Voltaire said: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities”

[Blues Man]

You stand on the side that has murdered over sixty million American children since 1973—about four Nazi Holocausts worth—and continue to murder thousands of innocents children every day, over a million every year.

Don't speak to me of atrocities. All the religions in all the world, in all human history (aside form Satan's religion which is behind the murders that you support) cannot be tied to anywhere near the atrocities that you support. Not by several orders of magnitude.

I do?

Allowing people to make their own decisions is all I support. Unlike you who have a pathological need to control people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I do?

Allowing people to make their own decisions is all I support. Unlike you who have a pathological need to control people.

“Their own decision” to murder an innocent human being in cold blood.

There is no virtue at all in supporting that.

What decision is the innocent victim of an abortion allowed to make?

In any event, by supporting the “right” to murder innocent human beings, in such huge numbers, you completely forfeit any and all credibility in claiming any concern for human life or human rights.

 

[Blues Man]

“Their own decision” to murder an innocent human being in cold blood.

There is no virtue at all in supporting that.

What decision is the innocent victim of an abortion allowed to make?

In any event, by supporting the “right” to murder innocent human beings, in such huge numbers, you completely forfeit any and all credibility in claiming any concern for human life or human rights.

This is a matter of law not religion. And if abortion is not illegal then it is not murder because murder is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person.

A fetus is not a person in the eyes of the law and abortion is still legal in most states and abortion bans are being overturned in elections in states that had trigger laws.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A fetus is not a person in the eyes of the law…

Neither was a Jew in 1930s-1940s Germany. Nor a black person in certain parts of the United States earlier in our history.

They were just as wrong as you are.

 

[Blues Man]

Neither was a Jew in 1930s-1940s Germany. Nor a black person in certain parts of the United States earlier in our history.

They were just as wrong as you are.

Yes that's right.

I just saw a documentary on Nazi Germany called Ordinary Men and it was about the German men who became police officers not soldiers who responsible for killing uncounted thousands of Jews and guess what none of them were prosecuted for war crimes because what they were doing was not considered to be illegal at the time. Even though all these men could have chosen not to kill any Jews and there was no punishment for refusing.

But murder is the subject of laws by definition.

Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person.

We in the US do not legally recognize a fetus as a person and in most states abortion is not illegal.

We don't consider a fetus a person with all the rights we recognize because it creates a legal quagmire and forces the government to subjugate the rights of one person to the rights of the unborn

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We don't consider a fetus a person with all the rights we recognize because it creates a legal quagmire and forces the government to subjugate the rights of one person to the rights of the unborn

The “right” to murder an innocent human being in cold blood should be “subjugated”.

You go to an awful lot of bizarre semantic skullduggery to deny what is obvious to any sane, decent human being. I suppose it comes from denying God, that you go on to deny the most obvious and essential of moral and ethical principles, having nothing but a shifting, inconsistent self-centered basis on which to try to make any sense of such principles.

Perhaps it gets right back to the subject of this thread: You believe an absurdity (that God does not exist which makes it easy for you to accept an atrocity, in the form of the murders of thousands of innocent and defenseless human beings every day. You've forced God out of your conscience, and by so doing, have invited Satan in to take His place.

 

[Blues Man]

The “right” to murder an innocent human being in cold blood should be “subjugated”.

You go to an awful lot of bizarre semantic skullduggery to deny what is obvious to any sane, decent human being. I suppose it comes from denying God, that you go on to deny the most obvious and essential of moral and ethical principles, having nothing but a shifting, inconsistent self-centered basis on which to try to make any sense of such principles.

Perhaps it gets right back to the subject of this thread: You believe an absurdity (that God does not exist which makes it easy for you to accept an atrocity, in the form of the murders of thousands of innocent and defenseless human beings every day. You've forced God out of your conscience, and by so doing, have invited Satan in to take His place.

It wouldn't be the only right that would involved.

Tell me how would the government know there was an unborn person that needed protection?

Would you have the results of all positive pregnancy tests reported to the state?

What about home pregnancy tests?

Would you allow a pregnant woman to travel to another state where abortion was legal?

What if the pregnant women refused all medical care? Would you lock her up and force her to see a doctor?

What if she ate a poor diet or went on a hunger strike?

What if she smoked a cigarette or had a sip of wine?

WHat are you prepared to do to protect this fetus that you say has all the rights of any born child?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It wouldn't be the only right that would involved.
Tell me how would the government know there was an unborn person that needed protection?
Would you have the results of all positive pregnancy tests reported to the state?
What about home pregnancy tests?
Would you allow a pregnant woman to travel to another state where abortion was legal?
What if the pregnant women refused all medical care? Would you lock her up and force her to see a doctor?
What if she ate a poor diet or went on a hunger strike?
What if she smoked a cigarette or had a sip of wine?
WHat are you prepared to do to protect this fetus that you say has all the rights of any born child?

