[quote]Makavali wrote:
An embryo and a child/man/woman/whatever are not the same. Despite your girlish screams and protests that they are, it is still in doubt.[/quote]
Your doubt and ad hominem doesn’t mean they are different. See what I did there?
What’s wrong with the Middle Ages?
Anyway, I said the “no cures” thing doesn’t matter as killing another human will never be justified except in self-defense from that human in a matter of immediate danger.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.[/quote]
I am sure the German scientist said the same thing with their experiments. No, freezing humans to test pain tolerance is not some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.
At least their research has provided fruit. ESC has proved zero cures, compared to ASC which has produced 73 cures. Even if it did provide one cure, killing even one baby is not justified to do so. Sorry. The ends don’t justify the means.[/quote]
That’s what that Cortes guy was trying to tell me but it’s all idealogical BS. How come I care if you freeze a human but don’t give a shit what happens to an ESC. Does that make me psychotic or evil?
Nah.[/quote]
I’ll refrain from judgement as I’m not a psychologist. However, ESC is still morally evil. And, whether you “care” or not doesn’t change that, sorry.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
An embryo and a child/man/woman/whatever are not the same. Despite your girlish screams and protests that they are, it is still in doubt.[/quote]
Your doubt and ad hominem doesn’t mean they are different. See what I did there?
What’s wrong with the Middle Ages?
Anyway, I said the “no cures” thing doesn’t matter as killing another human will never be justified except in self-defense from that human in a matter of immediate danger.[/quote]
Way to read something and completely ignore the point.
The Catholic Church would be proud.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.[/quote]
I am sure the German scientist said the same thing with their experiments. No, freezing humans to test pain tolerance is not some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.
At least their research has provided fruit. ESC has proved zero cures, compared to ASC which has produced 73 cures. Even if it did provide one cure, killing even one baby is not justified to do so. Sorry. The ends don’t justify the means.[/quote]
That’s what that Cortes guy was trying to tell me but it’s all idealogical BS. How come I care if you freeze a human but don’t give a shit what happens to an ESC. Does that make me psychotic or evil?
Nah.[/quote]
I’ll refrain from judgement as I’m not a psychologist. However, ESC is still morally evil. And, whether you “care” or not doesn’t change that, sorry.[/quote]
If rape was sanctioned by the Church, I’m sure you’d find it moral. Your declarations on morality are shaky to say the least.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.[/quote]
I am sure the German scientist said the same thing with their experiments. No, freezing humans to test pain tolerance is not some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.
At least their research has provided fruit. ESC has proved zero cures, compared to ASC which has produced 73 cures. Even if it did provide one cure, killing even one baby is not justified to do so. Sorry. The ends don’t justify the means.[/quote]
That’s what that Cortes guy was trying to tell me but it’s all idealogical BS. How come I care if you freeze a human but don’t give a shit what happens to an ESC. Does that make me psychotic or evil?
Nah.[/quote]
I’ll refrain from judgement as I’m not a psychologist. However, ESC is still morally evil. And, whether you “care” or not doesn’t change that, sorry.[/quote]
If rape was sanctioned by the Church, I’m sure you’d find it moral. Your declarations on morality are shaky to say the least.[/quote]
I’m not even sure all the kinds of fallacy this is…oh yeah red herring. Anyway, even though it is impossible for rape to be sanctioned by the Church, I wouldn’t find it moral.
And, I already proved ESC is morally wrong because life starts at conception and it’s always wrong to murder and it’s wrong to treat someone as an object and wrong to treat someone as a means (kant). 
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
An embryo and a child/man/woman/whatever are not the same. Despite your girlish screams and protests that they are, it is still in doubt.[/quote]
Your doubt and ad hominem doesn’t mean they are different. See what I did there?
What’s wrong with the Middle Ages?
Anyway, I said the “no cures” thing doesn’t matter as killing another human will never be justified except in self-defense from that human in a matter of immediate danger.[/quote]
Way to read something and completely ignore the point.
The Catholic Church would be proud.[/quote]
I asked what is wrong with the Middle Ages, I am going to guess you have no answer. Anyway, ESC, because life starts at conception is wrong. It is also wrong based on that it is unnatural to separate the procreative aspect and marital unitive aspect of coitus from each other and thus immoral.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I am going to guess you have no answer.[/quote]
The irony here is that you sit there behind your keyboard and ignore the actual point in my statements and go off on a tangent.
