|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 9:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| GF wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| The Church is not going to say "wow, that's harsh", and invent an exception for her, because the Church doesn't have the power or authority to compromise the moral law. It would be a cross for her and her husband, for sure, but as the Council of Trent taught, God will never put anyone in a situation that is too difficult for his soul to overcome, such that sinning becomes acceptable or necessary. |
| GF wrote: |
| Circumspect use of torture can be legitimate, as should be clear from the fact that the Church made official use of it. |
Torture is ok, condoms are evil. This is GF's interpretation of moral law. |
GF should really know better. Torture is against natural law.
| Paul Foriers wrote: |
| Torture violates the natural right of the individual not to accuse himself and to be able to defend himself. This is a natural right which no treaty, no social contract can remove from the individual and which thus remains for the individual a natural prerogative, in the sense put upon it by Thomas Hobbes: 'whatever the criminal answers [under the effect of torture], whether true, false, or whether he remains silent, he has the right to do this in a manner that which seems to him to be just.' Against natural law, torture was condemned by Natural Law theorists in the name of its useless and inefficacity. |
Torture is a direct assault on human dignity, and so ineffective that no circumspection or ticking time bomb can redeem it. |
Who is �Paul Foriers� and what does his blabber about human rights have to do with anything ? You should go to a source like the documents of Vatican II or the CCC. That would be more interesting and effective than some French dude with no Imprimatur quoting a godless philosopher, don�t you think ? |
If you are going to impeach authority like this and narrow authority to Vatican II or the CCC, then I do not see how we can productively continue. The natural law is not an exclusively secular concept, and I have listened to lecturers refer to the natural law as the basis for criminalizing abortion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| The Church is not going to say "wow, that's harsh", and invent an exception for her, because the Church doesn't have the power or authority to compromise the moral law. It would be a cross for her and her husband, for sure, but as the Council of Trent taught, God will never put anyone in a situation that is too difficult for his soul to overcome, such that sinning becomes acceptable or necessary. |
| GF wrote: |
| Circumspect use of torture can be legitimate, as should be clear from the fact that the Church made official use of it. |
Torture is ok, condoms are evil. This is GF's interpretation of moral law. |
GF should really know better. Torture is against natural law.
| Paul Foriers wrote: |
| Torture violates the natural right of the individual not to accuse himself and to be able to defend himself. This is a natural right which no treaty, no social contract can remove from the individual and which thus remains for the individual a natural prerogative, in the sense put upon it by Thomas Hobbes: 'whatever the criminal answers [under the effect of torture], whether true, false, or whether he remains silent, he has the right to do this in a manner that which seems to him to be just.' Against natural law, torture was condemned by Natural Law theorists in the name of its useless and inefficacity. |
Torture is a direct assault on human dignity, and so ineffective that no circumspection or ticking time bomb can redeem it. |
Who is �Paul Foriers� and what does his blabber about human rights have to do with anything ? You should go to a source like the documents of Vatican II or the CCC. That would be more interesting and effective than some French dude with no Imprimatur quoting a godless philosopher, don�t you think ? |
If you are going to impeach authority like this and narrow authority to Vatican II or the CCC, then I do not see how we can productively continue. The natural law is not an exclusively secular concept, and I have listened to lecturers refer to the natural law as the basis for criminalizing abortion. |
The point is that if you want to bring an authority against me that I would be harder-pressed to refute, that is, if you want to hammer out a more compelling internal critique of my position on the liceity of torture, you would do better to quote Gaudium et Spes, the CCC, or even better the 1917 Code of Canon Law, than some man whose quotation you probably found by googling at random. I was trying to help you, but as you will.
The idea of natural or human rights has an Enlightenment pedigree and should not be confused with natural law. Natural law subordinates the individual to the common good, who is therefore not permitted to place his interest in avoiding punishment before that of justice within the political community. It contains no 'right to remain silent' or 'right not to accuse oneself'; on the contrary, the natural law holds that a question asked by a legitimate authority merits a truthful response, even if that response were to result in a death sentence for the individual who speaks it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noliving
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| augustine wrote: |
Basically you're saying that people should be a bitch to whatever said government classifies as legal or illegal. |
If you don't like it change the law and don't engage in the activity until you can afford or are prepared for the consequences.
| augustine wrote: |
| This is not insurance. |
It doesn't have to be insurance. You argument is that forcing people to raise a child they don't want means they shouldn't have to pay for it and that those that forced that consequence should be the ones to solely raise and pay for that child. So by that argument if I buy a car and they force me to buy insurance with it and I don't want car insurance does that mean the people who forced me to buy car insurance should be the ones to pay for it?
