ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Well Knight, you certainly haven't let me down. You are living up (down?) to your usual standards of misrepresentation and telling half-truths. I never made the claim you represent above. As "Administrator" it's completely within your ability to provide a quotation with context, showing that I made such a ridiculous statement.
How about doing so?
No, I do not fail to understand it. I am very much aware of the difference. It's why I did not use the word "murder" in any of my posts.
The problem I am pointing to arises when any group of people claims that their deity authorizes killing of other people. As a humanist atheist, it matters little to me whether the group claiming divine sanction for butchery is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. All of you have historically justified killing those you dislike or disagree with as "the will of God". Included in those killings are pregnant women. You bear the burden of refuting historical proof of the actions of religionists in killing the unborn while claiming to be conforming to a deity's desires. All this while claiming to "love the unborn". It provides a wonderful example of "doublespeak".
Your popular pastime of playing word-games to redirect the argument will not win your point here, Knight. You may re-define death by calling it a "tragic consequence" but to the corpses, it is still death. Killing a pregnant woman without removing the baby (as in Caesar's case) is killing the unborn. Period.
How about applying your alleged moral superiority to answering the question I placed to Jefferson last week?
"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
Zakath asks....
"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
I have actually already answered this in my last post, but not directly so let me do so here.
IF the question were stated....
"Do you believe that murdering unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
The answer is - YES
However, your question was....
"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
The answer is no, as "killing" and "murder" are different. For instance unborn children might be "killed" in war and that is tragic but not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be "killed" in an auto wreck but that is not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be accidentally killed in a medical procedure and that is not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be killed if the mother was attempting to murder someone and the "would be " victim killed the mother in self defense and therefore that would not be absolutely wrong.
Again, the answer lies in the difference between "murder" and "kill".
"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
I have actually already answered this in my last post, but not directly so let me do so here.
IF the question were stated....
"Do you believe that murdering unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
The answer is - YES
However, your question was....
"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"
The answer is no, as "killing" and "murder" are different. For instance unborn children might be "killed" in war and that is tragic but not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be "killed" in an auto wreck but that is not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be accidentally killed in a medical procedure and that is not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be killed if the mother was attempting to murder someone and the "would be " victim killed the mother in self defense and therefore that would not be absolutely wrong.
Again, the answer lies in the difference between "murder" and "kill".
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Sheesh! Why do you Christians have to make everything so difficult???
I asked you one simple question and get 160+ words in response. All you would have to have written was, "No."
Since you're so voluble today, let's pursue your line of reasoning.
The word "kill" does not imply motive, as does the word "murder". It merely means "to put to death" (see http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=kill). What it does imply is participation. It would appear that you do not believe that accidental killings are absolutely wrong.
So, when a drunken driver accidentally strikes my neighbor's pregnant wife with his automobile, killing her and her unborn child, you don't think that's absolutely wrong?
I'll be interested to read your reply...
I asked you one simple question and get 160+ words in response. All you would have to have written was, "No."
Since you're so voluble today, let's pursue your line of reasoning.
The word "kill" does not imply motive, as does the word "murder". It merely means "to put to death" (see http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=kill). What it does imply is participation. It would appear that you do not believe that accidental killings are absolutely wrong.
So, when a drunken driver accidentally strikes my neighbor's pregnant wife with his automobile, killing her and her unborn child, you don't think that's absolutely wrong?
I'll be interested to read your reply...
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: For Zakath and his short term memory....
Re: For Zakath and his short term memory....
If I read your prior statement on this thread correctly, you claimed that I stated that some action we both find morally offensive "isn't necessarily wrong". That's a far cry from "absolute morality". My claim in the previous arguement was that I do not believe it is possible, at least for me, to promote "absolute morality".
We could always re-open this on another thread. It might be fun to watch you play word games trying to defend what you term "absolute morality", which, from your previous arguments appears to be neither absolute or moral. In your view, absolute morality appears to have so many loopholes and exceptions that it resembles situational ethics more than absolutism.
Of course, what more should we expect from a member of a group that teaches "limited omniscience".
Re: For Zakath and his short term memory....
I re-read your post and you were arguing "absolute" morality, not preference.
If I read your prior statement on this thread correctly, you claimed that I stated that some action we both find morally offensive "isn't necessarily wrong". That's a far cry from "absolute morality". My claim in the previous arguement was that I do not believe it is possible, at least for me, to promote "absolute morality".
We could always re-open this on another thread. It might be fun to watch you play word games trying to defend what you term "absolute morality", which, from your previous arguments appears to be neither absolute or moral. In your view, absolute morality appears to have so many loopholes and exceptions that it resembles situational ethics more than absolutism.
Of course, what more should we expect from a member of a group that teaches "limited omniscience".
Zakath states...
Such simple concepts and clear answers elude you.
A drunken driver cannot "accidentally" kill your wife and unborn child since a person cannot get "accidentally" drunk. A drunken driver is already in the act of committing his crime of public drunkenness and any crime he commits due to his drunkenness is no "accident".
How confusing life must be for you.
Such simple concepts and clear answers elude you.