You're assuming that it is government's business, in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity, to monitor all citizens, in order to make sure they aren't committing crimes, to snoop into everyone's personal affairs to whatever degree they deem necessary to that end. That, of course, flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

It's not government's business to investigate a possible crime, unless there is some affirmative indication that a crime has taken place, or is imminently about to take place.

 

[Blues Man]

You're assuming that it is government's business, in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity, to monitor all citizens, in order to make sure they aren't committing crimes, to snoop into everyone's personal affairs to whatever degree they deem necessary to that end. That, of course, flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

It's not government's business to investigate a possible crime, unless there is some affirmative indication that a crime has taken place, or is imminently about to take place.

if the fetus is a person then it is the government's business.

If the fetus has all the rights we recognize for born persons it is the government's business

How else will the government know if that fetus needs protection if it does not know it exists?

All births are recorded and the government keeps records so those children can be known and protected if need be. If a fetus has all the rights of those children as you say it does then the government needs to know it exists.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

if the fetus is a person then it is the government's business.
If the fetus has all the rights we recognize for born persons it is the government's business
How else will the government know if that fetus needs protection if it does not know it exists?

How can government protect me from being murdered by you, if there's no indication that you have any intent of doing so?

Should government be watching to see if you have any plans to travel to Sacramento? Should they be looking into whether you are in possession of, or intent to acquire, a weapon with which you could commit a murder? Should they be snooping into every aspect of your personal business, looking for some indication that you intend to murder me?

How can anyone know that you aren't going to come hunt me down and kill me? And what should government do, “just in case”, to make sure that you don't?

Your argument depends entirely on the premise that government has the right, even the duty, to treat everyone as a potential criminal. The Fourth Amendment absolutely repudiates this premise. Government has neither the authority nor duty to investigate any “crime” until there is some affirmative cause to believe that the crime actually has been committed, or will be committed.

 

[Blues Man]

How can government protect me from being murdered by you, if there's no indication that you have any intent of doing so?

Should government be watching to see if you have any plans to travel to Sacramento? Should they be looking into whether you are in possession of, or intent to acquire, a weapon with which you could commit a murder? Should they be snooping into every aspect of your personal business, looking for some indication that you intend to murder me?

How can anyone know that you aren't going to come hunt me down and kill me? And what should government do, “just in case”, to make sure that you don't?

Your argument depends entirely on the premise that government has the right, even the duty, to treat everyone as a potential criminal. The Fourth Amendment absolutely repudiates this premise. Government has neither the authority nor duty to investigate any “crime” until there is some affirmative cause to believe that the crime actually has been committed, or will be committed.

The government has to know we exist before anyone can be tried for our murders.

And this goes far beyond murder.

Tell me if a child isn't being fed or cared for should the government step in?

If a child is being given drugs by a parent should the government step in?

You say that a fetus should have all the rights of a born child and you do not think through what that would mean.

What if a pregnant woman went on a hunger strike? Or refused medical care? Or engaged in behaviors that put the fetus at risk?

If the fetus has the same rights as everyone else then the government is forced to intervene.

We do not and will not ever recognize a fetus as a person with all the rights of personhood

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The government has to know we exist before anyone can be tried for our murders.

If a dead human body is found, an obvious result of violence, the government doesn't have to know who it was, or to have any record of that person having ever existed, to know that a crime has very likely taken place, and should be investigated.

To propose a rather unlikely scenario, suppose someone went to the North Sentinel Island, abducted one of the natives there, brought that native here to America, murdered that native, and dumped the body on the street.

No identification of the victim will ever be possible, no record will exist of that victim having ever existed, and yet, here, undeniably, is the murder of a human being, on American soil, under the jurisdiction of whatever state in which it occurred.

By your logic, no crime has occurred, because government never knew that this victim ever existed.

Tell me if a child isn't being fed or cared for should the government step in?
If a child is being given drugs by a parent should the government step in?

Certainly, there is a line of parental abuse of a child, where society/government has the authority and duty to intervene to protect that child.

Abortion absolutely, undeniably crosses this line. That our society refuses, in this case, to intervene to protect an innocent human being is a shameful failure of our society, and a deep, criminal-level malfeasance on the part of government.

You say that a fetus should have all the rights of a born child and you do not think through what that would mean.

It means that we would have to treat an innocent human being as an innocent human being, and protect the rights of that human being. That you have a problem with this, reflects very badly on your [lack of] moral character.

What if a pregnant woman went on a hunger strike? Or refused medical care? Or engaged in behaviors that put the fetus at risk?

What if a mother refuses to provide food or allow food to be provided to her three-year-old? Or engages in activity that put that toddler at unreasonable risk.

Same thing. Abuse and neglect are abuse and neglect, completely regardless of the age of the child being abused or neglected.

If the fetus has the same rights as everyone else then the government is forced to intervene.

That's what we said about black people, early in this country's history. That's what they said in Germany, about Jews and other Untermenschen. History is littered with instances of a dominant population denying the very humanity of a group of people, in order to excuse horrendous human rights abuses against those people. You are no better than any of them. It is that exact same evil, now manifested through you.

