Satenza

Your Bible advocates slavery, rape, murder and genocide. You ignore all those "moral lessons" because they are quite obviously immoral. Even fundementalist christians take an interpretation of what is meant and what is not meant. It's ridiculous to assume even you have discovered the complete rules of absolute morality by your own standards. Also, the opinion of "we are right, you are wrong" is the problem with why people like myself oppose any absolute right and wrong defined from a religion because your attitude does more harm than good. Both to yourself, and to humanity as a whole. At least Barihawk can see why we should respect individuality, people like you however only recite what people have indoctrinated you to beleive, you have no methodology as to why you beleive in certain things. Maybe someday you will learn that your God may have created humanity and therefore everyone differently for a reason. Individuality leads to progress, discovering truth and hapiness. The only thing you are concerned with is getting the rest of the world to follow your life experiments of doing only what you beleive to be moral and not doing what you conceive to be immoral acts.

I'm sure those in Saudi Arabia who sentence rape victims to corporal punishment with a whip think theirs is the right way of living too. Exactly, holding the opinion that it's ok to force morality over everyone means that Hitler was alright to do what he did. I think what he really means is "Its ok to force my morality over everyone".

Telling me to end my life is completley different because it's an illegal act, i'm not talking about illegal acts im talking about immoral acts. Of course they do, what does this have to do whith what I have said? If you read the example of liberty I gave you, you would clearly see that is not the case. If Barihawk had given the person coming to him all the options he knew of, he could still reason and advise him as to which is best. It's the concious holding back of infomation because he thinks that it is wrong which is wrong. Yes, they are. People come to people for advise and help, as I said above that doesn't mean they can't advise them it means they shouldn't hold back options because they want them to do one particular thing for the reason that you beleive it to be the moral decision. Thats opinion in itself, your "right way of living" would be doing what you conceive to be moral acts, and not doing what you conceive to be immoral acts. Thats not a career, I fail to see your point. Bari has already said that he understands why he should not force his belief on others because "not everyone is Barihawk". Im not forcing anything onto you, you may live anyway you wish. If you think it's fine to force one personas idea of morality onto someone then you get people like Hitler, and Stalin. It's partly your fault for conciously holding back the idea of her having an abortion because it went against your own personal morality. Plus you are encouraging an immoral act aswell. So i doubt you personally would say that.

Thats beside the point on a hypothetical situation. However you have two confliction views. You have said that "Not everyone is Barihawk" implying that not evertone should follow your version of morality and that everyone is individual. However you also said that you wouldn't provide any infomation on abortion clinics outside of work because it contests with your own opinion. You said you disliked giving people abortion clinic infomation, but it was part of your job. Now you say that not everyone is the same, so if someone away from your job came to you asking advice you should give them all the options because you accept that your choice of whats moral and what is not, isn't the same for everyone because not everyone is you. So, which is it? Would you give them all the opinions and options because "Not everyone is Barihawk" OR Would you give them only your opinion and conciously hold back any abortion infomation because it goes against your personal beleifs, which is attempting to make them do what you want them to do?

If someone came to Bari as a person they could trust then they would expect him to help them make a decision. A concious effort to hold back the idea of an abortion, and of infomation about abortion clinics is influencing that persons decision. Whether they reject that influence or not is beside the point, he is still attempting to influence them to his personal way of thinking.

What did we just define? Force: power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order. Not power to absolutley make them do something.

Damn right not eveyone is Barihawk because everyone is individual, and therefore you respect individual decisions be it against your opinion or not. You're not going to force anything onto anyone, and are allowing them to choose for themsleves. That is liberty. I don't like the idea of people engaging in bondage but who I am to tell them not to engage in that action? I'm only one person with one opinion, and i can respect theirs.

If you are talking to a person and hold back another option to them, and only present them with the option you beleive in knowing full well that there are others that is forcing that onto someone. Whether they accept that opinion or walk away is not the point. They are still influencing their decision and not giving them any other options than that. The example of abortion, if someone came to me and i told them the only option was to have an abortion I would be forcing that onto them.

So I don't lack the definition like you said, i now lack the understanding of it;s meaning, how do i lack the understanding of it's meaning?

It doesn't really matter if the issue is abortion or not, any act which you deem to be immoral you have said you wouldn't force onto people. Why wouldn't you force it onto someone? Is it a requirement to be a Conservative Fundamentalist Christian who votes Republican to force their beliefs onto everyone? No, I'm asking why you won't force your beliefs onto everyone.

How can I lack the definition of force, when that is the definition of force?

You lack the knowledge of the definition of "force". ~Defender~

It doesn't really matter if the issue is abortion or not, any act which you deem to be immoral you have said you wouldn't force onto people. Why wouldn't you force it onto someone?

So you don't wish to censor non-illegal acts which you beleive to be immoral? So why would you only tell the pregnant girl about your own beleif and not about the abortion clinic if you don't wish to force your view upon them? Holding such infomation back is forcing your view upon them.

So you would have no problem in enforcing your morality over everyone else in society whether they beleive in it or not. Which goes against any form of empirical process to finding truth, under the opinion that you have the truth already. Which is justification for banning what you deem to be immoral acts under law. So, you are of the opinion that if someone beleives an act is immoral you have justification to censor such act?

