welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

bush finally uses his veto
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Victim Here



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2813
Location: Almost Not Trinity.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feiticeira wrote:
The Victim Here wrote:
Funny in the way that Sam makes me laugh tears, or funny in a train wreck kinda way?


Uh, bash.org funny. Were you not around when Pimp was?
I was there for his storming out of the forum. See, he's antics were mostly on IRC, and I don't go to the IRC channel, so it was all very over my head.
In fact, all I remember was him bitching about something in an "I'm leaving thread" and that he had a Sepiroth avatar. And that he was marginally amusing sometimes.

_________________
Colours? What colours?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That one person, in a PM, wrote:

What will the end be? We are far from it, I don't really know what it will be, but I trust we are making the right decision given the circumstances. I trust we are doing the right thing. Perhaps that makes me a sheep to trust we made the right decision. *shrug*
I believe this world will be a better place once the dust has settled.

Just because we feel bad about it doesn't mean it is right for us to*intentionally kill innocent people*. I know people purposely do it in our military. I know right now if Osama was standing in a lobby with about 20 other innocent people, someone over here would press a button for a missle to launch. Collateral damage is what they call it.

It all leads back to what I had asked before. The real moral question of the dilemma.

Does the good of the many out wiegh the good of the few?

As for a unifying point, I apologize if I am all over the place with my comments and posts. I am trying to respond to a number of things all at the same time. Perhaps that isn't the most wise thing to do given the situation and the topic, but that was how I chose to do it at the time. I was just throwing my opinion and Hypothetical situations out there, I wasn't trying to drive home a particular point. I wanted to see other people's views.

-DV-


First, please reply on the Forum Proper. PMs are for private matters such as "I like your shoes a bunch!" or "please stop banging my sister - things are getting awkward at the dinner table."

Second, on what evidentiary foundation are you basing your trust? The elephant, or the turtle?
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah i received a pm, too -- probably along those lines. i largely ignored it.

thank you, nathan, for speaking my mind -- even if coincidentally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:40 am    Post subject: goo goo goo joob, I am the torturer Reply with quote

I got a PM too and didn't catch it 'till now.

The pm I got wrote:
I did not intend to use that paragraph you quoted to imply, "It's fine for us to do terrible things to them, since they'd do the same or worse to us."

I meant to just ask the question if they keep doing it, what do you recommend we do to stop them from doing it? Or should we stop them from doing that at all?

Perhaps some of the arguments are egregious, but some of them raise questions people refuse to ask themselves.

Your constructive criticism on everything is and has been appreciated
Smile


The questions that you are asking, which apparently are intended (?) to raise the same 'refused' questions in others, rely on fallacial logic to prop up the hypothetical condition that torture is an acceptable act in X or Y conditions.

The fallacy is the real sticking point, since the hypotheticals are rendered moot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's fun to skip from page 1 to 5 on any topic having to do with foetuses. I've stopped arguing with pro-lifers since logic is just a 5-letter word to them (20% harder to remember than the pesky 4-letter variety.) I just ask a question ...

At what point does a foetus become human?

... and watch them sputter. It's an evil question, really, because it has no answer. At least no answer that I've ever seen that makes logical sense.
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Him



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4178
Location: On edge

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When it can survive outside of the human body. That's what I usally answer, but I am having an rising supiscion that that answer is not fully acceptable and perhaps only raises more questions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spanky



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 842
Location: Rockville, MD

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Psshh! You guys are so silly. It obviously becomes human when the sperm hits the egg. THAT IS WHEN GOD GIVES IT A SOUL!
Unless the child develops into a homosexual. Then it was never human in the first place.
All of you are heathens!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17092
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigitalVirtuoso wrote:

As for this being the most humane war ever, I for one cannot think of a war in the history of human existance (that was this large in scale) which was more humane. It is my opinion that this is the most humane war. Some of this stuff we hear on the news is blown out of proportion.

Humane really wasn't the right word for what I posted earlier. To me, there is a difference between killing Military combatants on purpose, and killing Non-combatants on purpose (civilians). It really bugs me that those people can do that without conscience.


i'd complement you on a nice weasel attempt - except it really wasn't very good at all.

