Something GOOD Bush did- or do you think he is too evil to do anything good?

[hilamobster13]

actually, the corect hebrew translation of that phraze is "thou shalt not murder."

kill and murder are completely different things. if it was thou shalt not kill, then i think you'd have a whole lot more religious vegetarians running around.......

don't attack the bible like that. you cant say that they are contradictions. the bible is very cryptic, its hard to tell when something is to be taken literally and when something is figurative. everyone has their own opinion on the bible, but its really just a huge puzzle. things can contradict themselves when you dont understand them...... there are so many stupid christians running around saying "this means this and you need to do this and etc. etc..", basically preachingtheir opinion as fact. those people are assholes. i say bah to them.

[emprworm]

I think of it this way; like you said, a piece of hair can become a human being. So can a sperm. So can a zygote. I have a black and white definition of what is and is not a human. None of this can be/will be passive/active crap. I mean, we're all going to passively die, so why don't we just actively kill ourselves?

ace, the logic in that argument is poor. why do you cling to it? You are a good debator, don't resort to bad logic. Using your logic, we can therefore say that any mass of atomic particles can become a human being. A ball of hydrogen gas, a pile of toe-jammed toe-nails. As long as it has protons, neutrons, electrons, it can become human. Therefore a quadrant of space just outside Alpha Centauri with an average density of 1gm/cm^3- maybe a parsec's worth is the same as a fetus. Both can become human beings.

Please Ace. Don't strip the concept of passive of its meaning. And as for your statment: " mean, we're all going to passively die, so why don't we just actively kill ourselves".. IMHO, I believe you are correct...if there is no God, of course. What IS the point? I mean really...you ARE going to die. That is another subject, though. But keep this in mind...to kill yourself while healthy requires active intervention , since your life will passively exist until natural death. Any death that occurs while you are physically healthy requires interferrence!!! ...whether by disease, a car wreck, a gunshot, etc. Your example only affirms the irrefutable concept of a passive process. Your heart will passively beat while you sleep, unless something outside its normal processes intervenes. Just give this one up Ace. If you need me to provide links for you where I conceded points to people like Acriku, I'll do it. Have some honor and concede this point. Your other points are vastly better.

Drinking in moderation is good for your health (small glass of red wine per day shown to be good for your heart). But it'll permanently disable the child for its entire life.

the baby may not develop ideally, but the passive process will still continue...with or without the wine...until somehing stops it. Not the same for a sperm cell. Or a ball of hydrogen gas, for that matter.

"Thau shalt not kill"

You mean thou shall not murder? I know of that passage.

no amount of time can rationally equal a human life. It can rationally equal temporary suffering/pain inflicted on someone.

So why doesn't an independant third party rape rapists and steal from theives? If they're going to kill killers, why stop there?

the funny thing is that i answered your rebuttal in the very sentence you quoted to rebut! LOL. So here is your answer (requote)

"no amount of (jail) time can rationally equal a human life. It can rationally equal temporary suffering/pain inflicted on someone."

Justice = equal punishment for equal crime, not necessarily in the exact same manner as the crime, so long as the severity of the punishment is comparable to the severity of the crime.

[VigilVirus]

"no amount of (jail) time can rationally equal a human life. It can rationally equal temporary suffering/pain inflicted on someone."

Ah, this is funny. What if a criminal kills like a hundred or a thousand people? Then I guess execution would not be enough? What would you do then? Torture him inhumanely for the rest of his life? ::)

[Dude_Doc]

But you can surely and with 100% guarantee, by killing the murdurer, ensure that he will never kill anyone again. Of course there can be more like him, but how big is the propabillity of that?

[VigilVirus]

Quite big actually - his family and friends would want to avenge his death.

[Acriku]

Don't forget martyrdom.

[Dude_Doc]

Maybe, if they are as insane as he is, then yes. But we are talking about hundreds or thousands, as you said. How do you expect such an avengement?

