BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003 [Archive] - Theology Forum

rasputen

March 17th, 2003, 12:54 AM

Let me begin by saying I am Greg Schreier, Columbine senior who was on the show. If you want to contact me, flame me, insult me, go right ahead. Because I am going to be CANDID.
"These three kids will have much to think about for the next few days"
Yeah, like how I am even more firm in my beliefs. The protests are merely a symbol of the perceived superiority of those conducting the protests. They are right in their own minds and their own minds alone. They fail to see that morality is perceived differently by all. What is moral to one is not necessarily moral to another, and that DOES NOT mean that their moral judgment is inferior, merely because it is conflicting.
"If high school seniors want to debate issues with Bob, what is he supposed to do? Refuse to talk to them"
Actually, HE wanted US on the show. MY presence was requested. So therefore, judging from the feedback, I'd say Bob got exactly what he wanted - a fruitful discussion.
"I think the main reason these kids didn't like the protest is because the pictures proved to them that, as pro-lifers, they could no longer remain complacent. People don't like to alter their comfortable life-styles."
No, I didn't like it because I have the decency as a human being to respect the opinions of others, and not forcing mine upon them in a manner not consistent with the marketplace of ideas. Instead of thrusting a graphic image and assumptions on people (ie Klebold and Harris killed kids too), maybe they could have presented FACTS. A graphic image is not a FACT. This is something NO ONE seemed to understand. They did not foster dialogue, but only hostility. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as successful. Furthermore, who are you to pass judgment upon me? Bob wanted my opinion, and he got it. I'd LOVE to see you say that to my face.
Finally, the radicalism of the protests got no one anywhere. The argument seemed to be that the means (a graphic protest) justified the ends (perceived saving of lives). But by that standard, where is the world left? We could easily decimate Iraq, and its leader, and its people, and say we rid the world of that problem. However, we also kill thousands. Means DO NOT justify ends. That is a message that was not clearly conveyed by myself on the show.
In any event, the show was an awesome opportunity, and it was a pleasure to debate with Bob. But there are facts that must be straightened out first, hence my post here.

Jefferson

March 17th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by rasputen
Let me begin by saying I am Greg Schreier, Columbine senior who was on the show.Glad you decided to participate. Welcome to TOL.

They fail to see that morality is perceived differently by all. What is moral to one is not necessarily moral to another, and that DOES NOT mean that their moral judgment is inferior, merely because it is conflicting.Do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?

I didn't like it because I have the decency as a human being to respect the opinions of others,Are all opinions worthy of respect? Are Osama bin Laden's opinions worthy of respect? Were Hitler's opinions worthy of respect? (Note: I'm not comparing your opinions to Hitler's. I'm just pointing out logical falacies.)

Instead of thrusting a graphic image and assumptions on people (ie Klebold and Harris killed kids too), maybe they could have presented FACTS.But they did kill kids too. That is a fact. The signs pointed out that people who abort their own babies are no better than Klebold and Harris.

A graphic image is not a FACT.Pictures don't lie.

They did not foster dialogue, but only hostility.Good. Mission accomplished. Is child killing with tranquility a good thing or a bad thing? Which one?

Furthermore, who are you to pass judgment upon me?Christians are commanded in the Bible to judge:

John 7:24 - Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment.

I Corinthians 2:15 Those who have the mind of Christ judge all things.

Romans 12:9 - Don't let your love be with hypocrisy, hate evil.

Luke 12:57 - And why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right?

I Corinthians 6:2-5 - Don't you know the saints will judge the world? We will judge angels.

Proverbs 24:25 - Those who rebuke the wicked will have delight and a good blessing will come upon them.

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.

Titus 2:15 Speak these things, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.

1 Timothy 5:20 Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear.

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother trespasses against you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him.

Ezekiel 3:18 When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not give him warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

Ezekiel 3:21 But if you warn the righteous so that the righteous does not sin, and if he does not sin, he shall surely live because he is warned; also you have delivered your soul.

Ezekiel 33:8,9 When I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die; if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. But, if you warn the wicked of his way, to turn from it; if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul

Means DO NOT justify ends.rasputen, in your high school text books (perhaps history or sociology) I'm sure you have seen graphic photographs of black people hung after a lynching in the old south. I'm sure you have also seen those famous pictures of Vietnamese children with their flesh dangling off of their bones after a United States napalm attack. I'm also sure you have seen in your text books gruesome pictures of the Nazi holocaust on the Jews. Why are these pictures not protested by the students?

Zakath

March 17th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Jefferson,

I'm sure Rasputen will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore... ;)

Are all opinions worthy of respect? No, but in America all opinions are given equal access to the marketplace of ideas. Whether they survive or not is a completely different story.

Pictures don't lie.Pictuers can be very misleading. Or perhaps you've never heard of "Hollywood"?

Christians are commanded in the Bible to judge:Christians are also commanded in the Bible to "turn the other cheek", not to engage in foolish debates, not to return evil for good, not to lie, not to steal, etc. Many of you appear very selective in apply what appears to be a long list of commands.

rasputen, in your high school text books (perhaps history or sociology) I'm sure you have seen graphic photographs of black people hung after a lynching in the old south. I'm sure you have also seen those famous pictures of Vietnamese children with their flesh dangling off of their bones after a United States napalm attack. I'm also sure you have seen in your text books gruesome pictures of the Nazi holocaust on the Jews. Why are these pictures not protested by the students?

Perhaps because all those events took place between thirty to fifty years ago. What possible good would be accomplished by protesting them now?

Knight

March 17th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Zakath
Jefferson,

I'm sure Rasputen will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore... ;)I'm sure Jefferson will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore... ;)

Zakath writes...No, but in America all opinions are given equal access to the marketplace of ideas. Whether they survive or not is a completely different story.And a completely different answer to a completely different question which Jefferson didn't ask.

Zakath continues....Pictuers can be very misleading. Or perhaps you've never heard of "Hollywood"? Are you insinuating that pictures of aborted babies are "faked"?

Zakath continues....Christians are also commanded in the Bible to "turn the other cheek", not to engage in foolish debates, not to return evil for good, not to lie, not to steal, etc. Many of you appear very selective in apply what appears to be a long list of commands.Nothing you mentioned is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Zakath continues...Perhaps because all those events took place between thirty to fifty years ago. What possible good would be accomplished by protesting them now? Jefferson was drawing a correlation to the pictures of aborted babies. A very good correlation I might add.

Zakath if you felt so compelled to answer for Rasputen..... couldn't you have found it within you to make at least one good point?

Zakath

March 17th, 2003, 08:11 PM

I'd be more concerned if my conmments were to something you wrote. Perhaps I'll wait to see what Jefferson has to say... :)

Flipper

March 17th, 2003, 11:56 PM

Knight:

So you're in favor of fearlessly showing the unvarnished truth, no matter how unpalatable the images might be, right?

Knight

March 18th, 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Flipper
Knight:

So you're in favor of fearlessly showing the unvarnished truth, no matter how unpalatable the images might be, right? Am I in favor of displaying graphic images of aborted babies? No of course not! The images are awful!

The images break my heart!

However, drastic times take drastic measures.

Exposing the reality of abortion is an extremely effective way of saving babies.

I would much rather have no need to show these images. I would much rather our country have not legalized murder.

Flipper

March 18th, 2003, 02:51 AM

Many people think that war is inherently immoral, and that if the public were appropriately informed about the realities and costs of war, then they would be more opposed to it.

The Pentagon is keenly aware of this, and so spends a lot of time and money steering journalists away from grisly sights and sites (unless there is a certain amount of PR capital to be made) and trying to ensure that they see only what they want them to see. A number of newspapers will also practice self-censorship to avoid publishing upsetting images.

This leaves people with an unrealistic but government-sanctioned view of war as a generally bloodless and video-game like affair, created by the more sterile pieces of gun-camera footage that do get released.

Now, people opposed to war, or at least people who want their fellow citizens to be appraised of the true cost, think that the more graphic imagery should be published there and then.

Do you support that? If not, why not? Is it ever okay if it does not directly compromise allied operational efficiency or safety?

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Knight
I would much rather have no need to show these images. I would much rather our country have not legalized murder.

"legalized murder" is a fine example of religionist "newspeak".

Newspeak - Deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

Murder is, by definition, "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

An action cannot be both legal and unlawful. For a group of people who spend inordinate amounts of time arguing about the meanings of words, I find your cavalier misuse of the language fascinating. I can think of only two likely possibilities:

It was a mistake or you are seeking to mislead people by misusing the language.

Which one was it, Knight? :rolleyes:

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Zakath
Perhaps because all those events took place between thirty to fifty years ago. What possible good would be accomplished by protesting them now?
Are you saying it would have been immoral if German protesters showed pictures of the holocaust to German citizens in an attempt to put a stop to it?

Gerald

March 18th, 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Knight
Am I in favor of displaying graphic images of aborted babies? No of course not! The images are awful!

The images break my heart!

However, drastic times take drastic measures.

Exposing the reality of abortion is an extremely effective way of saving babies.
But staving in the heads of those who perform abortions, as well as their advocates, is more effective.

Knight

March 18th, 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Zakath
Murder is, by definition, "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

An action cannot be both legal and unlawful. For a group of people who spend inordinate amounts of time arguing about the meanings of words, I find your cavalier misuse of the language fascinating. I can think of only two likely possibilities:

It was a mistake or you are seeking to mislead people by misusing the language.

Which one was it, Knight? :rolleyes: And therein lies the difference between those who have a moral compass and those who do not.

You see...... Zakath does not believe in absolute right and wrong and he is therefore cornered into only being able to define murder in such a limited way as he has above.

According to Zakath murder only happens when a life is taken unlawfully. Zakath pretty much ignores the "malice" part of his own definition. Of course that is a little understandable for how does an atheist understand "evil intenet"?

Therefore, ANYTHING that is legal must therefore be morally acceptable to Zakath, after all what other standard of right and wrong does Zakath have to appeal to?

