So you're trying to use logic to disprove an illogical trait? Let me know how that works out.
If you acknowledge God as one who can do anything (including the illogical), it doesn't make any sense to pit logical constraints on Him. On the flip side, if you're going to argue that God can do anything within the constraints of logic, then your argument still doesn't hold, as it wouldn't be possible for there to be a rock that God can't lift (being all-powerful).
He didn't, he demonstrated an entirely different issue.
It's literally the same situation, just flipped. I don't know about you, but flipping situations is one of the best ways to gain perspective.
My point is that he dismissed the initial, larger issue in a way that undermined the severity of it.
I mean, you can interpret it however you want, but the fact is that he never explicitly dismissed the issue.
I have already explained how he did that: He literally dismissed the initial topic by deflecting to a different one.
Well your explanation is not a great one. If someone starts a debate about one group committing violence against another, it's pretty ridiculous to think the opposite won't or shouldn't be brought up.
I would gladly engage in an alternate discussion on his topic, but nice try.
Apparently not. The only thing you've done is insisted that it shouldn't be discussed since it's not as large of an issue (which is a fallacy by the way).
He drew attention from the issue brought up and onto a different issue.
So? A lot of insight can be gained by demonstrating that the problem is more complex than OP made it.
The initial issue brought up is larger, both proportionally and as a sum, than the one he brought up.
I'm not going to argue against that and he didn't either. What's your point exactly?
I have never dismissed police shootings. But he has dismissed the shootings of black Americans.
Show me where he did that.
This "One or the other" bullshit is completely nonsensical.
You're the one propagating that by shutting down any alternate discussions.
It doesn't take a genius to point out America's problems, but it takes a idiot to offer some of the solutions he has. He's racist, sexist, arrogant, stubborn (in a bad, unhelpful way), and manipulative. He doesn't even want to be president, he's just sabotaging politics and ensuring that the Republicans have zero chances of taking the presidency.
You're actually going to challenge me on this? So if I kill someone and someone calls me out for it that has also killed people, just fewer than I have, it's not hypocrisy? Give me a break. There's absolutely no rationale behind what you're saying. Besides, it doesn't matter if it's as usual, it's a fallacy to bring up things said in different, unrelated debates. So nice try arguing something completely foolish and pointless; my statement stands.
No, again, I never addressed the legislation. I simply wanted to counter your point that women would rather not be around their children. Yes obviously such legislation would be a terrible idea, but I do think if people made that choice on their own, it would probably be a good thing and I'd respect that.
Maybe you should ask women this :P
Or just use some common sense. Mothers are caring by nature.
Didn't say anythig about need. That is off topic.
Well then that just weakens your argument. Then there exists very little reason for a mother to send their young child to daycare.
Of course there's nothing wrong with it, but I think generally mothers would prefer to spend time with their child than work and there's nothing wrong with this.
I believe women such of these have more to give a child than some wet blanket that ceases to have a life the moment her child leaves the room.
That is pretty degrading to say. Of course families need an income but a mother that stays home with her child means a lot more than just shipping her child off to daycare.
its not illegal just because you think it is or want it to be.
What's your point, exactly?
The organs go to good use, and if the abortion clinic generates money off of that then thats a good thing too.
What part of that is a good thing? I just want to understand.
Do you think the dead fetus or the parent wants to keep the organs? Why do you care so much?
I guess I'm a little disgusted by the mutilation of dead babies. Clearly I'm mistaken though, as you so eloquently argued.
First of all, your choices make no sense based on the question: "Are they good or bad?" "YES THEY ARE!" See? No sense.
I mean the best scenario is for no one to have them, but the worst is for your enemy and not you to have them. So I mean if the question is whether they are good or bad in general, the answer is clear. But obviously of both have them, there will exist a kind of deterrant.
The question wasn't "Is America greater than it has ever been?" Of course we're better off than pretty much every other moment in American history, but I certainly don't think at this very moment we are getting better.
I really don't see how you can disagree with based on the actual question.
I'm confused, what is wrong with autonomy? America prides itself as a country of freedom, after all.
