"For the record, Dante places them before the gates to hell, so they aren't really IN hell, nor are they in purgatory... they do suffer, and have no hope, though, so may as well be in hell ;)"

I think we had a Dante discussion before...lol...another instance of my just missing where exactly they were...

"T Scripture especially can have some rather barbaric laws in it."

Yep.....

Yet freedom to leave russia, hold religious beliefs, speak out against or even hold a position contrary to the government, etc, are just a portion of the 20 million+ trivial cases where communism protected the rights of the individual and gave them freedom by taking their lives in a mass murder worse than the holocaust...

You resort to broad generalizations about fear, without knowing the doctor I support or the life counseling that he makes available to his patients. Do these crisis clinics exist and do they instill fear rather than help? sure, Do I support it? Hell no.

If the Bible should not be used as the basis for law under any circumstance, then forget about having a law against murder.. cause that is in the Bible.

...as is stoning prostitutes and adulterers and a man having the right to send his wife away for any reason whatsoever and numerous other barbaric laws.

Just because a law or concept exists in the Bible doesn't mean that is the only place it exists nor does it mean that havign a modern law against it makes that law inspired by the Bible. If we rewrote all the laws of the land based on current views of morality, then some of them would coincide with the Bible and the Torah and the Quran and others might go against all three, like rights for *all* people regardless of sexual orientation.

@abge, Whatever the reason you believe something, if you believe it, I don't see how you're going to ignore it in one part of your life.

You have your own reasons for believing killing a human is wrong, no doubt, but you therefore strongly (I assume) think it should be illegal. If I believe a foetus is a person, how can I avoid thinking the same?

In the TSA case you cite, well, if you thought it was wrong not to wear your armor, I would certainly expect you to _advocate_ for the TSA to allow you to wear it. That doesn't mean you'd win, but I'd expect you probably to take that policy position.

I will first disagree with you on the definition of a 'person', a single adult human skin cell , if placed in the right circumstances may have the potential to develop into a person (a perfect clone of that adult, once we get the tech right) but that doesn't make it a person...

'to spare the teen mothers the anguish of having made such a terrible decision that they will regret later. '

I also don't think you are sparing teen mother's any anguish, but instead creating it. By trying to convince them that what they want to do is wrong.

I think you are being disingenuous on this. Please stick to your claim that you are protecting the life of a human, even if this is at the cost of teen mothers and their psychological needs.

I will still disagree based on the principle of minimizing suffering. But at least admit that doing harm to pregnant teen mothers is ok in your view if it saves the life of foetus.

Now, if you feel this way, definitely support your local doctors, but allow others to make their mind up as to which doctor to talk to, about whose advice to take, because otherwise you are little better the communists you, apparently, despise.

Lastly, as this question does seem to revolve around what is human.
What about conjoined twins and chimera? How do they fit into your idea of a person and a human soul.

Lastly, if an atheist believes it is wrong to cause animals suffering, then they should equally push for animal rights and banning cruel practices in the food industry, at a minimum, and then banning all raising of animals for meat as an even higher standard. I don't see how this is wrong or cruel to those people who want to eat meat.

It is entirely a moral question, in the same sense as abortion (and i think there is some evidence that humans are able to deal with a certain number of moral questions, and this number is conserved, thus when freed from the moral questions that a christian religion impose they end up worrying about a new set of questions... like animal cruelty.)

"Reproduce for me the quote (and context) so that I can properly defend myself from what you are accusing me of, rather than making me defend everything I ever said.."

As if I don't have anything better to do than regurgitate a wall of reactionary text.

"However, I know too many people who simply rely on their welfare check and don't spend a second trying to look out for themselves."

A broadside against welfare recipients. You know, those "welfare moms" you supposedly care about with your pro-life stance but yet demonize for getting government assistance like WIC. (Note: Lief just PM'd some rant about some anecdotal story regarding a "lazy welfare mom" Yet another example of defending the most vulnerable. The only thing consistent about Lief's position is his view that women are "greedy, selfish", etc.)