| augustine wrote: |
| This is a little creature that is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to raise no matter who is raising it. You want to force people who can't afford to raise it, to raise it? |
Sure. I mean its not like they can't get food stamps, or public school education or medicaid or welfare programs to help pay for the costs....Heck even your family can help pay for them. Considering how many government programs and and charities there are that help people with these types of situations it is quite clear that those forcing those consequences are helping to raise and pay for that child. The least the people who had the unwanted child can do is be an adult and take responsibility by raising the child, it is not like they are going to be doing it by themselves, they got a whole host of governments programs to help them out.
| augustine wrote: |
| Look at the world you live in, people are screwing everyone everywhere, and they always have and always will. You trying to shame people for having casual sex by burdening them with something that will most likely split them up and possibly ruin their lives as well as the child's, is pretty idiotic, and very poor policy. Need to rethink this one, pal. |
I'm not shaming anyone for having casual sex. What I'm shaming are people who don't want to accept or take responsibility for the consequences of actions that they knew were a possibility before they made their choice. If you don't like the possible consequences to the actions you are considering than don't engage in the action that will potentially make those consequences a realty. Whining about the consequences of your actions you knew about before hand and not only that but you also knew you were not prepared for those consequences and then voluntarily engaged in the action/behavior is just pathetic.
Pretty idiotic? You know what is pretty idiotic? People who knowingly voluntarily engage in actions or behavior that come with consequences that could potentially destroy their lives and are not prepared for them but do them anyway and then complain about them even though no one forced them to make those choices and then try to delegate the entire responsibility for that consequence to other people.
Ya I'm the one that needs to rethink that one.
Last edited by Noliving on Sun May 05, 2013 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Contraception directly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies (among other things we would want reduced), and as such directly reduces the number of fetal murders. The only "consequence" of this is that people will be able to have sex for purposes other than procreation. |
Can you prove that the availability of contraception reduces the number of fetal murders? I mean, do you have statistics that demonstrate it, directly or indirectly? Because from where I'm standing, general social trends indicate that the rates of contraception use and of abortion are related. And I think this stands to reason, based on the consequence you admitted: available contraception leads to more fornication. This leads to two further consequences, (1) a culture in which sex is increasingly pried apart from its normal context of marriage and procreation, and reduced to a mere hedonistic act whose consequences may rightfully be avoided, up to and including through terminating a pregnancy, and (2) more unwanted pregnancies (since contraception does not always work), and thus more fetal murders. Thus the use of contraception makes unwanted pregnancies more common and makes abortion seem less obviously wrong, corroding the institution of marriage and creating a situation where over 50 million children have been murdered in the USA since 1973.
| Geldedgoat wrote: |
| I sincerely doubt Jesus would have condemned the use of condoms (in marriages) had they been available in His time. |
I have to chuckle, because normally you have a pretty steely mind, but on this issue you finish with some liberal jello about what you feel like Jesus was all about. Well, that's Protestantism for you. You are Protestant, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I bet that's what most Westerners picture when they think of Christianity. They're so ignorant of their heritage, and have been trained to be so hostile to it, that they don't realize another kind of Christianity once existed, and so jaded that they can't believe it will come again. Of course, this kind of Christianity isn't going to appeal to the Leons and Kuroses of the world, but do pass on the word to your friends on the alt right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
I bet that's what most Westerners picture when they think of Christianity. They're so ignorant of their heritage, and have been trained to be so hostile to it, that they don't realize another kind of Christianity once existed, and so jaded that they can't believe it will come again. Of course, this kind of Christianity isn't going to appeal to the Leons and Kuroses of the world, but do pass on the word to your friends on the alt right. |
It's not that I'm hostile to Catholicism, I'm hostile to people who would use coercion to impose Catholicism, or most any other ideology upon society. As to ignorance to christian history and westerners being hostile to it, this false sense of prosecution is ridiculous and unbecoming. America is one of the most religious societies in the developed world, where Christian special interest groups are very powerful, and where it would be almost unthinkable for a president who didn't parade their Christianity to be elected. It's not that I can't believe that it won't come again, it's that I believe it's worth making sure that it never gets coercive power over society again.
