|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 25, 2010 14:04:49 GMT -5
Interesting example Babylon, I think I will use it in my arguments sometime. And yes everyone who doesn't have their head up their butt should be able to see how the western world is being taken apart piece by piece and we are all being taken to the poorhouse. Laughingwolf, anyone with a brain can look around and see that western youth is on a dead end path. They have no culture, no morals, come from dysfunctional families or no families at all. They are hurt, confused, and mentally docile. They have no goal in life because they have no base ie culture+family, you can't build a future without having a base. In fact, they are taught, they don't need families. They blow off their steam by partying(alcohol+sex). A generation celebrating the present, for they have no future.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Aug 26, 2010 0:54:47 GMT -5
The majority of differences between men and women are in fact constructed (besides the biological physical sexual differences). Gender is by and large socially constructed, there is enough literature available for u close-minded morons, and Islamic-based Vanilo. Differences as in most gender roles? I hope that is what you meant because generally men and women tend to behave differently.That is why there are transexuals I think. And that also explains why there are sexual orientations.If not,we'll all be bisexuals.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Aug 26, 2010 1:11:07 GMT -5
Forcing the common people to accept this idea that men and women are exactly equal and that a child having a mom and dad isn't important is not what I consider a stable society. No one said having a mom and dad isnt important. What do you mean by exactly equal?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 26, 2010 9:02:03 GMT -5
Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Aug 26, 2010 11:38:44 GMT -5
ermmmm.......a women's breast and genitalia from the mom and a men's genitalia and body?
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 31, 2010 21:33:14 GMT -5
The majority of differences between men and women are in fact constructed (besides the biological physical sexual differences). Gender is by and large socially constructed, there is enough literature available for u close-minded morons, and Islamic-based Vanilo. Wow I would have thought you could come up with something more convincing. Apparently you've solved the nature versus nuture debate. I see this as typical secular atheist reasoning. Traditional values are dismissed as socially constructed whilst alternative behaviours and values are defended as innate. You are also devaluing biological and physical sexual differences there by trying to make it just a side note. The fact there are differences makes it significant enough but it seems you would prefer we pretend they do not exist at all. lol are you kidding? What do you mean by no different? For one thing they will have very different values to shape their lives and you are projecting your own values to make that call. Of course values have no value in science though when speaking from a more traditional perspective. You are again reflecting your own values when you are for one: using descriptions like "fine, no different," You may as well use the word normal but thats an evil word to the secularist. Two: taking a stupid shot at a traditional family, try the reverse and you would be totally dismissed and castigated as being prejudiced. And three: using anecdotal evidence of your friends. Hypocritical on so many levels.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Aug 31, 2010 21:53:40 GMT -5
What values? These are just generic terms thrown out by Christian and other religious groups with are just cloaked terms for intolerance and conservative. The only values I care about instilling in my child is to a human being to other people and to care for others... these are values easy enough for a person to get now days. Again, sociological stuff have shown that the adopted children of homosexual relations do not have any tendency towards any abnormality. They grow up normal.
Im only sparse language and not providing evidence since I am not looking for an argument. I dont want to be dragged into these and find it pointless. If u dont agree with me fine, I dont have the time to argue.
|
|
|
Post by vanilo on Sept 1, 2010 15:28:07 GMT -5
Toskaliku, You mention that the only value you want to instill in your kids is care for other humanbeings. But this is what you wrote in another thread, "Would you leave your partner if he/she becomes an invalid?":
I would most probably. I am very much against having to take care of the mentally ill. Its one of the biggest worries I have about having a child. So, yea, its cruel... but I dont want to waste my life focusing on someone else... I want to know that whatever I am caring for will be able to achieve a stable independent life at some point or another. I will live only one life, and am fully convinced that when I die I will cease to be. That being so, I do not want to waste my existence on someone else.
Anyway, I agree that gender roles are socially constructed - and I also think they should not be rigid - but I don't believe these roles have been constructed from air. The traditional roles of men and women are quite compatible to the biological, sexual and psychological qualities that men and women generally possess.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Sept 1, 2010 15:56:17 GMT -5
There is a level of hypocrisy in realizing that ur life on earth is limited and that there is no afterlife. On the one hand I want to be a human being, on the other I c my life as limited and I need to live it.
That being said, I wouldnt want him to infringe upon the rights of others... but I am also very pro-abortion...