EDIT: Actually, to play fair, perhaps you truly don’t get what I’m saying.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[/quote]
No, I doubt it.[/quote]
Not generally, because of the whole forbidden fruit thing, but as far as the whole forcing people into gas chambers or working them to death stuff-
After all, they were obeying their governments that were totally ordained by God.
[/quote]
As, I told you before government is ordained, but sins are not ordained. Just because someone is ordained in such fashion does not make their sins ordained. God permits their sins, as opposed to smiting them on the spot or not giving them free will, but he does not ordain their sins.
As well, God gave us freedom, not to do as we wish but as we ought to do. When we go against what we ought to do, that is against divine laws which are above earthly laws, then we have sinned. And, if an earthly law goes against a divine law, man has the right or better yet responsibility to go against earthly laws in that situation.
So, yes the SS guards are culpable for their actions. They are a duty to listen to their leaders, but not when it goes against Divine law and authority.[/quote]
But Paul said to obey and a lot of what the Romans did went very much against divine law.
Which brings us back to give unto Caesar and whatnot, the Lord has made very clear that all the gold, all the silver and all the land are His.
[/quote]
Yes, and he gave authority to the Church and the Church gives authority to the governments.
The Protestants thought it best to kill Christian kings and set themselves up a democracy.
Nevertheless, authority is still with most governments, but that does not detract from the country’s and individual’s responsibility to act in accordance with Divine Law even if it goes against the country’s law.
[/quote]
OMG (that’s Goddess btw)…I think you just made the argument for Sharia law superseding local laws…If you extrapolate this theory, if you are a Muslim and live by the laws of Allah, and those laws are counter to your country’s laws, then Allah’s laws supersede them…Are you frickin’ kidding me? How brainwashed are you? Can you not make any intelligent decision about ANYTHING without resorting to a book? A book that was put together by men to advance their own agendas and fatten their own pockets? Do you not see the idiocy of men who have chosen to NOT have sex telling a community HOW to have sex and WHY to have sex and WHEN to have sex? Why would you consider a community of VIRGINS to be experts on the sexual act? Why would anyone consider a novice in some subject to be an expert in that same subject?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…let’s take a look at some stats.
How many lives have been taken to taken by extracting adult stem cells…0
How many lives have been taken to taken by extracting embryonic stem cells…uncountable
How many illnesses have adult stem cells helped cure…73
How many illnesses have embryonic stem cells helped cure…0
What evidence is there that murder and artificial contraception (which both are never okay) is even working in this instance? I see none.[/quote]
This sums it up nicely and yet people still want to debate it. Embryonic stem cells have given us nothing and yet people center a phony debate around them. It is all political posturing based on a phony premise.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…let’s take a look at some stats.
How many lives have been taken to taken by extracting adult stem cells…0
How many lives have been taken to taken by extracting embryonic stem cells…uncountable
How many illnesses have adult stem cells helped cure…73
How many illnesses have embryonic stem cells helped cure…0
What evidence is there that murder and artificial contraception (which both are never okay) is even working in this instance? I see none.[/quote]
This sums it up nicely and yet people still want to debate it. Embryonic stem cells have given us nothing and yet people center a phony debate around them. It is all political posturing based on a phony premise.[/quote]
Hey I’m going to foster an environment where people are generally afraid of experimenting with ESCs or even fund them, and then complain I don’t see any results!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…let’s take a look at some stats.
How many lives have been taken to taken by extracting adult stem cells…0
How many lives have been taken to taken by extracting embryonic stem cells…uncountable
How many illnesses have adult stem cells helped cure…73
How many illnesses have embryonic stem cells helped cure…0
What evidence is there that murder and artificial contraception (which both are never okay) is even working in this instance? I see none.[/quote]
This sums it up nicely and yet people still want to debate it. Embryonic stem cells have given us nothing and yet people center a phony debate around them. It is all political posturing based on a phony premise.[/quote]
Hey I’m going to foster an environment where people are generally afraid of experimenting with ESCs or even fund them, and then complain I don’t see any results![/quote]
There are loads of things the government chooses not to fund (NOTE: Does NOT restrict, only chooses not to fund) and you don’t see people getting all up in arms about it because they don’t involve sex.
Every time, though, every. single. time. you start to talk about placing even the most infinitesimal restriction on something connected to their precious sexual libertinism,watch out.
Make no mistake, that’s what this is really about.
And if millions upon millions of human lives must be snuffed out in service of this most-important “freedom,” well, let them eat cake.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
There are loads of things the government chooses not to fund (NOTE: Does NOT restrict, only chooses not to fund) and you don’t see people getting all up in arms about it because they don’t involve sex.
