Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the first, explain with any form of logic or reason as to why you think "shock" and "Awe" supports that claim. I have no clue whats twirling on in that head of yours or if the basis of that position is founded on misinformation. So please explain why it supports your position.
Thats your choice and decision concerning your life. You certainly have a right to decide that about yourself. You however have no right to decide that for another.
As for the first, bombs don't know whether their targets are military or civilian. So dropping bombs doesn't protect the lives of the civilians who die in the blasts.
As for the second, I would extend that right to EVERY child. Better that a child never grow up at all, then to have to grow up unwanted and abused.
You know what Saganista, I have had a few discussions with you and as I was looking over some past topics we have discussed, I have decided that I really don't want to waste my time with your discussion style. Take it as you like, I honestly don't care. I am just not going to waste my time or yours going in circles.
I'm with you there, Nomander. I should've learned long ago that debating with someone who seems to post as a game to demonstrate the number of tangents that can be developed and how many big words can be strung together in one sentence, is a useless endeavor.
As for the first, bombs don't know whether their targets are military or civilian. So dropping bombs doesn't protect the lives of the civilians who die in the blasts.
/sigh
Yes, bombs go boom and they have an area of effect. Those "bombs" though are often strategically placed in order to minimize casualties. If they were not done as such, we wouldn't waste our darn time making bombs with laser guiding and contained explosive impacts.
Take for instance Iraq, if we didn't care about civilians, it would have been much much cheaper and much much more safer for us to just turn the town into a parking lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
As for the second, I would extend that right to EVERY child. Better that a child never grow up at all, then to have to grow up unwanted and abused.
Oh, so in your little fantasy world, it is now considered a "right" to kill them? Because well, YOU know whats best for them? Maybe, and this is me just going out on a limb here. Maybe not everyone is messed up as you? Maybe? Just a thought?
you know what TKramar, I think Ive had enough of your homemade logic. I am putting you on ignore for sanity reasons.
I doubt that you can even state my theory, so how do you know that your answers don't fit?
Because you stated that
Quote:
Ah. This is quite telling about the Dutch culture, that homosapiens are seen as being equivalent to other animals. Much is explained by this. Thanks for that enlightening tidbit.
Humans are animals, or do you believe that man isn't part of the animal kingdom?
Quote:
Is the baby still part of the woman's body while the cord is attached or not?
And where would that have been and what IS my theory?
Quote:
Humans are animals, or do you believe that man isn't part of the animal kingdom?
Sure, we are considered animals. But, the difference is that we can participate in recognizing the rights of other animals, but other animals cannot. Thus, the reason we have rights and they do not, here in the U.S. However, they are provided protection from cruelty simply from our compassion.
Quote:
What do you think my answer would be?
I'll only guess, if you're willing to directly answer the question with a yes or no afterwards.
Thus, the reason we have rights and they do not, here in the U.S. However, they are provided protection from cruelty simply from our compassion.
Then why have the law protect humans? Should we not also be able to protect humanity from cruelty with just our compassion?
Quote:
I'll only guess, if you're willing to directly answer the question with a yes or no afterwards.
You are so fixated on insinuating that I'd flip flop or that I am deliberately vague that you have completely missed the point that I already have given the answer to this particular question several posts ago.
Then why have the law protect humans? Should we not also be able to protect humanity from cruelty with just our compassion?
Like I explained, Humans, who have the capacity to recognized rights of other humans, have property rights bestowed upon them and recognized by the State for protection. Compassion does provide benefits above what the law provides by providing, for example, the essentials in life, food, clothing, etc. In this, we have stumbled upon the difference in a socialistic society and a capitalistic society, in that the former bestows additional rights, the right to health insurance, the right to a living wage, at the expense of others. In a capitalistic society, the compassion of individuals plays a larger part in providing for those who deserve help, and much more efficiently.
Quote:
You are so fixated on insinuating that I'd flip flop or that I am deliberately vague that you have completely missed the point that I already have given the answer to this particular question several posts ago.
I really don't think that you'd flip-flop, however, I do believe you are being deliberately vague, as many do when asked these types of questions, to avoid being seen as inconsistent. Others, and we know who they are, prefer to use diversions and tangents. Even your use of the term "would be", a future tense verb requiring the qualifier of "if I were to answer it", suggests that you have yet to answer the question. My offer still stands.
You still have yet to provide "my theory" as you have suggested that I've already exposed.
Like I explained, Humans, who have the capacity to recognized rights of other humans, have property rights bestowed upon them and recognized by the State for protection.
The thing is that non living entities like the government or a State also has rights (as if it were a living individual), which is illogical.
Individuals can go to prison, while organisations (like the government) can't.
Therefore I do not acknowledge that non-living entities have any rights at all.
Quote:
You still have yet to provide "my theory" as you have suggested that I've already exposed.
I've only 'exposed' my theory:
Being sentient is not the same as being alive. It is not my fault that you believe that being alive equals being sentient, which is illogical.
Originally Posted by AmaznjohnThe thing is that non living entities like the government or a State also has rights (as if it were a living individual), which is illogical.
Individuals can go to prison, while organisations (like the government) can't.
Therefore I do not acknowledge that non-living entities have any rights at all.
I'm not sure what has caused you to perceive that governments (as sovereign entities) have rights, or any organization for that matter. How would one go about putting a "government" in prison? Individuals comprise a government and some of these individuals are indeed put in jail, or otherwise punished under the law for matters relating to government matters.
Quote:
I've only 'exposed' my theory:
Being sentient is not the same as being alive. It is not my fault that you believe that being alive equals being sentient, which is illogical.
I was refering to your statement, "You only like answers that fit your theory, so you dismiss every answer that disproves it." Like I stated, I doubt that you can state my theory, since I haven't even expressed it here, so I don't understand how you can make this statement.
I DON'T believe that sentience=alive. As a matter of fact, I don't believe your definition of sentience is even relevent. Stating this, as you did, "A 3 year old child already is sentient and terminating his life will be considered murder which is against the law." suggests that it is YOU who considers sentience as being the determining factor as to when the child is a beneficiary of State protection, which you defined as about 2 months. Following this evidence would demonstrate that you would support a mother's decision to kill a 1 month old, because it hasn't reached the point of sentience.
Following this evidence would demonstrate that you would support a mother's decision to kill a 1 month old, because it hasn't reached the point of sentience.
Nope, as I've already stated (often) killing a 1 month old baby can never be considered abortion since it already was given birth. Abortion (and euthanasia) in Holland are legal, but murder isn't. Only the termination of a 1 month old foetus can be considered to be an abortion since it hasn't been delivered into the world.
A baby is not a foetus. Besides, women generally decide to abort their pregnancy the moment they find out that they are pregnant and not the moment when their water broke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Humans are animals, or do you believe that man isn't part of the animal kingdom?
What do you think my answer would be?
Should we not also be able to protect humanity from cruelty with just our compassion?
