Page 67 of 68 FirstFirst ... 175765666768 LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 673

Thread: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

  1. #661
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    He said that it was an exception, and its not.
    No I didn't. anda explained it exactly as it exists, not as you have imagined it to exist.



    I believe he already said what you did there.
    And it does not mean what you think it means.


    His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.
    and as anda pointed out, the right to life cannot be inalienable if one can alienate their right to life it by virtue of their actions.


    All are desired conditions, all our natural, and all take no aggression to gain. No fallacy.
    Serious question, do you know what a fallacy is?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #662
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.
    You appear to be mistaking legal rights for natural rights, deliberately by the look of it. I'm not sure what rhetorical purpose is being served by doing so. What logical benefit is served by claiming natural rights status for socio-legal constructs?
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  3. #663
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    You appear to be mistaking legal rights for natural rights, deliberately by the look of it. I'm not sure what rhetorical purpose is being served by doing so. What logical benefit is served by claiming natural rights status for socio-legal constructs?
    I don't believe I'm doing that, so..

  4. #664
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I don't believe I'm doing that, so..
    Okay, let me rephrase the question such that you don't need to concede the argument in order to answer it.

    Why is it important that these rights that you call 'natural' rights should be recognised as such?
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  5. #665
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Where did you get that idea from?
    What do you mean where I got it from? That is what it is.



    One logically contradicts the other, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.
    They don't logically contradict. One follows the other.

    Thus, the right is not inalienable, ergo it is not a natural right.
    Yes, you keep saying that.


    Who said anything about being in the act of killing another? We're talking about self-defense. This act is not limited to times when life is threatened.
    Legally it is not I suppose.

    That's a discussion for legal rights, not natural rights.
    Again, says who?

    False. I've shown it repeatedly. You've just ignored it repeatedly by virtue of invalid logical defenses of a false belief.
    Hardly false. Its just a no that is not true argument coming from you.. Hardly worth my time and hardly of value.


    Back there? We never left there. Just because you haven't acknowledged the facts does not mean the facts do not remain facts.
    There is no facts you have mentioned from what I have seen.

    I do not believe you are a competent judge of such things.
    Alright, believe what you will.

    Speaking of not understanding logic, Where on Earth did you get the very silly idea that that would somehow matter?
    You mentioned it, did you not?

    That would be the basis for a natural right to self defense argument, not a natural right to life argument. I've clearly stated that a natural right to self-defense can exist. It is a very different thing than a natural right to life.
    And like usual I disagree with that assessment.

    It has no bearing on a natural right to self defense, as I have already noted, but it absolutely has bearing on the existence of non-existence of a natural right to life.
    Perhaps if you explained how the one doesn't follow the other..

    Says logic.
    That isn't exactly a who, is it now?

    Partially true. Only democratic governments do it. I should have been clearer on that.
    No one "does" it.

    False. The United States is a great example of it doing so.
    No it is not. The history of the country and its tension today says that very clearly.

    I see the problem. You think like-minded means Identically minded. It does not mean that. It means similar in values, beliefs, and morality. While we differ on the details, the American public is very like-minded, for the most part. Outliers will exist, but they are scorned and rejected by society.
    Oh so as long as you scorn the outsiders than government created a like minded society. Interesting..

    Exactly. Unite the like-minded, reject/punish/ostracize those that are not like-minded.
    Again, interesting.


    why do you think that is different form what I said?
    Its entirely different since what you said it fails to do.

    True, meaning you can't possibly say it isn't a guess. You are simply regurgitating something you've been told, without questioning it in any way, and accepting it as fact despite no evidence to support it as such.
    You believe I practice blind faith then. Interesting..

    False. Not only do we not take great efforts to preserve life, we often go out of our way to end it.
    Well then..
    Of course, thats irrelvent to your claim that there is a natural right to life.
    Of course it is not.

    What are you talking about? Property doesn't exist in nature.
    I'm afraid it does.

    That's not a real definition, it's an imaginary one.

    Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    So you disagree with it then? I really don't get how my definition is fake though. I didn't make it up.

    Each and every statement you made is demonstrably false
    .

    Well then, you are still here because?

    Frankly, it was one of the most abysmal performances I have ever encountered in my life. While I did not expect accuracy, I also did not expect a near total lack of accuracy.

    The first two weren't even attempts at definitions and they both contained patently false clauses: 1. that we take effort to preserve life and 2. Property exists in nature.

    While the third attempted to be a definition, it was an imaginary definition that is not supported by actual definitions.

    If that is your best effort, we are in a sad state of affairs.
    Well you are in a good mood.

    Just because you have ignored it doesn't mean it is not there.
    Honestly, I see nothing. Saying that, in this post you had a link to a list of definitions. That was nice.
    Last edited by Henrin; 10-30-12 at 01:45 PM.

  6. #666
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    What do you mean where I got it from? That is what it is.
    the fact that you cannot see why this is fail is pretty hilarious.