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A HUMANE WAR? or whatever the hell you mean (since you now say "humane" isn't the right word). you keep saying it's the "most humane" - but you don't lay out your standards...and then you keep citing things that absolutely disprove your point.

for example - every single thing you say about the terrorists. clearly, you do not feel they are humane at all...and yet they are part of the war. how do you class a war as humane, when one side is clearly _not_ humane?

and what, exactly, about our behavior do you feel is "most humane"? in previous wars, we held to the geneva convention - we threw it out in this one. in previous wars, captives were considered prisoners of war, and had certain rights. in this war, we are holding them incommunicado, and threatening them with legal punishment. in previous wars, we did not have a policy of torture - in this war, we do.

it seems to get down to "well, leastwise we ain't purposely targeting civilians." do you really feel in previous wars, we _did_ deliberately target civilians? yes, many civilians died in previous wars. as has been pointed out, many civilians are dying in this one. in previous wars, we did not have the precision weaponry we do now - that might have had a wee small impact on the casualty level. on the other hand, in previous wars, we were fighting a uniformed enemy, who conducted operations often on battlefields away from the civilian population (which in many cases moved away as fast as possible) - so it was easier to target just this enemy. in this war, we are fighting an enemy that blends in with the population, and attack them from within. so it is virtually impossible to attack them without hitting parts of the population. so how is this more humane than a war fought on identifiable battlefields? with identifiable industrial complexes to bomb, and vehicles to attack and so on?

in short - WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN? please come up with some intelligable description of what, exactly, you think you are talking about.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the only thing i can figure is that he believes that the president's refusal to acknowledge half of the rules of civilization and denial of the existance of the other half, effectively absolves the president from the necessity to be held accountable to any of the rules of civilization...

...thus and therefore, this war has broken the fewest rules, since there are none
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17092
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FINALLY - a sensible explanation.

<3, as always major.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crossbow
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spanky wrote:
Psshh! You guys are so silly. It obviously becomes human when the sperm hits the egg. THAT IS WHEN GOD GIVES IT A SOUL!
Unless the child develops into a homosexual. Then it was never human in the first place.
All of you are heathens!


eat a queer fetus for jesus!

um. even though this thread is all about war now, it would have been really cool if the president hadn't just condemned me to a life without running or jumping or a single day without a fuckload of pain. maybe stem cells wouldn't have proved effective anyways, but it's cool to have that hope, you know, not sink into despair about my organs failing me and all those lovely things.

i know i sound selfish blah blah blah but at the very least bush could like, not make me exempt from health insurance? i have to steal narcotics from my friend's meth-addicted drug dealer mom. and she needs them, too. FUCK BLAH MY EVERYTHING HURTS. time to get drunk, i guess.
Back to top
Krazy Stixx



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 568

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me see if I have this right...

Bush blocked research on embryonic stem cells, which are obtained from fertility clinics.

But aren't excess embryos thrown away? I thought it was a debate over which is more moral: using the embros for science or throwing them into the garbage.
_________________
"By 3 p.m. I've discounted suicide in favor of killing everyone else in the world instead."
-Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Krazy Stixx wrote:
Let me see if I have this right...

Bush blocked research on embryonic stem cells, which are obtained from fertility clinics.

But aren't excess embryos thrown away? I thought it was a debate over which is more moral: using the embros for science or throwing them into the garbage.


Yeah, that's what makes this less of a moral stand and more of a cynical political trick.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kilgore wrote:
Krazy Stixx wrote:
Let me see if I have this right...

Bush blocked research on embryonic stem cells, which are obtained from fertility clinics.

But aren't excess embryos thrown away? I thought it was a debate over which is more moral: using the embros for science or throwing them into the garbage.


Yeah, that's what makes this less of a moral stand and more of a cynical political trick.


in my opinion, it is worse that he took this conniving political stand, rather than taking the opportunity to create some sort of supportive drive to encourage people to DONATE THEIR GODDAM EMBRYOS!

you know, by choice -- an option that is completely available, currently, which also does NOT waste the potential of tissue that has value as research material which far outweighs its value as scavenger-feed.

i know it wouldn't accomplish the same desired mid-term election-numbers brainwash thingy, but it is the only thing that makes any actual, realistic sense if you are leading a nation as a "president" as opposed to as a "king", or "godshead".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9481

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: still waiting for the agamemnon take Reply with quote

It amuses me to no end that this debate is essentially over whether or not we are crossing a 'moral boundary' when we try to use embryonic stem cells to try to save human lives, as opposed to hucking those fuckers straight into the bio-waste furnaces, where they would otherwise go.

It's brilliantly ridiculous, quintessentially American, and a tragic ridicule of policy. It's best left to rot in the still-glowing embers of current presidential legacy.

There is absolutely no sane debate in this issue. We will fund the everloving fuck out of stem-cell research, in time. The rational being has no problem with sacrificing medical waste in exchange for extensive potential in the field of medicine and biotechnology. In six years -- tops -- we'll be looking back at this issue and wondering what the fuck was wrong with ourselves that we wouldn't immediately start doing this. Absolute nonissue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group