| GF wrote: |
| Natural law subordinates the individual to the common good, who is therefore not permitted to place his interest in avoiding punishment before that of justice within the political community. It contains no 'right to remain silent' or 'right not to accuse oneself'; on the contrary, the natural law holds that a question asked by a legitimate authority merits a truthful response, even if that response were to result in a death sentence for the individual who speaks it. |
I haven't seen this much quibbling and qualifying done about torture since John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales. I'll take due process and not being required to self incriminate and western law and tradition over your idea of natural law everyday. Also, for a non-Catholic, why would the Catholic church be a legitimate authority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Noliving wrote: |
| augustine wrote: |
Basically you're saying that people should be a bitch to whatever said government classifies as legal or illegal. |
If you don't like it change the law and don't engage in the activity until you can afford or are prepared for the consequences. |
It's not nearly that simple. You expecting people to not engage in the most natural and longest human function in existence until they're "responsible" is ludicrous. That's so far from the reality of the situation.
| Noliving wrote: |
| It doesn't have to be insurance. You argument is that forcing people to raise a child they don't want means they shouldn't have to pay for it and that those that forced that consequence should be the ones to solely raise and pay for that child. So by that argument if I buy a car and they force me to buy insurance with it and I don't want car insurance does that mean the people who forced me to buy car insurance should be the ones to pay for it? |
I'm not saying they shouldn't have to pay for it, I'm telling you that a lot of them probably won't be able to so what you're proposing, again, makes no sense.
| Noliving wrote: |
| Sure. I mean its not like they can't get food stamps, or public school education or medicaid or welfare programs to help pay for the costs....Heck even your family can help pay for them. Considering how many government programs and and charities there are that help people with these types of situations it is quite clear that those forcing those consequences are helping to raise and pay for that child. The least the people who had the unwanted child can do is be an adult and take responsibility by raising the child, it is not like they are going to be doing it by themselves, they got a whole host of governments programs to help them out. |
Ugh... the best option is relying on a nanny state that makes their choices for them instead of allowing them to have the choice in the first place? Are you a socialist? Food stamps, medicaid, welfare? Those should be safeguards if ANYTHING... not institutions we expect people to rely on who didn't want to have to rely on them in the first place.
| Noliving wrote: |
| I'm not shaming anyone for having casual sex. What I'm shaming are people who don't want to accept or take responsibility for the consequences of actions blah blah blah... |
Yes, right, responsibility, consequences, I get it. But what you don't get is that we don't live in an ideal world. People are morons and most of them probably shouldn't be raising children in the first place. Especially not 17 year old girls who got implanted with some stoner loser seed who you know is not going to stick around. You want to force those two people to live it out together and raise that kid? That's NEVER going to happen.
| Noliving wrote: |
Pretty idiotic? You know what is pretty idiotic? People who knowingly voluntarily engage in actions or behavior that come with consequences that could potentially destroy their lives and are not prepared for them but do them anyway and then complain about them even though no one forced them to make those choices and then try to delegate the entire responsibility for that consequence to other people.
Ya I'm the one that needs to rethink that one. |
You are. Your strong armed daddy argument about forcing people to be responsible and that there are consequences and all that, I can understand, because it's pretty basic; but it's not logical, it's an ideal. What you're proposing simply isn't realistic: You can't force people to raise kids who shouldn't and likely can't raise them in the first place.
And, frankly, you saying that it's wrong to "delegate the entire responsibility for that consequence on other people"... then turning around and promoting food stamps, welfare, and medicaid is, well, funny to say the least. What you're saying is not reasonable or attainable. It's an idealistic point of view. You simply aren't going to force people to raise kids they don't want on food stamps and welfare checks. They're going to leave it in the dumpster and you're going to end up paying for it, which will end up being the consequence for you for trying to force shit on people. You can't control the world and expect people to act like you want them to act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noliving
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| augustine wrote: |
It's not nearly that simple. You expecting people to not engage in the most natural and longest human function in existence until they're "responsible" is ludicrous. That's so far from the reality of the situation. |
Actually it is that simple it just isn't easy.
| augustine wrote: |
| I'm not saying they shouldn't have to pay for it, I'm telling you that a lot of them probably won't be able to so what you're proposing, again, makes no sense. |
Just because the proposal is not seen as realistic does not in anyway diminish the responsibility those people have nor does it make it acceptable to shift the blame and or responsibility to someone else.
