Originally posted by ivanhoeQuit being an idiot, idiot. I am not for eugenics, but I am for viewing the topic in an objective light.
Do you know Hawkins ? Do you know his ideology ? Well then, genius .... you can answer the question yourself ..... or are you also somebody who wants to discuss eugenics "objectively" and then decide you're in favour of it.
You are also in favour of eugenics. If not, let me know.
Stop being naïve, stop playing the fool and stop deluding yourself and others.
Originally posted by LemonJelloArrogant and looking down on people as usual.
By the way, you -- with your completely infantile methods of moral deliberation -- are one who could benefit from Dawkin's primary point here.
Never asked yourself why pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-eugenics liberals always are such damned arrogant and self-centered egotists ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeTrolling and being petty as usual.
Arrogant and looking down on people as usual.
Never asked yourself why pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-eugenics liberals always are such damned arrogant and self-centered egotists ?
Whenever you can actually entertain a topic "objectively", or even offer any sort of argument for your religious views, then let me know, hoe.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAre you ? Then why are you opposing those who are against it ? Why not oppose the marauder, for instance ? You cannot fool me. You will be in favour of it in due time if you're not in favour of it allready.
Quit being an idiot, idiot. I am not for eugenics, but I am for viewing the topic in an objective light.
Within the scope of real existing liberalism there are no objections to be found against the policies of eugenics.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI never use religious arguments to support my views, genius. You should know this by now.
Trolling and being petty as usual.
Whenever you can actually entertain a topic "objectively", or even offer any sort of argument for your religious views, then let me know, hoe.
Answer the question: Are you in favour or against eugenics. If you have to think about it, I assure you will be in favour in due time.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI already said that I do not support (am not for) eugenics. What don't you understand about that?
I never use religious arguments to support my views, genius. You should know this by now.
Answer the question: Are you in favour or against eugenics. If you have to think about it, I assure you will be in favour in due time.
I never use religious arguments to support my views
Well, that follows tautologically since you never use any arguments to support your views. You simply spout religious fiat -- one could hardly call that "argument".
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]Then why don't you provide the arguments against it and start a discussion with for instance the marauder about the issue ? ....... maybe I can learn from it. Or are you afraid I might use your arguments against eugenics in a follow up discussion ?
[b]I already said that I do not support (am not for) eugenics. What don't you understand about that?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeBecause my contention and interest here, until you trolled in, is that Halitose is misrepresenting the article he cited. I haven't even been able to read all of the discussion between marauder and you/others. I was selectively responding to Halitose's post that was addressed explicitly to me (and also to one of LH's post that I think misrepresented the article as well). If I read through the remaining posts and feel compelled to add my thoughts, I will. That's going to have to be good enough for you right now, troll.
Then why don't you provide the arguments against it and start a discussion with the marauder about the issue ?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI will be waiting for your arguments against eugenics, genius .....
Because my contention and interest here, until you trolled in, is that Halitose is misrepresenting the article he cited. I haven't even been able to read all of the discussion between marauder and you/others. I was selectively responding to Halitose's post that was addressed explicitly to me (and also to one of LH's post that I think misrepresented the ...[text shortened]... o add my thoughts, I will. That's going to have to be good enough for you right now, troll.
Originally posted by HalitoseDo you have a link to the entire article ?
Taken from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald where Richard Dawkins writes the following in an article entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad":
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used tha ...[text shortened]... stop being frightened even to put the question?"
What say the Dawkinians?
Originally posted by LemonJelloIvanhoe is not pro-thinking-for-oneself. He has the ultimate authority for what is and is not right.
Whenever you can actually entertain a topic "objectively", or even offer any sort of argument for your religious views, then let me know, hoe.
Therefore, he has no need to entertain a topic in any fashion upon which the Church has already
given its decision.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhat a load of irritating non-sense and pertinent lies.
Ivanhoe is not pro-thinking-for-oneself. He has the ultimate authority for what is and is not right.
Therefore, he has no need to entertain a topic in any fashion upon which the Church has already
given its decision.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI can't find it either. Halitose gave me the following link, but it only shows the same text in full that he posted in the first post:
Do you have a link to the entire article ?
http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php
Halitose, is this the full article?