Using this twisted logic no government could do wrong. All the government needs to do is legalize or outlaw a behavior and there is Zakath's moral compass firmly grounded in sand.

How could Zakath possibly argue that slavery was morally wrong when slavery was legal?

How could Zakath possibly argue that the murder of 6 million jews was wrong when it was a government sanctioned event?

And if anyone desires to see Zakath really crash and burn and thoroughly embarrass himself using this logic please read Battle Royale II (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2794)

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Knight
And therein lies the difference between those who have a moral compass and those who do not. No, the difference would appear to be less a matter of moral orienteering and more about whether you can read a dictionary... :rolleyes:

You see...... Zakath does not believe in absolute right and wrong and he is therefore cornered into only being able to define murder in such a limited way as he has above.And claiming to be an absolutist sets you free to make up any definitions for words you wish? I don't think so.

According to Zakath murder only happens when a life is taken unlawfully. Zakath pretty much ignores the "malice" part of his own definition. Note that our absolutist has now qualified his statement with "pretty much". ;)

The definition I cited was not from a legal dictionary. This commonly used dictionary asserts that murder is illegal. I'd like to ask which dictionary did Knight use to come up with his twisted definition that murder is legal?

Therefore, ANYTHING that is legal must therefore be morally acceptable to Zakath, after all what other standard of right and wrong does Zakath have to appeal to?Diversion again. Note that Knight has yet to address my question! He is now soaring like a carrion bird on a veritable thermal of rhetoric!

Perhaps, Knight, when you come back down to earth you could simply answer my question:

did you intentionally mislead people or did you do so through ignorance?

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

Are you saying it would have been immoral if German protesters showed pictures of the holocaust to German citizens in an attempt to put a stop to it?

Jefferson,

I was not addressing the morality of using the pictures, merely the efficacy. Besides, weren't we discussing a "protest" against some activity or other, not the display of pictures?

Knight

March 18th, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Zakath
did you intentionally mislead people or did you do so through ignorance? I only mislead the ignorant. No offense. :D

rasputen

March 18th, 2003, 02:18 PM

I must refute some of Jefferson's earlier points.
quote:
"Do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?"
- No. Everyone makes their own individual moal judgments, and said judgments are a part of the marketplace of ideas. Many of these judgments are adopted en masse due to their logical superiority. Those moral standards that generally do not benefit society as a whole are discarded, and those that do benefit society are adopted. But it is a decision made independently starting with the individual, and then advancing to an individual. But every society (with many different individuals) has a different moral standard than another, and there is no factor that makes one moral standard superior to another other than its practical application in that society. Note that a society is capable of being changed, and I emphasize that the moral standards not conducive to that society will not prevail in the end.

quote:

"Are all opinions worthy of respect? Are Osama bin Laden's opinions worthy of respect? Were Hitler's opinions worthy of respect? (Note: I'm not comparing your opinions to Hitler's. I'm just pointing out logical falacies.)"
- Yes. One has the choice as to whether or not they agree with it, but they are not forced to be anti-Semites or Islamic terrorists. Just because I don't agree doesn't degrade its validity. Furthermore, all of these ideas must be open in the marketplace of ideas so that people are given the option of making their own decisions. Same as above, if these ideas do not benefit society at large, then they generally won't be adopted en masse by the individuals. However, it is still the individuals making their own independent decisions. No decision is necessarily more valid than another.

quote:

"But they did kill kids too. That is a fact. The signs pointed out that people who abort their own babies are no better than Klebold and Harris."
Apples and oranges. Harris and Klebold have nothing to do with abortion. By that standard, we can compare anything and everything, which just isn't logical. Furthermore, that statement is highly inappropriate at the school where lives were ruined and altered forever. To rekindle such memories intentionally is despicable at best, and the most morally reprehensible thing mentioned in the entire discussion. To intentionally rekindle such pain makes the protestors no better than Klebold and Harris for causing that pain.

quote:

"Pictures don't lie."
- Are you joking? Ever heard of an airbrush? Adobe photoshop? Given technology of our day, a picture could EASILY lie. Also, you mean to tell me that governments DON'T use photos and other pictoral means to advance their own biased (and untrue) propaganda? Certainly you didn't mean that.

quote:

"Good. Mission accomplished. Is child killing with tranquility a good thing or a bad thing? Which one?"
- Again, you say the means justify the ends. That is a negative standard; our goal as humans is to diminish pain and evil. The best way to achieve that goal would be to eliminate existence. Furthermore, one can maintain tranquillity and make his opinion known through open dialogue (something neither Bob nor anyone else seems able to comprehend). I and many others were forced to view these pictures without the option of voluntarily conversing with them. They presented no logical or persuasive arguments on their posters. I see a graphic image of an aborted fetus. Great. Now I'm disgusted and hostile that I've been forced against my will to see that. Furthermore, they've presented no one with any logical evidence as to why they ought to be pro-life; no consequences of an abortion are shown. We see the end "product," but the implications are not discussed. An egregious violation of reason and rhetoric, methinks.

quote:

"Christians are commanded in the Bible to judge."
- Last I checked my final judgment was coming from the Lord himself. But heck, if I'm just going to be judged by some people on an internet message board, I guess I had better abide by their standards of righteousness to avoid damnation. :rolleyes:
You keep believing you are given the power to judge others, and I'll wait to meet my maker for judgment, thank you very much.

quote:

"rasputen, in your high school text books (perhaps history or sociology) I'm sure you have seen graphic photographs of black people hung after a lynching in the old south. I'm sure you have also seen those famous pictures of Vietnamese children with their flesh dangling off of their bones after a United States napalm attack. I'm also sure you have seen in your text books gruesome pictures of the Nazi holocaust on the Jews. Why are these pictures not protested by the students?"
- First of all, because they aren't there. My AP US history book contains no such disgusting images (thank goodness... the writer is logical). Second, I have indeed seen these pictures willingly, by CHOOSING to watch the history channel, or by choosing to do research in the library. If I so choose, I may change the channel or skip the page. The media is available to me if I'd like to see it. I'm not forced to stare at it while I am pulling out of the parking lot. Plus, have you ever had one of those posters blocking your view while trying to make a left turn on a busy street? That alone is justification for burning the posters. :cool:

In any event, its been a pleasure continuing the debate with all of you on here. I'd love to continue, as much as I'd love to debate with Bob again. I harbor no hostility towards anyone, but I am very protective of my beliefs. Thanks to all for a fruitful discussion. Cheers! :)

novice

March 18th, 2003, 02:34 PM

Is it just me or does anyone else actually believe that rasputen is who he says he is?

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 02:37 PM

Just curious, Novice...

You don't think he's one of the high school students described in the early posts?

Based on what evidence?

novice

March 18th, 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Zakath
Just curious, Novice...

You don't think he's one of the high school students described in the early posts?

Based on what evidence? Did you listen to the show?

If so, it should be pretty obvious.

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 02:50 PM

No, I did not listen to the show (as I mentioned in my early posts on the first page of this thread) so it is not obvious to me.

That's why I asked. :)

novice

March 18th, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Zakath
No, I did not listen to the show (as I mentioned in my early posts on the first page of this thread) so it is not obvious to me.

That's why I asked. :) Oh.

Well then, if you HAD listened to the show it would be obvious that rasputen is not one of the three guests on the show.

BuckyKatt

March 18th, 2003, 03:08 PM

hmmm- an interesting debate... I seem naturally drawn too it... :)
I really only have two things I want to bring up at this point: 1) The discussion about pictures being fact, and 2) The passing of judgement on others.
First, I'll address the issure of pictures. A picture is not a fact. A picture is an opinion. In this case, those pictures represent an opinion on abortion. They show abortion in a cruel, harsh, and rather repulsive light. This leads someone to belive that aborition is synonomous with a severed baby head. This is the only facet of abortion of represented by that picture. Thus, it is uncomprehensive and one cannot make a fair judgement based soley on that representation of it. Therefore, a picture is not a fact. Or, if it IS (which it argueably COULD be concieved as in this instance) it is not a fair and equal representation of a situation.
The other issue I found interesting was Jefferson's response to passing judgement. He quoted scriptual referance after scriptual referance, but he left out, in my mind, the most famous scripture on judgement: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Also, I found numerous flaws in the scriptual referances quoted by Jefferson. They don't partain to judging an individual. They apply to judging actions, or situations, which one ought to judge, simply to define their reality, and to be able to better determine their morals and standards. If any of you would like, I could go through each of the referances, and find some flaw within them, but with the number of scriptures quoted, I won't do that except at specific request. However, this debate is primarily between Rasputen and Jefferson, so I'll let them address the main issues. I just agree with more of Rasputen's contentions than with anyone else's. Not necessarilliy with either pro-life or pro-choice camp, but at least with the more mild statements of this "Greg" 12th grader.

Knight

March 18th, 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by BuckyKatt
A picture is not a fact. A picture is an opinion.Congratulations... that might be the single most ridiculous sentence ever typed at TOL.

Bucky continues....In this case, those pictures represent an opinion on abortion. They show abortion in a cruel, harsh, and rather repulsive light. Please supply us with pictures of abortion that present abortion in a better light.

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Knight
Congratulations... that might be the single most ridiculous sentence ever typed at TOL. Possibly, but is it POD status??? :confused:

Enquiring minds want to know! ;)

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by novice
Well then, if you HAD listened to the show it would be obvious that rasputen is not one of the three guests on the show. I listened to the show. Why do you think it is obvious that rasputen is not the high school senior he claims to be? I don't see any reason to doubt him. What am I not seeing that you see?

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by novice
Oh.

Well then, if you HAD listened to the show it would be obvious that rasputen is not one of the three guests on the show.

Let's try again.

I did not listen to the show. Perhaps you could share the criteria upon which you base your statement about rasputen...