Really where does it say that they are unable to in the following quote:
| augustine wrote: |
| Anti-abortionists better be the ones raising those unwanted babies. You said I have to have it... so you f*cking raise it. |
There is nothing in the above quote that says they are unable to raise the child. All I see is someone who just wants to dump the responsibility of a consequence they didn't choose onto someone else and blame them for that consequence. Based off of the above quote I would say you are saying I shouldn't have to pay for my car insurance. Your whole quote there is you saying that people who don't choose the consequences to their actions should not be held responsible and that the only time they should be responsible is if they are allowed to choose the consequence to their actions.
Lets say they are unable to raise the child, that still does not in anyway make them less responsible. Them being able or unable is irrelevant to my point.
| augustine wrote: |
| Ugh... the best option is relying on a nanny state that makes their choices for them instead of allowing them to have the choice in the first place? Are you a socialist? Food stamps, medicaid, welfare? Those should be safeguards if ANYTHING... not institutions we expect people to rely on who didn't want to have to rely on them in the first place. |
Sure.....
| augustine wrote: |
| Yes, right, responsibility, consequences, I get it. But what you don't get is that we don't live in an ideal world. |
No way! Are you kidding me? Come on! How can a person talking about consequences not know that we don't live in an ideal world? I mean I thought the whole concept that there are consequences to our actions was the result of the fact that we don't live in an ideal world otherwise we wouldn't have to concern ourselves about them.
Don't you get it? My whole point is based off of the quote that is in bold. There is nothing in that quote that says the people getting an abortion are unable or unfit to be a parent. All the quote says is that the parents find the child to be nothing more than a nuisance. All there is in that quote is you trying to dump the responsibility of the consequence onto or blame "anti-abortionists" for that consequence and then you act as if the anti-abortionists don't even help raise and pay for the child to begin with when in fact they do through social programs and charities.
I'm not against abortion, I think women should be allowed to even do late term abortions, I think any minor age girl should be allowed to get an abortion without parental approval.
| augustine wrote: |
| People are morons and most of them probably shouldn't be raising children in the first place. |
No kidding.
| augustine wrote: |
| Especially not 17 year old girls who got implanted with some stoner loser seed who you know is not going to stick around. You want to force those two people to live it out together and raise that kid? That's NEVER going to happen. |
Where did I state they had to live it out together? They want to get a divorce, fine by me. They want to give up the child for adoption. Go right ahead. You want to get an abortion go right ahead. But to whine and blame the "anti-abortionists" and to hold them responsible for those peoples actions is idiotic.
| augustine wrote: |
| You are. Your strong armed daddy argument about forcing people to be responsible and that there are consequences and all that, I can understand, because it's pretty basic; but it's not logical, it's an ideal. What you're proposing simply isn't realistic: You can't force people to raise kids who shouldn't and likely can't raise them in the first place. |
I know I can't force people to raise kids, I never claimed I could. Do you honestly believe that the average woman that gets an abortion shouldn't and can't raise them in the first place?
| augustine wrote: |
| And, frankly, you saying that it's wrong to "delegate the entire responsibility for that consequence on other people"... then turning around and promoting food stamps, welfare, and medicaid is, well, funny to say the least. |
Your comment was that anti-abortionists don't raise the unwanted child. I showed that they already do by paying taxes that are used to pay for public schools, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc. A mother and or father that uses such programs to help raise their child, key word being help there, is not dumping the entire responsibility on other people.
| augustine wrote: |
| What you're saying is not reasonable or attainable. It's an idealistic point of view. You simply aren't going to force people to raise kids they don't want on food stamps and welfare checks. They're going to leave it in the dumpster and you're going to end up paying for it, which will end up being the consequence for you for trying to force shit on people. You can't control the world and expect people to act like you want them to act. |
The issue that I have is you trying to shift responsibility of an action to another group of people who did not put a gun to their head and said have sex. Your quote in bold to me is the equivalent of someone raping someone and then blaming the government for forcing the consequence of life in prison on them and not giving them the option to choose what consequence they would like to have. If you don't like being forced into prison for life than you shouldn't have raped someone.
Whether this ideal is attainable or realistic is completely irrelevant, how attainable or realistic it is has no bearing on determining who is responsible and what their responsibilities are.
I think you and I can both agree that wiping out homicide so that not a single homicide ever takes place again is nothing more than an ideal that is completely unrealistic and unattainable. Just because that ideal is unrealistic does not in any way justify reducing the responsibility of the murder by the murderer.
Stop blaming "anti-abortionist" people and holding them responsible for the predicament that people who are not responsible are in. The only time you can blame them is if they forced them to engage in sex.
You honestly think I'm even trying to reach a goal or are even saying it is attainable?
