Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 07:58:38 pm
-
[edited by original poster due to disrespectful implications]
-
Well, it's time to put things in a nutshell and move on.
The Christian goal for the family: Parents marry and stay married, for the sake of providing care for their kids. No nonsense involved.
The Atheist goal: people hook up and break up. Kids have no garantee of a secure family. Unwanted kids are executed for being born (compare any other genocide to this?)
Both sides work, with a mix of success and failure, to acheive the goal.
To me, the choice is a no-brainer.
Since when is that the atheists goal?
And why are you trying to deflect the argument having been proved wrong over the whole HIV thing?
Be very careful, as I'd claim that last post is both offensive to atheists and trolling. It's completely at odds with your earlier complaints about the lack of religious tolerance on this board.
-
That's... possibly the most insane summary of anything I've heard for a few months...
The discussion was going so well, then someone topped up the ink in the Stereotyper...
-
Well, it's time to put things in a nutshell and move on.
The Christian goal for the family: Parents marry and stay married, for the sake of providing care for their kids. No nonsense involved.
The Atheist goal:
FTFY
-
Yeah, it was a good thread until then. So I'm going to split this post off and leave the new thread open for now so that Insane Baron can either justify or apologise for that last post.
Until he replies, please let's not dogpile on him as I suspect most of us who would do that already know why he is wrong.
-
In case the reason for an apology or a defense is not immediately evident:
You just described every atheist on HLP (or more accurately, anyone non-Christian by way of conspicuous omission) as incapable or unwilling to marry or have a family, incapable of maintaining any family they may start, and automatically pro-choice.
-
Whilst I don't want to dogpile, what angers me is the 'Unwanted kids are executed for being born' thing, that's not accusing atheists of being pro-choice, it's accusing them of infanticide. Whilst it does happen in the world, China had a problem with the one-child law and this, considering there are atheists on this site with children whom they love deeply, I definitely think that statement needs to be addressed.
-
Well, it's time to put things in a nutshell and move on.
The Christian goal for the family: Parents marry and stay married, for the sake of providing care for their kids. No nonsense involved.
The Atheist goal: people hook up and break up. Kids have no garantee of a secure family. Unwanted kids are executed for being born (compare any other genocide to this?)
Both sides work, with a mix of success and failure, to acheive the goal.
To me, the choice is a no-brainer.
Holy ****, what the ****?
And you seemed so reasonable. This undermines just about everything you've said on this forum to date.
e: sorry Kara, hadn't seen your post. Still.
-
I don't even
I doubt I can convey my disappointment adequately.
Any apology would just strike me as shallow and meaningless, but I'll allow for the effort of one anyway.
-
I think it is a little narrow. When an (ideally) Christian couple married, it is more than about children. It is also about the marriage in itself, and finding true love. Of course I am talking about ideals here. How many so called Christian couples are actually worse off than Atheists ever did? Let's not get to that.
Also, Atheists have lots of reason for that. I am sure many of them don't get married for money or for their lust and then break up when they are bored. I am sure there are at least a few Atheist couples that are at least decent.
And how many other religions treat marriage at least as a partially religious thing other than Christianity, Muslim, and Judaism?
I don't think we should be too stereotypical. Humans are more complex than even the most sophisticated machines. And please forgive my sarcasm
-
Yeah, I bet there are few of those atheists who are maybe at least decent. At least a bit. Kinda decent. Maybe...morally...okay. If we're pushing it.
Find me a Christian couple with a marriage nearly as long-lasting or steady as my relationship Atheist Sex And Abortion Factory under the same remarkable conditions and I'll stop rolling my eyes (you won't though, so I won't have to stop)
-
(proportionally speaking ofc)
-
I think it is a little narrow. When an (ideally) Christian couple married, it is more than about children. It is also about the marriage in itself, and finding true love.
Actually, given the whole no sex before marriage thing, I think you'll find that there are quite a few Christians who do get married at least partially because of lust. I don't think it's a coincidence that in general people who believe true love waits get married a) sooner after the beginning of a relationship and b) younger in general than people who are in a sexual relationship.