[DukeLeto]

Now for you: Do you know what brassbound means?

hehe, A word to describe most people on these boards. ;D

[Dude_Doc]

I want to be forever young...

[emprworm]

"no amount of (jail) time can rationally equal a human life. It can rationally equal temporary suffering/pain inflicted on someone."

Ah, this is funny. What if a criminal kills like a hundred or a thousand people? Then I guess execution would not be enough? What would you do then? Torture him inhumanely for the rest of his life? ::)

a good point. in this case, the best you can do will be less than the crime. it is impossible to equal the crime, therefore death is all you can do.

[Dude_Doc]

Precisely. What should you do with the one man that killed Olof Palme (swedish prime minister 20 years ago, pretty much like the US JFK murdurer when he died), and the one man that gave the orders that killed 6 million Jews during WW2? What of all the soldiers that killed Jews, or knew the Jews would die if they continued to follow the orders they had? What should be done of them? "Yes, I killed 1000 people. But those were my orders".

[VigilVirus]

Here's my view on this:

Premeditated murder of one person - life in jail

Premeditated murder of two or more people - death penalty

Murder of 10 or more people - slow and painful death penalty

Murder of 100 or more people - 1 year of torture and then death

Murder of 1000 or more people - 10 years of torture and then death

Murder of 10,000 or more people - torture for the rest of life

j/k ::)

[Andrew]

If he was ordered to, then I see little reason how he could have been sentenced. kinda like if a soldier does what he is ordered, but it turns out to be a bad thing. the person who ordered it is responsible. kinda like if someone ordered their son to do something bad, the parent gets blamed because he looks after the child...me just making arguments.

[Sneakgab]

Geez, I just jumped straight to the last page. Iv'e never seen a topic that has gone so far from the actual point at hand? I assume Bush made some laws regarding abortion and the death sentence

Emperworm, you really are quite certain you are right aren't you? (well you probably are but that's besides the point) You do realize you are appearing extremely ''stingy'' right?

On the note of passiveness, I hope you're not saying it's wrong to kill a fetus since that fetus will eventually be a living thing. If you ask me, if it wasn't alive and you make sure it will never be alive, you're not murdering it.

''Here's my view on this:

Premeditated murder of one person - life in jail

Premeditated murder of two or more people - death penalty

Murder of 10 or more people - slow and painful death penalty

Murder of 100 or more people - 1 year of torture and then death

Murder of 1000 or more people - 10 years of torture and then death

Murder of 10,000 or more people - torture for the rest of life''

Call me sick and evil, but it would be pleasurable to see this in action

On that note: If you define justice as receiving an amount of pain equal to the pain the person in question caused, then I must point out that that definition is very close to the definition of vengeance. Only a third party receives the right to dealing the pain instead of the victim. If you ask me, the victim should get to deal the pain or at least feel responsible for it to provide a little consolidation:D

''Justice = equal punishment for equal crime, not necessarily in the exact same manner as the crime, so long as the severity of the punishment is comparable to the severity of the crime.''

True, but dealing out the same punishment you can be more sure the pain is equal besides if the rapists are being punished by being raped by say... rotveilers or members of the opposite sex who are just as ugly as them in the same manner (If some women was raped by Tom Cruise or a man by Pamela, can she or he really be called a victim?. With the former punishment, the punishment would be just and the criminal would be doing something productive by amusing society (who would be watching if they wished) and then both Acriku and Emprworm would be happy:D

As you can see, I'm not exactly passionate about these matters so I'll just end this post here

[Dude_Doc]

The thing is that will people agree of torturing a man/woman the rest of his job days?:

"What did you do today, honey?"

"Nah, the usual..."

"Ah, torturing that Frodo Baggins again, like you have for the last 10 months.."

