Zierro

10143

There is no less of a need now for the average citizen to be able to protect himself than there was in colonial days. With the federal government trampling our rights at every turn, the day will come where we need once again to be able to protect ourselves from an aggressive government force, as the continental army did in the 18th century. And the idea that human rights should wax and wane with the passing of years is as repulsive to me as pedophilia. The rights are ours, and the government that the Founders put in place with the constitution is supposed to be strictly limited in its power to abuse our rights. Over the last 2 centuries, US citizens have ceded more and more of their rights to the federal. state, and local governments, to the point that we don't even trust people or organizations that are devoted to preserving the rights we have and trying to reclaim those we have abandoned. One of the basic rights, not spelled out as such in the constitution but an essential tenet of common law, is the freedom of thought. Treating people as criminals because of their thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes is below us as US citizens. That's what theocracies do. We can do better than that. The legal line is drawn when illegal acts are committed, attempted, or actively planned. Wanting to rob a bank is not a crime. Conspiring with others to rob a bank is. Attempting to rob a bank and failing is a crime. But thinking about robbing a bank, or killing someone, or committing any other crime, is not and never should be. You have a right to your own thoughts and desires, whether you are free to act on those desires or not. Wandered rather far afield from my planned defense of the 2d amendment. Sorry. Not only that but judging by the way the economy is going right now, the crime rate is going to jump and having a gun in your house is probably a good idea. The area I live in is swarming with cases of home evasions and it will probably get worse, so I really wish I was 21.

My response was directed towards how you said life issues don't exist and that people just make them up. A better way to get your point across would be to say that life issues are usually blown out of proportion, but there are many many troubled teens out there suffering from life issues all the time. The three things you stated are not the only things we have to worry about. Along with middle-aged people, teenagers are one of the most depressive age groups. And I wasn't saying that she was right to say that, I'm just saying you're wrong to say that there is no such thing as life issues.

Then keep making more threads. PS: Forgot to ask nicely: please O:)

Jesus Christ. Are you honestly delusional enough to think that every teenager's life is sunshine and daisies? Since it sounds like you live in a neighborhood similar to Mr. Roger's which is likely to have a lot of roses growing around there, I implore you to stop and smell them, but to get a better whiff pick them up with your bare hands. Not only will you be taught a life lesson, but the cuts on your hands should prevent you from posting for a while too.

The spirit of Christmas should be wishing your friend a happy holiday. No gift giving required.

Glad to hear about that good news. Losing pets can be hard. I remember in Elementary School I cried when my hamster died, even though she got to enjoy a whole hamster life.

Great example. The problem is that a lot of these arguments have people that seem to ignore the possibility that anything beyond empiric study exists. And all these months, I thought I was alone. :cry:

We'll either learn from our mistakes and be a harmonious race, or we won't and we'll have global anarchy. And you know what they say: The best way to predict the future is to invent it. :)

You are not "taught" in the same sense that a teacher educates you about arithmetic or science, but instead it's more of an adaptation-like thing. If you are left in the wilderness for quite some time, your mindset about a lot of things are probably going to change. If you ever seen the movie Castaway or the show Dragon Ball Z, you will know that when people are put into situations where they are isolated from civilization and they have to fend for themselves, their personalities will change to suit the environment better to aid them in survival. They won't be as picky about the food they eat, they will learn to become more productive, and they will be grateful for the things they have. A prime example of how much experiences can alter one's personality. As for bravery, I guess when you come face to face with your fears you will gradually start becoming desensitized to those fears and they might even vanish completely.

1. Metallica 2. Iron Maiden 3. Slayer 4. Red Hot Chili Peppers 5. Nirvana 6. Tool 7. Mercyful Fate 8. Pink Floyd 9. Led Zeppelin 10. Suicidal Tendencies Wow, only two unpopular bands in my list. :P I'm such a conformist.

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no nature, but that nurture outweighs it. I'd consider myself a very self-conscious person when I was younger, but after several experiences I've become much different. I don't see how bravery would be much different. I think of nature as soft clay and nurture as the mold. Nurture is what changes your nature. That is what the phrase "Nature VS Nurture" means. It is questioning which factor plays more of a role in a certain scenario, and personality traits belong more under nurture if you ask me.

