Conquer Club

LOL.

suggs wrote:LOL.

Too small (don't tell me you get that a lot, do you?).

I have never met a woman.

It appears PLAYER1928!!!1!929!ONE!lim n--->0[sin(n)/sin(n){cos(n)}]!1! has yet to dissociate substansive empirical evidence and logical a priori reasoning from long-winded, illegible dissertations punctuated with arbitrarily capitalized words and a moralizing tone, spiced up with irrelevant, circumstantial anecdotes and tangential points.

NO. she is married and HAS kids, and got a SOCIology degree (which is EVER so important) which means she has a RIGHT to be serious and EMOTIONAL, Nap. YOu'll FIND out when you are a washed up old house wife that its VERY important to SHOUT about your beliefs, becuase you forgot how to reason a long time ago. UNESCO has a report somewhere.

suggs wrote:I have never met a woman.

Never said anything about women now did I.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:I have never met a woman.

Never said anything about women now did I.

No. But its like Tourette's. I think about women every 3 seconds, so generally honesty compels me to share it with the forum.
GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRLS.

suggs wrote:NO. she is married and HAS kids, and got a SOCIology degree (which is EVER so important) which means she has a RIGHT to be serious and EMOTIONAL, Nap. YOu'll FIND out when you are a washed up old house wife that its VERY important to SHOUT about your beliefs, becuase you forgot how to reason a long time ago. UNESCO has a report somewhere.

Really? I heard it was an ECONOMICS DEGREE, and I was also given to understand that one of her "professors" had lectured to her extensively about the way in which MARXISM and LENINISM were innately DIFFERENT, implying studies of history or political philosophy. My my..this would be a logical way to explain her inability to understand what Lerner-symmetry was, or her complete ignorance of Soviet currents of Marxism, wouldn't it?

I have had kids which makes me morally superior.

Wasn't it a biological type degree?

Neoteny wrote:Wasn't it a biological type degree?

I think it was a non-existant degree...from Imaginary University: where your dreams come true.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
murder is acceptable iff it benefits the collective good of society

Like war and the death penalty.

Replace the word "murder" by "killing", and yes, you have some grounds for justifying war and capital punishment. I however, consider justification of killing on induced potential societal benefit an extremely dangerous and Marxisto-dialectic materialist worldview.

And on what grounds is murder different from killing except for teh lawz?

I prefer to view war as justifiable only to uphold the principle of human rights, and capital punishment as being a retributive and vindicative act (not as a deterrent, though such a positive externality of implenting Justice may exist).

Didn't that one guy, I forgot his name but I thought he was quite important, tell us to turn the other cheek? Not act like vindicative bastards?

I seem to remember an awfull lot about him.

(Btw, death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent, reseach shows it doesn't.)

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
murder is acceptable iff it benefits the collective good of society

Like war and the death penalty.

Replace the word "murder" by "killing", and yes, you have some grounds for justifying war and capital punishment. I however, consider justification of killing on induced potential societal benefit an extremely dangerous and Marxisto-dialectic materialist worldview.

And on what grounds is murder different from killing except for teh lawz?

I prefer to view war as justifiable only to uphold the principle of human rights, and capital punishment as being a retributive and vindicative act (not as a deterrent, though such a positive externality of implenting Justice may exist).

Didn't that one guy, I forgot his name but I thought he was quite important, tell us to turn the other cheek? Not act like vindicative bastards?

I seem to remember an awfull lot about him.

(Btw, death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent, reseach shows it doesn't.)

Well, if someone comes into your house with a gun threatning you and your family and you shoot them, not only is that not legally muder, but ethically, I believe most people would want to dichotomize.

As for your reference to the Sermon on the Mount, nice try, but the usual interpretation of that is that Jesus is speaking at a personal level, whereas at the level of the State dispensing justice,"an eye for an eye" applies. After all, that guy you mention did say not "one dot or stroke" was to abolished of the Pentateuchal Law.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, if someone comes into your house with a gun threatning you and your family and you shoot them, not only is that not legally muder, but ethically, I believe most people would want to dichotomize.

Would they? Really? Murder (legally) is that act which we don't think it warranted. Where the act of killing doesn't warrant a sentence. Murder and killing are only different because one has a sentence and one doesn't. It's applied for different situations.

Does christian religion have that same distinction?

As for your reference to the Sermon on the Mount, nice try, but the usual interpretation of that is that Jesus is speaking at a personal level, whereas at the level of the State dispensing justice,"an eye for an eye" applies. After all, that guy you mention did say not "one dot or stroke" was to abolished of the Pentateuchal Law.

Why is the state different than the individual? Why would the state be allowed to dispense "justice" while individuals couldn't? Surely if I kill the man who raped my daughter, I should get away with it?
And wouldn't self-defence apply to the individual? Isn't that the very idea behind self-defence?

Anyway, you're probably right about state/individual distinction stuff. I just think it's silly to think a hippy like jesus would support the death penalty. If I get anything from his personal story, it's that being put to death for something is no fun and people shouldn't do it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, if someone comes into your house with a gun threatning you and your family and you shoot them, not only is that not legally muder, but ethically, I believe most people would want to dichotomize.

Would they? Really? Murder (legally) is that act which we don't think it warranted. Where the act of killing doesn't warrant a sentence. Murder and killing are only different because one has a sentence and one doesn't. It's applied for different situations.

Does christian religion have that same distinction?

That's the key phrase, there...

I don't understand why "punching my pregnant-whore ex-girlfriend in the gut" should be viewed as anything more than an outright act of self-defense.

Call it a "preemptive strike", if you will. I know someone who would certainly endorse my actions:

V.I. wrote:I don't understand why "punching my pregnant-whore ex-girlfriend in the gut" should be viewed as anything more than an outright act of self-defense.

Oh no, that's obviously cool...

I thought it was the whole business with the rusty coat-hanger that got the prosecutor all upset thought? Did you ever get a trial date for that?

V.I. wrote:I don't understand why "punching my pregnant-whore ex-girlfriend in the gut" should be viewed as anything more than an outright act of self-defense.

If she was an abortion doctor, I can only salute yor courage. And hope you then tied her to a chair, sliced off her ear with a dovo cut-throat and doused her in petrol before setting her alight.

Ah, "Compassionate Conservatism" lives on

suggs wrote:Ah, "Compassionate Conservatism" lives on

ahhhhh but if you cut her throat, steel her purse and then share the money with your flatmates it is Compassionate Socialism!

Only if we all spend it on Lentil Soup

suggs wrote:I have had kids which makes me morally superior.

That's quite a trail of breadcrumbs you're making N1er follow - when does the trap spring shut?

suggs wrote:Awful lot of guff, there Player. Whats your point?
Try and keep your feminsit garbage out of this.

ps my main point can be viewed in the latest post in "Hot and Sexy".I think you'll find it educational, Player.

Not often I get called a feminist. But anyway, its history. I would say that history of women is pretty pertinent to the topic of abortion.

My point? Just that you have to think about the not-so-nice details.

When folks talk about abortion they tend to think of happy kids to happy parents (or at least parent). But those are not the ones having abortions.

Darn your reasonableness, Player! How am I suppose to sail close to the Flame Wind (*colossal yawn from the Mods*) if you don't give me any ammo?
*mumbles* yeah, good point.

Anyone remember the last time I won an argument in this place?
bugger

suggs wrote:Darn your reasonableness, Player! How am I suppose to sail close to the Flame Wind (*colossal yawn from the Mods*) if you don't give me any ammo?
*mumbles* yeah, good point.

Anyone remember the last time I won an argument in this place?
bugger

You won ... we just keep trying.