Every time, though, every. single. time. you start to talk about placing even the most infinitesimal restriction on something connected to their precious sexual libertinism,watch out.
Make no mistake, that’s what this is really about.
And if millions upon millions of human lives must be snuffed out in service of this most-important “freedom,” well, let them eat cake.
[/quote]
Uh, what?
You have to think about it. But if you are willing to really do so, to peel off all the layers and really get to the core of the issue, this issue, abortion, welfare, the entire menagerie of liberal sacred cows, you’ll find it. One, true, immutable, absolute truth that holds all of this together, and explains it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You have to think about it. But if you are willing to really do so, to peel off all the layers and really get to the core of the issue, this issue, abortion, welfare, the entire menagerie of liberal sacred cows, you’ll find it. One, true, immutable, absolute truth that holds all of this together, and explains it.[/quote]
That sounds like something a 9/11 truther would say. I mean no offense, but I am well aware that it probably will offend. But holy shit man.
It isn’t for me, and I’m sure it isn’t for the majority of people who share similar views to myself.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You have to think about it. But if you are willing to really do so, to peel off all the layers and really get to the core of the issue, this issue, abortion, welfare, the entire menagerie of liberal sacred cows, you’ll find it. One, true, immutable, absolute truth that holds all of this together, and explains it.[/quote]
That sounds like something a 9/11 truther would say. I mean no offense, but I am well aware that it probably will offend. But holy shit man.
It isn’t for me, and I’m sure it isn’t for the majority of people who share similar views to myself.[/quote]
Mak, I know we disagree on well, like, everything but I still consider you my friend. Don’t worry, I’m pretty thick skinned and fairly forgiving.
As for this, I’m serious. There’s no government conspiracy silliness about it, and it isn’t even very complicated or hard to figure out.It involves basic human drives and emotions, which as you know can be very, very strong, causing us to do all sorts of things that a vulcan or a eunuch might not.
You can dismiss me and equate me with crazies if you want, but I think you know me well enough that you’d not consider me dishonest or kooky (well, not too kooky, at least). I’m just asking you to set aside your preconceived notions for a moment, and think about it. If you keep your eye on what it is that motivates people, and keep at it, eventually it is so crystal clear you can’t believe you couldn’t see it staring back at you the whole time.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You have to think about it. But if you are willing to really do so, to peel off all the layers and really get to the core of the issue, this issue, abortion, welfare, the entire menagerie of liberal sacred cows, you’ll find it. One, true, immutable, absolute truth that holds all of this together, and explains it.[/quote]
That sounds like something a 9/11 truther would say. I mean no offense, but I am well aware that it probably will offend. But holy shit man.
It isn’t for me, and I’m sure it isn’t for the majority of people who share similar views to myself.[/quote]
Mak, I know we disagree on well, like, everything but I still consider you my friend. Don’t worry, I’m pretty thick skinned and fairly forgiving.
As for this, I’m serious. There’s no government conspiracy silliness about it, and it isn’t even very complicated or hard to figure out.It involves basic human drives and emotions, which as you know can be very, very strong, causing us to do all sorts of things that a vulcan or a eunuch might not.
You can dismiss me and equate me with crazies if you want, but I think you know me well enough that you’d not consider me dishonest or kooky (well, not too kooky, at least). I’m just asking you to set aside your preconceived notions for a moment, and think about it. If you keep your eye on what it is that motivates people, and keep at it, eventually it is so crystal clear you can’t believe you couldn’t see it staring back at you the whole time.[/quote]
I consider you kooky, but not in a bad way!
I see sexual freedom as a part of a several liberal/libertarian policies, but it does not come into play for ESC research. When people think of ESC research, no matter what side of the argument, the last thing on their minds is sexual freedom.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I think you just made the argument for Sharia law superseding local laws[/quote]
Actually, I could see how you could think I argued for Natural Law, which the Constitution of the United States is based on, superseding unconstitutional laws. Yes. However, Sharia is not Divine Law, Aquinas proved that in Summa Contra Gentiles.
No. Although I understand that metaphor’s don’t match up as Allah and Sharia are not the same thing as the triune God and Divine Law or more correctly Natural Law (again what our country’s laws are based on), Divine Law still supersedes a country’s law. MLK pointed that out and supported the position that when laws go against Natural Law (which is man’s rational attempt at Divine Law) they are unjust, and no just law should be followed. Unless of course you disagree with MLK and you wish to go back to segregation?
Ad hominem.