Hell, you only need to read the literature sexual abstinence groups publish to see it's all about lust. Almost the entire argument is that you should wait for marriage because it somehow makes sex better.
-
That is why I said 'Ideally'. How many things in the world are 'ideal' anyway. But then, I don't share the Catholic's view of seeing sexuality as a sin. I believe that sexuality is a gift of God (Well, are they saying that when humanity is cleansed from sin, then humanity is going to go extinct? Or do you dream of Demolition Man-style world?).
The thing of sex only within marriage is more about being parental responsibility. But again, is sex everything in the marriage (or even in a relationship)? I personally don't think so. Yes it can be a very important part, but it is sure not everything about marriage.
Dang, I am sarcastic by default, I just can't knock it off.
-
So why the hell do you think an atheists ideal of marriage isn't about true love then?
-
The whole point of atheism \ agnosticism is to not subscribe to a doctrine that tels you how to live and think, allowing you to make these decisions from an individual perspective.
They can marry for any reason, whether it be because they love the person, it advances their career, or it's just a logical thing to do at the time.
Many other people who subscribe to the Christan doctrine have married for at least two of the 3 reasons I listed above.
Frankly, I don't understand why atheists get so much hate, with the rampant hypocrisy within the churches. Church girls be performing fellatio in the bathrooms and the pastor is using the tithes to roll up with a Lexus truck on 22" chrome, so... This whole 'Christian's marry for love and family' and 'don't have sex before marriage' thing don't apply half the time,
-
When compared to the usual gradually escalating flamewars which are frustrating and no fun at all, I must say I find these kinds of unexpected trollbombs out of nowhere rather refreshing. :D
-
While I suspect that atheists can marry for a variety of reasons, the number marrying for love is probably no lower than it is for religious people. In fact, given what I said above about not feeling as strong a pressure to marry in order to have sex, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually higher.
-
So why the hell do you think an atheists ideal of marriage isn't about true love then?
I was talking about ideal Christian marriage and not saying such thing is restricted to Christians, in fact Atheists should if you ask me. It is just not an Atheist ideal, but strictly because Atheism is really far and wide and the area to cope is much wider, and so far there is no official 'Book of Atheism' or something like that. Hell, even if it is not Atheist ideal, that doesn't meant it is impossible. This is just one thing Christians believe as a 'common grace', in other words, you don't have to be a Christian to enjoy it.
The whole point of atheism \ agnosticism is to not subscribe to a doctrine that tels you how to live and think, allowing you to make these decisions from an individual perspective.
They can marry for any reason, whether it be because they love the person, it advances their career, or it's just a logical thing to do at the time.
Many other people who subscribe to the Christan doctrine have married for at least two of the 3 reasons I listed above.
Frankly, I don't understand why atheists get so much hate, with the rampant hypocrisy within the churches. Church girls be performing fellatio in the bathrooms and the pastor is using the tithes to roll up with a Lexus truck on 22" chrome, so... This whole 'Christian's marry for love and family' and 'don't have sex before marriage' thing don't apply half the time,
Technically speaking, all sorts of people are in the church, and to be honest you people, no church in the world is really that good no matter what facade they manage to put in front to people outside. Even real believers have used their own church for personal ambitions (not just marriage). I understand that such happenings are already more than an open secret to everyone and it will be hypocrisy of the church if they attempt to cover it up (which, sad to say, some churches do). Well of course if the church is already THAT good and absolutely sinless, then they don't need redemption, and the death of Jesus means nothing for them don't you think, and anything that is built from lies instead of truth will fall sooner or later.
That is why I say it is the ideal, or in other words, the absolute highest standard that they should aim for, or the image of perfection. In reality people have their own reasons for getting married, hidden or otherwise and considering no humans are perfect. However, in John Calvin's words, believers should be in continuous process of sanctification, bringing them closer and closer to that ideals. The same goes with marriage, no matter where they start, they should stay faithful (Pun intended, but both meanings of the word applies here) and allow themselves to be guided to the right path.