"You and I will disagree on profit, so I'll leave this one alone for the most part, but I will say, profit is what the corporation has left over, once all expenses are paid, including the CEO's salary. Profit is not what goes in the CEO's pocket. Profit is used to expand/improve the business, so without profit a business dies. So let's keep calling profit evil."

A weird paragraph quibbling about the definition of profits. Evidently defending profits is another way people defend the defenseless. Corporations are people too. Heaven forbid we call the profit-motive evil. Jesus Christ was all about profits.

"So hard work and seeking a better life and defending your livelihood are horrible despicable acts of greed? Or do you claim that there isn't a single rich person in the world who got their wealth honestly, through hard work, through treating people with compassion, and who is generous with their wealth, yet still defends it against those who would simply like to take it from him?"

I'm sure you'll say that this paragraph isn't a straight forward defense of the rich. Oh those hard working compassionate rich people. Incidentally this defense of the rich came after I commented on how people are protesting against the growing inequality in which the super-rich make exorbitant "profits" while everyone else's income stagnates or declines.

"I'd like to see the stat that the vast majority of the population's income is declining. America's poor are the richest poor in the world, and they complain the loudest about the gap between the rich and the poor. Sounds as much like greed as anything."

Here's a paragraph stating that America's poor are greedy, spoiled and complain too much. And a paragraph denying that there is a growing gap between the rich and poor.

" I don't deny there are very greedy super rich people out there, but you lump everyone who has wealth into a class and call the whole class evil and at fault."

Another sentence defending the feelings of the rich.

And this is just one post. I didn't even get into Lief's defenses of harsh violent crackdowns on civil disobedience, another example of his "libertarian compassion" and supposed distrust of government authority.

Why am I even bothering with this? Every single line you put here is a defense of the rich and an attack on the poor. You're just playing games and wasting my time.

Lief is "sparing teen mothers anguish" by calling them greedy, selfish, and immoral - murderers even, and sending money to have propagandists rail against abortion and deliberately misinform them about issues of reproductive health, and force them to listen to heartbeats, etc

I reserve the right to not have to defend everything in the Bible the way that others interpret it, or from their worldview..

I also am not advocating that everyone has to live by my worldview or interpretation of Scripture.

My position on abortion is that murder is counter to a moral code(which is Biblical, but also a social norm), and that a fetus is a person (which I believe to be Biblical, but which can also have a case made for it from other religions or social norms as well).

" I don't believe the OT moral law to be in effect at this point anyway, so why is this relevant?"

Because you base your opposition to abortion on OT moral law (did I miss the Jesus sermon about abortion?). I guess whenever it's inconvenient you backpedal from your use of scripture to justify treating zygotes as fully developed people, damn the woman who carries it.

There is no old testament law against abortion either. It is not even prohibited in certain circumstances in Talmudic law.

"We have developed as a people to move into a more civilized law."

Yes Christians have developed as a people from their Jewish roots. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hilarious.

"You resort to broad generalizations about fear, without knowing the doctor I support or the life counseling that he makes available to his patients."

You openly admitted to your intention to fund groups that counsel women against abortion regardless of their particular medical condition or circumstances, which is exactly what these crisis centers do. Medical professionals have no right propagandizing against abortion in these circumstances, and to do is absolutely repugnant and is manipulating the medical practice for political purposes.

"You will find specific groups that still believe in an eye for an eye and who don't follow the teachings of forgiveness. "

I believe they call those republicans.

And by the way, if you actually read Jewish Law you would know they speak quite a bit about forgiveness as well.

'and that a fetus is a person'

So here we disagree, and you haven't addressed any of my questions regarding this position. Is it that you take you beliefs also to be unquestionable? or just that you don't like to address difficult questions?

To bring the Jewish point of view in here, I believe the rabbis say that midrash, or stories, suggest that a fetus is human and in normal cases abortion is immoral, if not illegal. There is an exception from the Talmud (the true Jewish law despite what draug believes/would have you believe) that if someone is chasing you with a knife you have the right to protect yourself. So as a result, if the mother's life is threatened she has the right and responsibility to terminate the pregnancy even in the most religious segments of society.