:rolleyes:

novice

March 18th, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
I listened to the show. Why do you think it is obvious that rasputen is not the high school senior he claims to be? I don't see any reason to doubt him. What am I not seeing that you see? Well, first things first. Rasputen writes and formats his posts extremely similar to a long time TOL'er. But that is a topic for another show. ;)

But more importantly, all three Columbine seniors agreed with the host (Bob) on almost EVERY single point brought up on the show EXCEPT the tactic of the pro-life protesters.

The conversation with Bob was friendly, non-confrontational and all three kids claimed to be Pro-life Christians. Again, this does not match at all the tone of rasputen.

Nothing that rasputen has typed to date sounds remotely similar to what was being discussed on the show.

In rasputen's first post he wrote:A graphic image is not a FACT. Now where else have we read someone make that idiotic claim? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 03:38 PM

novice:

I'll listen to Greg Schreier's comments on the show again and compare them to Rasputen's posts here and then tell you if I agree with you.

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 04:02 PM

Thanks for the explanation, Novice. I'll be interested to read Jefferson's assessment.

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Okay, I just relistened to the show. Maybe I'm just gullible but I still don't see any reason to doubt Rasputen's claim that he is Greg Schreier. Yes, it is odd that a Christian would say that there is no such thing as absolute right and absolute wrong but there are a lot of varieties of Christians out there. The 3 kids did not say they were fundamentalist Christians, just "Christians." Who knows what their definition of Christian is? Some people think that if you strive to be a "good" person and you were born into a Catholic family that automatically makes you a Christian.

Secondly, Rasputen is a novice poster. Therefore I would not expect him to use the quote buttons and HTML, etc., in his posts. And, sure enough, he doesn't.

Finally, regarding his more combative tone. Most people are more cordial in face to face discussions than on an internet forum. I don't think it strange that Rasputen is also.

So, maybe I'm fooled, but I believe him. I will respond to his post shortly.

novice

March 18th, 2003, 05:31 PM

In rasputen's first post he wrote....We could easily decimate Iraq, and its leader, and its people, and say we rid the world of that problem. However, we also kill thousands. Does this sound like a comment someone would make if they wholeheartedly backed the war against Iraq as all three kids on the show claimed?

Isn't it true that BuckyKatt and rasputen are the same person?

And they also are the same person as yet another TOL long time poster?

Just my two cents! :)

Vitamin J

March 18th, 2003, 05:41 PM

I have to admit, either novice is right OR this young man sounded much smarter on the radio then he is sounding here. Did you read his comment,
- No. Everyone makes their own individual moal judgments, and said judgments are a part of the marketplace of ideas. Many of these judgments are adopted en masse due to their logical superiority. Those moral standards that generally do not benefit society as a whole are discarded, and those that do benefit society are adopted. But it is a decision made independently starting with the individual, and then advancing to an individual. But every society (with many different individuals) has a different moral standard than another, and there is no factor that makes one moral standard superior to another other than its practical application in that society. Note that a society is capable of being changed, and I emphasize that the moral standards not conducive to that society will not prevail in the end.

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by novice
And they also are the same person as yet another TOL long time poster?Who is this TOL long time poster you are referring to?

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by rasputen
I must refute some of Jefferson's earlier points.
quote:
"Do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?"
- No.Is it absolutely wrong for a man to violently rape a woman?

Everyone makes their own individual moal judgments,And God condemns them for it: "You shall not do according to all that we do here today, each doing whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). We are not supposed to do what we think is right. Instead, we have an obligation to find out what is right and do that.

there is no factor that makes one moral standard superior to anotherSo, as a Christian you don't think the Bible is a superior standard?

No decision is necessarily more valid than another.But one decision can be evil or foolish (hence worthy of ridicule), whereas another decision can be moral and wise (hence worthy of respect).

Apples and oranges. Harris and Klebold have nothing to do with abortion.Harris and Klebold were murderers. Likewise, people who abort their own children are also murderers. How is that comparing apples to oranges?

Furthermore, that statement is highly inappropriate at the school where lives were ruined and altered forever.That statment would probably prevent more abortions at Columbine than any other location in the world. Why would any student at Columbine want to be a murderer like Klebold or Harris?

To rekindle such memories intentionally is despicable at best, and the most morally reprehensible thing mentioned in the entire discussion.I thought you said all opinions are worthy of respect. This doesn't sound like you are respecting my opinion. Doesn't this make you a hypocrite?

To intentionally rekindle such pain makes the protestors no better than Klebold and Harris for causing that pain.So you think those protestors should be given a life sentence in prison or even the death penalty?

quote:

"Pictures don't lie."
- Are you joking? Ever heard of an airbrush? Adobe photoshop? Given technology of our day, a picture could EASILY lie.So you're saying that you think those abortion photographs are fake? Are you joking? How pleasing to the eye do you think a real photograph of an aborted baby would be compared to the photographs that were displayed at Columbine?

our goal as humans is to diminish pain and evil. The best way to achieve that goal would be to eliminate existence.Now you're going off into lala land. I'm beginning to agree with novice that you are not Greg Schreier.

Furthermore, one can maintain tranquillity and make his opinion known through open dialogue (something neither Bob nor anyone else seems able to comprehend).Oh, we comprehend it, we just disagree with it. Since there were no protests about the Nazi holocaust on the Jews, what does that say about the citizens of Germany during that time? Now, what if our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests? Would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?

I and many others were forced to view these pictures without the option of voluntarily conversing with them. They presented no logical or persuasive arguments on their posters.You were free to walk up to them and discuss the issue with them.

I see a graphic image of an aborted fetus. Great. Now I'm disgusted and hostile that I've been forced against my will to see that.Yeah right. You're the only teenager in America who just hates watching those bloody horror movies. Yeah, I'll believe that when Hell freezes over.

Furthermore, they've presented no one with any logical evidence as to why they ought to be pro-life; no consequences of an abortion are shown. We see the end "product," but the implications are not discussed. An egregious violation of reason and rhetoric, methinks.So you think our tactics are ineffective. Big deal. We disagree. We think they are effective.

Last I checked my final judgment was coming from the Lord himself.Wrong:

I Corinthians 6:2-5 - Don't you know the saints will judge the world?
Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the Judgment with this generation and shall condemn it.
Daniel 7:21,22 I watched, and that horn made war with the saints and overcame then until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.

My AP US history book contains no such disgusting images (thank goodness... the writer is logical).They were in my text books. And I guarantee you, they are in the Columbine library.

Second, I have indeed seen these pictures willingly, by CHOOSING to watch the history channel, or by choosing to do research in the library. If I so choose, I may change the channel or skip the page.And you are free to look away from our pictures. What's the difference?

The media is available to me if I'd like to see it. I'm not forced to stare at it while I am pulling out of the parking lot.Oh please. Stop being so melodramatic. No one put a gun to your head and "forced" you to "stare" at the photographs like in the movie "A Clockwork Orange." All you had to do was turn your head and look the other way. It's simple.

Plus, have you ever had one of those posters blocking your view while trying to make a left turn on a busy street?I wasn't there. But I doubt they blocked anyone's view of oncoming traffic. But if they did, you could have simply informed them that they were a traffic hazard. All they needed to do was to simply move a mere 5 feet down the side of the road. Another simple solution.

That alone is justification for burning the posters."Burning?" So you're a book burner? You're in favor of censorship?

I must say, you do sound very different than the Greg Schreier on Bob's show the other night. Let me ask you novice's question: The Greg Schreier on Bob's show was in favor of the war. You seem to be against it. Which is it?

Thief0Night

March 19th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Let me start by saying my name is Andre Devot. I am one of the Columbine students that was on the show. I have been readying the forum and I think that some of you need to learn when something does not need to be taken literal. Jefferson you keep talking about that someone in Germany is not going to hold signs of the Jews being killed or anything like that. Well you are right, but the difference is I am not going to shot the person holding the sign because I don’t want to see it. In the Germany case the person holding the sign might have died. So I say that if I am going to hold the respect not to shot someone for holding a sign then why the need to hold it in my face? Now if I could talk about the atrocious Harris and Klebold sign. I totally agree with Greg on this one. If I am going to show the respect to someone who is going protest outside my school and passively allow them to show they’re point. THEN WHAT IN THE HELL GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DISRESPCT ME LIKE THAT!?! Along with being able to use this idea of free speech it also comes with responsibility to respect others. You would not go up to someone who was in a concentration camp and say that the Nazis killed people too would you??? No you would not, why because you have respect for what they have gone though. So for some reason because Columbine is a high school we don’t deserve any of your respect, or the respect of the protesters?? Well it is late and I don’t want to write anymore, but don’t worry I will be back and write everything else I got to say. I have got a lot of catching up to do.

Argento

March 19th, 2003, 01:40 AM

Well, I should start with a small introduction seeing as I have not posted here ever before. I am a drop out of Columbine high school however we will leave that a subject for other times if it becomes any issue. I am also a friend of not only Andy Ground but Andre Devot and have known them both for quite some time. I agree with Greg on most of his points and think that some of you decide to take the literal meanings of his words to defend your point instead of listening to his ideas and his point. I think that is a rather popular way of debating and in this case I feel that it is rather childish and useless to help end this “debate” with any real conclusion. I think that many of you choose to take the not only ridiculous direction of insults but endless battle that is the norm of debates of this caliber. I would like to make a few points with the understanding and thought of all who care to listen. I am pro choice. However I would not vote against a resolution in favor of a pro life stand. The main reason I am pro choice however this is NOT the topic of this debate so much and would appreciate it if we stick to the meaning of the debate. Anyway I am pro choice because of all the kids’ lives that might grow into a family of hate and neglect. These grown children who have had hard lives and little direction are likely to grow into criminals themselves and raise yet more children whom have just as little of a chance to be a “good” person as they did. It’s a chain and whatever the cure is so be it. If a pro life law were to be passed and no resolution made for all the unwanted kids that are forced to grow in foster care of even the care of careless parents then I would be very very VERY opposed! One side topic that I have noticed is the credibility that Greg may or may not be blah blah! Well let’s make an end to this stupid, ridiculous, annoying and useless debate. I know for a fact that rasputen is who he says he is! Anyway I would also like to touch slightly on the Bible however limited it is to this debate in my opinion. The Bible is quoted quite a lot in this debate and likely in this forum and that is all well and good but there is a separation of church and state in this country and however relevant you feel the bible may or may not be its use in a debate over a law being written is not legal. I think that it may be relevant to use it to describe wrong from right and so on but it’s use to support the Pro life side is of no use to the “Real” debate that will I am sure take place many many times. Also my last point is that these ARE high school kids the fact that they weren’t forced to see this pictures is not entirely sure, the signs blocked drivers from seeing properly around corners and made it hard for many students to ignore them. So in literal sense no they were not FORCED to see them but they had so little choice, that the words chosen to describe the likelihood that they would see, not just one but many, posters validated the use of the word forced.