Of course ideally people have sex after getting married, but with the media promoting the opposite, you have to admit, many people got carried away, even those inside the church. Not that I justify them, but just to show some of the reality that happened. One reason I personally think that Catholic priests should be allowed to get married, there is nothing in the bible saying that priests aren't allowed to get married.
People being self righteous and all? It happens all the time. And I believe the target is not just Atheists, but rather anyone that isn't them. In reality, the more you know about the truth, you should know more and more how imperfect and sinful you are, instead of how righteous you are. Going knight templar will only make it worse, if only they learn that....(facepalm)
-
I just think Insanebaron is somewhat insulated from a world filled with atheists and has a bit of ignorance of how atheists live and what atheists think about, apart from what probably his friends, the pastor and the family, etc., tell him, all about those nasty atheists and their consecutive abortions because they just don't care, their abhorrent lust for every kinds of kinky sex, gay sex, polygamous sex, sex with animals, their lust for immoralities and depravities, fill in the amazing blanks here!
He was probably really angry because argument and then made the mistake of ragequitting after ranting what was on his mind and not before.
Just to throw out there, atheists actually have divorce rates lower than christian couples.
-
And five years on, the STD rate is actually the same amongst people who take "True Love Waits" style pledges and those who don't (They tend to have less sexual partners but are also less likely to use protection).
-
I'm impressed.
I got frustrated with you guys, esp with Karajorma who seemed to be threatening me if I refuted his points...
And it turns out you guys were NOT trying to defend a worldview as extreme as I thought.
I'm impressed.
e: To give a little background, it was late at night when I posted this, and I was tired and frustrated, plus I had just gotten back from the dentist. I probably should have realized this would effect my ability to answer and just gotten some sleep before posting anything. As it was, I made a pretty significant error by associating opposite worldviews regarding birth control and chastity with opposite worldviews regarding stable homes for children and Planned Parenthood. Getting up in the morning in a better condition to think, I began to realize how bad this post was and how much it would upset people. Getting on, I was impressed to see that the worldviews of my opponents were not as bad as I had thought.
That said, I'm willing to take this thread down in a little while.
-
Ummmmm. Where did I threaten you? Or even say anything that would come off as threatening?
The only threatening thing I said was well after you posted the post that started this thread and that was me speaking as an admin. I'd have said much the same to anyone who posted something like that about Christians.
-
Ummmmm. Where did I threaten you? Or even say anything that would come off as threatening?
The only threatening thing I said was well after you posted the post that started this thread and that was me speaking as an admin. I'd have said much the same to anyone who posted something like that about Christians.
I said seemed. You had basically told me not to dare dispute you over the HIV penetrating condoms debate, so instead I said something that I now retract.
-
Just for the record? No matter what kind of excuses you come up with, posting what you did especially after going to great lengths in other topics to make sure that HLP stays a welcoming place for you, is pretty much inexcusable in my book.
Also, unless a topic is very clearly the product of a spambot, it is not deleted.
-
Just for the record? No matter what kind of excuses you come up with, posting what you did especially after going to great lengths in other topics to make sure that HLP stays a welcoming place for you, is pretty much inexcusable in my book.
Also, unless a topic is very clearly the product of a spambot, it is not deleted.
What this proves to me is that a person who's not in a good condition to think through what they say is liable to say something that violates their own standard of conduct. And yes, that post I made was certainly not an exceptable post, now that I'm in a condition to realize that.
I'm pretty sure that as the original poster I can remove the thread.
-
You probably can, but it will be reinstated. One of the traditions on HLP is that you should only delete a post if it has not been replied to. Once a discussion has sprung up around it, the post is no longer "yours", in a sense.
-
Just for the record? No matter what kind of excuses you come up with, posting what you did especially after going to great lengths in other topics to make sure that HLP stays a welcoming place for you, is pretty much inexcusable in my book.
Furthermore, even if you retract it, some points are very hard to take back. If you call someone an idiot, you can claim it was just in the heat of the moment, but if, for instance, you call someone a racial epitaph, you can't take that back later without everyone thinking you're a racist. If you make claims that atheists don't want to form stable relationships, it betrays that you have some deeply-rooted misconceptions about what atheists are.
Ummmmm. Where did I threaten you? Or even say anything that would come off as threatening?