Ad hominem. Speculation of intelligence is not going to win an argument. Truth is truth, no matter if anyone believes it or not. Although I do find it interesting that I am experiencing a first.
I have been called unintelligent, uncouth, vulgar, retarded, redneck, hillbilly, &c. But, never in my life have I ever been accused of frequenting the books too much.
Would you clarify which men you’re speaking of?
I do not suppose Aquinas had much fatten except his gut (he had a vow of poverty if I do remember correctly, although he was the son of a lord), and Aristotle, I suppose was wealthy, however, I do not suppose his philosophies necessarily fattened his pockets.
No, but I do see an ad hominem when I see one. Them being virgins has nothing to do with their logic, I am not sure why you are even wielding around the word like it is a curse, or such as an adulterous person who has sex out of wedlock.
However, I don’t suppose Aristotle was a virgin. After all he went through two wives (he was pagan by the way). Although, Aquinas was a virgin, and even chased out a prostitute with a red hot iron cross.
Well when the subject is Natural Law, I suppose St. Paul (who had a vast knowledge in the Stoics, and other pagan philosophers), St. Augustine (totally not a virgin, dude had a kid) who obviously had a platonist slant, St. Aquinas, Aristotle, and many more are not really novices. Truth is truth, Grny. Them being virgins has not affect on if their arguments are valid and sound.
As well, notice. I haven’t much, if at all, talked about the “book” except with you. You brought it up, I wasn’t looking towards any books except those on natural moral law.
Hope your job is going well and IH are having a blessed life in marriage.
I am, Mademoiselle,
Your obedient Servant,
Chris IV
Chris, you really need to dig up that logic 101 text book and give it a hard read or twenty. It’s painful seeing you accuse others of fallacious arguments mere sentences after committing to the same fallacies in the process of making your backwards and oft asinine arguments.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I think you just made the argument for Sharia law superseding local laws[/quote]
Actually, I could see how you could think I argued for Natural Law, which the Constitution of the United States is based on, superseding unconstitutional laws. Yes. However, Sharia is not Divine Law, Aquinas proved that in Summa Contra Gentiles.
No. Although I understand that metaphor’s don’t match up as Allah and Sharia are not the same thing as the triune God and Divine Law or more correctly Natural Law (again what our country’s laws are based on), Divine Law still supersedes a country’s law. MLK pointed that out and supported the position that when laws go against Natural Law (which is man’s rational attempt at Divine Law) they are unjust, and no just law should be followed. Unless of course you disagree with MLK and you wish to go back to segregation?
Ad hominem.
Ad hominem. Speculation of intelligence is not going to win an argument. Truth is truth, no matter if anyone believes it or not. Although I do find it interesting that I am experiencing a first.
I have been called unintelligent, uncouth, vulgar, retarded, redneck, hillbilly, &c. But, never in my life have I ever been accused of frequenting the books too much.
Would you clarify which men you’re speaking of?
I do not suppose Aquinas had much fatten except his gut (he had a vow of poverty if I do remember correctly, although he was the son of a lord), and Aristotle, I suppose was wealthy, however, I do not suppose his philosophies necessarily fattened his pockets.
No, but I do see an ad hominem when I see one. Them being virgins has nothing to do with their logic, I am not sure why you are even wielding around the word like it is a curse, or such as an adulterous person who has sex out of wedlock.
However, I don’t suppose Aristotle was a virgin. After all he went through two wives (he was pagan by the way). Although, Aquinas was a virgin, and even chased out a prostitute with a red hot iron cross.
Well when the subject is Natural Law, I suppose St. Paul (who had a vast knowledge in the Stoics, and other pagan philosophers), St. Augustine (totally not a virgin, dude had a kid) who obviously had a platonist slant, St. Aquinas, Aristotle, and many more are not really novices. Truth is truth, Grny. Them being virgins has not affect on if their arguments are valid and sound.
As well, notice. I haven’t much, if at all, talked about the “book” except with you. You brought it up, I wasn’t looking towards any books except those on natural moral law.
Hope your job is going well and IH are having a blessed life in marriage.
I am, Mademoiselle,
Your obedient Servant,
Chris IV[/quote]
In deference to my married status, the proper term of address is “madame”.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Chris, you really need to dig up that logic 101 text book and give it a hard read or twenty. It’s painful seeing you accuse others of fallacious arguments mere sentences after committing to the same fallacies in the process of making your backwards and oft asinine arguments.[/quote]
Then point them out, how can I learn if I don’t learn from my mistakes.