Nope. My argument is that it's good, so therefore the Supreme Court said so.
Is your argument that the Supreme Court said so, therefore it's good?
I don't share your view that the Supreme Court is or should be the final arbiter of what is or isn't good. That's not something that should be left to a government, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't share your view that the Supreme Court is or should be the final arbiter of what is or isn't good.Nope. My argument is that it's good, so therefore the Supreme Court said so.
Is your argument that the Supreme Court said so, therefore it's good?
Obviously not.
That's not something that should be left to a government, in my opinion.
No, decisions about the use of force should always be left to random individual wingnuts with an overzealous view of natural rights and no common sense. That way when two people disagree about a question of moral behavior, it can be solved the old-fashioned way, with a gunfight.
And I'm getting beat up from all sides about it without going crazy with anger.You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if I should be using acid and fire rather than reasoned arguments. I think it'd be more effective and save me some time. ;)
I guess we'll only find out if you make a reasoned argument. If you can bring yourself to respond without needing to be a douche then maybe we can be reasonable. Through this thread there's been a number of disagreements that didn’t get out of hand. You can accuse me of ad hom if you like, but if you're intent on being a problem...
As we were initially on the subject of mental disorders, can any of the experts figure out what's up with our pal here? I'm sensing anger and hostility.If separated from the parents, what decision would the child make? How old do they have to be before that decision will be honored?
They have to be legally considered adults—as in, age of consent. That's how it works for a lot of things.
Based on the belief that giving a person blood from someone else fundamentally changes who they are, what happens to the child if the parents won't take it back?Well, first, phew! Good thing the child wasn't raised by such terrible parents who would not only willingly sacrifice their child's life but would abandon them for being unwillingly administered a blood transfusion!
Second...foster care, adoption, etc. The same as what we do for any case of child abuse.
Seriously, I still have no clue how to respond to this save with sarcasm. Claims like this are what make me doubt your sincerity. Let's do some math here, shall we? That will allow me to explain my viewpoint and perhaps distract myself from the passive-aggressive, venomous attitude you've been engaging me with.
You see a man starving to death. You have plenty of bread. He needs and wants bread.
Depriving him of bread = Killing him through criminal negligence. Agreed? Awesome. So depriving of life-saving medication = killing.
Now, if the person doesn't want bread, depriving him of what he needs to live = assisted suicide. A gray area.
The viewpoint of most is that children are not old enough, and lack sufficiently developed brains, to understand the full implications of suicide.
If you do not believe this, I'm assuming you also believe children should be able to vote, drive, drink, look after themselves without need of parents or guardians, and have sex, since these acts carry much less drastic consequences than suicide and should obviously be treated much lighter.
However, I assume you are on board with traditional schools of thought and believe children need to be looked after by adults. This is the assumption the rest of my "mathematical equation" will be making.
If the child is starving to death, you give the kid bread whether or not she wants it.
Depriving a child of bread when she wants it = killing.
Depriving a child of bread when she doesn't want it = still killing.
Depriving a child of life-saving medication = child abuse, obviously.
A parent doing so = a child abuser.
A child who is being abused = in need of government intervention.
No, decisions about the use of force should always be left to random individual wingnuts with an overzealous view of natural rights and no common sense. That way when two people disagree about a question of moral behavior, it can be solved the old-fashioned way, with a gunfight.Pfft. Rocks and sticks. And none of that bullcrap lashing them together. Rock on on hand, stick in the other, and try to kill each other like civilized people.
No, there's too great a chance of the loser surviving the argument.
And I'm getting beat up from all sides about it without going crazy with anger. If people cannot at least attempt to stay calm then maybe just hit the favorite button. I'm fully aware that I'm in a vanishingly small minority in regards to some things. I don’t feel the need to get angry at everyone who doesn't agree with me.
As we were initially on the subject of mental disorders, can any of the experts figure out what's up with our pal here? I'm sensing anger and hostility.You're arguing for letting children die for religious reasons. That has a tendency to create anger and hostility in many people.
And that's a really nasty passive aggressive attack there. You might want to back off.