You think I'm trying to force people to raise their kids?
You think I don't know that I can't control the world and expect people to act like you want them to act?
All I'm saying is that you blaming "anti-abortionists" for the unwanted child's existence and then trying to dump the responsibility entirely on them regardless of whether or not parents can take care of the child is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All I'm saying is that you blaming "anti-abortionists" for the unwanted child's existence and then trying to dump the responsibility entirely on them regardless of whether or not parents can take care of the child is wrong. |
OK. You think it's wrong, but I don't because it's only in your ideal world that you yourself have created where we are making judgment calls about who can and can't raise a child. I just don't agree with you because I think you're trying to force responsibility on people just like politicians would be forcing unwanted children on people if they made abortion illegal. If the supreme court forced a woman to have a baby she wanted to abort, *beep* it, leave twelve of those unwanted dumpster babies on the supreme court steps and see what they do. I'll blame them all I want for undermining someone's free choice over their body. Again, you said I have to have it so you should have to raise it, I didn't want it, but you said I have to have it, so here it is. In an ideal world people should be responsible and have to face consequences, of course, you did have sex; but still even then not on this scale. We don't live in an ideal world and your anecdote is the perfect recipe for creating a bunch of screwed up kids that the world would probably be better without. Look at the big picture, man.
You seem to have latched onto my initial statement but listen. Maybe they can raise it, maybe they can't, maybe they might be able to but don't know. Who knows? Do you? And who are you to make the judgment call that they should have to raise it if they're able to to some theoretical degree?
Listen, putting that kind of strain on resources and important social programs so we can teach people "responsibility" and show them how to "face consequences" is lunacy. Let them have the abortion or give it away. Don't make people raise children they don't want, who are going to turn out all screwed up, just because you think it'll teach them some fake lesson you concocted in your head about responsibility and consequences. I think that's what you've been trying to say, and it's mostly just selfish more than anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Contraception directly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies (among other things we would want reduced), and as such directly reduces the number of fetal murders. The only "consequence" of this is that people will be able to have sex for purposes other than procreation. |
Can you prove that the availability of contraception reduces the number of fetal murders? I mean, do you have statistics that demonstrate it, directly or indirectly? Because from where I'm standing, general social trends indicate that the rates of contraception use and of abortion are related. And I think this stands to reason, based on the consequence you admitted: available contraception leads to more fornication. This leads to two further consequences, (1) a culture in which sex is increasingly pried apart from its normal context of marriage and procreation, and reduced to a mere hedonistic act whose consequences may rightfully be avoided, up to and including through terminating a pregnancy, and (2) more unwanted pregnancies (since contraception does not always work), and thus more fetal murders. Thus the use of contraception makes unwanted pregnancies more common and makes abortion seem less obviously wrong, corroding the institution of marriage and creating a situation where over 50 million children have been murdered in the USA since 1973.
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/05/free-contraceptives-reduce-abortions-unintended-pregnancies-full-stop/
A better question is, which is more important for you, reducing the number of abortions, or punishing women who have sex?
| GF wrote: |
| Geldedgoat wrote: |
| I sincerely doubt Jesus would have condemned the use of condoms (in marriages) had they been available in His time. |
I have to chuckle, because normally you have a pretty steely mind, but on this issue you finish with some liberal jello about what you feel like Jesus was all about. Well, that's Protestantism for you. You are Protestant, right? |
Considering an abortive form of birth control was available in Rome at the time of Christ (Silphium), and he either said nothing about it, or it wasn't considered important enough to be written down. Probably wasn't considered a big deal to Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If one is not free to violate the good within a certain context, one lacks autonomy within that context; to coercively restrict another person's internal autonomy is to eliminate that autonomy, and in doing so, to strip them of any dignity that may attend such autonomy. |
To restrict autonomy is not to eliminate autonomy, but only to restrict it. |
This sentence, right here, bears much of the weight of our disagreement. As I see it, for another party to restrict one's autonomy within any given context is to destroy that autonomy. The reason is simple: if a third party interferes within a given context, preventing certain exercises of autonomy within that context, they are also implicitly allowing -- either through approval or at least through indifference -- that which they do not restrict. Thus, within that context it is no longer a question of what you will do, but what that other party will allow you to do; you are no longer autonomous within that context, but entirely subordinate, deciding between the courses that other party allows you to decide between, while doing what that other party deems you must and refraining from what that other party deems you must not. Some slaves are less tightly bound than others, relatively speaking, but they are no less the slaves for it. One cannot be partially autonomous, not in any real, meaningful sense; restriction of autonomy is obliteration of autonomy, and if one is not autonomous even within the context of their own body, one has literally no worldly autonomy at all.
