Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

suggs wrote:You're not a facist - as you say, you believe in free trade and capitalism (difficult for a genuine fascist to believe in either).

But your Achilles heel, Nap, is this religious/cultish nonsense.
Thats the only reason you're against abortion. Have the guts to admit it.

Yes, he may not be a fascist, but he sure is totalitarian when it comes to social issues.

No, I believe individual rights. You have a serious misconception of the abortion debate. If I perceive the foetus to be human, then surely it is incompatible with a free society for his rights to be ignored?

Of course, the death penalty I advocate is merely a temporary, deterrent (and hence justified) measure. It's really of no relevance, however. Let's forget, it was half facetious in any case...

Now, social issues and economic are intrinsically related...a minimum wage (blatant arbitrary restriction of capitalist acts between consenting parties), social or economic? Eh, snorri? Is it, furthermore, any co-incidence that free societies have always economically been free, as well? To subjugate individuals economically is to subjugate them socially. The two fields are indissociable. The freedom to establish trading relations with whom I wish, if they consent, is justified in the same way as the freedom for you to have sexual relations with whomever you want to,if they consent. The moral grounds are the same-economic issues are a mere, blurred subset of social freedoms.

On the issue of gay rights, I've explained countless times how marriage isn't a right but a societal, collective grant, a social institution which only normal couples can access. Paraphilic couples, (be they homosexual, incestuous, bestial, paedophilic, or whatever) cannot access it. It isn't, in short, a rights issue.

Now, were I to impose a Catholic state, snorri, you would be banned from taking the Lord's name in vain, masturbating, eating meat on fridays during Lent, viewing pornography, and forced to attend regular Mass, confess your sins, say ten Hail Marys ever night and go on pilgrimage once a year.

But I don't advocate that...I only advocate a free society which is by nature and necessarily respectful of individual rights. There's room for disagreement within that (I recognise the rights of the foetus, differ on the issue of society's right to stable instituions of marriage...), but fundamentally, I am libertarian, you are, sadly not.

I support people's rights to do as they please so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights to do the same, you, however, have delusional dreams of a common societal good toward which resources and labor are collectively and if necessary coercivelly. directed.

Ah, more bullshit from you. Ignoring the actual points.

The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, whatever. It's like setting up an IED by a roadside. You're not sure imperialist capitalist western american pigs will get blown to bits by it, but you bloody well hope it will if they come past it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I see...so there are no rights? So laws against murder, are, for you, wrong?

Please shut up and pick up a book, you waste of oxygen, your pathetic attempts at looking like you can debate a point are embarrassing you and painful for me to read.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Of course, the death penalty I advocate is merely a temporary, deterrent (and hence justified) measure. It's really of no relevance, however. Let's forget, it was half facetious in any case...

jiminski wrote:
please do not resort to gibberish as a debating tool.

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

suggs wrote:

jiminski wrote:
please do not resort to gibberish as a debating tool.

...and its goodbye from Suggs.

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

MeDeFe wrote:

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

Snorri1234 wrote:I don't get it. Western and Nothern Europe have the lowest abortion-rates and also the most liberal policies, while the countries with the most strict policies have the highest rates.

Wouldn't you conclude from that that the best way to reduce abortion-rates is making it legal?

suggs wrote:So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Now watch as this rare and unique specimen of snorrarsis hollandis fudges an attempt at making moral relativism justify abortion and the holocaust but not the holocaust for the 21st century.

got tonkaed wrote:

suggs wrote:So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

In as far as i have any say on the issue, i am pro-choice.

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Now watch as this rare and unique specimen of snorrarsis hollandis fudges an attempt at making moral relativism justify abortion and the holocaust but not the holocaust for the 21st century.

well it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel....

quote a few random philosophers out of context and call 'game'! good tactic ... I am sure Snorri won;t be able to evade that peace of genius and I forgot the pat on the back from the blindly faithful, searching for an ally.

This is not about the embryo being 'human' it is clearly not but it 'may' have the potential to be so. What this is about is your perception that at the point of conception the collection of cells has a soul.

You believe, we do not! but in your belief you sentence millions of children to impoverished and pain-filled lives!
Damn your arrogance! Damn your sanctimony! Damn your desire to be right' in the face of this wrong!
Because through all, you Damn them!


And for what? the lie of bliss in the afterlife? hah! what a joke! Some of these poor little souls are so damaged that 'Paradise' would be cheap folly; the offer at never-ending pain, in an unrepairable psyche!

Christ forgive them! for they know not what they talk about!

suggs wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

suggs wrote:So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

In as far as i have any say on the issue, i am pro-choice.

You still had to caveat it. Fair play to yer, squire!

suggs wrote:So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

Then there are of course also the ones who consider jews as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact is that we don't consider the foetus to be human. You can claim all day that it is, but frankly you're bullshitting all the way back to bangcock.

So what? I don't give a shit what you consider. Bastards and tyrants have been denying the inalienable right of humans by simply not considering them human. Americans did it with slaves, Hitler did it with Jews, you want to do it to the pre-born and there are others who think we are no longer human when we get old. As Thomas Jefferson one wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." Or as my favorite philisopher Horton once said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

Then there are of course also the ones who consider fetuses as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

Then there are of course also the ones who consider jews as genetically human (also not quite easy to define, btw), but not as persons.

And for what reasons would you consider an adult jew as a non-person? With a fetus it's fairly easy, a complete lack of self-consciousness is one reason why a fetus might not be considered a person. Go back to the very early fetal or the embryonal stages and there's not even a nervous system to perceive anything with, much less any thought processes without a brain. But tell me, why would you not consider a jew a person?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

suggs wrote:So are you are for or against abortion Tonk?
There is no middle ground here.

Yes, there is.

It is called having one standard for one's self ... and accepting that not everyone else believes in the same morals. One can be seriously opposed to an activity, but still not think laws are the answer.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why would you, by the standards given in the above definition, not consider an adult comatose a human?

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Surely though, some standard by which we can measure personhood must exist...for if, as you have deluded yourself into thinking with your patronizing politically correct nonsense, it is only if you accept some vague notion of a "soul" that you can define a human, then all killing is legitimized?