Originally posted by ivanhoeWould you let your child convert to Judaism?
Would you let your son or daughter get involved in taking illegal drugs, let's say crack or meth ?
What you would allow as a parent has nothing to do with rights. The fact that you would not allow something does not indicate that it is not a right.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDrS: "What you would allow as a parent has nothing to do with rights."
Would you let your child convert to Judaism?
What you would allow as a parent has nothing to do with rights. The fact that you would not allow something does not indicate that it is not a right.
It has to do with what's wrong and what's right.
DrS: "The fact that you would not allow something does not indicate that it is not a right."
I never claimed the opposite.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: " .... either respond to the points I've raised or STFU"
This is typical. You take the thread off-topic with a flurry of personal attacks. If I wind up replying in kind, you'll alert my posts and cry to the Forum Mods. I'm sick of your BS, Ivanhoe; either respond to the points I've raised or STFU.
I did respond to the points you raised ... these points were your lying innuendo and your veiled insinuating personal attacks, marauder.
You have a talent for turning things upside down .... ever considered joining a circus ?
.... by the way you never reply in kind.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo you did not respond to my points; you simply launched a personal attack which you are continuing in your neverending childish vendetta. You really need to grow up.
[b]Marauder: " .... either respond to the points I've raised or STFU"
I did respond to the points you raised ... these points were your lying innuendo and your veiled insinuating personal attacks, marauder.
You have a talent for turning things upside down .... ever considered joining a circus ?
.... by the way you never reply in kind.[/b]
. Since people have no right not to be offended/insulted/verbally but they do have a Fundamental Right to free expression, the answer is pretty obvious.
2. Since you have the right to self-autonomy over your own body, the answer is obvious.
Instances of the first may be morally wrong under certain circumstances.
Instances of the second I fail to see how they can ever be morally wrong.
That is a direct response to your first post questions. Care to respond to it? Certainly not. I expect nothing more than another "marauder is bad" BS post.
Originally posted by ivanhoeLet me rephrase my "nullify" question. IF it is granted that willfully inflicting physical harm upon oneself is 'evil' (morally wrong), do you think that precludes one from possessing the right to inflict physical harm upon himself?* If so, then how do you propose we prevent this type of self-imposed bodily harm without infringing on the person's basic right to self-autonomy?
[b]LJ: " ..... how would that nullify his right to self-autonomy?
Do you really think that is the actual question ? ... a question of "nullifying" ? It is not. This is a misconception on your part.
Would you let your son or daughter get involved in taking illegal drugs, let's say crack or meth ?[/b]
Would you let your son or daughter get involved in taking illegal drugs, let's say crack or meth ?
How is this even remotely relevant to the thread topic? I don't even understand what you are asking. Are you asking if I think that my son or daughter has the right to take illegal drugs? Are you asking if I think that I have an obligation to prevent my son or daughter from taking illegal drugs?
I would try to educate my son or daughter on the dangers that illegal drugs can pose, including the obvious: legal ramifications, impaired judgment, adverse effects on the body, etc. I would want them to be fully informed of the risks involved, so that any related decision they make is an informed decision.
--------------------------------------------------
*I am asking this question specifically because you implicitly stated in the opening post that to "damage oneself" is 'evil'.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderCool! If I succeed in getting you to actually believe in lawfull government process then I will have performed a miracle. Let's see if others notice your GIANT shift in position here at this moment. And further... let's see how long before you revert to neo-destructionism in the form of libertine anarchism.
I answered your question. Since it is a part of the national myth that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the Japanese to surrender and since many innocents were "blown up" in those bombings, that would be our day of national celebration for "blowing up innocents". It has nothing to do with the moral justification of the war against Japa asp) but then you go off into a raving about "National Socialists" and some such rot.
I will fall back on the question of "War and Nations" which your tiny brain seems unable to handle. JAPAN BROUGHT THE US INTO A WORLD WAR AND COMMITTED GROSS ATROCITIES IN CHINA AND THEN AGAINST EVERY COUNTRY THEY INVADED.
I'm not asking you to "think about it", because I know you are incapable. Like you, I am speaking to the third party. Japan invaded China and lined up millions and shot them in the back of the head. With the approval and applause of the Japanese people who were caught up in "nationalist fervor" that denotes National Socialism. Then the JAPANESE NATION did proceed to bring the US into the war. Then the JAPANESE NATION did invade every country that they considered viatal to their aim of dominating the pacific rim. In so doing, they committed mass murder on a scale that even #zeroish mauraders would find acceptable.
And here we sit. You supporting and lamenting their demise. Just as you lament the demise of any evil.
I am glad I was able to use Stan to FINALLY get you into a position of APPEARING to be reasonable. It is an illusion that will soon fade, but it is amusing for the moment. The fun part is that you have no idea what you have done to your own image... grin.
The A bomb DID kill a lot of innocents. Those under the military draft age in Japan at the time, which was 13 years of age. But even then, children 8 years and up were required to work in factories after school each day if requirements were filed by a factory superintendant.
War is hell. So why do you encourage it with your insipid support of evil in every case zero? Not occasionally. EVERY DAMN TIME a question arises between the rights of "innocents" vs. "evil" you choose the evil as having superior libertine inheritance. Why? I think it in your evil nature.
Originally posted by no1marauderlaugh out loud
The truth hurts, don't it? It's a common technique by those who want to limit the Fundamental Rights that we all have as a consequence of Natural Law to try to belittle their assertion in whatever context. You do it constantly.
And also, as usual, you are trying to take the thread off-topic.
Didn't take long to get back to destructionism... Where is the old "flexibility" gone zero? And it took less than two posts from your expresson of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou're completely senseless; don't pretend to have moral outrage over the killing of innocents in a war in one post and then start with the "war is hell" (true enough) crap in another. Try to at least stay consistent for a few pages, anyway.
Cool! If I succeed in getting you to actually believe in lawfull government process then I will have performed a miracle. Let's see if others notice your GIANT shift in position here at this moment. And further... let's see how long before you revert to neo-destructionism in the form of libertine anarchism.
I will fall back on the question of "War an evil as having superior libertine inheritance. Why? I think it in your evil nature.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat isn't consistant with saying that I am glad that the good guys won world war two? You are the one lamenting that fact.
You're completely senseless; don't pretend to have moral outrage over the killing of innocents in a war in one post and then start with the "war is hell" (true enough) crap in another. Try to at least stay consistent for a few pages, anyway.
Or... did you want victory, but no death?
Sounds right. It's good to win a war as long as no blood is shed.
well duh! hello!
War is hell. Never START ONE YOU CAN'T FINISH.
And in case you miss this simple idea... JAPAN CHOSE HOW MANY INNOCENTS WOULD DIE. They could have surrendered at any time. They CHOSE not to after STARTING the war. Who killed the innocents when the bomb dropped? Those in the plane or those who started the war and refused to see that all was lost in 1943/44? Or do you think they were stupid enough to think they could have won after the battle of Midway? Their own documents now show that they knew it was over. Why then continue the war? I'll tell you why. Because they were evil.