| GF wrote: |
| I don�t think your claim here disturbs my point that autonomy is a contingent good, since without the more fundamental existence of the good, autonomy (and dignity) would be meaningless. |
I don't disagree with this, and wonder if you haven't slightly misunderstood me here. Remember, I'm not arguing that utilizing one's autonomy to commit suicide doesn't violate a higher principle, I am arguing that we ourselves violate that principle in trying to, through law, forcibly coerce others to refrain from it. Autonomy isn't a principle in competition against "the Good" (I've expressed my dislike for this term in the past, and I still dislike it, but I'm just going to use it for convenience here), it's a principle in competition with legalistic coercion as a particular manifestation of "the Good."
Let me ask you a simple question: can you conceive of a wrong another person can commit which you yourself, in your own person and through your own actions, can neither prevent nor rectify without yourself doing wrong? If not, perhaps there is an unbridgeable gap here.
| GF wrote: |
| The word internal is badly suited to describe the sins we�re discussing, since suicide and self-mutilation are visible and sensible, and thus externalized acts. An internal moral violation would occur in the psyche, viz., �whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment,� and �whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.� So the distinction you�re making does exist, but not exactly where you think it does; and while the essence of the violation does not change as it proceeds from interior to exterior, it does become punishable when by external manifestation it violates the virtue of justice, for which the state is responsible. |
So we have:
1) If X is "visible and sensible" -- which is to say, if it can be perceived by others -- it is external.
2) The state may punish any offense which is "external" under these terms.
Given we are entering into an era where our craft is beginning to allow us to directly perceive the thoughts and feelings of our fellow men, I suspect the day is going to come -- in your lifetime, no less -- when you see why this dividing line is not the one you should have chosen, with the state easily able to scry your thoughts and feelings. Then again, perhaps not: maybe you would see no ill in the state punishing people for thought crimes (which will, by your standard, be external in character!). Once you violate autonomy over the body, though, then any and all worldly autonomy is going to go with it in the end.
| GF wrote: |
| Suicide is self-murder, and every bit as much a crime against the political community; the state has a duty to intervene. |
So you chain a man up, force him to live, day after day? You see nothing of the ugly and wrong in that? Because there is no other way to prevent a determined suicide, not really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
I bet that's what most Westerners picture when they think of Christianity. They're so ignorant of their heritage, and have been trained to be so hostile to it, that they don't realize another kind of Christianity once existed, and so jaded that they can't believe it will come again. Of course, this kind of Christianity isn't going to appeal to the Leons and Kuroses of the world, but do pass on the word to your friends on the alt right. |
I must admit I find victim complex possessed by so many Christians perplexing, perhaps that's what you get when you worship a God killed by Jews.
I have no problem with Christianity, or even Catholicism. None. I have serious and resolute reservations against the Christian state, as do and did a great many Christians and Christian thinkers and philosophers.
| Leon wrote: |
| It's not that I'm hostile to Catholicism, I'm hostile to people who would use coercion to impose Catholicism, or most any other ideology upon society. As to ignorance to christian history and westerners being hostile to it, this false sense of prosecution is ridiculous and unbecoming. America is one of the most religious societies in the developed world, where Christian special interest groups are very powerful, and where it would be almost unthinkable for a president who didn't parade their Christianity to be elected. |
Precisely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noliving
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| augustine wrote: |
OK. You think it's wrong, but I don't because it's only in your ideal world that you yourself have created where we are making judgment calls about who can and can't raise a child. |
Ideal world has nothing to do with it.
| augustine wrote: |
| I just don't agree with you because I think you're trying to force responsibility on people just like politicians would be forcing unwanted children on people if they made abortion illegal. |
I'm not forcing responsibility onto people that they were not responsible for in the first place. You are trying to shift responsibility away to people who are not responsible for what happened.
| augustine wrote: |
| I'll blame them all I want for undermining someone's free choice over their body. |
Go right ahead.
| augustine wrote: |
| Again, you said I have to have it so you should have to raise it, I didn't want it, but you said I have to have it, so here it is. |
That argument as I said before only works if the people involved were forced to have sex with each other. If you voluntarily have sex and you know that abortion is not an option you have only yourself to blame for the predicament you are in. Stop trying to blame other people for the predicament you are in.
