregnant woman who has thus far decided to keep the baby is, as far as it matters, ending two lives.
Then those two things are in conflict. If life begins at conception, we shouldn't have abortions.
That's not true. There's nothing inherently wrong with ending an innocent life.
Oh fuck off Meta. Killing a kid is bad and you know it. Stop playing.
Killing a kid for no reason whatsoever is bad, obviously. If I killed a kid to save 300 other kids, however, it'd be unfortunate but not bad. Moral judgments are always based on circumstance and consequence, not anything inherent.
9981
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:40:20 PM »
...which brings me back to my original question of why it's a double homicide.
Because we generally accept that there are some reasons for ending an innocent life which are legitimate. Killing a person because you feel like it is obviously antisocial. Killing a man to transplant his kidneys is leaning towards antisocial. Switching the track of an oncoming train to kill one person instead of five is fairly neutral. It just matters where on the spectrum of "acceptableness" abortion lies, which tends to be in the only very slightly antisocial. Killing a pregnant woman for any other reason than to save a substantial net amount of lives will also be punishable, especially when you also have no right to rob the foetus of its future life. The woman, however, will be almost wholly responsible for its upbringing and development, and is in a better position than some thug with a gun to decide whether or not it'd be right to keep it.
9982
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:32:36 PM »
jesus fuck even all your flood threads are political
>yfw its a parody >yfw cheat is a tyrant >yfw you're big brother
9983
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:29:11 PM »
Life begins at conception. To kill a pregnant woman who has thus far decided to keep the baby is, as far as it matters, ending two lives.
Then those two things are in conflict. If life begins at conception, we shouldn't have abortions.
That's not true. There's nothing inherently wrong with ending an innocent life.
9984
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:28:42 PM »
Likewise, blaming Islam for the Taliban is like blaming Catholicism for the IRA.
Except the Taliban quite explicitly identifies as Muslim. In the same way ISIS identifies as a caliphate-founding organisation - hence the name. The IRA is about republicanism. The clue really is in the name.
9985
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:26:19 PM »
Suicide is a sign of doubleplusungood dissention from the Party's policies. This is crimethink, a form of ownlife, and you could become an unperson! Submit for plusgood re-education at Minitru, for a real bellyfeel.
9986
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:17:31 PM »
You should create a default avatar of Big Brother's face whenever somebody gets above 50pc warning.
9987
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:15:08 PM »
Life begins at conception. To kill a pregnant woman who has thus far decided to keep the baby is, as far as it matters, ending two lives.
9988
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:14:01 PM »
And? Less developed regions of the world are going to be slower at hitting this reformations/revolutions/whatever you want to call them than areas like Europe/America/etc.
Everything ties together. Wealth and prosperity of a nation, religious beliefs, political strife, social conditions, historical problems.
Except, in the case of religious fundamentalism, things like prosperity aren't that considerable when it comes to the different variables. I'm not denying that economic incentives don't play a role - they certainly do, but in issues like this there's almost always a fanatical and central bloc of fundamentalist authority guiding everything and influencing its constituents. It happens in all religions, and yet we're quite systematically deceived about the proper nature of fundamentalism within Islam. In a similar vein, we're also deceived about the supposedly peaceful nature of Buddhists a lot of the time - but that's a story for another time, and not nearly as pressing.
9989
« on: December 16, 2014, 01:14:40 PM »
There aren't an overwhelming number of Democratic leaders who are anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-religion. You can't win if you aren't a Christian in the US. I doubt I'll see a Jewish or Muslim president in my lifetime, much less an atheist. I don't know a single politician who is anti-America...
Oh, I know, I'm just saying you can always list an series of problems with a platform or a party, but it's integrity is always suspect. People in the GOP are trying to fight the things you've listed, which is one of the reasons I like Rubio. However, depending on who you're talking to, the negatives of the party may be outweighed by the negatives of the other party. I'm not at all saying your list is non-applicable, or that mine is more applicable, merely the problems you list might be inconsequential by the time of an election.
9990
« on: December 16, 2014, 01:04:11 PM »
Now back to Serious where you belong!
And away I go.
Pages: 1 ... 331332333 334335 ... 502
|