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Sept 1, 2010 16:59:04 GMT -5
umm yea,,, supporting abortion is infringing on the rights of others. If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in Rights because if rights are not endowed by our Creator then they don't exist.. Very contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Sept 1, 2010 18:47:39 GMT -5
umm yea,,, supporting abortion is infringing on the rights of others. If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in Rights because if rights are not endowed by our Creator then they don't exist.. Very contradictory. A embryo is not an 'other' or an any sense the same thing as me ( fully developed human) it doesn't even have a consciousness. And rights really don't exist and they are actually 'endowed' to you by your government even if you really think you do live in a free society. Your government dictates to you what you may and may not do ultimately. Its quite absurd that any philosophical discussion about rights ought to be subject to supernatural explanations.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Sept 1, 2010 20:24:57 GMT -5
A embryo is not an 'other' or an any sense the same thing as me ( fully developed human) it doesn't even have a consciousness. And rights really don't exist and they are actually 'endowed' to you by your government even if you really think you do live in a free society. Your government dictates to you what you may and may not do ultimately. An embryo is still a human developing, you are killing a human whether you try to sugar coat it or not. Doctors who witness abortions describe a human being gasping for air while they dump it into a bucket. That is a human being whose rights you are taking away. Rights are not "given" to us by the government because rights are not the property of the government to give. It was We The People who created government, government did not create the people. Therefore, We the People gave the government certain privileges; not rights. Privileges can be taken away. When government treads on our civil liberties, we can take away their privileges. Rights are the property of the individual and they are unalienable. They cannot be "given" because that is a contradiction. I cannot give you my dream nor my mind. I can tell you about it, but I cannot "give" it to you. Rights are not the governments to give. Did the government give me life? Did it give me a mind? NO. These rights were mine to begin with. Without a Creator you have no rights. Why?...Where did your rights come from? It's quite absurd that liberal atheists are still trying to convince people that the State is their new deity. Who should I choose, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx? hmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Sept 2, 2010 1:19:46 GMT -5
A embryo is not an 'other' or an any sense the same thing as me ( fully developed human) it doesn't even have a consciousness. And rights really don't exist and they are actually 'endowed' to you by your government even if you really think you do live in a free society. Your government dictates to you what you may and may not do ultimately. An embryo is still a human developing, you are killing a human whether you try to sugar coat it or not. Doctors who witness abortions describe a human being gasping for air while they dump it into a bucket. That is a human being whose rights you are taking away. Rights are not "given" to us by the government because rights are not the property of the government to give. It was We The People who created government, government did not create the people. Therefore, We the People gave the government certain privileges; not rights. Privileges can be taken away. When government treads on our civil liberties, we can take away their privileges. Rights are the property of the individual and they are unalienable. They cannot be "given" because that is a contradiction. I cannot give you my dream nor my mind. I can tell you about it, but I cannot "give" it to you. Rights are not the governments to give. Did the government give me life? Did it give me a mind? NO. These rights were mine to begin with. Without a Creator you have no rights. Why?...Where did your rights come from? It's quite absurd that liberal atheists are still trying to convince people that the State is their new deity. Who should I choose, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx? hmmmmm Sparta, Analyze the picture above. Now, are you staying this thing has 'rights' just like you and I? Are you even saying that this thing has rights greater than a woman over her own body ( i.e. this thing cancels a woman's right to her body?) How does this square with your ideas of self-ownership? I assume you know what that is since it seems you are new to libertarianism. Its one of the first things you learn about. Also , I bet you can't tell if that's even a human embryo. If Rights are unalienable and you agree they cannot be given, then why postulate a deity gives them? Doesn't that contradict your own argument? And what do you mean by unalienable/inalienable anyway? Your rights are still contingent on what your government dictates them to be. Different governments have different laws and consequences for human actions. Note , that does not mean I agree with statism ( quite the opposite actually and many would say I'm far more libertarian than Ron Paul ). Anyway , I was stating the reality of the situation. Rights do not protect your life either. Its not like your right to life will block you from bullets from some madman. Rights are a concept , a human concept, and thus they do not explain what is but how people think things ought to be. Every statement from the premise of rights is a normative one. I couldn't agree more but not all atheists are automatically leftists , statists , and Marxists. I am very pro free enterprise , to the point where even people who say they are free enterprise think I go 'too far.' Imagine Ron Paul x10 on his outlook of free market. That's where I am.
|
|
|
Post by vanilo on Sept 2, 2010 3:41:31 GMT -5
Most women find out they're pregnant when they're some weeks ahead in the pregnancy, not when the babies or fetuses (or whatever you want to call them) are *just* embryos. Abortions mostly happen when there's already a heart beat, or even when "the thing" is shaping up like a humanbeing. It's disgusting. Here in Denmark women can abort till they're 12 weeks in to the pregnancy, the fetus does not look like a clump of cells that far ahead at all. The worst part is that women, and at least one organisation, here complain because they think 12 weeks is a tight limit. They want women to be able to abort freely till the 18th week - because that's what women can do in Sweden. I don't know, I just don't see why medicine and public money is used as a means to make up for peoples' bad and reckless choices. If you don't want to get (someone) pregnant, and if you know you would not take the responsibility if you did become pregnant/get someone pregnant, then don't have sex. Simple as that. The worst part is when you're supposed to feel sorry for women who have abortions. "Oh, it's the hardest thing I had to do, blahblah...". Shut up, Bitch . No one "did it" to you, you made your bed, now lie in it. That's what the rest of us do without seeking sympathy. These women should rather feel ashamed of themselves than seek comfort and sympathy. Support groups for women who have abortions...what a joke.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Sept 2, 2010 9:04:34 GMT -5
@ andromeda
I am not going to pull up pictures of aborted babies because they are disturbing. I'm sure you've seen pictures of aborted babies, so are you telling me that those human beings do not have the right to live? Do me and you have a right to live but they do not? If you were a developing embryo would you be so pro-choice?
One aspect of rights is responsibility. Rights come with responsibility. A woman aborting a baby is violating the rights of the baby. Because she is baring a baby, she is responsible for its life. You cannot violate the rights of other people. I am not new to libertarianism, rights come from property. Life is property. The life of the baby is the baby's property, not the mothers. To assume otherwise would assume that our parents can kill us since we are not our own property.
Rights cannot be given because I cannot give you my dream. I cannot give you a double life. A Creator endowed us with rights, but you forget that God exists outside of nature. The Creator who created the laws of nature also gave us the rights to it. Because God created us and the laws of nature, we are his property, not the property of another. A person who violates our natural rights commits an act of aggression against the laws of nature.
Unalienable means it cannot be given nor taken away. Rights cannot be given because they are not anybody's to give. I did not give you life, therefore I cannot take your life. I can kill you and violate your right, but I cannot "take" it and double my life line.
I doubt you're more libertarian than Ron Paul because you believe that government "gives" people rights. This sounds a lot like the idea of Monarchy. We live under a King and the King simply "gives" us privileges such as to own our houses, and the King can take them away from us since the entire land is his property. Neither did the king nor government create us. Humanity existed long before governments or monarchies. Therefore, our rights are not the property of the government to give. The government did not create our rights. Government did not create our minds, therefore they have no right to tell us not to say what is on our minds. Our minds are not their property.
Rights can be violated. Someone who commits murder violates the persons right. But when government does it, we seem to think they have the "right" to murder another person since they "give" rights.
This idea that government "gives" rights assumes that the people do not own their own lives and that the government (be it Nazi Germany or the former USSR) can justifiably commit atrocities since they "gave" you your rights, they can take them away.
|
|
|
Post by zoti on Sept 2, 2010 13:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Sept 2, 2010 14:01:15 GMT -5
A fetus isnt cognizant, its a cell. The argument over where "life" begins is worthless because I value life not on a symbolic but on a development level. Ppl who are "pro-life" should then also stop eating meat or using pesticides because a fetus has about as much brain activity.
Want me to show pictures of a heart transplant? Or brain surgery? Im pretty sure those are sick also.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Sept 2, 2010 19:47:31 GMT -5
You are comparing brain surgery to aborting a baby? Is this how pro-choicers value human beings?
Being pro-life has nothing to do with being a Vegan.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Sept 3, 2010 8:31:16 GMT -5
Abortion is a tough subject that has varying laws internationally. In my opinion, I think 12 weeks is too late to abort a baby. On the other hand there is a lot of abandoned babies in the world. I think if someone does want to abort then they should do without delay. At 3 months the baby becomes male or female physically and is perfecting the small details of the body, to kill something so miraculous is murderous. If people do want to abort under very extreme circumstances : pregnancy through rape. Then that responsibility lays on the mother. We cannot judge.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Sept 3, 2010 11:46:41 GMT -5
Abortion is not nice.
But if you believe in individual rights,then abortion stays.
The point is that the baby is part of the mother's body and the mother has a right to do what she wants to her body even if that means ridding that baby's life.
The baby is not quite it's ownself.That's why.
Life is unfair and it has a lot uglyness.This is one of them.
|
|