AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Re: mysteryman (Post 3662458)
Mysteryman wrote:

Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 3662448)
Quote:
Your whole post was basically nothing but one big Appeal to Extremes. That is a Logical Fallacy and you should recognize that.

No, I dont believe it was.
You said that you dont believe in the "sanctity of life" so why do you care if anyone gets killed or how they get killed?
And if life isnt sacred to you, then you should have no objection to any type of death, under any circumstances.

Since you do have objections to unneeded deaths, or since you do oppose the death penalty, for whatever reason you want to believe, it shows that you do believe in the "sanctity of life".
You can try and convince yourself that you dont, but your own statements show that to not be true.

************************************************************

I could have sworn that Cyclops hysterically objected to American deaths in Iraq and the deaths of innocent civilian bystanders.

But now that we know that Cyclops does not believe in the sanctity of life, we can skip right by those protestations>

0 Replies

I think the Chinese model is best. No one can have more than one child. Perhaps Obama can press that issue soon on the basis that more people equal more pollution.

0 Replies

McGENTRIX wrote:

Re: Setanta (Post 3662319)
Setanta wrote:

You're hopelessly out of your depth here. It does not matter how illegal any activity is, nor the possession of any contraband, the police cannot enter a private residence without obtaining a search warrant, or unless they are in pursuit of someone fleeing the scene of a crime. If they do, any evidence they acquire in that manner is not admissible in court.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Police Can Search Without Warrant

Quote:
In a March 24 opinion, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a search if the search is a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of officers. The ruling builds on a 1990 US Supreme Court ruling, Maryland v. Buie, which gave the constitutional okay to "protective sweep" searches conducted to ensure the safety of officers during an arrest. Under the 5th Circuit's ruling in USA v. Gould, such searches may be legally made without a search warrant or an arrest.

**************************************************************
'
Good job, McGentrix- You stuck it right up the senile Setanta's anus and broke it off. He thinks he is the last word on everything and the only thing he really knows is that his dog's penis is dirty.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Re: Setanta (Post 3662323)
Setanta wrote:

I've never said that a right to privacy does determine the legality of a behavior.,
Thats the point. But the Roe v Wade decision did just that, didn't it?
Quote:
But it does determine the actions which the police can legally take in an attempt to apprehend someone in an illegal activity or in the possession of contraband.

You can bet that nothing i've written supports your argument. I don't see any evidence that you have an argument, because your remarks have to do with claims about illegal activities, and abortion is not illegal.

And the supposed reason abortion cannot be made illegal is the trumped up reason, "right to privacy
*************************************************************And, Okie, where did the "right to privacy come from"? There is no RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the Constitution. Where did it come from?

The right to privacy came from what many legal scholars call the most laughable and convoluted argument of all. Only people intent on killing babies could have created such nonsense which is not found in the Constitution.

I will quote from "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Judge Robert Bork--P>103.

"The extra-constitutional individualism that undergirds the "constitutional" right to abortion was made clearest in the joint opinions of three justices in "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. These justices invented a HERETOFORE UNHEARD OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO 'PERSONAL DIGNITY AND AUTONOMY. They explained--"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. It is not recorded that any American government from the founding on, has ever thought it worthwhile to compel anyone's concept of meaning or of the mystery of human life. What this judicial grandeloquence means, aside from the right to have an abortion, NOBODY KNOWS. This particular statement is known as THE MYSTERY CLAUSE."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.
Let's agree for the sake of argument that the sanctity of life of any sort is merely--and not mostly--a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Therefore, you conclude or recommend WHAT?

Your question is too vague to provide a meaningful answer; please clarify.

What do you think are the differences in the consequences of assuming the sanctity of life is a moral imperative versus assuming it is a defensive tool created by the minds of men?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The earliest average point would be better. Surely you wouldn't advocate that we set limits based upon the most extreme example?