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 09:30 AM

C'mon folks. Don't they teach the use of paragraphs in high school anymore? ;)

Thief0Night

March 19th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Way to stay on subject.

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 10:32 AM

The goal of many Web boards (even this one) is allegedly communication. Stream of consciousness typing makes that difficult to achieve.

Knight

March 19th, 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Zakath
C'mon folks. Don't they teach the use of paragraphs in high school anymore? ;) ROTFL..... I was just going type the same thing! Zakath were starting to think alike!

:shocked: :D

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Knight
ROTFL..... I was just going type the same thing! Zakath were starting to think alike!

:shocked: :D

I knew you'd eventually come around, Knight! :D

Knight

March 19th, 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Argento
The Bible is quoted quite a lot in this debate and likely in this forum and that is all well and good but there is a separation of church and state in this country and however relevant you feel the bible may or may not be its use in a debate over a law being written is not legal. Please expand on the point you are trying to make with your above comment.

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Zakath
Jefferson,

I was not addressing the morality of using the pictures, merely the efficacy. Besides, weren't we discussing a "protest" against some activity or other, not the display of pictures? No. The purpose of the show was the discussion of the morality of displaying graphic abortion photos.

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by BuckyKatt
First, I'll address the issure of pictures. A picture is not a fact. A picture is an opinion. In this case, those pictures represent an opinion on abortion. They show abortion in a cruel, harsh, and rather repulsive light. This leads someone to belive that aborition is synonomous with a severed baby head. This is the only facet of abortion of represented by that picture. Thus, it is uncomprehensive and one cannot make a fair judgement based soley on that representation of it. Therefore, a picture is not a fact. Or, if it IS (which it argueably COULD be concieved as in this instance) it is not a fair and equal representation of a situation.So you think books that have pictures of the holocaust or blacks being lynched should be censored because those pictures aren't "facts" but only opinions which are not a fair and equal representation of those situations?

The other issue I found interesting was Jefferson's response to passing judgement. He quoted scriptual referance after scriptual referance, but he left out, in my mind, the most famous scripture on judgement: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."You are referring to Matthew 7:1. It is one of my favorite verse proving that we should judge. Here is the passage in context: "Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
Mat 7:2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye."

Notice that Jesus is not directing is command to everyone. He is only directing it to hypocrites. In fact, Christ even commands the hypocrite to judge after he is no longer a hypocrite. After the (now former) hypocrite has "cast the beam out of" his own eye Christ tells him that he should then go ahead and judge (ie. "you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.")

Also, I found numerous flaws in the scriptual referances quoted by Jefferson. They don't partain to judging an individual. They apply to judging actions, or situations, which one ought to judge, simply to define their reality, and to be able to better determine their morals and standards. If any of you would like, I could go through each of the referances, and find some flaw within them, but with the number of scriptures quoted, I won't do that except at specific request.Be my guest.

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Thief0Night
Jefferson you keep talking about that someone in Germany is not going to hold signs of the Jews being killed or anything like that.No, I asked a question to which no one has yet been able to answer. Here is the question: If our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests, would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?

If I am going to hold the respect not to shot someone for holding a sign then why the need to hold it in my face?For at least 3 good reasons:

1.) Because those pictures prove our point that abortion is not just another issue to be debated like taxes. Abortion is the issue of our generation. Those pictures force apathetic people to alter their apathetic life-style and they don't like it one bit. Good!

2.) Many people who have had abortions or who support legal abortions like to think of themselves as "good" people. But those photographs publicly prove to them and to everyone else that they are immoral for being pro-abortion. Those pictures don't just "claim" pro-choice people are immoral. They prove they are immoral. And they prove it right in front of all their friends and girlfriends and boyfriends. It's got to be very embarrassing for them. Good!

3.) Also, many anti-abortion people are very patriotic and they like to think they live in a "good" and "moral" country. But these pictures prove that the United States is on the moral level of Nazi Germany. In fact, we're worse. The reason is because the citizens of Nazi Germany would have been shot if they protested the holocaust but American citizens are not forced to commit abortion, they do it voluntarily. Nazi Germany's citizens committed their holocaust under threat of death if they refused but the American citizen voluntarily commits our holocaust. We are WAY worse than Nazi Germany. And again, those pictures don't just "claim" that to be a fact, they prove it. The pictures shatter the illusion of patriotic people that America is a "moral" country. Good!

THEN WHAT IN THE HELL GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DISRESPCT ME LIKE THAT!?!If a person is pro-choice then he is worthy of disrespect. If a person is pro-life, then those pictures are not directed at him (unless he falls under catagory 1 in which case a person who is apathetic about murder is worthy of disrespect). If he falls under catagory 3, then he is not being disrespected. Rather he is being taught the moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the United States. It is the United States that is being disrespected, not him.

Along with being able to use this idea of free speech it also comes with responsibility to respect others.Wrong. I respect the right of others to express their views but I am in no way obligated to respect them personally.

You would not go up to someone who was in a concentration camp and say that the Nazis killed people too would you???Apples and oranges. The prisoners in the concentration camps did not murder their fellow prisoners. But some of the kids at Columbine do murder their own children.

No you would not, why because you have respect for what they have gone though.No, I have sympathy for what they have gone through. There's a difference.

So for some reason because Columbine is a high school we don’t deserve any of your respect, or the respect of the protesters??The kids who experienced the evil of Harris and Klebold and then turned right around and committed the same attrocities (on their own children no less) are worthy of more disrespect than kids at any other high school in the nation.

Knight

March 19th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Great response Jefferson! (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6482)

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Argento
Anyway I am pro choice because of all the kids’ lives that might grow into a family of hate and neglect. These grown children who have had hard lives and little direction are likely to grow into criminals themselves and raise yet more children whom have just as little of a chance to be a “good” person as they did.So you don't believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty?

It’s a chain and whatever the cure is so be it.So you disagree with Greg. You think the ends do justify the means.

. . . however relevant you feel the bible may or may not be its use in a debate over a law being written is not legal.Wrong. We have laws on the books right now whose foundation comes directly from the Bible. The death penalty for murder for example. Are you saying we should legalize theft and rape and murder because the Bible is against those things?

Also, many US congressmen are Christians. Congressmen write laws. Are you saying all Christian congressmen should be forced to resign? If not, by whose standards are they supposed to write law? Someone else's standards other than their own?

Turbo

March 19th, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Zakath

"legalized murder" is a fine example of religionist "newspeak".

Murder is, by definition, "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

An action cannot be both legal and unlawful...

unlawful adj. 1. Against the law. 2. Immoral. 3. illegitimate.

Webster's II New Riverside Desk Dictionary, Copyright 1988 Houghton Mufflin Company, First Longmeadow Press Edition 1995.

Because Knight generally appeals to the standard of absolute morality rather than current US laws, it is obvious that when Knight writes concerning murder, he is referring to "The immoral killing of one human by another..."

Even though you claim there is no absolute morality, surely you recognize by now that Knight does.

I wonder if you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder. Perhaps you'd also argue that because the unborn are not defined as human by current US laws, abortion cannot be called murder. And since Jews were not humans according to the laws of Nazi Germany, no Jews were murdered.

A Jew is a human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human. Would you agree, Zakath?

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 08:31 PM

Good post Turbo. Welcome to T.O.L.

Turbo

March 19th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Thanks, Jefferson. I participated in a debate or two a year ago, but it looks like my post count has reset. Ah well.

rasputen

March 19th, 2003, 11:11 PM

I must address Novice here very quickly:

"Well, first things first. Rasputen writes and formats his posts extremely similar to a long time TOL'er. But that is a topic for another show.

But more importantly, all three Columbine seniors agreed with the host (Bob) on almost EVERY single point brought up on the show EXCEPT the tactic of the pro-life protesters.

The conversation with Bob was friendly, non-confrontational and all three kids claimed to be Pro-life Christians. Again, this does not match at all the tone of rasputen.

Nothing that rasputen has typed to date sounds remotely similar to what was being discussed on the show."
-novice

Now to my refutation. You know, there are other message boards with a format similar to this. TOL isn't the only message board on the internet.

Second, you'll notice that by making sure it was clear on the show that I valued the respect of the opinions of all, I believe that is sufficient evidence enough that I am Greg Schreier. You also say the conversation was non-confrontational. Surely you aren't that foolish; Bob and I went back and forth the ENTIRE SHOW disagreeing on the tactics. If that wasn't confrontational, I'm not certain what is.

Third, I did claim to be pro-life, but I am also an objectivist in the vein of Ayn Rand. Meaning that I formulate my own moral opinions, but also allow others to have conflicting opinions. Put simply, I'm not an absolutist. That was also quite clear on the show, if I'm not mistaken, considering I stressed the respect of opinions and the importance of the dialectic. In addition, you will notice that on the show, when asked my religion, I skirted the question. This is because I didn't wish to be addressed as a heathen, as I am certain Bob would have considered me as if I would have admitted to being an agnostic with largely Christian influenced beliefs. I said, and I quote, "I was raised Christian... I am a Christian, but I am open to everything." That is very much what I seem to be saying here- a lot of openness regarding my beliefs. Everything I've said is relevant to the show. Furthermore, BuckyKatt is not me, but a friend of mine that I told about the message board. He is a freshman at Columbine on the debate team with me.

Finally, I was much more enticed to be cordial to a knowledgable man on a very reputable radio show than people on an internet message board who have never so much as seen my face. In spite of this, I've been very appreciative of the opportunity to converse with you all, and despite the fact that I am argumentative, I don't feel I've been rude (if I have, I extend my sincerest apologies). If you would like to converse with me further about my identity, you may message me and I'll be happy to disclose my instant messenger screennames and continue dialogue.
Cheers!
~Greg Schreier

rasputen

March 19th, 2003, 11:54 PM

"Is it absolutely wrong for a man to violently rape a woman?"
I don't advocate unwarranted aggression. Perhaps a more pertinent example would be a man stealing food to feed his children. I certainly wouldn't consider that to be immoral, but stealing a person's stereo to sell for drug money would certainly be reprehensible. POINT: Stealing is neither absolutely moral nor immoral. Hence my disbelief in absolutism.

"And God condemns them for it: "You shall not do according to all that we do here today, each doing whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). We are not supposed to do what we think is right. Instead, we have an obligation to find out what is right and do that."
- I'm sure he will. So how about you stop being so self-righteous and leave the judging to your creator?

"So, as a Christian you don't think the Bible is a superior standard?"
-My point was that the only thing that can truly gauge superiority is practicaly applicability. In Asia, Confucian beliefs govern many nations, and dictate the laws (basically, self sacrifice for the good of the whole- individuality is looked down upon). Western society places the importance on the development of the individual, and denying individual rights is immoral in our society. But in many eastern societies (i.e. China) this is not considered immoral. Furthermore, how can a person use the Bible as a standard if it simply is not part of their culture? (again, Asia- largely Hindu/Buddhist/Islamic cultures). There simply cannot logically be a universal standard for morality, and absolutism fails again.

"But one decision can be evil or foolish (hence worthy of ridicule), whereas another decision can be moral and wise (hence worthy of respect)."
-Even foolish or "evil" decisions bring about consequences that are an integral part of the learning process called life.

"Harris and Klebold were murderers. Likewise, people who abort their own children are also murderers. How is that comparing apples to oranges?"
- Two teenagers armed with semi-automatics in a high school is comparable to an abortion clinic? Circumstances are substantially different, methinks.

"That statment would probably prevent more abortions at Columbine than any other location in the world. Why would any student at Columbine want to be a murderer like Klebold or Harris?"
- They don't want to be a murderer, and hence don't purchase guns. Plus, why does it HAVE to be Klebold and Harris? Why not Jeffrey Dahmer or the Boston Strangler, or Timothy McVeigh? Why? Because Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh are IRRELEVANT. Just like Klebold and Harris.

"I thought you said all opinions are worthy of respect. This doesn't sound like you are respecting my opinion. Doesn't this make you a hypocrite?"
- Intentionally doing mental and emotional harm to innocent students is NOT expressing your opinion, good sir. Explaining your platform is, and I welcome that. Explain to me, intelligently, why abortion is absolutely immoral (something the protestors again fail to do).

"So you think those protestors should be given a life sentence in prison or even the death penalty?"
- If you've seen the terror in someone's eyes when they have a flashback, you would want to. When my friends are reminded unnecessarily that their friends died in a terrible manner, it is a pain I wish to heal. But it cannot be healed. It causes pain just as great as the shooting itself, which is something one CANNOT understand unless one has been exposed to such a situation first hand.

"So you're saying that you think those abortion photographs are fake? Are you joking? How pleasing to the eye do you think a real photograph of an aborted baby would be compared to the photographs that were displayed at Columbine?"
- I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your statement. You assumed that all pictures are true. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that any image is open to interpretation, and thus are susceptible to being inefficient.

"Now you're going off into lala land. I'm beginning to agree with novice that you are not Greg Schreier. "
- Sorry, I just take my philosophy class too seriously. But you ignore the moral implications of my statement. Christians seem to advocate the absence of pain and evil; evil would cease to exist if we all as humans ceased to exist. But that certainly is a flawed standard. And the only thing I haven't done in proving my identity is give you my social security number.

"Oh, we comprehend it, we just disagree with it. Since there were no protests about the Nazi holocaust on the Jews, what does that say about the citizens of Germany during that time? Now, what if our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests? Would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?"
- What can I say, I'm an idealist. But a history book, being unbiased, would do neither. My history book neither condemns or praises abolitionists or slaveholders- as well it should. It serves only the purpose of reporting facts. What is your obsession with textbooks? Furthermore, you'll notice no citizens tried to logically persuade the Nazis that they were incorrect either. So you can't say that my proposed method failed.s

"You were free to walk up to them and discuss the issue with them."
- You are correct, I can't disagree with that. But their methods were so inflammatory that they lost credibility on face, and I don't debate with cretins. At least not when I am angry.

"Yeah right. You're the only teenager in America who just hates watching those bloody horror movies. Yeah, I'll believe that when Hell freezes over."
- Please, I spend my evenings watching Nick at Nite. I find Hollywood to be unintelligent and equally inflammatory. However, you AGAIN compare apples and oranges. Hollywood is fake. Furthermore, I again CHOOSE to view these films. I was not given said option with the protests.

"So you think our tactics are ineffective. Big deal. We disagree. We think they are effective."
- That's grand. On what backing? I've shown you how inflammatory and counterproductive they are. Keep using the tactics, and keep turning America's youth against you. Because I assure you that's all that happened at Columbine.

"Wrong:

I Corinthians 6:2-5 - Don't you know the saints will judge the world?

Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the Judgment with this generation and shall condemn it.

Daniel 7:21,22 I watched, and that horn made war with the saints and overcame then until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them."
- The self-righteousness is cute. I'm still waiting for my maker to evaluate my conduct here on earth.

"They were in my text books. And I guarantee you, they are in the Columbine library. "
- Well if you like, you may finger through my textbook. Because I have yet to see them. Even still, I'm still given choice.

"And you are free to look away from our pictures. What's the difference?"
- The posters are in every direction. The north, south, east, and west corners. Of the only exit to my school. I must turn out onto pierce, and they are on every corner. The posters are larger than the individual holding them; how does one "ignore" that?

"Oh please. Stop being so melodramatic. No one put a gun to your head and "forced" you to "stare" at the photographs like in the movie "A Clockwork Orange." All you had to do was turn your head and look the other way. It's simple. "
- I could look the other way, right at another poster. If you weren't there, I fail to see how you could say my assessment is incorrect.

"I wasn't there. But I doubt they blocked anyone's view of oncoming traffic. But if they did, you could have simply informed them that they were a traffic hazard. All they needed to do was to simply move a mere 5 feet down the side of the road. Another simple solution. "
- You're right. Next time I'll either A.) tell them to kindly move or B.) run them over.

"Burning?" So you're a book burner? You're in favor of censorship? "
- Oy vey, not this tripe again. Don't take the point literally. I was simply pointing out how bothersome the whole bloody thing was.

"I must say, you do sound very different than the Greg Schreier on Bob's show the other night. Let me ask you novice's question: The Greg Schreier on Bob's show was in favor of the war. You seem to be against it. Which is it?"
- I'm in favor of ousting a tyrant who kills his own people; I disagree with the motives of the sometimes ethnocentric American people. Bush wants oil. We all know this. Not to mention the fact that I am bothered that we drop propaganda over Iraq on a daily basis. Here's my idealism again... I'd like to see an unbiased, global agent do the dirty work in Iraq. But if America must be the agent to oust this tyrant, then so be it.
It's also quite simple for me to sound different on the internet when I have time to plan my arguments, and when I am not limited in my speaking time.
Good day.
~Greg Schreier

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 12:07 AM

"No, I asked a question to which no one has yet been able to answer. Here is the question: If our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests, would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?"

Since you are so anxious for an answer, here is the clearest I can give. A history book, being an agent that presents FACTS, would merely explain that people protested the Nazi effort (or at least ideally SHOULD do that). It would leave the independent judgment to the individual. My history book does not seem to coerce me into believing a particular thing. I condemn the protestors because of their coercive nature. Because, unlike the textbook, they do not merely present the facts, but they present a coercive standpoint. That is the reason many of us stand in such staunch opposition to the protestors, and have no issues with our textbooks.

knightfall

March 20th, 2003, 12:24 AM

Hello, a little about me:

I am a:

Columbine senior
Friend of those on the show
Atheist
Moral Relativist
Pro-lifer

Let me try and clarify a few things that have become extremely muddled in this argument:

First my take on the whole sign thing. I tried to turn left out of my parking lot on the day in question and was obstructed by a large sign of an aborted fetus. whether or not it was a fetus, whether or not it was intentional, and whether or not asking them to leave made a lick of difference, those protestors both endangered my life and broke laws doing it.

If they didn't block the road, they didn't offend me. That is something (abortions) that happens in real life, many, many times daily. I don't shy away pictures of reality regardless of the subject matter, but these signs are designed for people who do, which is my very problem. These pro-lifers make their argument not through direct logical argument, but rather by building EMOTIONAL feelings of disgust and even hatred for those who do have abortions.

Heres the thing: IT WORKS. Or i should say, for most people, for a short time. Will those kids leave the scene disgusted of dead babies? Absolutely. But when the girls are faced with the real-life situation of unwanted pregnancy, that picture will not prevent them from doing anything. What might actually prevent them is deep ethical conversation where the causes and effects of abortion can be played out. This is why this site is beneficial; it opens the door to logic, something a sign cannot do. "dead babies are gross" is not a logical argument.

A word or two about moral relativism:

Morals are derived from goals, i.e. "what is most beneificial to me in the long run". For most here, that is obedience to God's will. Now God's will is absolute, as is an afterlife in heaven. In a world where everyone's ultimate destiny is not attached to his goals but to God's, morals are absolute.

However: Moral relativism comes in to play when one recognizes that a person's goals can be both legitimate and different from another's at the same time. Under Xianty, goals are wrong if God doesn't like them. If you want to discuss right and wrong here, you must decide whether your goals lie in God's heaven or in your own hands, here and now on earth.

