Don I know the logic is faulty, the problem is it is more true than I would like to amit,, to quote mey sister who is staunchly anti abortion.. "I can only support one issue at a time." Personally I am for the womans right to chose and I will support her no matter what her choice is.
As for no good loser parents go, I do know parents that have sold everything they had to take care of family, and we are talking in excess of $2,500,000.oo paying medical bills, ending up getting assistance to keep the family alive... talk about loser parents ,, they lost everything. I think it is called greed. Allan On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is faulty logic here. You are assuming that if one opposes > abortion then one also opposes feeding starving children. These are > not mutually exclusive ideals. Far from it in fact. What I see > happening is some conservatives believe people should take > responsibility for their children. Wither that is in the womb or at > home making sure they get enough to eat. If the kids are coming to > school starving then CPS takes them away from their no good piece of > garbage useless parents. The kids get fed and get out from under > their loser parents. Everybody wins. > > It would be like me saying since you(example here, keep pantyhose on) > favor abortion then you must want to murder all hungry children. See, > makes no since whatsoever. > > For the record, I think women should be in control of their own > bodies. I also think they should do it without tax payer money. So > I'm pro-choice, anti-enable. Lunch at my kids school is a buck 75. > If their parents can't afford that on their welfare checks something > is very, very hinky and CPS should be involved. > > dj > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:16 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: > > Those that are anti abortion and don't rant on about the starving > children. > > that is very easy to explain. abortion they can rant about and it cost > them > > very little, maybe a small donation and a little time, now starving > > children on the other hand takes a major commitment and to do it would > > require a major out lay of cash. as well as a major outlay of time.. so > the > > out lay of money and time are the major factors in the choice of what to > > support. > > Allan > > > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Lee - an interesting thread; thanks for initiating it. > >> Many have tried to understand why there is evil in this world, > >> How can it be reconciled with an all powerful, all good God. In all > >> cases known to me the reasoning looks at the question from afar, much > >> as another god might look at it. The answer usually begins by setting > >> up a continuum such as murder to injury to no harm, and labels one end > >> of the continuum evil. It then struggles with reconciling the > >> continuum, or at least an end of it, with an omniscient God. > >> What I proposed as a definition of evil proceeds from within, > >> from the effect the evil has on those involved with it. Thus, I > >> proposed that an evil act is one that drives us together, one that > >> makes us desperate for the comfort of other human beings. Doing this I > >> believe presents a fair description of the effect of evil, while at > >> the same time revealing the reason for evil - to make us desperate for > >> the comfort of others. Of course I don't think that to be bad - I > >> didn't label the evil and good definitions I proposed as either > >> yeilding good or bad results. (But I do think that in the sense I > >> propose evil has a good effect and the result of good as I define it > >> is bad - which of course is contra to what most of the others in this > >> thread seem to think.) > >> Again, how's that for strange? Jim > >> > >> On Jul 1, 2:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > That's the point Jim. In all of the examples you listed it is pretty > >> > much understood by the majority that these acts are considered not > >> > good. Yes of course such acts do come under normal human behavoiur > >> > but only in so much as normal humans have commited such acs. However > >> > if we consider what is normal to be what the majority agree's then > >> > murder is not as normal as it would seem. > >> > > >> > Indeed I must confess that part of my reason for creating this thread > >> > is to try to understand the argument against a creator God for the > >> > reason of the existance of evil. > >> > > >> > I'm still nto getting it though. Why is it a bad thing that we seek > >> > out the company of each other? Also to do so does not necisarily mean > >> > that we are not competent on our own, without others of our species to > >> > help. > >> > > >> > On 30 June, 10:54, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lee - thanks for considering my proposed definition. You ask: How > can > >> > > normal human behavior be defined as evil? I suspect that it largely > is > >> > > a matter of viewpoint. Surely the KKK didn't consider lynching > negroes > >> > > evil; Nor did Hitler consider the holocaust evil, or the Romans > >> > > crucifiction of the Christians, or maybe even a mother's murder of a > >> > > molester of her child. I expect you have heard of the theodicy > >> > > problem: given an all powerful, all good God, why does evil exist in > >> > > this world? Many have proposed their answer to this question. The > >> > > answers are summarized in Philosophies for Dummies - 1. All evil is > >> > > punishment for sin. 2. All evil results from the misuse of free > will. > >> > > 3. Evil requires a moral choice which leads to soul building. 4. > Some > >> > > combination of 1-3. > >> > > Instead of these views of evil from afar, I propose a view of > evil > >> > > from within the moment. It's purpose and function is to bring us > >> > > together. In that sense it is an antidote to good, which as I said > >> > > tends to let us think that we've got it made and need no one. Aren't > >> > > these responses to good and evil the normal human responses.? I > think > >> > > so. How's that for strange? > >> > > >> > > On Jun 29, 2:49 am, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > That's a strange way of seeing it Jim. > >> > > >> > > > I would think that as our speices is undeniably social then > >> > > > incorperated in the norm is the need for human contact, as such > how > >> > > > can what can only be considered normal behavour stand up to being > >> > > > defined as evil? > >> > > >> > > > On 27 June, 22:01, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > How about this as an answer? Evil is whatever brings us > together, > >> > > > > makes us desparate for the comfort of one another, while good is > >> > > > > all > >> > > > > that makes us think we are independent, don't need anyone, have > >> > > > > things > >> > > > > nailed, are the very best and can do anything we want. Or is > that > >> > > > > too > >> > > > > simple an answer? > >> > > >> > > > > On Jun 24, 1:51 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > A simple question, or is it?- Hide quoted text - > >> > > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >> > > >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >> > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >> > > >> > - Show quoted text - > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > I_D Allan > > > > > > > > > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