If the law states it is illegal to have an abortion you know what you can still get an abortion or you can carry the kid the entire way and then when the child is born just dump it in a dumpster. No one is stopping you from doing that. But whatever happens to you as a consequence is your fault and your fault alone, trying to shift the responsibility of the consequence to other people for the choices you make in life is wrong.
| augustine wrote: |
| In an ideal world people should be responsible and have to face consequences, of course, you did have sex; but still even then not on this scale. |
Why does an ideal world matter again?
| augustine wrote: |
| We don't live in an ideal world |
So what? So because we don't live in an ideal means it is acceptable to blame other people for our actions?
| augustine wrote: |
| and your anecdote is the perfect recipe for creating a bunch of screwed up kids that the world would probably be better without. Look at the big picture, man. |
Why should I look at the big picture? The issue here isn't the big picture, the issue here is you trying to shift responsibility to other people who are not responsible for other people's actions.
| augustine wrote: |
| You seem to have latched onto my initial statement but listen. |
That is because that has been my point the entire time in my posts is that statement
| augustine wrote: |
| Maybe they can raise it, maybe they can't, maybe they might be able to but don't know. Who knows? Do you? And who are you to make the judgment call that they should have to raise it if they're able to to some theoretical degree? |
I'm not saying they have to. I'm saying that blaming other people for the predicament they are in that is a result of them voluntarily engaging is such behavior is wrong. That is like blaming MADD and holding them responsible for the actions of an underage drinker claiming that if they would not have lobbied for raising the drinking age that none of this would have happened.
| augustine wrote: |
| Listen, putting that kind of strain on resources and important social programs so we can teach people "responsibility" and show them how to "face consequences" is lunacy. |
Ya that is exactly what I'm trying to do...
| augustine wrote: |
| Let them have the abortion or give it away. Don't make people raise children they don't want, who are going to turn out all screwed up, just because you think it'll teach them some fake lesson you concocted in your head about responsibility and consequences. I think that's what you've been trying to say, and it's mostly just selfish more than anything. |
No that isn't what I'm trying to say at all.
Did you not read my previous post where I said they can give the kid up for an adoption or have an abortion or just kill the kid?
I'm not trying to teach them a lesson, what I'm doing is pushing back against people that try to blame other people for the consequences of their actions that they voluntarily engaged in.
This is what I'm trying to say:
| Quote: |
| People who knowingly voluntarily engage in actions or behavior that come with consequences that could potentially destroy their lives and are not prepared for them but do them anyway and then complain about them even though no one forced them to make those choices and then try to delegate the entire responsibility for that consequence to other people is idiotic. |
| Quote: |
| Whining about the consequences of your actions you knew about before hand and not only that but you also knew you were not prepared for those consequences and then voluntarily engaged in the action/behavior is just pathetic. |
You keep trying to blame the predicament on the anti-abortionists, they are not responsible for the predicament those people are in. They voluntarily choose to engage in an action that had the possibility of ending badly. They have only themselves to blame for that.
You want to get an abortion even if it is illegal? Go right ahead, you want to dump a baby in a dumpster? Go right ahead, but whatever consequences fall upon you are a result of your choices. No one is forcing you to make these choices. No one other than yourself is responsible for what happens. Trying to blame anti-abortionists and trying get them to take the fall for your actions is just pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Noliving wrote: |
| augustine wrote: |
OK. You think it's wrong, but I don't because it's only in your ideal world that you yourself have created where we are making judgment calls about who can and can't raise a child. |
Ideal world has nothing to do with it.
| augustine wrote: |
| I just don't agree with you because I think you're trying to force responsibility on people just like politicians would be forcing unwanted children on people if they made abortion illegal. |
I'm not forcing responsibility onto people that they were not responsible for in the first place. You are trying to shift responsibility away to people who are not responsible for what happened.
| augustine wrote: |
| I'll blame them all I want for undermining someone's free choice over their body. |
Go right ahead.
| augustine wrote: |
| Again, you said I have to have it so you should have to raise it, I didn't want it, but you said I have to have it, so here it is. |
That argument as I said before only works if the people involved were forced to have sex with each other. If you voluntarily have sex and you know that abortion is not an option you have only yourself to blame for the predicament you are in. Stop trying to blame other people for the predicament you are in.