(Note: The name was just an example.) Okay, sure, if you were ordered to execute a person with a "death-stick", that's one thing, but pulling, beating, and every other torture-things will make you sick... And besides that, the prisoner/condemned would probably commit suicide instead of being tortured for one year, like hang himself or break his own neck (like jumping to the wall or trying to land on the floor with his neck, sort of...). I mean, no one would stand and torture him all day long, besides robots :P ... and even robots will have to be controlled...

The only real and satisfying thing would be to make some "Matrix" simulation, or like the one used in Minority Report, so that the criminal live out his/her life in a cyber-world...

[SurlyPIG]

Using your logic, we can therefore say that any mass of atomic particles can become a human being.

That's my point exactly. Anything CAN become a human. Why do we make such a distinction between an inanimate ball of totipotent celss and, say, a nebula on the other side of the galaxy? Passively, a fetus may die too! It's called a miscarriage. The human reproductive system isn't perfect you know. Some people are willing to kill for gelatanous balls of genetic material (organizations that murder abortion-performing doctors). Funny how those same people wouldn't dream of, say, mourning a miscarriage. So unless you would like to see society perform full-blown funeral ceremonies, burial and all, for miscarriaged fetuses, then I don't see how you can claim fetus = human without being hypocritical.

Of course, anyone who would do such a thing is a loon. Stupid. I mean, the blob of stem cells hasn't lived, thought, felt emotions, all hit has done is followed it's genetic programming and grown. Having funeral ceremonies would be stupid, right?

Strangely enough, it's done in Japan. They have funerals and itty bitty coffins for aborted fetuses. At least they are consistent.

the baby may not develop ideally, but the passive process will still continue...with or without the wine...until somehing stops it.

Of course, but that's not what I meant...

Lets say that Jill, an alchoholic heroin addict, ODs and gets pregnant. Under your abortion rules, since she wasn't raped, she gets no abortion. The baby is born with FAS and addicted to heroin with all the brain disabilities associated therein. How fair is it to the child to expect it to suffer through life half-braindead because its mother was an irresponsible skank?

You mean thou shall not murder? I know of that passage.

Do you honestly think that ancient Hebrew had a word that identically matches murder? No...It was written by the ones who translated the bible over the years. Modified, per se, to fit changing times, like much of the bible. At least, that's what I've been told.

no amount of time can rationally equal a human life. It can rationally equal temporary suffering/pain inflicted on someone.

In other words, you would rather prisoners go through torture before death instead of the near-painless executions in practice today? (electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad etc.)

Justice = equal punishment for equal crime, not necessarily in the exact same manner as the crime, so long as the severity of the punishment is comparable to the severity of the crime.

That's the sketchyest definition I've ever heard. Exactly who is to determine what is equal and what is too far? Who is to determine what manner is appropriate and what is not? And on what are these determinations based on?

[Acriku]

That's the sketchyest definition I've ever heard. Exactly who is to determine what is equal and what is too far? Who is to determine what manner is appropriate and what is not? And on what are these determinations based on?

Why, this looks like a job for Emprworm the master of Morality! *Cue superman music* It's a good thing. It's a bad thing. No! It's Emprworm's morality! Wooooooosh!

[emprworm]

That's my point exactly. Anything CAN become a human. Why do we make such a distinction between an inanimate ball of totipotent celss and, say, a nebula on the other side of the galaxy

precisely the logical end of atheism. at least you are consistent.

many atheists are not intellectually honest enough to admit a distinction between a human being and a smear of dog excrement on the bottom of my shoe. They try to make up some kind of subjective reasoning that gives them objective meaning and distinction when ultimately, as the guy from www.ex-atheist.com points out, there indeed is none. It is all self-delusion. In this sense, i can see why you equate a human with a gaseous nebula.

i respect your atheistic integrity.

[emprworm]

Why, this looks like a job for Emprworm the master of Morality! *Cue superman music* It's a good thing. It's a bad thing. No! It's Emprworm's morality! Wooooooosh!

I dont set morality, Acriku, that would mean I subscribe to relative/subjective moarlity. I think you have me confused with an atheist.

