Jump to content

Bible thumping teenagers


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 510
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would save the sewing machine inventor guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you were in a burning building and could either save Peter Singer or an acorn, what would you do?

 

lol - I tried to think of something clever, but I've got nothing - too...(yawn)....tired....

Link to post
Share on other sites
The real question here is if you were in a burning building and could only save one Wilco album, what would it be?

 

I'd have to go with Being There or Summerteeth.

No Depression. I know that album doesn't resemble a Wilco album as we usually think of it, but if you consider the life of a band as a continuum, then you have to include its starting point. Therefore, Uncle Tupelo is worth protecting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll leave you with an opinion held by Peter Singer, whom I agree with w/r/t to continuity.

 

Against those who stress the continuity of a band's existence from formation to selling out, he poses the example of a band in a dish on a laboratory bench (how they got a whole band in a dish is beyond me), which he calls Uncle Tupelo. Now if it divides into two different bands, there is no way to answer the question whether Uncle Tupelo dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Wilco and Son Volt. These are absurd questions, he thinks, and their absurdity casts doubt on the view that the band is a group of human beings in the morally significant sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What I said is that in our current political and social climate, and in light of the emotional, psychological, medical, and private aspects--which contain far more complex and varying strains than adult deaths do--wound up in the issue, a government intervention is not the most useful, effective means of combating abortion. Would I personally oppose abortions that happen legally? Yes.

 

To be meaningful and enforceable, all laws must be pragmatic." - Beltmann

 

 

"If a meaningful and pragmatic law rendering abortion illegal was devised, would you favor it

Link to post
Share on other sites
"What I said is that in our current political and social climate, and in light of the emotional, psychological, medical, and private aspects--which contain far more complex and varying strains than adult deaths do--wound up in the issue, a government intervention is not the most useful, effective means of combating abortion. Would I personally oppose abortions that happen legally? Yes.

 

To be meaningful and enforceable, all laws must be pragmatic." - Beltmann

"If a meaningful and pragmatic law rendering abortion illegal was devised, would you favor it

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a ridiculous question. I don't know how to ban abortion and still take into account the complex realities of the abortion issue. I don't know how the government could actually end abortion rather than merely introduce new ethical dilemmas. I've been abundantly clear on that point. Tell ya what, you propose a specific law that you think would effectively end abortion, remain pragmatic, remain sensitive to the emotional complexities of varied circumstances, and be enforceable, and I'll approve or veto.

 

And while you're at it, you can answer the many, many central questions and arguments I and others have posed in this thread that you've chosen to ignore in order to focus on periphery stuff like how trees are important to the universe.

 

It's not a ridiculous question, it's actually one we will, in some way shape or form, be forced to make at some point in the future. One in which you will have to answer with a yes or a no. I'm not asking you to draft the law, I'm asking how you would vote if it conformed to your meaningful and pragmatic standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a ridiculous question, it's actually one we will, in some way shape or form, be forced to make at some point in the future. One in which you will have to answer with a yes or a no. I'm not asking you to draft the law, I'm asking how you would vote if it conformed to your meaningful and pragmatic standards.

Here's why it's ridiculous: Unless there is a radical departure in human behavior--a departure unprecedented in the entire history of humanity--and unless all Americans willingly view a developing fetus as a person with inviolable rights, it is impossible to draft such a law. In other words, we will never be forced to answer your question in reality. (You might as well ask me whether, if all the steel in the world spontaneously turned to cake, would I eat a bridge?) If we're going to play around in a message-board world of ludicrous hypotheticals, then yes, I would vote for such a law, and yes, I would eat a bridge.

 

You seem convinced that ethics, morality, and law must always be mirror images; I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at wall mart earlier and if not for all the goddamn trees there would have probably been enough parking for all the cars looking for spots.

one: you're a coddamn liar

two: you don't shop at walmart

three: even you're not daft enough to go to walmart on the saturday before school starts

four: i don't believe you. there are never trees in walmart parking lots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...