An eye for an eye was a call for proportionality. I think it has been misinterpreted.

"I also am not advocating that everyone has to live by my worldview or interpretation of Scripture."

Except, apparently, women who happen to be pregnant. They're forced to deal with the consequences of your worldview.

"or just that you don't like to address difficult questions?"

Why should he have to justify his view? He only wants to impose draconian restrictions on the autonomy of all women. Why should he have to be held accountable? It's only his "personal view" that the rights of zygotes come before the rights of women.

actually, after reading (i did this from memory) in jewish law a child within the mother is not human until more than half of it emerges from the mother. It is a potential human life not a human life. And supposedly (I do not remember this) the Talmud explicitly says abortion is allowed (though not casually) and required if the mothers life is in jeopardy.

@Santa - I was talking about groups who choose to misinterpret the Torah and the Talmud and, in Christain cults, (not saying all Christianity is cults, but their are cults who claim to be Christians) the Bible. I wasn't talking the general populace, but the whackjobs like the WBC.

@Santa - Stop being an ignorant fuck. I said *WE*, not *WE Christians. *WE* as in *ALL FUCKING HUMANITY*. Jesus Fucking Christ and while Moses Fucks Abraham! FUCK, you are an asshole at times.

I was talking *SECULAR* law, asswipe. I was tlaking the whole *FUCKING* human race. Quit reading religious shit where it isn't. FUCK!

The above rant at the fucktard named Santa was for his statement below:

"Yes Christians have developed as a people from their Jewish roots. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hilarious. "

"Of course, we've had the discussion that not all of Christianity takes every single passage in the OT at face value, but that is irrelavent for the discussion at hand. Jewish law of this nature is no more. We have developed as a people to move into a more civilized law.As a people meaning on the whole. You will find specific groups that still believe in an eye for an eye and who don't follow the teachings of forgiveness. "

I'm sorry, I guess I was working off the assumption that if Christians (or the world as a whole, although you clearly meant Christians as a whole) moved on from a barbaric set of laws that are found in the old testament, those that still use those Barbaric laws as the centerpiece of their legal and moral system must remain unevolved savages. Guess I am a fucktard...

"I wasn't talking the general populace, but the whackjobs like the WBC. "

And republicans

No, Santa, I meant people as a whole. I said people as a whole. I meant what I said. Oh and people as a whole includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, Agnostocs, *everyone*. I said what I emant and I meant what I said. The fact that you inserted your anti-Christian prejudices and assumed (amking an ass only of you) that I meant Christianity says more about you and absolutely nothing about me. Reflect on that.

I think if anyone reads what you wrote they would assume you wee talking about christions. You did not say "people as a whole" you said "As *****A***** people" (meaning of course a finite group of people) after talking about how Christianity sees the old testament. Then, after the sentence in question, you propose there are some that don't fit into this "whole" who do not "follow the teachings of forgiveness." I'm sorry, the world as a whole follow teachings of forgiveness? Please Draug stop embarrassing yourself. You can say you misspoke, fine, you cannot say i am misreading your statement deliberately or otherwise. This paragraph suggests the followers of christ follow an evolved moral code.

Guys, guys, guys... yeesh. Let's break this down to a much lower level.

No one wants to kill babies, right?

So the real question is, when is it considered a baby? Pro-lifers usually say 'conception', pro-abortion is usually 'at birth'. Most everyone else is in the gray area between.

So the real question to ask is when do you there is a baby (aka, living human)? How do you support yourself in this matter.

And lastly, if you have a strong opinion, quit beating people over the head with it. The only people here commenting have an opinion and you aren't going to change it, so quit trying so hard to do that, and instead just share your thoughts in a calm manner.

That's not the only question to consider. False reductions of a complex problem help nobody.

Then I will concede that what I wrote wasn't precise enough to get my meaning across. But I meant the entire human race. Not Jew, not Christian, not Muslim, not Athiest, not Black, not White, not Eastern, not Native American, not Induit. I truly did mean all people. I thought the fact that I was referring to the law (Chrsitians and Jews don't hold an exclusive right to the law after all) would have indicated I was referring to all of us.