A drunken driver cannot "accidentally" kill your wife and unborn child since a person cannot get "accidentally" drunk. A drunken driver is already in the act of committing his crime of public drunkenness and any crime he commits due to his drunkenness is no "accident".
Zakath states...
Stating that something isn't absolutely wrong is no different than stating that something isn't necessarily wrong.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Only when conversing with confusing individuals like you, Knight.
Perhaps if you presented one, it wouldn't.
Accident - "An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm" source
What an odd realm you live in Knight! One in which a few ounces of a chemical in the bloodstream removes a human being to a universe in which accidents do not exist and makes the individual completely responsible for all the results of their actions, both intended and unintended. I'm glad your legal constructs don't apply in my plane of existence.
Using your moral system and this scenario, with what crime should the DUI driver be charged?
BTW, in the illustration it was my neighbor's wife, not mine.
Zakath...
Actually even our flawed legal system applies this construct.
A drunken driver is usually charged with manslaughter when he drifts into oncoming traffic and kills another driver, yet a sober person may not be charged at all, or charged with a much lesser crime (reckless driving etc.) depending on the circumstances.
They don't?
Actually even our flawed legal system applies this construct.
A drunken driver is usually charged with manslaughter when he drifts into oncoming traffic and kills another driver, yet a sober person may not be charged at all, or charged with a much lesser crime (reckless driving etc.) depending on the circumstances.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
How about this: the aforementioned pregnant woman is talking on a cell phone when she attempts to cross the street against a light and is struck.
Who should be liable? Last time I checked, a driver who has the right of way is not liable for pedestrian error...
One presumes that under the ACM such protections would be summarily revoked. After all, someone must be held accountable...
Who should be liable? Last time I checked, a driver who has the right of way is not liable for pedestrian error...
One presumes that under the ACM such protections would be summarily revoked. After all, someone must be held accountable...
Zakath
Resident Atheist
That may vary from location to location. In the Washington DC area, most jurisdictions will charge the driver if the pedestrian is struck while inside a crosswalk, even when crossing against the light...
Silly? Yes. But remember, it's the logic-free zone of Washington DC!
Maybe that should be the de facto ACM legal motto:
"So many to execute, and so little time..."
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
if a sober driver acts in neglegently, he or she may well still be charged with man slaughter.
Zakath, if your so interested in the ACM (which is a FICTIONAL government contained in a FICTION writing by Bob Enyart) why don't you call him yourself. I didn't write the book!
To answer your question...
The driver is either guilty of murder or at very least manslaughter in the act of committing another crime (drunkenness) and he should be put to death. I base this answer assuming the guy is drunk and his drunkenness causes him to lose control of his vehicle and crashes into another car killing one or more innocent passengers in the other vehicle.
I am not sure what your point is, but what do you think should happen to the drunk driver who kills innocent people?
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Perhaps designating the ACM as a model government proposed by Shadowgov would be closer to historical reality.
Weren't you affiliated with Shadowgov at one point?
Haven't you sat under St. Bob the Broadcaster's teaching for at least a year?
If the answer to either or both of those questions is "yes" then I feel comfortable in your ability to answer questions about Enyart's "mythical monarchy", though I can see where you might have some sensitivity about discussing concepts involved in installing the ACM, post 9-11.
Ring bells, sing songs, Knight's going to answer my question...
OK, Knight, I'm trying to elicit from you what criteria you would use to discern whether it's murder or manslaughter. The fellow cannot be charged, at least in our current legal system, with two different levels of a crimes for the same act (double jeopardy). Try to pick one.
Let's wait on this. I'll answer this after you come up with a single answer, not "he is guilty of either this or that..."
Thanks.
Zakath states…
You continue…
You continue…
You continue…
A. (You really have a short term memory don't you?) Originally you were not asking me the question based on our current system.
B. Determining murder vs. manslaughter under our current system or a righteous justice system would take looking at the case and its specific facts. Although if guilty under a righteous system the death penalty is the proper penalty for either crime (murder or manslaughter).
Now you can answer the question I asked of you.
No, but I thought it was a cool idea!
You continue…
Yes, along with many other teachers. Your point?
You continue…
Why? The ACM didn’t “overthrow” the US government in book.
You continue…
Two points…
A. (You really have a short term memory don't you?) Originally you were not asking me the question based on our current system.
B. Determining murder vs. manslaughter under our current system or a righteous justice system would take looking at the case and its specific facts. Although if guilty under a righteous system the death penalty is the proper penalty for either crime (murder or manslaughter).
Now you can answer the question I asked of you.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
So, would the driver be executed for killing our hypothetical pregnant woman if he had not been drunk, his car was in good repair, and he had been driving in accordance with local ordinances?
Is he liable if, for example, the woman wandered into traffic while talking on a cell phone? Two tons of metal moving at 30 mph can't stop on a dime, you know...
Is he liable if, for example, the woman wandered into traffic while talking on a cell phone? Two tons of metal moving at 30 mph can't stop on a dime, you know...
Gerald says...
Of course he would not be executed (based on your example) why would you even ask that? Gerald, are you on medication? You have a hard time making rational posts.