So to clarify my abortive decision:

I choose life because it would be a shirking my own responsibilites; something that won't lead to my happiness. Will it lead to another's happiness or salvation? I don't know. I determine it immoral (for me) to try and tell other people what is right and what is wrong for them. Other people's actions say nothing about who i am and what i stand for. Let them decide, i'm taking the moral high-ground alone if i have to.

Thanks

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 12:25 AM

I'm sorry, I thought I was done, but then I saw this and became enraged. I must defend my fellow community members.

"But some of the kids at Columbine do murder their own children."

- I will not tolerate the slander of my school and community, which is full of many individuals who consciously do good for others and for their community. They do so not expecting reward, and WITHOUT a sense of self-righteousness. They do so not fearing punishment, but out of the goodness of their heart. Two students made a poor choice (these two students could have been ANY two students at ANY high school). To blame Columbine for all the world's woes as is continually done is nauseating. Two individuals made poor choices, but that does not obliterate the selflessness and charity of many young adults. Why must you keep pointing out the fact that they killed people? We know already. It was four years ago. Drop it. This does NOT make the Columbine community one of savages and heathens. We are not animals without any common sense. We are capable of the judgment to not do harm to our fellow humans, and 99.99% of us exercise this judgment. They do so without condemning their fellow individuals; they act for the betterment of humankind. Many of these young adults act without expectation of ultimate rewards, but with a true sense of human decency. Granted, not all at Columbine act in a prudent or selfless manner all the time. Such is the nature of human imperfection. But to continually insinuate that the students at Columbine are heinous murderers without regard for human life is disgusting and absurd. Perhaps you could take a cue from some of my fellow students, and stop worrying about the ultimate reward in heaven that you believe you are entitled to, the judgments that you are entitled to make, and step back and evaluate the concept of human decency. I assure you that no advancements will be made in society with slanderous statements such as this one.
:mad:

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 12:28 AM

"If they didn't block the road, they didn't offend me. That is something (abortions) that happen in real life, many, many times daily. I don't shy away pictures of reality, no matter what the subject matter. BUT, these signs are designed for people who do., which is my very problem. These pro-lifers make their argument not through direct logical argument, but rather by attempting to build EMOTIONAL feelings of disgust and even hatred for those who do have abortions."

Well said Knightfall. This is my problem; the intent of these protests is nowhere near logical, but simply aims to disgust, anger, and evoke other emotions unnecessarily. Also, thank you for explaining moral relativism. If it wasn't clear, my moral standpoint is very similar to knightfall's here. I am very much against absolutism of any kind.

Zakath

March 20th, 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Turbo
Even though you claim there is no absolute morality, surely you recognize by now that Knight does. And I feel that it's incumbent on Knight, even if he is TOL's owner, to support his statements when they contradict common usage.

I find it disingenuous when religionists create new meanings for words in common usage and then jump on non-religionists for using the words in their standard meaning. If his case is so strong, why does Knight need to re-define words so they mean the opposite of their current meanings, unless he's seeking to obsfuscate things.

I wonder if you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder. Perhaps you'd also argue that because the unborn are not defined as human by current US laws, abortion cannot be called murder. And since Jews were not humans according to the laws of Nazi Germany, no Jews were murdered.That illustration demonstrates the non-absolute nature of legal terms. Whether or not you agree morally with the actions in the camps (and let's be clear, I believe the killing of civilians in the camps was a terrible crime) the actions were seen as legal by the German government and illegal by their enemies. The enemies won the war, and the senior German officials were prosecuted for war crimes. If the Germans had won the war, history (written by the winning side) might describe the scenes very differently. It is not absolute. The legality was dependent on which side you see it from.

A Jew is a human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human. Would you agree, Zakath? Two points:

1. While that is quite a piece of hyperbole, I would concur with your statement since I maintain my own personal moral code. Such a pronouncement violates my individual ethical and moral code.

2. You appear to be confusing the difference between the terms "legal" and "real" or "true". There may not be any relationship between observable, empircally verifiable truth and a specific law. This kind of thinking is common with those who appeal to some allegedly absolute standard of behavior as "correct". For those people there are laws that cannot be changed. For the rest of us, all laws can be changed and we have to deal with it.

The greatest problem with your illustration is that it is commonly used by anti-abortionists to describe the current situation in the US regarding the rights of unborn children.

I would ask you two questions, as a religionist:

a. Do your religious views (laws, rules, ordinances, whatever term you care to use) allow for intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?

b. Do those religious views require intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?

Waiting your reply.

Jefferson

March 20th, 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by rasputen
"Is it absolutely wrong for a man to violently rape a woman?"
I don't advocate unwarranted aggression.Is that a "YES" or a "NO"?

So how about you stop being so self-righteous and leave the judging to your creator?Because God commands me to judge.

Two teenagers armed with semi-automatics in a high school is comparable to an abortion clinic?Yes, except the Columbine teenagers who abort their own babies are worse. People who are shot with semi-automatics usually die instantly. The baby, however, is often tortured to death as his arms and legs are ripped from his body or via being burned to death with a salt or saline solution.

They don't want to be a murderer, and hence don't purchase guns.No, they just hire paid assassins who work in abortion clinics to do their dirty work for them.

Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh are IRRELEVANT. Just like Klebold and Harris.How are they irrelevant? They are murderers. So are people who abort their own babies. What's the difference?

Intentionally doing mental and emotional harm to innocent students is NOT expressing your opinion, good sir."Innocent?" Students who murder their own babies are not "innocent." They are guilty of murder and should be legally executed by the government.

Explain to me, intelligently, why abortion is absolutely immoral (something the protestors again fail to do).Let me see where you are coming from. Do you think it was absolutely immoral for people to own black slaves? Also, do you think it was absolutely immoral for the Nazis to murder 6 million Jews?

My history book neither condemns or praises abolitionists or slaveholders- as well it should. It serves only the purpose of reporting facts.Would people today praise or criticize German citizens who displayed graphic photographs of the holocaust? Which one?

However, you AGAIN compare apples and oranges. Hollywood is fake.So you are saying you believe the photographs were not faked?

Furthermore, I again CHOOSE to view these films. I was not given said option with the protests.Just as you can change a channel on your television, you can look away from the photographs. There is no difference. As you are channel surfing you come across a gruesome scene. Although you can quickly change the channel, it's too late. That gruesome scene is stuck in your mind. So what's the difference?

"So you think our tactics are ineffective. Big deal. We disagree. We think they are effective."
- That's grand. On what backing?
http://www.abortionno.com/AbortionNO/web_response.html

- The self-righteousness is cute. I'm still waiting for my maker to evaluate my conduct here on earth.Those verses say that you will either repent and become a Christian and judge with me or you will be judged by me.

"The posters are in every direction. The north, south, east, and west corners. Of the only exit to my school. I must turn out onto pierce, and they are on every corner. The posters are larger than the individual holding them; how does one "ignore" that?Makes it pretty difficult. Good. There will be no child killing with tranquility on our watch.

Next time I'll either A.) tell them to kindly move or B.) run them over.Run over them? I thought you were pro-life.

Jefferson

March 20th, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by knightfall
These pro-lifers make their argument not through direct logical argument, but rather by building EMOTIONAL feelings of disgust and even hatred for those who do have abortions.Good. Mission accomplished.

Heres the thing: IT WORKS. Or i should say, for most people, for a short time. Will those kids leave the scene disgusted of dead babies? Absolutely.Thank you. Please inform rasputen of this.

"dead babies are gross" is not a logical argument.But pictures of dead babies show the incredible pain the babies go through as they are being murdered. It also shows the immorality and out right evil of their mothers and boyfriends who pay for the murders.

I determine it immoral (for me) to try and tell other people what is right and what is wrong for them. Other people's actions say nothing about who i am and what i stand for. Let them decide, i'm taking the moral high-ground alone if i have to.You're right. As an atheist you don't know right from wrong. Therefore you are right to refrain from judging. Keep sitting on the sidelines and leave the judging to the Christians. You're doing the right thing knightfall.

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 03:33 PM

Jefferson, I really cannot argue with your logic anymore. Or lack thereof, I should say. You are simply convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You fail to address the fallacies of moral relativism, while I believe I've provided sufficient evidence as to why, at the very least, moral relativism is logically sound. Furthermore, you do not address cultural differences that play a big part in moral relativism.

"Thank you. Please inform rasputen of this."
- I never said I wasn't disgusted. I, and many people are. But you STILL fail to address the effectiveness, and you seem to think that promoting hostility that you are doing a good deed.

"You're right. As an atheist you don't know right from wrong. Therefore you are right to refrain from judging. Keep sitting on the sidelines and leave the judging to the Christians. You're doing the right thing knightfall."
- Just because he does not believe in a religious deity he isn't capable of moral decision making? Please tell me you aren't that naive in your beliefs. You seem like one of the ignoramuses who would have fought in the crusades. Are you saying that murdering alleged "heathens" is consistent with the Bible? Methinks not.

Furthermore, you keep insinuating that people at Columbine High School murder their babies. What evidence do you have that abortions have come out of Columbine??? WHAT???? You have no exposure to the area, and you consistently make assumptions about the area. Well, allow me to inform you. The pregnancy rate at that school is unbelievably low. Furthermore, the vast majority of the very few who do get pregnant actually have their babies (a girl I know of recently gave birth, as a matter of fact). So you are preaching to the converted, and furthermore only making them hostile to your message.