The only threatening thing I said was well after you posted the post that started this thread and that was me speaking as an admin. I'd have said much the same to anyone who posted something like that about Christians.
I said seemed. You had basically told me not to dare dispute you over the HIV penetrating condoms debate, so instead I said something that I now retract.
I said not to try to justify them lying. If you could prove they weren't lying, fair enough.
-
so far there is no official 'Book of Atheism'
there sorta is, let me transcribe it for you.
"Is there a god? I cannot say that there is."
That's it. It is a single position* on a single question. It has no further requirements.
*(rather the logical negation of a single position)
-
The problem is that there ARE atheists who hold these views, and said atheists have been known to claim that they speak on behalf of atheism, and that Christianity is bad because it opposes these views.
My mistake was thinking I was dealing with a viewpoint similar to that. What I was actually dealing with was something much more reasonable. (even if I don't entirely agree).
Even if I had been dealing with a worldview like that, my post would still have been a breach of conduct.
-
I've always said that there is no cause so right that you won't find an idiot following it.
If you want to argue why Christianity is wrong I'm happy to go at it with you. But the argument always should be on the issue, not inventing a strawman to argue why that is wrong. And in this respect I've seen some rather fundamentally incorrect assumptions dotted throughout this thread (not just from you).
I think the biggest problem is that most people have a fundamentally incorrect assumption about what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. Belief that there is no god is not required, simply a lack of belief. We thrashed this all out on a thread a while back actually.
-
so far there is no official 'Book of Atheism'
there sorta is, let me transcribe it for you.
"Is there a god? I cannot say that there is."
That's it. It is a single position* on a single question. It has no further requirements.
*(rather the logical negation of a single position)
Actually, that's slightly incorrect. By using that definition you are excluding strong/hard/positive atheism.
I think the biggest problem is that most people have a fundamentally incorrect assumption about what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. Belief that there is no god is not required, simply a lack of belief. We thrashed this all out on a thread a while back actually.
And under wide definitions for atheism, buddhists are atheists also, which can lead to some comical conversations.
-
The problem is that there ARE atheists who hold these views, and said atheists have been known to claim that they speak on behalf of atheism, and that Christianity is bad because it opposes these views.
And there ARE Christians who hold these views, and have been know to claim to speak for all Christianity:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/WBC_20051202_sacco-topeka5.jpg)
So yeah, judging a whole movement based on the actions of a vocal few is just stupid.
-
I've always said that there is no cause so right that you won't find an idiot following it.
If you want to argue why Christianity is wrong I'm happy to go at it with you. But the argument always should be on the issue, not inventing a strawman to argue why that is wrong. And in this respect I've seen some rather fundamentally incorrect assumptions dotted throughout this thread (not just from you).
I think the biggest problem is that most people have a fundamentally incorrect assumption about what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. Belief that there is no god is not required, simply a lack of belief. We thrashed this all out on a thread a while back actually.
I acknowledge I had a fundamentally incorrect assumption about you and the other people I was arguing with. Quite frankly, I'm very happy to discover I was wrong.
-
Actually, that's slightly incorrect. By using that definition you are excluding strong/hard/positive atheism.
oh? so they can say there is a god?
I think they simply go beyond the base requirement, in addition to not saying yes they also say no.
"I cannot say that there is. In fact, there is not."
-
The problem is that there ARE atheists who hold these views, and said atheists have been known to claim that they speak on behalf of atheism, and that Christianity is bad because it opposes these views.
And there ARE Christians who hold these views, and have been know to claim to speak for all Christianity:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/WBC_20051202_sacco-topeka5.jpg)
So yeah, judging a whole movement based on the actions of a vocal few is just stupid.
Basically, I mistook the people arguing me for... well, the Atheist equivalent of that, which turned out to be highly inaccurate. So yeah, it's important to know whether or not you're dealing with those vocal few, who I've had to debate in the past.
-
Actually, that's slightly incorrect. By using that definition you are excluding strong/hard/positive atheism.
oh? so they can say there is a god?
I think they simply go beyond the base requirement, in addition to not saying yes they also say no.