    They don't logically contradict. One follows the other.
    It does not logically follow from it. It is merely th estatement people make after they make the initial statement. Logically, it is contradictory.


    Yes, you keep saying that.
    It's true. If something is inalienable, it cannot be forfeited because forfeiture is alienating.



    Legally it is not I suppose.
    Naturally it isn't either. Self-defense acts occur all the time in nature without life being threatened.


    Again, says who?
    The definitions.



    Hardly false. Its just a no that is not true argument come from you.. Hardly worth my time and hardly of value.
    Repeating a comforting lie to yourself is just one way that you've chosen to ignore the demonstrated falseness of your beliefs.


    There is no facts you have mentioned from what I have seen.
    that is because when you choose not to see, you will not see.


    Alright, believe what you will.
    I will. And I will continue to use logic and acknowledgement of reality as the basis for my beliefs, rather than building my beliefs upon a foundation of blind trust and willful ignorance.



    You mentioned it, did you not?
    No, I did not. It was a strawman of your own design.



    And like usual I disagree with that assessment.
    But my position is based on logic and reason, while your disagreement is based on you sa ying" La la la, I'm not listening, you're wrong! I disagree!".

    If you disagree, fine, then provide a logical basis for disagreement, not mindless statements of disagreement.



    Perhaps if you explained how the one doesn't follow the other..
    OK, but first give me an idea of how ignorant you are of logic so that I may know where to begin. Do you know how something follows from something else logically? If you know the answer to this question, then you should already know how it doesn't follow. If you don't know that answer, then do you know what a logical premise is?


    That isn't exactly a who, is it now?
    Of course not, but I didn't force you into having the false premise that a "who" must be involved for you to be dead wrong. That was a delusion of your own creation.


    No one "does" it.
    I'll inform reality right away that you have the opinion that it does not exist.



    No it is not. The history of the country and its tension today says that very clearly.
    I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the difference between like-minded and identically-minded.



    Oh so as long as you scorn the outsiders than government created a like minded society. Interesting..
    Government's purpose IS to spurn the unlike minded people who are under it's umbrella of power. That's why, as you so eloquently stated, "If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does."



    Its entirely different since what you said it fails to do.
    What?



    You believe I practice blind faith then.
    No, you have demonstrated that you practice blind faith in the concepts which you are supporting. I am merely pointing it out.





    Well then..
    Do you disagree for some unfathomable reason that we go out of our way to end life?


    Of course it is not.
    It isn't. It doesn't even attempt to present any logical foundation for a claim of a natural right to life. It merely a statement which mixes a fact with a fiction.

    I'm afraid it does.
    Name one instance of property existing without human society (i.e as a man-made construct) being present. Just one.



    So you disagree with it then?
    Not just me, the English language disagrees with it.

    I really don't get how my definition is fake though. I didn't make it up.
    if you adopt a definitions that somebody else made up, it doesn't change the fact that it is a fake definition.

    For example, If I arbitrarily, and devoid of any intelligence or reason, decide to make up a new definition for the word "transgression" that means" the fur which surrounds a donkey's asshole, and you decide to adopt
    that definition of your own, it does not become any less fake.
    .

    Well then, you are still here because?
    I did not engage you, you engaged me. I will not allow your false claims, which have been presented as a rebuttal to my claims, to go unchallenged. I have no problem repeatedly demonstrating them to be false.



    Well you are in a good mood.
    I always am.


    Honestly, I see nothing.
    That's kind of my point.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #667
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    "Natural law" is doing anything you want to that is possible to do and not doing anything you don't want to.

  8. #668
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glowpun View Post
    Stop complaining! Romney Halloween masks are outselling the Obama ones. And by history which mask sells more is a surefire indication that candidate will win!

    But that said, what this Murdoch person has said is an abomination, an absolute abomination along the same line as that Todd Akin who said rape is legitimate. Now, one can expect that the incidences of rape will increase ten fold. Folks, this insanity has got to stop! One can put the mind set of this Akin and Murdoch in the same category of madness as the taliban and others of their kind with their demented views.

    Really? I think Romney's is more scary, why it may be selling more.

    But, you're right, Akin and Mourdock are a couple of nuts and represent a big majority of the Republican's party way of thinking.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  9. #669
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    If I was religious and my "god" was into getting thousands of women raped (on a yearly basis) and then pregnant, I'd no longer be religious. Mostly because I'd think that god was a pretty sick son of a bitch. Then again, I'm not religious and the nonsensical beliefs which come with religion don't really apply to me.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #670
    Educator
    rjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,136

    Re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    The short version on the abortion debate is:

    Are American women first and foremost incubators for the use of American men, or do they have rights of their own?



    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Actually, no. Your retarded question has nothing to do with the abortion debate.



    OMG - That question IS the abortion debate.

    Your response to it is about as dismissive and idiotic as I have ever seen. Shame
    Time flies like an arrow; fruitflies like a banana. - Groucho

Page 67 of 68 FirstFirst ... 175765666768 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •