religion Vs. arrogance

[no1tovote4]

I didn't make that claim. That is simple misrepresentation.

What claim were you making with your "sentience" comment?

I didn't make that claim.

Forgive me, what claim were you making with your "sentience" comment?

That doesn't relate at all to my point.

I was not the one to bring into the discussion "sentience", in fact, this post was my first in this thread. What point were you making with your "sentience" comment?

You asked me "In other words, does not all of human society carry a responsibility to insure that all Fetus's, and new born humans are protected and given equal opportunity under the law of that society?"

I did not.

I said no. Then you asked me the question above and answered your own question with a claim. My answer is still no.

I did not ask you the question above, I related my opinion. In fact that was the first of my posts in this thread. I gave different information, in a different voice, under a different login, with reference to myself....

That's nonsense. Anything can carry DNA. Spit carries DNA, does that make spit a potential person?

What lunacy, deliberate disingenuousness! Spit is not an entire organism, but only a product thereof, however a fetus is the entirety of a human being carrying its own separate DNA and definable as human life. While it may not yet be a "person" depending on when one believes that becomes relevant it cannot be defined as other than the progeny of humans and a human life in its own right.

It does mean the spit was produced from a human though, if it carries the DNA of a human.

Brain activity indicates signs of life, it doesn't define humanity, those are two different concepts.

You stated sentience, not me. I therefore gave an example of humans, counted as humans, who do not have that sentience in an attempt to get you to expound on your own definition of "human".

What do you mean according to DNA and science? What does that mean? It's a foetus, of course it's got DNA. Having DNA doesn't define anything as human, it defines it as having DNA. Plants have DNA but a carrot isn't a human.

You are being deliberately obtuse, it has human DNA. It is an entire organism with separate and distinct DNA signature of a separate human from the incubating parent.

You haven't proved your point yet. You've made vague claims and references but nothing that can be called proof.

I have given an opinion, I did not say I "proved" anything in that statement. You are creating and battling strawmen, the last resort of the disingenuous.

I said before DNA doesn't define humanity.

According to whom? My doctor would be directly in opposition to this statement. This is an opinion directly against scientific knowledge. A fetus is just one of the first stages of the life of a human. After birth we use different names for the stages of that same life... infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. Each of those stages are part of the same lifeline.

Making claims and then spraying around rhetorical questions is very confusing to follow. What makes this even worse is your misrepresentations of what I was saying. That's just being intellectually lazy.

Intellectually lazy is not realizing when you are speaking to a different poster, creating different comments, and not extending a previous argument. It doesn't take much to look at the login, or even to realize that I post with an entirely different "voice" than the previous poster.


Intellectually lazy is also simply stating, "DNA dosen't define humanity" when it is the very basis that makes you human, had you the DNA of another species you would not be human. The foundation of a human, what makes you separate from another...

 

[larry_davis]

So Larry was it your intention to actually pose a question about religion, or merely to state your opinion then ridicule others who respond to it????????????? Interesting that you put the word arrogance in your title as you seem well acquainted with it.

ridicule? i was being serious. many religious people seem a bit crazy to me, maybe they are not but they seem to be off their rocker a bit. if an adult believes in santa claus, easter rabbit, tooth fairy, ect. wouldn't that seem a bit wierd, but religious people have a wierd demeanor to me. that's just my opinion.

 

[Bonnie]

ridicule? i was being serious. many religious people seem a bit crazy to me, maybe they are not but they seem to be off their rocker a bit. if an adult believes in santa claus, easter rabbit, tooth fairy, ect. wouldn't that seem a bit wierd, but religious people have a wierd demeanor to me. that's just my opinion.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I too have seen a few crazy people in my time, but generally they are simply crazy and religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I too have seen a few crazy people in my time, but generally they are simply crazy and religion has nothing to do with it.

They usually seem rather happy too.

 

[Bonnie]

They usually seem rather happy too.

LOL yes and God is the furthest thing from their minds :chillpill Although a few do actually claim to see the tooth fairy...Go figure :scratch:

 

[Abbey Normal]

LOL yes and God is the furthest thing from their minds :chillpill Although a few do actually claim to see the tooth fairy...Go figure :scratch:

Who needs God when the Mother Ship is circling the planet?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ridicule? i was being serious. many religious people seem a bit crazy to me, maybe they are not but they seem to be off their rocker a bit. if an adult believes in santa claus, easter rabbit, tooth fairy, ect. wouldn't that seem a bit wierd, but religious people have a wierd demeanor to me. that's just my opinion.