"I cannot say that there is. In fact, there is not."
But according to strong atheism (also called anti-theism, perhaps it's clearer that way) means that the answer to "Is there a god?" is not your provided " I cannot say that there is." but is instead "No.".
"No." is different from "I cannot say that there is." in the same way "I cannot say that there is." is different from "Yes."
-
Bobboau is rigorously right in the logical phrasing of the definition of atheism Ghostavo. You should read it more carefully.
Atheism *can* be defined as saying "I cannot say that there is a god", this logically includes positive strong atheism. Strong atheists will say this and then more "I cannot say that there is a god PLUS I can say it definitely isn't a god", just like communists will say "there is no god PLUS Marx was right", etc.
It's additive, and Bobboau's phrasing includes both strong and weak atheism.
e: When someone says "I cannot say that there is a god", read this phrase literally. It means that the person cannot truthfully state that there is a god. (if he will then deny god outright or just be agnostic over it is a further, different question).
-
Ok, I didn't read "I cannot say there is a god" literally. I understood it as "I cannot answer that question.". In the former sense, yes, the definition is true.
For sake of completeness, when I said:
"No." is different from "I cannot say that there is." in the same way "I cannot say that there is." is different from "Yes."
I was trying to say the equivalent of :
Belief of the negative is as different to disbelief as disbelief is different to belief of the positive.
-
The post that started this thread remains so personally hurtful that I'm still debating whether I want to continue reading InsaneBaron's posts, or just leave him on ignore to avoid that kind of pain. Even as the product of a bad day and a rough situation it was still revelatory. I've had personal hate mail that was less charged.
I can understand being raised with a particular worldview that teaches how 'the enemy' thinks, but after so many posts on his part calling for a dignified, sensitive, multilateral forum, this post felt like a quiet neighbor suddenly getting up in town hall to explain that Jews want to run the world and should be banned from government.
None of the reaction from InsaneBaron has involved any kind of personal apology or recognition that he treated a huge swathe of the planet and the forum as less than human. It's all carefully caveated 'oh, well, there ARE atheists like that, at least you guys are some of the good ones' qualification.
Frankly, I'm surprised we've given him as much room as we have. I've never before been accused of a personal devotion to genocide, especially as a component of the central and most important loving relationship in my life.
Thinking back over InsaneBaron's posts here, it's hard to avoid concluding that he basically sees this as a battleground in a culture war instead of a place for multipolar exchange. Even after such a colossal gaffe he's still pushing back against Kara, trying to guard turf, trying to delineate between the okay atheists here, the Good Ones he's met personally, and the vile promiscuous abortion factories out there. How do you walk in to a reaction like this from people, from other human beings you've hurt, and say 'I'm impressed. You guys aren't as awful as I thought. It's good you're not the kind of atheist that genuinely believes in [insane ideological construct].' Where's the compassion in that?
-
Basically, I mistook the people arguing me for... well, the Atheist equivalent of that, which turned out to be highly inaccurate. So yeah, it's important to know whether or not you're dealing with those vocal few, who I've had to debate in the past.
It's not just that you were bunching all atheists into one group you perceive to have a negative world view, you're apparently also not aware of many negative effects that correlate with high degree of religiousness.
As an example, people who identify as very religious have, compared to "not very religious" or non-believers:
-higher probability of divorce (as already stated by Battuta)
-higher probability of being a child abuser (and the more religious, the worse it gets. This applies to all forms of abuse - physical, psychological, sexual...)
-higher rate of teen pregnancies*
Religious "motives" for life often turn out to be unrealistic, which isn't surprising for a world view based on fiction**. As a large result, there's a large gap between preaching and practice...
As for your reference to atheists who hold the views you mentioned in your original split post: Just like with the Westboro Baptist Church, the factors that make these people repugnant to you are not representative of the majority.