Given that we're not just arguing about certain rights, but rather about human life, I would indeed advocate setting the limits based upon the most extreme example. The same is true at the end of life. The medical definition of the point of death has been changing (from the point where a person stopped breathing to where a person's heart stopped beating to where no measurable brain activity was detectable) and might keep on changing in the future. I'm not comfortable with defining the point of death based on some kind of statistical average, and likewise I'm not comfortable defining the point of viability based on an average.

I would agree that the situation is slightly different as the point of death only concerns one person, whereas the definition of the point of viability concerns both the mother and the child, but I don't think that that alone should somehow influence how we define the point of viability.

Yaknow, I really don't agree at all. The most extreme case should not be used as a basis for any legislation. The laws which result from using extremes as your baseline for viability will not really serve anyone well.

Let us also stipulate the fact that history clearly shows that abortions occur irregardless of their illegality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.
Let's agree for the sake of argument that the sanctity of life of any sort is merely--and not mostly--a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Therefore, you conclude or recommend WHAT?

Your question is too vague to provide a meaningful answer; please clarify.

What do you think are the differences in the consequences of assuming the sanctity of life is a moral imperative versus assuming it is a defensive tool created by the minds of men?

I think the most important consequence is an opening of one's eyes to the true nature of the universe, and the dropping of a lot of self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Cycloptichorn

I realize others have already quoted you more than once, but this quote from you is highly instructive. It has identified you, sadly, as a person virtually without a soul. I feel sorry for you, but I also fear your ilk, the extreme liberal mindset, if and when you ever gain political power. Such a mindset has led to the deaths of millions of innocent victims.

I have debated you on countless occasions, and on many subjects, but this statement of yours gives me pause to ponder, whats the use? Are you really that calloused, that cold at heart, that unfeeling, that angry at your world, your life? Do you have children? Grandchildren? Did you have a family, brothers, sisters? I thought you had a wife? Was there any love in your past, or present?

Unless you can explain this as a grossly unintended sentiment, which I have a hard time understanding anyone can say inadvertantly, but I am tempted to write you off completely. You are not worth debating anymore, if you have no soul.

2 Replies

Okie--Perhaps you miss all of the implications of Cyclops' statement.

Cyclops wrote:

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

**************************************************************

You see, Okie, since Cyclops is so much smarter than the rest of us, he KNOWS that God does not exist. He also knows the implications created by the new string theory in Physics which freely admits that there is no final explanation for the Universe.

It seems to him "a defensive tool". It also may be, Okie, that Cyclops is highly disturbed and needs medication in order to calm his deep depression.
I am not sure that he understands the nature of the brain and the facile way in which people can descend into philosophical depression.

POOR POOR Cyclops--He lives in a "harsh" world, he says!

If he really thinks so, he has never read History. He lives in a world where each man has the resources of Kings from the Middle Ages.

His statement above is really the statement of an immature little boy.

He reminds me of the poet who said:

Here I am, naked and afraid, in a world I NEVER MADE!

Poor babies!!!

0 Replies

Ican asked:

What do you think are the differences in the consequences of assuming the sanctity of life is a moral imperative versus assuming it is a defensive tool created by the minds of men?

Cyclops answered:

I think the most important consequence is an opening of one's eyes to the true nature of the universe, and the dropping of a lot of self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development.

*********************************************************

The "sanctity of life" is a lot of self important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development???????

Aside from the fact that Cyclops, as usual, is extremely vague, he does not give any operational definitions.

Just what is the self-important bullshit? Why is it self-important bullshit?

Hold our species back from further development?

What further development? To what end?

******************************************************************

The Nazis did not bother with the self-important bullshit either. Neither did they believe in the Sanctity of Life. Note:

"the National Socialist killing of the Jews was unique in that never before had a state with the authority of its responsible leader decided and announced that a specific human group, including its aged, its women and its children and infants, would be killed as quickly as possible, and then carried through this resolution using every possible means of state power".[37

The Nazis beleived in the triumph of the Ubermensch, probably the same type that Cyclops is thinking of when he notes that "self-important bullshit is holding back our species from further development.