I also wrotew the following *before* your sarcastic shit that should have clarified exactly what I meant...

"Just because a law or concept exists in the Bible doesn't mean that is the only place it exists nor does it mean that havign a modern law against it makes that law inspired by the Bible. If we rewrote all the laws of the land based on current views of morality, then some of them would coincide with the Bible and the Torah and the Quran and others might go against all three, like rights for *all* people regardless of sexual orientation. "

But if that was unclear, let it be clear now. We, as a people of a global society called the human race, have moved beyond needing religion to define our laws and have moved beyond some archaic and barbaric laws. Yes, stoning people to death for having sex is fucking barbaric and that *is* part of Jewish law, is it not? But modern Judaism doesn't do this, presumably because the Jewish faith and people of Jewish descent have moved beyond that level of barbarism. If not, then I'm sorry I mistook you for an enlightened people and I guess the reason you don't stone adulterers and prostitutes is because you are afraid of what will happen in secular society if you do.

"Yes, stoning people to death for having sex is fucking barbaric and that *is* part of Jewish law, is it not?"

Jewish law is based on the Talmud and the Talmud made the sentence nearly impossible to carry out. These sentences were all but abolished hundreds of years before Jesus appeared.

@ Putin:

"As if I don't have anything better to do than regurgitate a wall of reactionary text."

Do you?
The fact that you did reguritate this tells me you had nothing better to do or you wouldn't have done so..


Let me start at the top.

"A broadside against welfare recipients."

If my quote is read correctly, and understood in context of my other positions, this out of context characterization fails.. I never said "all" "every" or "most" welfare recipients...
I complained in the quote about the "too many" lazy welfare recipients I know who won't find a job. In context with my other positions, I am against a system that can't seem to tell the diference between genuine need and someone who is gaming the system because they are lazy.

Let me flip my statements to illustrate the points in reverse. I detest GM. They have gamed the system to the point of the absurd. Their legal and financial departments that allow them to do this are huge. The quality of their product sucks. They took bailout money and paid bonuses to former CEOs. They don't know how to make a good product and they are lazy to the point of surviving at the hand of the government (let alone the issue of profits). They don't care about their workers and make an "American Made" product that is not even 1/4 American parts. Screw GM and the rich greedy bastards that ran it into the ground (or still are). I can't stand lazy rich executives, just like I can't stand a particular welfare mom who is gaming the system.


"Note: Lief <sic> just PM'd some rant"

An attempt to address your "your words are hollow" mischaracterization of my position without derailing Obi's post. My mistake...


"The only thing consistent about Lief's <sic> position is his view that women are 'greedy, selfish', etc."

Not only can Putin not get my name right, but he resorts to personal attacks that have no basis. Anyone agree with Putin that I think this? I don't really care what he thinks about me, but I'll try to enlighten someone else who mistakenly believes this crap he's levied about me...


"A weird paragraph quibbling about the definition of profits"

Bottom-line: profit drives business, business employs, emploment allows people to better themselves, people bettering themselves makes the world a better place. (Technology, innovation, standard of living, science, research, etc.)

Now for the flip side.. I believe in generosity and righting injustice. With my excess, I can help those around me. I reject the american idea of hording wealth selfishly. It's great to make it big, but what good is wealth if you keep it all to yourself? The greedy american desire for more stuff, and the advertising culture we live in are detestable to me. Captialism/democracy is a rotten system if people are by nature selfish (which they are), but all other forms are worse if people are by nature selfish. Market forces can temper greed to some extent, but every other system I have seen aggragates too much power in one person or process or system that when corrupted becomes much worse than capitalism/democracy.


"Jesus Christ was all about profits."

Yup, that was my point. Couldn't have got that one more right...
(I repeatedly have claimed Jesus' mission on earth to be to save a rebellious race from sin and restore them to right relationship with God. His method? PROFIT. Or did I not harp about His death on the cross to pay the death penalty we deserve? Was I that ambiguous?)