So if the situation occured outside of you're work you would not even bring aborition into the conversation, and you would dismiss the very option of even informing them about it being an option. Then you would use your judgement and tell them to keep the baby?

How am I not open-minded about beliefs? Well, you are constantly hounding me about mine, after all. Does that mean i don't accept them or that I disagree with them in some respects? My whole philosophy on life is that each opinion has as much weight as the next mans, whether I agree or disagree with it or not. That doesn't mean I can't contest your views. Personal opinion as you say doesn't dictate your beliefs in what is best for society as a whole. You have given people the ability to choose what decision they make and given them a rational and honest veiw of abortion. Thats pure liberalism. Take this as an example: Which is exactly what you are doing, you from what you say appear to be a liberal not a conservative.

How am I not open-minded about beliefs? Why must you be biased? You agree with people hearing all options whether you are for or against the options. Using that, you must be able to see that on a larger scale hearing all options is more helpful to those people in particular situations. If anything I would go as far to say that you were not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. Whether you agree or not is not the question. it's whether you think choice is better for society or not. Since you practice that choice giving yourself, i would have to say your more pro-liberty. That doesn't mean you support things like aborition, it just means you accept people's right to choose. Lets take an example for myself. I personally don't really agree with sadomasachists however my opinion doesn't make me right, nor does it give me the right to ban such an action. My opinion doesn't neccessarily help society because we as humans are not infalliable. We should hear all opinions to develop truth as long as the actions people choose to take do not harm other people. Of course not, i don't myself know too much about the stages of when abortion becomes murder, or if a foetus can survive on it's own or has feelings. This isn't about personal bias when voting it's about what we think is best for society. Which is why I am questioning Bari's conservative stance. When he appears to me to be for liberty rather than for authority.

Sorry, Sat, but hah! That's like calling Fox News 'Fair and Unbiased.' I could say that if Hillary was President, she would veto any legislation designed to limit abortion just because she supports it. Even if that bill had a legitimate cause. Her decisions wouldn't be limiting anyone though would they? She's basically saying "If you think it's wrong to have an aborition don't have one. If you need one the service is avaliable". Thats not unfair, nor is it biased. It's pro-choice, less government interferance and allowing people to freely choose for themselves. Banning aborition is not the same because thats limiting choice, not granting it. Even you said that you gave addresse of abortion clinics to people, and so you support people's decision to make a choice. I don't see why you are republican.

You can't be sure he will put his own prejudice and indoctrinating beleifs to the side in favour of helping the war effort and improving the nation without settleing for even more authority and pro-evangelist ideas. Whereas is you vote democrat you will know that they think objectivley and not absolutley.

Anti-war, pro-liberty, anti-indoctrination, pro-choice, pro-equality. She really is the devil incarnate. As for McCain, attempting to force more christian ideals onto children - pro indoctrination. Stopping gay people getting married - anti-choice. For stricter death sentance penalty - encouraging this barbaric law even futher. Anti-Abortion, again anti-choice. When will people realize that the Government is not meant to control your lives, it's meant to protect your ability to do so yourself. Authoritarian states are suppressive to the individual and all about tyranny of the majority. Me = Republican Conservative Fundamentalist Christian. McCain sounds pretty darn good to me. Hillary would instantly stop the war in Iraq, sending that region into the depths of Hades that could very well escalate into a full blown war, if not World War 3. I don't really mind gay's rights, but I am strongly against abortion. Slander and criticize me as a roadblock of progress all you want, I stand for it. Authority is needed, else we have a nice anarchy. The Constitution prevents total freedom. Authority is needed to the point of stopping others from harming one another. Not forcing one persons ideals onto everyone else. Even if you are a republica, conservative fundementalist christian you should be able respect people's choices. Authority is a neccessary evil that protects freedom, it does not dictate freedom. Is everyone like you? No. Should everyone behave and follow the same (questionable) morality you do? If so thats suppressive. Suppression only causes more harm to individuality. Come on, why do you want everyone to follow your strict rules, can't you admire humanity for being differant instead of wanting to indoctrinate people into your way of living? Authoritarian states do more harm than good to themselves, they enforce morality not everyone obides by, they kick any emprical sense of finding truth in the face and they become dead dogma. Can't you choose to live how you wish, and let others to live how they wish? Are you so afraid of humanity that you need to bubble wrap them in your own codes and morality? Here's something i wrote on why Liberty is so much better than oppressive auhtority;

Give me your spahire, i'll test if it's there.

Of course not, i was being sarcastic.

Anti-war, pro-liberty, anti-indoctrination, pro-choice, pro-equality. She really is the devil incarnate. As for McCain, attempting to force more christian ideals onto children - pro indoctrination. Stopping gay people getting married - anti-choice. For stricter death sentance penalty - encouraging this barbaric law even futher. Anti-Abortion, again anti-choice. When will people realize that the Government is not meant to control your lives, it's meant to protect your ability to do so yourself. Authoritarian states are suppressive to the individual and all about tyranny of the majority.

I wanted e-beer.