This is a misrepresentation of pro-lifer's arguments. Very few argue against abortion on the sole grounds that you are "killing life." Rather, pro-lifers tend to see abortion as the unjustified killing of a legal person. The debate here stems from one's interpretation of "personhood." The fact that you are killing a fetus shouldn't be used in an a argument of morality because one's interpretation of personhood is nothing more than that - an interpretation. This is the very reason I said it was a loose application. I was not arguing the definition of the word "kill" but instead, the context in which it is used and if the argument should be taken into consideration or not. That only happened because you said that conceiving a person is not killing, but by definition, it is.

You really think bravery comes down to genetics more than experience? In this context, it is nature VS nurture.

It's really a question of nature VS nurture. I think those characteristics exist primarily because of the experiences someone went through in life - not because their parents were that way. Plus, why does bravery = going to war? I know brave folks who oppose violence.

Your arguments are absolutely absurd and, if anything, are counterproductive to the defense of abortion... Parcedon is not arguing technicalities, or using "killing" too loosely (you, on the other hand, are). Parcedon claims that human life begins at conception and thus, by definition, active termination is murder (i.e. "unlawful killing of another human with intent to do so"). Parcedon is suggesting that abortion is murder regardless of how many days, weeks or months the human life has been developing for. (He may, however, be using "human being" too loosely.) Which brings me to my next question: Parcedon, what is your stance on pregnancy due to rape? Not to be rude, but who is Parcedon? :? My post wasn't really directed towards anyone in particular, just the whole pro-life argument altogether. And I don't see how saying an abortion is killing isn't using the term loosely. You know what else is "killing"? Masturbation. Stepping on grass. Washing your hands. I acknowledge that it is killing, but I am arguing that it isn't an argument holding much weight in the debate, especially when trying to apply morality to it. I could say that conceiving a child also causes a death, but I think we both agree that, while technically true, the argument holds no weight whatsoever.

10154

Well I just think it's a stretch to say that causing the death of a person (who hasn't even been born yet) is equal to causing the death of a newborn. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. And if there wasn't then masturbating would count as genocide. You have caused a death that wouldn't have occurred if you did not have the child. Any way you want to slice the cake, it is causing a death. And lol that you actually think I hold the position that parents are killers. My point is that if you want to get into technicalities and label the action of killing an unborn as something of the same degree of killing a newborn, then it's really not that hard to play along and be equally ridiculous (my example with parents). :-w So far you've only been telling me that it's wrong to say that conceiving a child is killing. That is my whole point! My question was asking why it's okay to say that abortion should be considered killing. By it's semantic definition it may be, but to hold it against the differing party in a debate just doesn't make sense to me.

Yes...? Either that is a trick question or you didn't go past my first sentence. Doesn't really apply to the topic, but I find that a weird statement. Why wouldn't boys be able to "just" be friends with girls? Hey, I know I can. In my culture (hence the from as far as I can tell [meaning from what others can tell might be very different than what conclusions I've made]), asking someone of the opposite gender to the movies is just about asking them on a date. But like I said, they're only 10 and this might not be true. My post tried accommodating both ends of the spectrum: usually guys have sex on their minds VS they might be a bit too young to even think of that.

By definition, killing means to cause the death of. Murder is a bit different. They are synonyms but so is "assassinate" and I think it's obvious that it doesn't always mean the same thing as "kill". (I assassinated a fly by whacking it with a newspaper. Doesn't make much sense, huh?) Thanks for reminding me what this whole thread is about (whether FOCA is immoral or not). But I already know that.

I think freewill is just an inspirational idea... one that works. Just the thought that we have freewill effects our destiny, but of course fate decides if we are going to be someone who believes in freewill or not. I think compatibilism makes the most sense.

They're only 10. I didn't realize the adult response is to become militant and fear the worst of everything. I didn't even see the correlation to begin with. :|

Homicide (murder, killing, etc) is the act of killing another person. Simply rearing a child does not make you responsible for their inevitable death. You're right there because murder is usually used in a more harsh sense whereas killing is anything that causes the death of - I'll edit it with the word kill instead.

Yes...? Either that is a trick question or you didn't go past my first sentence.

Yes, there are benefits to religion but you can take the religion part out of it and those benefits can still exist. An atheist can have the "Do unto others" mentality just as much as a Christian can. If you ask me, the main reason religion probably exists is because people feel secure when they define themselves. That and because it's what their parents told them.