"I'm sure you'll say that this paragraph isn't a straight forward defense of the rich."

Once again, reading context reveals my true point. I was pointing out a logical flaw in your reasoning, that lumped all of the rich into a category that is synonomous with "evil, greedy, bastard". I was trying to point out the distinction that I was categorizing the divide between "hardworking" and "lazy" and that there are both rich and poor in both categories. Go back and read the real context rather than tying this to a point you were trying to make and calling that the context.


"Here's a paragraph stating that America's poor are greedy, spoiled and complain too much. And a paragraph denying that there is a growing gap between the rich and poor."

Missing the point again. America's poor are richer than the rest of the world's poor. So why do we (or America's poor) complain so much about America's poor rather than the rest of the world, if the gap between the rich and the poor is really the issue...

There is no denying the poor are oppressed. Once again in context of the rest of my agrument, my contention is that the Federal government is not equipped to effectively address the situation of corruption aggregating resources or power at the top.

The response and view that "the federal government will fix it" has aggegated the corruption and the power at the top where it is hardest to dislodge, hence the reason I advocate a small local government system with minimal state and federal oversight.


"Another sentence defending the feelings of the rich. "

Because feelings are what's at stake, not the fact that you adovcate that every person with wealth should have that taken away from them and given to anyone who doesn't have wealth. No incentive to have wealth, no incentive to better one's self, no incentive to improve the world, everyone gets poorer. Life reverts to the stone age where we all club each other to get what we want, and justice becomes impossible to pursue.

"Lief's <sic> defenses of harsh violent crackdowns on civil disobedience, another example of his "libertarian compassion" and supposed distrust of government authority."

I stand for justice, without justice, righting wrong done to the poor is meaningless. But seeing as we've already hashed out for some time on the other thread whether or not justice was done in those situations (and I didn't agree that all those situations were just btw, as you have here falsely characterized that I had) I'll let this one slide without a substantial refute or even mockery..


"Why am I even bothering with this?"

Good question, one I've been asking for sometime.. Why do you bother?



"Every single line you put here is a defense of the rich and an attack on the poor."

Here are a few of those "every single lines" that you didn't bother quoting... Or were you refering to just the ones you saw fit to repeat here? in which case I didn't put them in this thread, you did, and did so out of context..
You know what? I'll even stick to the one post that you quoted from to even the odds a bit, and not allow myself any of my other comments in other threads or posts speaking out against oppression of the poor...

Here's the first:
"Social welfare should be limited, temporary, and focused to getting an individual back on their feet. Not a permanent answer to how they will live the rest of their lives."

Damn those poor people. Let's give them social welfare when they have circumstances that are truly dire and would benefit from society being generous and helping them..

Here's another:
"Read the next sentence: 'There are extreme circumstances where the society can (and should) decide to help those who have been hit by misfortune. (Laid off? mental handicap? etc.)'"

Did you really miss that sentence twice?

Here's another:
"without justice the poor are screwed."

Upholding justice to defend the rights of the oppressed = secret weapon to destroy poor people once and for all. Keep it quite or they might catch on to us...

How about another:
"If there is a dispute within the community of one segment of the community oppressing another segment, again, the local community deals with the issue first"

The federal government is completely aware of every issue of oppression in every local community, right? So allowing local communities to address their own issues of oppression is redunant and couldn't possibly be better...

I could go on, but 4 quotes should be enough to counter your "every line" fallacy...
Then again, I am arguing with Putin, my words will get twisted...


"You're just playing games and wasting my time. "

You are responding to my postings to other people. Sorry you can't help yourself.

Oh, btw.. you sidesteped a question from that post which I will gladly "regugitate" here.

I'm going out on a limb though and guessing I still won't get a response..

"Would I be wrong in saying that you would characterize simply having too much money above a certain threshold to be a injustice against society? "

Yes, hundreds of years out of the thousands they existed... That was actually my point. Society, be it religious or secular, has moved beyond the old laws. Not to say there aren't still people in the world who think *their* religious views are the only correct world view and *their* laws should apply to everyone no matter how extreme.