"Is that a "YES" or a "NO"? "
In that circumstance, it is morally reprehensible. However, you ignore the fact that when a man steals to feed his family it is not necessarily immoral, and hence absolutism fails. Thanks for addressing that. :rolleyes:

"Because God commands me to judge."
- I think you have disgustingly misconstrued the words of the Bible, good sir. I didn't go through nine years of Catholic schooling to believe that my religious superiority entitled me to judge others. Your only mission, as a good Christian, ought to be to expose others to the word of God, and allow them to accept Christ into their hearts. From what I understand, the Christian God loves all of his creations equally. We are all his sheep, and he only wishes that we as sheep do not stray from the herd. If a sheep leaves the herd, the shepherd does not cast judgment upon the sheep and shun him for his poor decision. Rather, he accepts him back into the herd with open arms. My friend, your cold-hearted judgment will do nothing to pull anyone towards the open arms of God. Again, your perceived superiority is mere naivity and foolishness.

"How are they irrelevant? They are murderers. So are people who abort their own babies. What's the difference?"
- CIRCUMSTANCES. That was my entire point.

""Innocent?" Students who murder their own babies are not "innocent." They are guilty of murder and should be legally executed by the government. "
- Again, you incorrectly assume that students at Columbine who become pregnant have abortions. You are full of misinformation, and I suggest you get your facts straight. Furthermore, isn't all life valued by God, even the lives of sinners? You aren't even an absolutist yourself if you believe there are circumstances when it is moral to kill someone. "Thou shall not kill," ought to be an absolute standard according to Christian doctrine. If you admit that circumstances can allow it, then your entire argument here falls and you must agree with relativism.

"Let me see where you are coming from. Do you think it was absolutely immoral for people to own black slaves? Also, do you think it was absolutely immoral for the Nazis to murder 6 million Jews?"
- You really don't understand relativism, do you? In my mind, it was immoral. In the minds of many, it was immoral. But they justified it in their own minds. It allowed them to pursue the goals they wished and hence in their own minds was moral. Thus, different standards of morality. If people disagree, then the option is simple: don't conform to that standard. Such is the case with abortion. Those who don't believe it is moral (like myself and knightfall) simply will not have abortions or allow them in our personal lives.

"Would people today praise or criticize German citizens who displayed graphic photographs of the holocaust? Which one? "
- Depends on who you talk to. As long as it wasn't mindless propaganda, and only distributed undistorted facts, I would praise them. I praise anything that is a.) factual and b.) made public knowledge. A Neo-Nazi would want them hanged. A Jew would certainly praise them whether what they were distributing as facts were truly facts or not. (Ex.: If they were to distort numbers and say 20 million Jews were killed instead of the actual 6, I would condemn them for being untruthful, and being a detriment to the marketplace. Just as your assumption that all Columbine affiliates are pro-choice murderers is a detriment to the marketplace of ideas.)

"Just as you can change a channel on your television, you can look away from the photographs. There is no difference. As you are channel surfing you come across a gruesome scene. Although you can quickly change the channel, it's too late. That gruesome scene is stuck in your mind. So what's the difference? "
- Ok, I will try and explain this to you once more. I must look both ways to make a left turn. Whaddya know, the posters are in every direction! I have no alternative. I've spoken with these protestors, and their GOAL is to FORCE us to look at those pictures. THEY ADVOCATE FORCE. They take advantage of the circumstances to force us. The history channel at least posts tv listings that I may check in the event I wish to avoid a special on the Holocaust. Finally, the history channel is unbiased. It exposes the facts of our past, without trying to sway my opinion. The protestors are trying to do far more than that.

"Makes it pretty difficult. Good. There will be no child killing with tranquility on our watch."
- *Sigh*. Alright. First of all, you violate my right to make my own moral decision when one is forced upon me in such a manner. Furthermore, what tranquillity??? Do you have any idea what sort of hostility you spawned??? Pro-life and pro-choice people alike find this protesting despicable because it denies us the right to make our own moral judgments, condemns us if we disagree, and is simply blatantly illogical.

"Run over them? I thought you were pro-life."
- Thus is the beauty of relativism. I could justify it in my own mind in certain circumstances. Besides, I'd be certain merely to cripple them from the neck down. They'd still be alive. :rolleyes:
Not to mention that pro-life merely applies to the abortion issue. If it applied to more, I'm certain you would not be in favor of the death penalty.
Good day.

Jefferson

March 20th, 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by rasputen
"But some of the kids at Columbine do murder their own children."

- I will not tolerate the slander of my school and communitySlander is a false statement. Do you deny that some of the kids at Columbine murder their own children?

We are capable of the judgment to not do harm to our fellow humans, and 99.99% of us exercise this judgment.If you think only 00.01% of Columbine students have abortions and/or pay for them, you are not living in reality.

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 03:48 PM

"If you think only 00.01% of Columbine students have abortions and/or pay for them, you are not living in reality."

- If you think you know anything about a community you have absolutely no interaction with, you are living a lie. Present me with statistics instead of your broad assumption that every community is full of heathens who murder their babies. Columbine is (sadly, I might add) an extremely conservative, Republican community. The vast majority of students and community members alike do NOT favor abortion. And an even fewer number actually even get pregnant, and a smaller number still have abortions. You paint with a very broad brush, assuming that no one can live up to your standards of righteousness. You may be right, maybe I nor anyone else is capable of your standards of righteousness. But quite honestly, good sir, I don't think I would want to.

Knight

March 20th, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by rasputen
"If you think only 00.01% of Columbine students have abortions and/or pay for them, you are not living in reality."

- If you think you know anything about a community you have absolutely no interaction with, you are living a lie. Present me with statistics instead of your broad assumption that every community is full of heathens who murder their babies. Columbine is (sadly, I might add) an extremely conservative, Republican community. The vast majority of students and community members alike do NOT favor abortion. And an even fewer number actually even get pregnant, and a smaller number still have abortions. You paint with a very broad brush, assuming that no one can live up to your standards of righteousness. You may be right, maybe I nor anyone else is capable of your standards of righteousness. But quite honestly, good sir, I don't think I would want to. Rasputen are you really that naive? Or do you really know nothing about the school you claim to attend?

My guess is....
I myself know as much (if not more) about Columbine High School and the Littleton CO area than you do.

My wife was a Columbine Rebel and I attended nearby Lakewood High School and I have DOZENS of friends and associates that attended - and still do attend - Columbine High School.

Columbine High, is no different than most Denver area suburban high schools in that it has a tragic amount of young woman that have had abortions. And Columbine is certainly not immune from the problem of teen pregnancy.

Columbine High School is FAR from a Republican conservative community as you claim.

You are quickly losing your credibility as someone who has reliable information on this topic. Or at very least you are distorting the information in an attempt to make a point. Either way you are disseminating erroneous information.

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 05:18 PM

Well Knight, it seems we just aren't seeing the same things. I honestly and truthfully do not see many people getting pregnant at my school. And I don't know of many that have abortions. How could you say its not conservative? Honestly, I'm generally a liberal, and these people are so conservative they make me look like I walk through St. Petersburg wearing red. If they aren't conservative, I'd like to know what the bloody heck they are.

rasputen

March 20th, 2003, 05:27 PM

"You are quickly losing your credibility as someone who has reliable information on this topic. Or at very least you are distorting the information in an attempt to make a point. Either way you are disseminating erroneous information."

- I'm giving what knowledge I have of the topic. And I don't know of many of my schoolmates becoming impregnated, and I really don't know of many who have abortions. And since you aren't a student there, and from what I can tell are not part of the community, I fail to see how your information can be any more credible than mine. I'm sure there is a girl here and there who gets knocked up and chooses abortion. I won't pretend there isn't. I know that students participate in unprotected sex all too often, just like any other community. No doubt about that. But I know a pretty good percentage of students, and I'm a pretty involved student and I know what's going on. There is really no evidence to directly prove that the community is as murderous as you think it to be. I also find it funny that you all are so skeptical that I am Greg Schreier. What benefit would anyone have by falsifying a claim? Finally, it is HILARIOUS that you attempt to diminish my credibility, when there are very few people here who have NOT decimated their credibility on face. Jefferson has made some very erroneous claims, but for some reason you do not feel the need to point them out. I suppose you are seated at the right hand of God along with him, poised to judge me now too? :rolleyes:

knightfall

March 20th, 2003, 06:27 PM

A couple of points on Jefferson's method of argument:

First, it seems Jefferson has missed the meaning of several of my points, or he felt they were sound and "edited" my words to make them support his side. I said that the pictures of babies work for a short time BUT they dont work in the longer term and don't work when it matters (in the abortion clinic). Jefferson did not respond to this fact, he simply took me out of context. (something I've noticed him doing in other posts, he seems to strive for one-liners and humorous attacks without addressing the issues)

I also argued that the only legitimate method for pursuasion is through logic. Jefferson did not argue that this was untrue, instead he only implied that he likes the fact that people hate abortionists. Why are scare tactics better than the use of logic?That is the question I was getting at, please address it.

I did find two things here I want to address though. The first is the standpoint that those pictures show immorality and evil the nature of abortionists. While the pictures clearly show babies in pain, they do not show the causality of the situation. That fetus died for a reason, and we ought to look at all the full causes and effects of that death. Instead, we are presented with a 'sound-bite' of pain with no real explanation. That picture does not directly link the mothers and boyfriends you speak of to the action of abortion; it is not a flow chart. For many, that picture is only saying "look what exists", and the response is merely "yes, I knew that".

The second thing Jefferson attacks is my ability to act morally, and he then makes a rather large presumption about other religions. He says I am unable to make moral judgements because of my atheism. This is untrue, I just have different standard of morality than him. My standard is based on logic and worldly evidence rather than spirituality and faith. If Jefferson wants to pursued me, he must tell me why his standard is the better one.

In addition, Jefferson says that moral judgements should only be left to the Xians. First, I want us to imagine a world where any non-Xians (the majority of the earth) gave up trying to act morally. Second, Jefferson should clarify which version of Xianity (out of the dozens of denominations) should make moral judgements, because that reduces the moral people in the world by much more. He should hurry: he might get murdered by one of those billions who cannot act morally.

One more thing to clarify my moral position:
I do in fact believe in moral absolutes, but they vary from person to person. It is absolutely immoral for me to rape, but can I speak for everyone else on earth in every situation that they may stumble acrost? Well, I'm not God. (Which some of you seem to think you are)

Also, I'd like to ask people not to bother using the quotes if they use them to cut the meaning out of my words. I'd much rather not be responded to then misrepresented.