There might seem be an element of "not a true Scotsman" here, but I don't think the people you mentioned hold those views because they're atheists. I think they hold those views because they're arseholes (or rather, holding those views makes them arseholes). In particular, an atheist can still hold many types of beliefs - although most atheists are also skeptics which tends to increase the attempts to critical thinking, atheists are still susceptible to bias and can have irrational or illogical beliefs such as conspiracy theorist thinking, racism, bigotry, inability to adapt to new information, etc. These views are not caused by them being atheists. In fact, atheism only ever takes a stance on one particular thing - namely, not being a theist (which itself can have several variations that are irrelevant to the issue at hand).
Likewise, I think the problems with Westboro Baptist Church mainly stem from the fact that it is a cult. It promotes a culture of strict social hierarchy, separation from rest of the population, and fearfulness of the cult leaders. What they claim to believe is just repeating what their leader says, and their leader makes this **** up to keep his cult going. There are no great statements of faith in cults, only taught obedience and consent.
In other words, much like atheism is not the factor that makes arseholes behave like arseholes, religiousness is not the primary reason that causes cults (although it can increase susceptibility to cultist thinking).
It's just humans being dicks.
However, it should also be said that atheism is ethically much less problematic than, say, Christianity. This is largely because atheism does not provide atheists with any particular brand of ethics or morality. While Christianity does provide moral guidance of sorts - it is based on very questionable ethics.
But where Christians often cherry-pick from their particular doctrine all the elements that don't conflict with what they already believe to be good and right, atheists don't have to deal with any of that and are free to make up their own mind on moral or ethical questions, or follow whichever moral guidance that they happen to agree with.
And, much like any other human beings, atheist morality can be influenced by propaganda and other tools of brainwashing.
*This is largely related to two factors: Religiously motivated "abstinence-only" sex education programmes, and poor availability of contraceptives without parental consent.
In fact, the state of Mississippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancies (previously used to be Texas), Texas has the highest rate of repeat teen pregnancies, and both states have abstinence-only sex education in their official curricula. In practically all instances of abstinence-only programmes, the rate of teen pregnancies has reduced less than in states that educate about contraceptives and make them available.
I don't know the numbers for rates of abortions among teens with religious background as opposed to abortions of non-religious teen pregnancies. Does anyone know if there's any statistics on this?
** "Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author." -Wikipedia
or, Merriam-Webster:
1.
a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
c : a work of fiction; especially : novel
2.
a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>
b : a useful illusion or pretense
3.
a : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination
-
The post that started this thread remains so personally hurtful that I'm still debating whether I want to continue reading InsaneBaron's posts, or just leave him on ignore to avoid that kind of pain. Even as the product of a bad day and a rough situation it was still revelatory. I've had personal hate mail that was less charged.
I can understand being raised with a particular worldview that teaches how 'the enemy' thinks, but after so many posts on his part calling for a dignified, sensitive, multilateral forum, this post felt like a quiet neighbor suddenly getting up in town hall to explain that Jews want to run the world and should be banned from government.
None of the reaction from InsaneBaron has involved any kind of personal apology or recognition that he treated a huge swathe of the planet and the forum as less than human. It's all carefully caveated 'oh, well, there ARE atheists like that, at least you guys are some of the good ones' qualification.
Frankly, I'm surprised we've given him as much room as we have. I've never before been accused of a personal devotion to genocide, especially as a component of the central and most important loving relationship in my life.
Thinking back over InsaneBaron's posts here, it's hard to avoid concluding that he basically sees this as a battleground in a culture war instead of a place for multipolar exchange. Even after such a colossal gaffe he's still pushing back against Kara, trying to guard turf, trying to delineate between the okay atheists here, the Good Ones he's met personally, and the vile promiscuous abortion factories out there. How do you walk in to a reaction like this from people, from other human beings you've hurt, and say 'I'm impressed. You guys aren't as awful as I thought. It's good you're not the kind of atheist that genuinely believes in [insane ideological construct].' Where's the compassion in that?
If you want a personal apology, okay. I apologize. I lost my temper and leveled a person accusation that not only was false, but painful to a number of people.
Regarding the Genocide issue, I do, in fact, see abortion as just that: mass murder. I made pretty significant mistake in assuming that because people supported birth control and opposed chastity, they also were in favor of abortion.
I acknowledged that my post was not exceptable behavior.
-
*acceptable.