Well I'm just talking about the idea that people have that they can just do whatever they want and they'll be celebrated because it's their choice and whatnot. It's difficult to explain, but it's definitely a growing mindset in America, people just hate being told what's good and bad for them which isn't bad in itself but when taken to the extreme it can be dangerous. Sorry if this is still unclear, I'd like to be able to express this notion more concisely.
I think it's becoming worse. People can claim autonomy for just about anything "because it's 2015 dammit." We also have environmental issues and roads are getting worse. Immigration is a joke and China isn't owning us any less now. I wouldn't really say education is in great shape and healthcare seems to be a pain for a lot of people. The middle class is getting punched in the gut more and more and prisons are crowded. But I mean hey, at least we have Obama at the helm. That makes me sleep better at night.
In this case I would say means make all the difference.
I'm glad we agree.
Capitalism exists only where individual rights are maintained. The ends of capitalism are up to the market. The individual is free to choose his own ends. This means Christians are free to choose their own ends as well. I'm saying that the ends that Christians choose are similar to the ends that socialists seek to force.
That may be so, but clearly since Christians living in a capitalist system would give to charity, capitalism then would align with Christianity. Socialism just adds an extra step.
The goal is simply freedom through rule of law based on individual rights. This may lead to the common good, but the goal is the individual good..
No, the belief is that the free market guided by the invisible hands leads to the greatest common good.
quotes?
Proverbs 21:25- The desire of the sluggard kills him, for his hands refuse to labor.
1 Timothy 5:8- But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Proverbs 20:4- The sluggard does not plow in the autumn; he will seek at harvest and have nothing.
This demonstrates that he who does not work should not receive any kind of compensation according to the Bible.
Fuck your commands.
Your discussion is not as important as you think, and I had no intention of countinuing this.
But now, you've got me interested.
Whatever dude.
Really? That's retarded as hell. There is no "pure" socialism or "pure" capitalism.
Of course there's not. But there's also no way to know which Christianity aligns with more so for the sake of discussion it makes sense to look at them in their purest form.
If a country has laws, there will be some government regulation, regardless of the system. Including government regulation of property and corporate issues.
Sure, that doesn't entail corrupted capitalism.
You're just playing dumb and don't understand what I write.
Too busy being a "super-intellectual"?
Western ideals are something much more than just "capitalism".
And Russian capitalism is living proof to that.
So, my post was totaly relevant.
What? Ever thought I don't understand what you write because it's blatantly irrelevant or whimsical?
I literally have no idea what youre talking about.
Well then you're literally stupid. The point is that selling fetal organs for a profit is illegal. It really means nothing for you to say it's fine.
Please actually address the content of my post you little twat.
Really? Are we in British grade school? Grow up, you've always been disrespectful.
To be fair, firearms were never as indelible in Europe as they are and have been in the United States. That being said, I do think it makes the solution much more complicated here. I do not submit to the fact that this violence should be accepted, I was simply noting that mental health is a large concern and I don't think it's a stretch to say that if people in general were more gentle and aware there would be less violence. That's a universal truth but with the abundance of options to kill people with in the US, it seems more pressing and relevant.
They don't need to donate because they are not the donors. It is unfair to them to say they have to cover all of the cost involved with getting the donated organs to the researchers.
Right, of course they should be compensated but they shouldn't be making a profit.
Then, you are completely missing the point. The organs are donated. The law says the organs must be donated. Case closed.
What? That's not a valid conclusion.
That says you are wrong ... again. That says Planned Parenthood hasn't done anything wrong. That says there should be no investigation.
Where does it say that? Please enlighten me.
It is your job to point out what you might find that is wrong. I am pointing out that the only thing you can possibly look for won't be found.
Sure, you can hold whatever position you want.
False, they are allowed to charge for processing. "The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue."
Maybe you don't understand what a profit is. Again, yes it is fine for them to be paid for those costs but to receive more is against the law. Thus, a profit is indeed illegal. Nothing that you just said disproves my point.
Awesome. Spend us into massive debt and avoid giving freedom to anyone. You are magnificent.
Whatever. I'm going to stop now because this is ridiculous, you'd never admit that there was a problem no matter how much evidence is given.
