If it's proven there's no god

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Th blood transfusion have saved million is an illogical argument, it has also killed thousands, tens of thousands of persons Who might have been saved if they had been offered alternative treatment.

Like I said, if anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then it would be morally reprehensible.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
For the last few years the number of deaths from HIV in the UK has been anywhere between 400-600. Compare that with the number of road traffic fatalities which is between 1700-2200 per year, and the number of serious injuries is around 21,000 per year. Is using the roads in the UK morally unsound? Because using your logic it's rather self evident the practice is destructive.

We are not talking of road accidents and simply because deaths have been reduced does not detract from the FACT that we now have the highest ever recorded figures for the contraction of HIV. What that tells us is that people are willingly engaging in a practice which they know carries inherent health risks which could be avoided if they desisted. That's what makes it immoral.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What that tells us is that people are willingly engaging in a practice which they know carries inherent health risks which could be avoided if they desisted. Thats what makes it immoral.

If anyone knowingly passes on an infection then I think it is immoral.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I said, if anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then it would be morally reprehensible.

This again is a fail, negligence is also morally reprehensible. Too bad for your argument that for even if it was not deliberate it may still be deemed immoral as a consequence of negligence which itself need not be wilful.

Originally posted by FMF
If anyone knowingly passes on an infection then I think it is immoral.

So you keep saying but its a failure of an argument because negligence may also result in passing on a disease which itself is not wilful.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This again is a fail, negligence is also morally reprehensible. Too bad for your argument that for even if it was not deliberate it may still be deemed immoral as a consequence of negligence which itself need not be wilful.

Like I said on page 21: If anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then of course it would be morally reprehensible.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I said on page 21: If anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then of course it would be morally reprehensible.

like you keep saying and like it is, its a fail, negligence has resulted in deaths from the contraction of diseases, that is not wilful no matter how many times you keep saying it. Human error is also responsible, again that is not deliberate.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you keep saying but its a failure of an argument because negligence may also result in passing on a disease which itself is not wilful.

Like I have been saying since page 19: I think knowingly passing on a disease, or behaviour that is reckless or negligent that could harm others, is morally unsound and objectionable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
like you keep saying and like it is, its a fail, negligence has resulted in deaths from the contraction of diseases, that is not wilful no matter how many times you keep saying it. Human error is also responsible, again that is not deliberate.

Like I have been saying for several pages: Each and every sexually active heterosexual and homosexual is responsible for their awareness of their own sexual health and it will vary from person to person. This personal responsibility may well be the key to whether they behave in a morally sound manner.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I have been saying since page 19: I think knowingly passing on a disease, or behaviour that is reckless or negligent that could harm others, is morally unsound and objectionable.

Sure you keep telling yourself what you need , its a failure of an argument. wilfully engaging in a practice you know to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I have been saying for several pages: Each and every sexually active heterosexual and homosexual is responsible for their awareness of their own sexual health and it will vary from person to person. This personal responsibility may well be the key to whether they behave in a morally sound manner.

Sure you keep telling yourself what you need , its a failure of an argument. wilfully engaging in a practice you know to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sure you keep telling yourself what you need , its a failure of an argument. wilfully engaging in a practice you know to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible.

Heterosexual sex can also be unhealthy but one cannot condemn it for that reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We are not talking of road accidents and simply because deaths have been reduced does not detract from the FACT that we now have the highest ever recorded figures for the contraction of HIV. What that tells us is that people are willingly engaging in a practice which they know carries inherent health risks which could be avoided if they desisted. That's what makes it immoral.

The same logic applies to using the roads. It's a practice which kills and seriously injures thousands of people each year. Is not using the roads a practice which carries inherent health risks? These risks can be avoided if people desisted. Thus, according to your logic, it is morally unsound to use the roads.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sure you keep telling yourself what you need , its a failure of an argument. wilfully engaging in a practice you know to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible.

I can provide you with enough reading material to keep you busy for the next week detailing how sitting down is 'unhealthy' for a human being. Is sitting down morally reprehensible?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The same logic applies to using the roads. It's a practice which kills and seriously injures thousands of people each year. Is not using the roads a practice which carries inherent health risks? These risks can be avoided if people desisted. Thus, according to your logic, it is morally unsound to use the roads.

No it doesn't. Driving a car is not the same as engaging in promiscuous sex. Man.