Wipe out those Jews PRAYING in that Ghetto. Onwards to the Superman!

Heil Cyclops!!

Or, perhaps, Cyclops can explain why his referentless statement does not neatly fit Nazi ideology!!!

0 Replies

@okie,

I can't speak for Cyclo (despite some people's claim) but I think the point is that the "sanctity of life" is a misused meme constructed not to imply life is special but rather that humans are special or rather more important in nature.

What you've constructed beyond what he said about love and family is quite a stretch.

Quote:

It has identified you, sadly, as a person virtually without a soul.

What? Let's say we believe in souls, I'm still not sure what criteria you're using.

Quote:

if and when [Liberals] ever gain political power

Nov 4th, 2008.

Quote:

Such a mindset has led to the deaths of millions of innocent victims.

Don't go there. Scoreboard, okie. Scoreboard. WAAAAAAAAY more people have been killed in the name of religion/god than in some atheistic rule. I guess those who died by atheist killers are greater victims than those who died under the righteous swords of crusaders.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Herr Diest apparently never read History.

He peddles his usual unsourced bullshit.

Perhaps Herr Diest can tell us all the religious impulse, the major religious principle, that spurred on Genghis Khan?

There is none.

Perhaps Herr Diest can explain the religious rationale employed by Joe Stalin who killed Sixty Million?

Maybe Herr Diest can tell us of the religious dogma employed by Adolf Hitler when he killed at least twenty million people?

It could be that Herr Diest can show us the "Bible" used by Pol Pot when he indulged in his exterminations.

And. last, but not least,Herr Diest can sketch out the holy impulses of Chairman Mao when he murdered millions.

Morons like Herr Diest love to read the ninteenth century pseudo-Histories of the atheists to show how the Europeans killed each other BECAUSE of religious rivalry. What a bullshitter like Herr Diest apparently does not know is that if you count the number of dead in JUST THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, that number far surpasses the number killed in the religious wars in Europe and the colonial conquests.

I am sure that Herr Diest does not know the number of people alive in the year 1600. He is supremely ignorant concerning important data. The entire population of the world at that time is estimated to be 450 Million people.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao KILLED at least 100 Million in the twentieth century alone-THEY HAD NO FORMAL RELIGIOUS IMPULSE.

Herr Diest will, of course, be unable to find any other era in which so many people were killed>

So, Herr Diest, either do the research or cut the bullshit.

0 Replies

Ican asked:

What do you think are the differences in the consequences of assuming the sanctity of life is a moral imperative versus assuming it is a defensive tool created by the minds of men?

Cyclops answered:

I think the most important consequence is an opening of one's eyes to the true nature of the universe, and the dropping of a lot of self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development.

*********************************************************

The "sanctity of life" is a lot of self important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development???????

Aside from the fact that Cyclops, as usual, is extremely vague, he does not give any operational definitions.

Just what is the self-important bullshit? Why is it self-important bullshit?

Hold our species back from further development?

What further development? To what end?

******************************************************************

The Nazis did not bother with the self-important bullshit either. Neither did they believe in the Sanctity of Life. Note:

"the National Socialist killing of the Jews was unique in that never before had a state with the authority of its responsible leader decided and announced that a specific human group, including its aged, its women and its children and infants, would be killed as quickly as possible, and then carried through this resolution using every possible means of state power".[37

The Nazis beleived in the triumph of the Ubermensch, probably the same type that Cyclops is thinking of when he notes that "self-important bullshit is holding back our species from further development.

Wipe out those Jews PRAYING in that Ghetto. Onwards to the Superman!

Heil Cyclops!!

Or, perhaps, Cyclops can explain why his referentless statement does not neatly fit Nazi ideology!!!

0 Replies

Okie- It is clear that Diest TKO is highly excrementitious.

He tries to bullshit you-- Note:

I can't speak for Cyclo (despite some people's claim) but I think the point is that the "sanctity of life" is a misused meme constructed not to imply life is special but rather that humans are special or rather more important in nature.
.
Herr Diest says that the "sanctity of life" is a misued meme constructed not to imply life is special but rather that humans are special or rather more important in nature.

