Answering old threads thread

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
All this not not wot not is getting me giddy.
There's a cure for that although it requires basic reading level comprehension and a semblance of intelligence/honesty. Baby steps for you mayhap before you reach the dizzying heights of those. Anyhoo, exchanges with you have gotten beyond even gotten beyond boring now so you have the juvenile 'last word' and whatnot and feel free not to engage me in any further threads!
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Can a rapist reform? I think so. Even if JR Ewing never gets justice for his raping, he can still reform himself. He can acknowledge his rights violations as the serious felonious crimes that they are, repent, and stop being a rapist. I don't believe 'once a rapist always a rapist' though of course there's always recidivism risk with anybody and anything.

In the very remote chance that they can be reformed, why, for such a deplorable crime, should they not receive the harshest punishment allowed?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
In the very remote chance that they can be reformed, why, for such a deplorable crime, should they not receive the harshest punishment allowed?
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


Praying that God takes mercy on your black soul
 

Idolater

"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
In the very remote chance that they can be reformed, why, for such a deplorable crime, should they not receive the harshest punishment allowed?
I didn't say they couldn't turn themselves in.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I didn't say they couldn't turn themselves in.

I know you didn’t. I think you have more optimism than I do insofar as a person’s ability to change (when they are this evil) than I do.
 

Idolater

"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."

@Town Heretic argues against abortion rights based there being a preponderance of evidence that we cannot objectively know when on the timeline, between conception on one side and birth on the other, that the baby's right to life comes into being. Since we objectively cannot be sure, combined with it being such a grave evil if we are wrong about it, we are therefore only morally permitted to forbid and outlaw unjustified abortion.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond

@Town Heretic argues against abortion rights based there being a preponderance of evidence that we cannot objectively know when on the timeline, between conception on one side and birth on the other, that the baby's right to life comes into being. Since we objectively cannot be sure, combined with it being such a grave evil if we are wrong about it, we are therefore only morally permitted to forbid and outlaw unjustified abortion.
We can be objectively sure that at conception a new life is created. A new genetically unique human life. The first stage of development that leads through embryo fetus newborn child teen young adult middle-aged adult elderly extreme elderly. At no point in that arc of development does it cease being a human life, deserving of respect and dignity. The only "grave evil" at play is the denial of humanity to the vulnerable innocent.
 

Derf

Well-known member
We can be objectively sure that at conception a new life is created. A new genetically unique human life. The first stage of development that leads through embryo fetus newborn child teen young adult middle-aged adult elderly extreme elderly. At no point in that arc of development does it cease being a human life, deserving of respect and dignity. The only "grave evil" at play is the denial of humanity to the vulnerable innocent.
If human, and if alive, then created equal and has right to life.
 
Top