[Acriku]

Why do human beings have to be any more than what they are? Which is a big pile of proteins. No need for anything else until you get to the conscious, which is very interesting thing.

[SurlyPIG]

many atheists are not intellectually honest enough to admit a distinction between a human being and a smear of dog excrement on the bottom of my shoe. They try to make up some kind of subjective reasoning that gives them objective meaning and distinction when ultimately, as the guy from www.ex-atheist.com points out, there indeed is none. It is all self-delusion. In this sense, i can see why you equate a human with a gaseous nebula.

I wouldn't go that far...

True, we are an evolved convergence of matter, energy, and circumstance. That is our origin. Where we go from there is entirely up to us.

Who are you to say what I believe or what atheists believe? In the greater scheme of things, no - we're not astronomically important. In all the cosmos, we're but a spec and currently, our daily lives shape nothing outside our planet. Reality is humbling...As you said yourself, we are nothing compared to the forces of nature. But I do make a distinction between us, nebulas, and other life. The universe is a busy place. Matter and energy is changed and recreated every moment and the reason for doing so is completely disregarding. A planet may emerge with life, it might not. It might be destroyed without a second thought. Reality is merciless in nature. However, we are not. Distinction, diversity, decision, imulsion. Qualities that set us apart. I hope someday we'll find other life like us - or maybe it will find us.

BTW I compared a fetus of totipotent cells...not a human. They are clearly two different things...Think of it this way:

Any biologist, if given a human fetus of totipotent cells, and say, a pig's fetus of totipotent cells, will not be able to make a distinction between the two unless he does DNA testing. Think about that. In this stage of development, there's no descernable difference between a human fetus and a pig fetus. As long as it's mammal, they can't tell.

[emprworm]

I wouldn't go that far...

you already did go that far.

"Anything CAN become a human. Why do we make such a distinction between an inanimate ball of totipotent celss and, say, a nebula on the other side of the galaxy? "

jeez, Ace. Why DO we make a distinction between an inanimate ball of hydrogen gas and a human being? Wow, what a great question. how silly of us. After all, you are just a conglomerate mass of mostly hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon- typical elements dispersed throughout the universe.

LOL. Think about what you just said....ha ha. Cmon Ace. You went "that far" and then some! So are you taking it back?

Using your argument that a Nebula can become a human being, therefore it has no value (similar to a fetus), so does a human being who can die and then re-form into a human again!!! We can use your same argument to show that a human has no value.

now: A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C (law of logic)-

therefore, sperm cell = no real value= nebula = no real value, human being = no real value (using your logic).

Now of course you wont agree with that- you will make an exception for human beings.

if we use your own words - "Why do we make such a distinction between an inanimate ball of totipotent celss and, say, a nebula on the other side of the galaxy"

I simply ask you now- why ARE you making a distinction? You argue that no exception should be made , yet you make an exceptional exception to human beings without any real rational merit or evidence to do so, let alone exceptional evidence. Why? ::)

and as for the passive development of a fetus- you know that it is true, and the argument of sperm cell becoming a person= fetus becoming a person are not the same. One is in an active process of becoming a person, the other has not even begun the process. One requires interferrence or a malfunction to stop the process, the other requires interferrence to even begin the process. One, if left alone without a change in environment, dependencies of the host, or interferred with will most likely become a person. The other, if left alone without a change in environment will most definately die. You can argue this for eternity but I think you are just too stubborn to acknowledge when your debate opponent has successfully refuted one of your points. That is just MHO, of course ;)

[Anathema]

Still had no reply to this...

I think a concious human being is worth more then a fetus who has yet to become anything.

Suppose a woman carries a child. She has health problems, however, and the doctors says she has about 0.33 chance she'll die if she doesn't abort the pregnency. Will you abort the pregnancy (killing the fetus, but ensuring the survival of the woman) or do you take your chances that the woman will live? If the fetus is to be considered equal to the woman, it would be just to take the chance that the woman dies.