Please, let's not bring abortion debates to HLP, okay everyone, is this possible? Please? I sense a lot would go wrong real fast.
-
Exceptable is also a word and actually fits the context
And I agree with the abortion debate thing. It was just a thing that needed to be addressing because the original claim was basically that atheists are baby-eaters
In fact there might be a fundamental difference of thought processes involved that approaches that between humans and baby-eaters.
-
Regarding the Genocide issue, I do, in fact, see abortion as just that: mass murder.
Equating abortion to murder is possible, and I understand why people would make that correlation.
However, stating that abortion is mass murder or genocide is an entirely different thing, as mass murder and genocide are rather different things from killing another human being. Aside from the obvious implications and correlations that can be made from this statement which are extremely damaging in itself, it's also completely ignorant to the thought process people who have been forced to make the decision whether or not to abort undergo. These decisions are never made lightly.
-
The post that started this thread remains so personally hurtful that I'm still debating whether I want to continue reading InsaneBaron's posts, or just leave him on ignore to avoid that kind of pain. Even as the product of a bad day and a rough situation it was still revelatory. I've had personal hate mail that was less charged.
Stop drama-queening. You need to accept that people have worldviews and perspectives different from yours. You need to accept that people are human and are going to inadvertently offend someone once in a while. But if reading a dissenting opinion on HLP is so traumatic for you that you would rather shut yourself off from it than read it, then you're basically telling everyone you don't have the emotional stability to hang out in General Discussion.
Frankly, I'm surprised we've given him as much room as we have.
I know exactly what you're up to here. You will not succeed.
-
Regarding the Genocide issue, I do, in fact, see abortion as just that: mass murder.
Equating abortion to murder is possible, and I understand why people would make that correlation.
However, stating that abortion is mass murder or genocide is an entirely different thing, as mass murder and genocide are rather different things from killing another human being. Aside from the obvious implications and correlations that can be made from this statement which are extremely damaging in itself, it's also completely ignorant to the thought process people who have been forced to make the decision whether or not to abort undergo. These decisions are never made lightly.
Mass murder= large numbers. I'm not making any claims beyond that.
-
they also were in favor of abortion.
Let me address this one point though.
NO ONE is in favour of abortion unless they truly are the dregs of humanity. There are however plenty of people who reluctantly view it as a necessary evil compared to the alternatives. So let's not compare it with genocide. All you succeed in doing with that comparison is make people think you take genocide less seriously than you should.
-
Okay, no. This isn't going to work.
Goober: This is NOT "drama queening". It's a legitimate reaction to being told that, because of your religious views, you're less capable of being a supportive parent, or good partner in a marriage.
-
Mass murder= large numbers. I'm not making any claims beyond that.
Hmm. Well:
Regarding the Genocide issue, I do, in fact, see abortion as just that: mass murder.
The thing is that you do say "abortion", "Genocide", and "mass murder" in the same sentence as if they are identical. If that wasn't your intention, great, but please do try and be more carefull next time, everyone is on edge as is.
Aside from that, the mass murder definition is a bit more complicated then that. Mass murder implies either a singular person or a single goal, a sort of unity combining the different murder cases together (Consider the Norway shooting, or Jack the Ripper). This is not the case with abortions.
-
Mass murder= large numbers. I'm not making any claims beyond that.
Hmm. Well:
Regarding the Genocide issue, I do, in fact, see abortion as just that: mass murder.
The thing is that you do say "abortion", "Genocide", and "mass murder" in the same sentence as if they are identical. If that wasn't your intention, great, but please do try and be more carefull next time, everyone is on edge as is.
Aside from that, the mass murder definition is a bit more complicated then that. Mass murder implies either a singular person or a single goal, a sort of unity combining the different murder cases together (Consider the Norway shooting, or Jack the Ripper). This is not the case with abortions.
I'll clarify then: "Genocide" was in reference to Battuta's exact words. "Mass Murder" was more in reference to the sheer numbers than the intent. Worth noting, however, is that there are people who's job is carrying out abortions, which does grant a certain degree of unity of intent.
-
...
...
...
Okay, no. Time for a break in this thread, I think.