Possibly that's because we're not hitting emotional triggers like "It's okay to abuse kids for religious reasons." BTW, I'm still not sure what the moral difference is between letting a kid die for religious reasons and just outright killing him for religious reasons. Or mutilating children for religious reasons. Or any of the other sick things that have been done to people's own children for the sake of religion.
Or maybe we should all just let it die? I don't think any of us are going to change opinions.
I suspect we're not, especially since good ole Godwin has shown up. Throw in a nice dose of "wingnut" and we're off to the races.
As we were initially on the subject of mental disorders, can any of the experts figure out what's up with our pal here? I'm sensing anger and hostility.If separated from the parents, what decision would the child make? How old do they have to be before that decision will be honored?
They have to be legally considered adults—as in, age of consent. That's how it works for a lot of things.
Based on the belief that giving a person blood from someone else fundamentally changes who they are, what happens to the child if the parents won't take it back?Well, first, phew! Good thing the child wasn't raised by such terrible parents who would not only willingly sacrifice their child's life but would abandon them for being unwillingly administered a blood transfusion!
Second...foster care, adoption, etc. The same as what we do for any case of child abuse.
Seriously, I still have no clue how to respond to this save with sarcasm. Claims like this are what make me doubt your sincerity. Let's do some math here, shall we? That will allow me to explain my viewpoint and perhaps distract myself from the passive-aggressive, venomous attitude you've been engaging me with.
You see a man starving to death. You have plenty of bread. He needs and wants bread.
Depriving him of bread = Killing him through criminal negligence. Agreed? Awesome. So depriving of life-saving medication = killing.
Now, if the person doesn't want bread, depriving him of what he needs to live = assisted suicide. A gray area.
The viewpoint of most is that children are not old enough, and lack sufficiently developed brains, to understand the full implications of suicide.
If you do not believe this, I'm assuming you also believe children should be able to vote, drive, drink, look after themselves without need of parents or guardians, and have sex, since these acts carry much less drastic consequences than suicide and...
Incorrect. A failure to act on my part does not make me morally responsible for the death of another. Your argument falls apart right at the beginning. Denying != killing.
Okay, so the moral problem here is that Simon doesn't acknowledge "criminal negligence" as a legit thing? Got it. I think we're done here.
Also, if you really couldn't understand that the Hitler reference was made in irony, you clearly don't click my links. C'mon, you know you want to.
Okay, so the moral problem here is that Simon doesn't acknowledge "criminal negligence" as a legit thing? Got it. I think we're done here.
Also, if you really couldn't understand that the Hitler reference was made in irony, you clearly don't click my links. C'mon, you know you want to.
Yes, I clicked your initial link to the wiki page on ad hom, it's why I mentioned it in one of my responses. It’s a bit unfortunate that some people had to show up and start acting like children though. I suppose that is just the way of things on the Internet.
I'm just kinda surprised you didn't just go running to the mods to lock the thread. Better to intentionally sabotage it I guess.
You know who else didn't click your links?
ADAM SUTLER FROM V FOR VENDETTA (the movie, I didn't like the comic book because it challenged me)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smurf!
Yes, I clicked your initial link to the wiki page on ad hom, it's why I mentioned it in one of my responses. It’s a bit unfortunate that some people had to show up and start acting like children though. I suppose that is just the way of things on the Internet.
I'm just kinda surprised you didn't just go running to the mods to lock the thread. Better to intentionally sabotage it I guess.
Ha! Sorry, you've tipped your hand, buddy. Either you're a deliberate troll, or you just fall back on trying to goad people when you run out of things to say. Either way, it's nothing the second encounter of Age of Worms can't fix.
Smurf!
This guy gets it.
A smurf once bit my sister.
We apologize for the fault in the smurftitles. Those responsible have been smurfed.
Are we done here? We're pretty much just sniping at each other now. Can we let it go?
Yeah, I just sent a message to CS to lock it. The kids can have their playtime for a bit.
o u <3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I just sent a message to CS to lock it. The kids can have their playtime for a bit.
Flag it don't brag it.
Feel free to start a new one. I suspect this one is going to have huge chunks taken out of it before it's locked.
