On 9/21/05, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Do you really think is an accurate analogy?" > Yes, I think it's an accurate analogy. I would say it's more accurate to > call the hardened criminal trash than the unborn baby. > > > "They respond "God says no burning garbage."" > > And again, does it matter where the morals come from? The opinion that you > seem to have doesn't appear to come from anywhere, so should I give yours > more standing than theirs? > > They have a belief that the human fetus is life. Your opinion appears to be > that it is not. So therefore, based on the belief that it is life and it > is innocent, it's wrong to kill it. >
So it's wrong to them to kill it (the fetus). So they (whomever believes this way) has the choice never to have an abortion. Now, why should the others (whomever doesn't believe this way) have to follow the same restrictions? I'm sure there are some groups who think that trees are divine in some sort of fashion? Do we ban everyone from cutting down trees? > I know that there are people who don't support choice and don't consider > themselves Christian, how about those people? > They're called fascists :) > > "I respond that while I respect their decision to follow "God" I remind them > that not everybody believes as they do." > > And so what? When an act is wrong, it's wrong whether or not you believe in > God. Does it matter whether or not you believe in God to feel that theft is > wrong? How about murder? > This is where my main beef is!!! Why is it wrong? Because some people say it is? Is that the only criteria? Speaking of theft, I'm pretty sure the "wrongness" of that one predates the bible. I imagine Ugh realized it was wrong to steal from Grog fairly quickly. He probably learned it before he lost too many fingers. I expect the same for murder. I think that our "moral" code came from everyone figuring out what it took to live together in harmony, not what "god" said. > > Let's take this another step further - would it be ok to kill a child up to > 3 years old if you didn't want it anymore? I think your answer would be > "No". This is an extreme case, but it differs only by degree from abortion. > Okay then, let's say it is okay to kill a child up to 3. Heck, let's say the aztec religion gets a breath of fresh air and starts holding sacrifices to Quetzacoatal throughout the day and 3 year olds are his favorite treat. Are you going to go out and kill some three year olds just because someone else says it's okay and the right thing to do. Of course not, your internal moral compass is going to tell you no. So what I'm saying is just because a lot of people say it's right, or a lot of people say it's wrong, doesn't make it either. It all boils down to the fact that we live on the same round rock and we can't piss off the people who live around us, or were going to suffer some consequences on both sides. > Matthew Small > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:37 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Science, for dummies > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:45 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Science, for dummies > > > > I wonder... why do you even care what else they care for, when they > > haven't > > even made it public? > > "public" in what way? The groups have been very vocal about their opinions > on other matter... how is that not "making it public"? > > > Let's put it in different terms: > > > > You support the right to set your house on fire when it's inconvenient for > > you to keep it. Some other people say setting your house on fire is > > wrong, > > but they support burning garbage. Now you call them hypocrites because > > they > > support burning trash but not your house? What does one even really have > > to > > do with the other? > > What in the hell are you talking about? Do you really think is an accurate > analogy? > > Let's try to fix it so that it's more appropriate, shall we? > > I support a homeowners right to burn garbage if they wish to. They do not. > > I suggest that it's the owners home, so they should be able to choose how to > deal with their refuse. > > They respond "God says no burning garbage." > > I respond that while I respect their decision to follow "God" I remind them > that not everybody believes as they do. > > They respond "Doesn't matter, God's will be done." > > I suggest that they may have a point in some instances... some people, for > example may burn their garbage in an unsafe way, endangering themselves or > others. I suggest a series of restrictions: people will have to get a > permit to burn garbage, they'll have to inform their neighbors before they > do and so forth. > > They respond "No, God says no burning garbage." > > I ask them to consider educational campaigns informing people about public > trash pick-up, the dangers of home fires and the toxic chemicals that can > result from burning garbage. The educational campaigns will offer people an > informed, non-destructive alternative to burning garbage and, if they do > choose to burn it, will help them to do it safely. Hopefully this will > reduce the number of people burning garbage and make those that continue > safer. > > They respond "God doesn't like touching garbage either, not until you're a > homeowner. Such campaigns would encourage our children to touch garbage > before they own homes - we won't support them and, in fact will actively > fight them." > > I retort that children are already touching garbage at an alarming rate: > many children are touching garbage even in Junior High school! The > educational campaigns would help to ensure that those children wouldn't turn > to burning garbage and if they continued to touch it would understand the > dangers. I even suggest that we might, enhance their safety by making > rubber gloves and anti-bacterial soap available in the high-schools. > > "NO!", they respond, "Such things would promote the touching of garbage and > invite children to it!" > > "But," I answer, "most of them already are touching it. Isn't it better to > ensure that those that already are don't resort to burning it later?" > > "No," they say, "touching garbage is a sin. The only way to prevent burning > garbage it is to teach them nothing about garbage in the first place. > Period." > > "I don't think so. Our information shows that such programs don't work at > all: kids still touch garbage all the same regardless." > > "Your lying. Touching garbage is a sin and children should be taught > nothing about garbage so that they won't eventually burn it." > > Exasperated I take another tact. "Okay, leave that aside for a moment. > What about homeowners? Since it's not a sin to touch garbage for them could > we perhaps aim the educational campaigns only at home owners? So that they > could handle the garbage safely and happily?" > > "While it's not a sin for homeowners to touch garbage, neither should they > encouraged to do it often. Besides, such materials might fall into the > hands of children and we can't allow that. Also, it doesn't matter if the > places that provide the information also provide information about burning > garbage." > > "But they have to provide information about burning garbage: some people may > still choose to burn garbage. I assure you that they will be encouraged to > find alternatives to burning garbage and that burning garbage will only be > suggested as a last resort, but burning garbage is legal and we must support > that law." > > "Then make it illegal to burn garbage." > > "No - that would go against all the freedoms we stand for. I personally > don't like burning garbage and will never do it myself, but I will defend > other's right to do it if they choose." > > "No, make it illegal: God says it's wrong." > > "But that doesn't matter... our laws aren't religiously based." > > "They should be. Make it illegal." > > "This is getting us nowhere." I try another tact. "In some, very rare, > cases burning garbage is necessary." > > "No it isn't. It's wrong. God says so." > > "Bear with me. We've had some cases were the homeowner was very poor and > couldn't afford to take care of their garbage any other way." > > "That doesn't matter. Burning garbage is wrong. GOD SAYS SO." > > "Perhaps then you could offer to take care of some of the garbage in the > poorer areas?" > > "No. That's their problem. If they followed God in the first place they > wouldn't be poor." > > "We've had other cases where relatives of the homeowner have begun dumping > their garbage on the homeowner's lawn or even a few cases where criminals > have dumped garbage on a homeowner's lawn! It's not right that the > homeowner should be expected to take care of that garbage - they should be > allowed to burn it." > > "No. Burning garbage is always wrong. No matter what." > > ..... and so forth. > > The situation can't be solved because although one side is willing to > compromise they are not willing to eliminate the choice completely. The > other side is unwilling to compromise to reduce the occurrence of the thing: > they will only consider complete elimination of the thing. > > Jim Davis > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:174533 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