If the law states it is illegal to have an abortion you know what you can still get an abortion or you can carry the kid the entire way and then when the child is born just dump it in a dumpster. No one is stopping you from doing that. But whatever happens to you as a consequence is your fault and your fault alone, trying to shift the responsibility of the consequence to other people for the choices you make in life is wrong.
| augustine wrote: |
| In an ideal world people should be responsible and have to face consequences, of course, you did have sex; but still even then not on this scale. |
Why does an ideal world matter again?
| augustine wrote: |
| We don't live in an ideal world |
So what? So because we don't live in an ideal means it is acceptable to blame other people for our actions?
| augustine wrote: |
| and your anecdote is the perfect recipe for creating a bunch of screwed up kids that the world would probably be better without. Look at the big picture, man. |
Why should I look at the big picture? The issue here isn't the big picture, the issue here is you trying to shift responsibility to other people who are not responsible for other people's actions.
| augustine wrote: |
| You seem to have latched onto my initial statement but listen. |
That is because that has been my point the entire time in my posts is that statement
| augustine wrote: |
| Maybe they can raise it, maybe they can't, maybe they might be able to but don't know. Who knows? Do you? And who are you to make the judgment call that they should have to raise it if they're able to to some theoretical degree? |
I'm not saying they have to. I'm saying that blaming other people for the predicament they are in that is a result of them voluntarily engaging is such behavior is wrong. That is like blaming MADD and holding them responsible for the actions of an underage drinker claiming that if they would not have lobbied for raising the drinking age that none of this would have happened.
| augustine wrote: |
| Listen, putting that kind of strain on resources and important social programs so we can teach people "responsibility" and show them how to "face consequences" is lunacy. |
Ya that is exactly what I'm trying to do...
| augustine wrote: |
| Let them have the abortion or give it away. Don't make people raise children they don't want, who are going to turn out all screwed up, just because you think it'll teach them some fake lesson you concocted in your head about responsibility and consequences. I think that's what you've been trying to say, and it's mostly just selfish more than anything. |
No that isn't what I'm trying to say at all.
Did you not read my previous post where I said they can give the kid up for an adoption or have an abortion or just kill the kid?
I'm not trying to teach them a lesson, what I'm doing is pushing back against people that try to blame other people for the consequences of their actions that they voluntarily engaged in.
This is what I'm trying to say:
| Quote: |
| People who knowingly voluntarily engage in actions or behavior that come with consequences that could potentially destroy their lives and are not prepared for them but do them anyway and then complain about them even though no one forced them to make those choices and then try to delegate the entire responsibility for that consequence to other people is idiotic. |
| Quote: |
| Whining about the consequences of your actions you knew about before hand and not only that but you also knew you were not prepared for those consequences and then voluntarily engaged in the action/behavior is just pathetic. |
You keep trying to blame the predicament on the anti-abortionists, they are not responsible for the predicament those people are in. They voluntarily choose to engage in an action that had the possibility of ending badly. They have only themselves to blame for that.
You want to get an abortion even if it is illegal? Go right ahead, you want to dump a baby in a dumpster? Go right ahead, but whatever consequences fall upon you are a result of your choices. No one is forcing you to make these choices. No one other than yourself is responsible for what happens. Trying to blame anti-abortionists and trying get them to take the fall for your actions is just pathetic. |
Oh, man. Are you in army? This is a bullshit conversation and I hate that format. You're method of thinking is so strange. You hype personal responsibility yet dismiss the responsibility of public officials and the policies they stamp into law, basically stating: Just Follow. You're talking about abusing and possibly uplifting social welfare programs to 'teach people a lesson' (yes, that's what you're trying to do). You're promoting ideas that would FORCE people to raise children they never wanted in the first place. Stop going in circles with this "responsibility and consequences" and "shifting blame" bullshit. That has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
The fact is this: It doesn't matter what either of us think about who SHOULD be raising unwanted dumpster babies, that means nothing, so stop harping on that; this is what I'm talking about regarding your fake world scenario. You aren't putting forth some edgy insight where you're pushing back against blame shifters who want to dump their babies on people who similarly don't want to raise them. Are you kidding me? Someone is going to raise them no matter what, whether it's the parents, a government foster home, or an adopted family. So what are you talking about?
You're not talking about reality because what you're implying means that people will be forced to raise their unwanted children, and you will never be able to force people to raise children they never wanted, do you understand that? It doesn't matter what I say, your self-concocted "lessons" of responsibility and consequences are meaningless, and your ideas about how things should be will never exist in this world. I don't care if you think I'm wrong, what you're proposing/implying is never going to happen. So, I don't know how much further this conversation can go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