You get that< Okie? MEME!!

Except that Herr Diest, as I said before, is full of ****. He doesn't know that a meme is a unit of culture. He says it is MISUED. Bullshit. He must show that it is misused.

If Herr Diest knew anything about units of culture( which some call memes and others call mnemotypes, idea, idene, sociogene, etc) he would know that the meme or the unit of culture, according to the influential writer, Edward O. Wilson in "Consilience" is equivalent to the node of semantic memory and its corelates in brain activity...Or a memory, idea in the brain.

Now, Okie, without giving any evidence, Herr Diest, tells us that the meme is MIUSED. He tells us that the evolved wisdom of the centuries is misused. He tells us that a species would not evolve an idea which results in holding the sanctity of human life.

Well, the moron Herr Diest would have to prove that.

Perhaps Herr Diest thinks that Human Life is not special. He really would have to find a life form which is more special. Perhaps Herr Diest thinks that Human Life is not exceptional in nature. What Herr Diest is too stupid to understand is that human life is not only special but that human life, is the only kind of sentient life to create its own evolution. Instead of just being the recepients genes, we are now manipulating our genes.

0 Replies

sanctity of life = no more war. especially not over religion.

still feel saintly?

0 Replies

In all this fine-flowing masculine discussion of when a foetus is viable there is not the least consideration of the civil right of a woman to determine her destiny. There is all too much of an air of general proprietary power without regard for how the woman concerned may wish to proceed in a matter which more narrowly affects her than anyone else.

There is also the absurdity of the religiously-inspired argument about the sanctity of human life, which carried to a ridiculous, but nevertheless a logical extreme would call for the outlawing of male masturbation, because of all the potential life which is wasted. Which, of course, is precisely the basis upon which it is alleged that Onan sinned in the Old Testament--he "spilled his seed upon the ground."

There is little of the pragmatic in the discussion--as Cyclo has pointed out, abortions will take place whether or not they are deemed legal--and there is absolutely no consideration of the woman as a free agent entitled to shape her own future.

What a bunch of self-important clowns.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ass-clown would also be descriptive here.

1 Reply

@snood,

I once said to a member, "bite my ass, clown" . . . but forgot to put the last comma in, so they banned me for calling him an ass clown, an expression i had never heard before. I have avoided the term since then. Of course, these days, one can say a lot worse with impunity.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

lololololololol

T
K
O

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Cycloptichorn

I realize others have already quoted you more than once, but this quote from you is highly instructive. It has identified you, sadly, as a person virtually without a soul. I feel sorry for you, but I also fear your ilk, the extreme liberal mindset, if and when you ever gain political power. Such a mindset has led to the deaths of millions of innocent victims.

I have debated you on countless occasions, and on many subjects, but this statement of yours gives me pause to ponder, whats the use? Are you really that calloused, that cold at heart, that unfeeling, that angry at your world, your life? Do you have children? Grandchildren? Did you have a family, brothers, sisters? I thought you had a wife? Was there any love in your past, or present?

Unless you can explain this as a grossly unintended sentiment, which I have a hard time understanding anyone can say inadvertantly, but I am tempted to write you off completely. You are not worth debating anymore, if you have no soul.

Okie, this is really a new height of ridiculousness from you.

I love how a difference in my belief system causes you and other Conservatives to claim that I

- Don't care about anyone
- Don't have a soul
- Want cancer patients to die
- That I am cold, unfeeling, and angy

None of these things are true. What they all are is a very negative reaction on your part to an idea which challenges that which you have taken for granted your whole life, to the point which you have begun to use this meme as a foundation with which to hold up other ideas.

It's a poor foundation, however, as it is steeped in quasi-mysticism and is not logical in any way.

I find it to be ironic that people who conditionally support murder and torture, who defend abuses and lawbreaking, accuse someone else of lacking a soul.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know