Religion makes more sense than a rational commitment to the demise of one's own nation, like libs have.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Religion makes more sense than a rational commitment to the demise of one's own nation, like libs have.

That's called a <i>non sequitur</i> old son.

 

[MissileMan]

That's called a <i>non sequitur</i> old son.

I thought it more resembled a glowing endorsement.

 

[no1tovote4]

That's called a <i>non sequitur</i> old son.

What was it that Homer said? You used to love my non sequitors!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's called a <i>non sequitur</i> old son.

They are rationally committed to the demise of america. That's insane. They knowingly want it's defeat and strive toward that end, though hiding their agenda. That's suicidal, it's considered a mental disorder.

 

[Diuretic]

Same thing, due to socialism being a death wish.

No it's not the same thing. A nihilist is not a socialist, quite the opposite in fact. A socialist wants a successful society, not a null society.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No it's not the same thing. A nihilist is not a socialist, quite the opposite in fact. A socialist wants a successful society, not a null society.

Not all nihilists are socialists, but all socialists are nihilists. They wish to destroy the existing order for an imagined, fanciful and unworkable one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What about the envirowhacko freaks who seek to stop the growth of humanity?
Thanks for asking. They're nihilists also, destroyers masquerading as good people.

 

[Diuretic]

Oh the ones who want to destroy the environment so we can't live here any more? Those envirowhacko freaks?

Hang on, I don't usually do sarcasm, although that felt rather good.

Well as nihilists go they're bloody hopeless then.

 

[Diuretic]

Not all nihilists are socialists, but all socialists are nihilists. They wish to destroy the existing order for an imagined, fanciful and unworkable one.

How can socialists be nihilists if they want something to replace something? To be nihlists they'd want to have nothing replacing something, if nothing can be said to replace anything.

Change isn't necessarily about destruction, although destruction can precede change. I think it's a bit self-defeating so I stay away from advocating it. I would imagine that Adam Smith was criticised for wanting to change the old order and replace it with an imagined, fanciful and unworkable one. The vested interests he challenged would have been jumping up and down with rage at what he suggested. But, as they say, nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Capitalism has been, on balance, good for humanity. But now it's usefulness is on the wane. We may not move to socialism, it might be something completely different in the future, but change there will be (jeez I sound like Yoda). It's part of human existence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How can socialists be nihilists if they want something to replace something? To be nihlists they'd want to have nothing replacing something, if nothing can be said to replace anything.

Change isn't necessarily about destruction, although destruction can precede change. I think it's a bit self-defeating so I stay away from advocating it. I would imagine that Adam Smith was criticised for wanting to change the old order and replace it with an imagined, fanciful and unworkable one. The vested interests he challenged would have been jumping up and down with rage at what he suggested. But, as they say, nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Capitalism has been, on balance, good for humanity. But now it's usefulness is on the wane. We may not move to socialism, it might be something completely different in the future, but change there will be (jeez I sound like Yoda). It's part of human existence.

Replacing a workable system with an antihuman lie is destructive. Socialism always leads to failure. Just because lefties refuse to acknowledge their destructiveness doesn't make them any less destructive.

 

[Diuretic]

Replacing a workable system with an antihuman lie is destructive. Socialism always leads to failure. Just because lefties refuse to acknowledge their destructiveness doesn't make them any less destructive.

Calling socialism an "antihuman lie" is simple prejudice.
It's pro-human, pro-society and not anti as you suggest. And it doesn't always lead to failure, that's simply not the case. The Scandinavian states are socialist at times but they're not failed states. France regularly has socialist governments but France isn't a failed state. Socialist governments in Europe are elected all the time to replace failed conservative governments and they in turn are replaced when they are seen to fail the needs of the electorate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Calling socialism an "antihuman lie" is simple prejudice.
It's pro-human, pro-society and not anti as you suggest. And it doesn't always lead to failure, that's simply not the case. The Scandinavian states are socialist at times but they're not failed states. France regularly has socialist governments but France isn't a failed state. Socialist governments in Europe are elected all the time to replace failed conservative governments and they in turn are replaced when they are seen to fail the needs of the electorate.

Europe is failing.

It's a lie because it's based on a misinterpretation of human nature, that people will work hard without personal benefit. But we all know its just a way of getting control.

The socialist mantra" To each according to need, from each according to ability", relies on a totalitarian hegemonic entity to make all these decisions for everyone's life.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

He won't go where the communist totalitarian argument really leads:"But people on the edge of starvation work very hard for a crust of bread".