 

[Blues Man]

If a dead human body is found, an obvious result of violence, the government doesn't have to know who it was, or to have any record of that person having ever existed, to know that a crime has very likely taken place, and should be investigated.

To propose a rather unlikely scenario, suppose someone went to the North Sentinel Island, abducted one of the natives there, brought that native here to America, murdered that native, and dumped the body on the street.

No identification of the victim will ever be possible, no record will exist of that victim having ever existed, and yet, here, undeniably, is the murder of a human being, on American soil, under the jurisdiction of whatever state in which it occurred.

By your logic, no crime has occurred, because government never knew that this victim ever existed.




Certainly, there is a line of parental abuse of a child, where society/government has the authority and duty to intervene to protect that child.

Abortion absolutely, undeniably crosses this line. That our society refuses, in this case, to intervene to protect an innocent human being is a shameful failure of our society, and a deep, criminal-level malfeasance on the part of government.




It means that we would have to treat an innocent human being as an innocent human being, and protect the rights of that human being. That you have a problem with this, reflects very badly on your [lack of] moral character.




What if a mother refuses to provide food or allow food to be provided to her three-year-old? Or engages in activity that put that toddler at unreasonable risk.

Same thing. Abuse and neglect are abuse and neglect, completely regardless of the age of the child being abused or neglected.




That's what we said about black people, early in this country's history. That's what they said in Germany, about Jews and other Untermenschen. History is littered with instances of a dominant population denying the very humanity of a group of people, in order to excuse horrendous human rights abuses against those people. You are no better than any of them. It is that exact same evil, now manifested through you.

So you want a woman to be locked up and force fed if she is pregnant and refuses to eat?

That doesn;t happen with a 3 year old does it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you want a woman to be locked up and force fed if she is pregnant and refuses to eat?

That doesn;t [sic] happen with a 3 year old does it?

What should happen if a mother refuses to provide food to her three-year-old, or to allow anyone else to do so?

 

[Blues Man]

What should happen if a mother refuses to provide food to her three-year-old, or to allow anyone else to do so?

What should happen if a pregnant woman refuses to eat?

 

[luiza]

I'd say he was spot on.

I see the gender altering of minors as the perfect example.

Who in their right mind wouldn't consider it a absurdity on it's face and an atrocity in it's practice?

But somehow a large segment of the population has been conned into thinking it's OK.

Many states with laws to back it up.

There is a positive side , imho .
Not so long ago only elite Critical Thinkers made such points . Now, Normies and even the Sheeple are beginning to see --- for example --- that the notion of a Deep State is real and that Mind Control is practised 24x7 by it and those in power .

And you first have to know whom your enemy is before you can defeat it .
A fast improving trend .

 

[Libby von H]

And in that statement you ignore the atrocities committed by people who believe the absurdities of religions

I love posts like this, fully ignorant of what they've copied-and-pasted.Voltaire was a horrible human being and part of it was the
hypocrisy you so approvingly quote !!

Once he said :

"The establishment in Paraguay by the Spanish Jesuits appears alone, in some way, the triumph of humanity. It seems to expiate the cruelties of the first conquerors. The Quakers in North America and the Jesuits in South America gave a new spectacle to the world."
— Voltaire​

But later by lying and deceit and callous disregard for all the good done in South America his hatred for the Jesuist led him to intrigue to have the whole South American project (30+ cities formed to help the Indians who previously lived in jungles with no medical help or any sign of civilization) shut down and the Jesuits suppressed. A thoroughly disgusting and hyporcitical bastard he was. Full indisputable documentaiton has long been available

 

[Blues Man]

I love posts like this, fully ignorant of what they've copied-and-pasted.Voltaire was a horrible human being and part of it was the
hypocrisy you so approvingly quote !!

Once he said :

"The establishment in Paraguay by the Spanish Jesuits appears alone, in some way, the triumph of humanity. It seems to expiate the cruelties of the first conquerors. The Quakers in North America and the Jesuits in South America gave a new spectacle to the world."​

— Voltaire​

But later by lying and deceit and callous disregard for all the good done in South America his hatred for the Jesuist led him to intrigue to have the whole South American project (30+ cities formed to help the Indians who previously lived in jungles with no medical help or any sign of civilization) shut down and the Jesuits suppressed. A thoroughly disgusting and hyporcitical bastard he was. Full indisputable documentaiton has long been available

What exactly did I copy and paste?

There was nothing in the post you quoted that was pasted in.

 

[Libby von H]

I'd say he was spot on.

I see the gender altering of minors as the perfect example.

Who in their right mind wouldn't consider it a absurdity on it's face and an atrocity in it's practice?

But somehow a large segment of the population has been conned into thinking it's OK.

Many states with laws to back it up.

and I would say you don't know what a complete lying bastard he was

 

[1srelluc]

and I would say you don't know what a complete lying bastard he was

View attachment 933951

Meh, it does not make him wrong despite his perceived peccadilloes.