Stop for a second and look at the overall picture. If you read what I wrote based on the context of my overall argument you would have realized that I am talking about organizations. Why would you interpret my response as talking about people if you asked about organizations selling organs? That is dense. You asked a question about organizations and assumed my response had to do with individuals. It doesn't get any denser than that. Plus, how are the researchers who don't handle donations supposed to receive donations? They contract another company (Planned Parenthood) to handle getting the donations.
That's not at all how I interpreted it. I meant that Planned Parenthood or any other organization could donate to researchers rather than sell to researchers.
Again, the organs sold by Planned Parenthood have been donated.
Again, that's not the point.
We as Americans have gone far past the point of checking if companies are making a profit. There are hundreds of accounting techniques to hide profit. You won't find any profit.
Fair point, but that doesn't make it right.
No, the law says nothing about profiting off organs. No more wasting money investigating issues that we simply don't like. Only investigate stuff that is illegal. As a fiscal conservative it is unreasonable for me to suggest that we spend money investigating this. What kind of conservative are you to want the investigation?
Sure it does. If they're making a profit, it is illegal. For one thing, I'm a social conservative so this kind of matters to me.
If you are truly one of the most conservtive Christians on this site, tell me why you attacked me for my conservative beliefs? Tell me where I hated anyone. Debating and arguing people's opinions is not hating anyone.
Grabbing from this debate:
"Terrorists love weak kneed pacifist Democrats."
"Can Liberals be any more mindless?"
If I'm wrong about you, I apologize. I guess I've seen too many phonies who say they are Christians and still vote for Democrats who have done all in their power for decades to push abortion, force us to pay for it, gay marriage, anti religious expression in public, etc.
Well I can tell you I've never supported a Democratic candidate in my life if that makes you feel any better. Just calm down a little and try to form your arguments with concrete arguments and claims rather than anti-liberal rhetoric, it will absolutely go a long way.
Right, but we know that the means are usually what makes all the difference. The goal of capitalism is not personal gain. If we're going to be fair about goals, capitalism is about freedom and justice. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve the greatest common good (biggest economic chunk, if you will). Jesus also had quite a bit to say about laziness, which is much less common in a capitalistic economy.
Well this is just hogwash. The principle is not at all the same. Jesus does not want us to give to the poor because we are forced to do so, rather because we feel the obligation and desire to do so in our own hearts. Don't ever try to say charity and socialism are similar.
EDIT: there's nothing particularly socialistic about taxes.
Well I'm sure you can infer that I was referring to taxes used to redistribute wealth in a variety of ways.
Are you dense? You just asked how researchers can get organs if people cannot sell them, and I said through donation rather than sale. The issue is whether or not the company making the transaction should make a profit. I hope you would agree that they should not. But regardless, the point is that parties are arguing over is whether Planned Parenthood is making a profit from the fetal organs. Make sense?
How does a college degree help you as a politician? People keep bringing this up but I feel that most politicians would agree that you learn way more about your job as a politician while working rather than in school.
Also, his record as governor is incredibly good when you look at all the things he said that he would do as governor (which obviously people in the state wanted, as they voted for him to win 3 times in 4 years).
Alright well I'm really not trying to be politically correct, I just think the issue is way more complex than you make it out to be. I feel like you almost exploit issues like this to spew your agenda against liberals.
I do agree that gun control is not the answer, but what you're saying about drugs doesn't seem very valid. Do you have any facts to support that claim? I'd say prescriptions for mental disorders do far more good than harm.
Also, it's pretty crazy that people such as yourself think it is pretty crazy hearing some verses from the Bible.
Simply hearing Bible verses is not crazy. I'm a Christian and I believe they are quite important. The way that you utilize the Bible to hate people and defend certain beliefs is pretty troubling for me.
Whether you understand it or not, you have been conditioned to make fun of religious expression when you hear it in public.
Well this just isn't true. I do not make fun of religious expression when I hear it in public. You really make a lot of assumptions from very little information.
Very much a sign of our judgemental times and this anti God culture from the Left.
If by anti-God you mean keeping religion out of politics, then you're absolutely right.