Thanks

Jefferson

March 21st, 2003, 12:26 AM

rasputen:

If you saw a child in the middle of a road with a car approaching, I'm sure you would sprint as fast as you could toward that child. If I was unaware of the situation and happened to be in your way you would have the right (even the moral obligation) to bowl me over (read: "offend" me) in order to get to that child as quickly as possible. Don't you agree?

rasputen

March 21st, 2003, 11:00 AM

I'd be more enticed to respond if that question had a point. I don't have the "right" to do physical harm to you, regardless of the situation, but because the benefits would outweigh the harms in that particular situation, my lack of prudence would at least be justified. Don't confuse "rights" (which are either ineherent, or natural, or they are civil, granted by the government) with "justifications." God does not grant me the "right" to bowl over you, and nor does the government. But I could easily avoid punishment (assuming I didn't right piss you off) because of the benefits of my actions.
MORAL: Different circumstances bring about different consequences and different implications.

rasputen

March 21st, 2003, 11:08 AM

KNIGHT:

I did some thinking about your inquiry regarding the Columbine community, and also conversed with my dad a bit. To begin, how could you say an upper-middle class, white, suburban community is not conservative? At least in comparison to poorer, urban neighborhoods that are most definitely liberal and in opposition to them. Inner city neighborhoods and lower-middle class neighborhoods will tend to be liberal as they favor many social programs, typically are anti-death penalty, and typically are pro-choice (as it is a solution to the overwhelming pregnancy rates in the inner city). ANY suburban community would be, at the most, moderate. There is no conceivable way, however, that they could be all that liberal (well, perhaps in relation to all of you here, but I swear some of you could make George Bush look like a commy walking through St. Petersberg wearing red). Good sir, I live a block away from Alameda High School (yes, I go to Columbine... long story), and if you want to talk about a liberal community with issues... that's your place. I hear all too often of pregnancy, rape, and similar afflictions at a school I don't even attend! You should be at many of the inner city schools, the poorer urban and suburban schools, if you really want to nip the issue in the bud. There is no denying that they will be far more liberal and pro-choice than Columbine and many of the surrounding areas. :nono:

Jefferson

March 21st, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by rasputen
I'd be more enticed to respond if that question had a point. I don't have the "right" to do physical harm to you, regardless of the situation, but because the benefits would outweigh the harms in that particular situation, my lack of prudence would at least be justified.So would you knock me over in an attempt to save the life of that child or not? Yes, or no? What is your answer?

Turbo

March 21st, 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Zakath
And I feel that it's incumbent on Knight, even if he is TOL's owner, to support his statements when they contradict common usage.But they don’t. Unlawful commonly means immoral, according to dictionaries.
Even if you take unlawful to mean “against the law,” “law” is commonly used to refer to the Old Testament commandments, according to Webster’s.

murder n. 1. The crime of unlawfully killing a human being, esp. With malice aforethought...

crime n. An offense committed against the law.

unlawful adj. 1. Against the law. 2. Immoral. 3. Illegitimate.

law n. ... 3. The body of precepts that express the divine will as set forth in the Old Testament.

Webster's II New Riverside Desk Dictionary, Copyright 1988 Houghton Mufflin Company, First Longmeadow Press Edition 1995.

So Knight is within the realm of common usage when he uses murder to mean “the immoral killing of a human being” or “killing a human being in a way that is an offense committed against the will of God as set forth in the Old Testament.”

Do you now see that the current range of meanings of “unlawful” does include “immoral?” If you didn’t know before, that’s ok. Everyone makes mistakes. But if you maintain your original stance, it would be hypocritical.
Originally posted by Turbo
I wonder if you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder... Originally posted by Zakath
That illustration demonstrates the non-absolute nature of legal terms. Whether or not you agree morally with the actions in the camps (and let's be clear, I believe the killing of civilians in the camps was a terrible crime) the actions were seen as legal by the German government and illegal by their enemies. The enemies won the war, and the senior German officials were prosecuted for war crimes. If the Germans had won the war, history (written by the winning side) might describe the scenes very differently. It is not absolute. The legality was dependent on which side you see it from.So, I’ll ask you directly: Do you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder?

You state that you believe it was “a terrible crime.” What is that terrible crime called? When you say crime, it is obvious by the context that you do not mean it was “an offense committed against the law” of Germany at that time. If it were Knight who had called the legalized slaughter of Jews or unborn babies a terrible crime, you could have called that “religionist newspeak” saying that something that is legal cannot be criminal.

The only difference between Knight’s statement and yours is that he identified the crime by its name.
Two points:

1. While that is quite a piece of hyperbole, I would concur with your statement since I maintain my own personal moral code. Such a pronouncement violates my individual ethical and moral code.

2. You appear to be confusing the difference between the terms "legal" and "real" or "true". There may not be any relationship between observable, empircally verifiable truth and a specific law. This kind of thinking is common with those who appeal to some allegedly absolute standard of behavior as "correct". For those people there are laws that cannot be changed. For the rest of us, all laws can be changed and we have to deal with it.I know that there is a difference between “legal” and “real/true” but I’m trying to find out if you do. In your second point it sounds like you do, but on your first point you state that whether Jews are human is an individual’s moral choice. That’s like saying that whether a canary is an bird is an individual’s moral choice. One’s moral code is irrelevant.

Regardless of your opinions and moral beliefs, were Jews human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human?
The greatest problem with your illustration is that it is commonly used by anti-abortionists to describe the current situation in the US regarding the rights of unborn children.Yes it is a problem for those who advocate child-killing. But it’s good that you at least recognize that the unborn are children.
I would ask you two questions, as a religionist:

a. Do your religious views (laws, rules, ordinances, whatever term you care to use) allow for intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?

b. Do those religious views require intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?a. No.

b. No.

Zakath

March 22nd, 2003, 07:25 AM

Turbo,

Thank you for your response. Since Knight seems to have retired from the field after his last fusillade in my direction, you are left holding the ball, as it were. Your previous post appears to have dealt with three main issues in your post: a) using definitions of words during discussions, b) legality vs. objective reality, c) your personal response to violations of Biblical "Law", I will deal with those issues in order here.

Definitions of words during discussions
It is imperative to clear communication that we are all consistent in our word usage. You took issue with my post calling Knight on his apparent obfuscation and use of newspeak. You then attempt to drag in ancient Jewish law from the Tanakh as an example of "law". First, please remember that I am an atheist and that I, along with 4/5ths of the world's population, do not automatically associate the word "legal" with ancient Jewish Law. Also be aware that there is good reason that Knight and his ilk avoid Biblical references during these discussions. If you wish to explore the inhumanity of biblical Law (according to your dictionary this commonly carries a capital "L"), we can do so, but I will warn you that a detailed discussion of Jewish history and Law will serve to weaken and possibly even invalidate your other points.

My point, which you have not refuted, is that there is, by definition, no such thing as legal murder. There are terms for such behavior which do not carry the appellative "legal": assassination and killing are two examples. These things can be either legal or illegal; you have failed to demonstrate that murder can be legal. Attempting to divert the focus to moral or ethical grounds does not change the legal status of the term "murder".

Legality vs. objective reality
There numbers of actions permitted by law in different countries in the world which you and I would probably view with similar moral repugnance. Genital mutilation of women as practiced in some African countries, mutilation for theft, execution for sexual acts outside of marriage, genocide practiced by some African regimes to name a few. While these things are "legal" within the bounds of the countries that practice them, to those outside they are generally viewed as wrong. These acts are seen as wrong because the outsiders apply a different moral and ethical code than those inside those countries.

Your example rests on the alleged declaration of Jews as non-human during the Nazi regime. While it provides a powerfully emotional argument, I would suggest that you see if you can provide any actual proof that such a law or ordinance was ever enacted by the regime. Jews were stripped of property rights and other civil rights but you know as well as I that what is practiced by "believers" and what is actually legal is sometimes widely variant. I am not supporting actions that occurred under the regime, I merely am questioning the truth of a bit of popular folklore that has crept into arguments over the decades since the tragedies in Europe have occurred.

That said, we'll proceed with your argument from a hypothetical viewpoint. You asked: were Jews human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human? My short answer was, and is "yes." This is based on my understanding that the state of "humanity" is not a legal status but a biological one. Based on my current understanding of biology, I hold the position that any living organism possessing the requisite chromosomes is a "human". Biological definitions are much clearer in this case than legal ones.

There are many historical examples of conflicts between "fact" and church Law. You may be aware that the Christian church, during the Middle Ages declared, as a matter of doctrine, that our solar system was not heliocentric. Religious laws did not change the observable fact that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way round. That is the kind of thing I was indicating. As Galileo allegedly said after his "trial" by Church officials for heretical teachings, "It (the earth) still moves."

Your response to my questions about religious Law and your actions.
I asked two questions about your religious Laws specifically targeting "the innocent". I used that term to avoid parsing the questions based solely on age of the victim. For purposes of the original questions, age is irrelevant.

You replied that your religious views (without defining whether you were referring to Laws, rules, or ordinances – the definition is important to some proponents of religion) do not allow for or require intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent.

Since you answered in the negative, it would appear that you place some other law, rule, or ordinance above the protection of innocents by whatever means are available. Let's put this in specific perspective, the target of much discussion on this thread: abortion.

Regarding abortion then, is it correct to say that you place some other law, rule, or ordinance above the protection of unborn human beings ("innocents" by most definitions) by whatever means are available. In other words due to some law, rule, or ordinance you are willing to stand by and permit abortionists kill human beings by the hundreds of thousands without intervening?

It would appear that all the redefinition that Knight and his ilk are so fond of does not change the passivity of those who claim to believe that what Knight would describe as "legal murder" is being committed in their communities on a daily basis. All this horror goes on and they stand by passively with some occasional picketing and hand wringing while the slaughter continues.

Could you please explain how such beh