BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
And therein lies the difference between those who have a moral compass and those who do not.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?
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
Zakath
Resident Atheist
No, the difference would appear to be less a matter of moral orienteering and more about whether you can read a dictionary...
And claiming to be an absolutist sets you free to make up any definitions for words you wish? I don't think so.
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?
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?
I only mislead the ignorant. No offense.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
Who is the stooge now?
Oh.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.
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.
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.
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.
Congratulations... that might be the single most ridiculous sentence ever typed at TOL.
Bucky continues....
Please supply us with pictures of abortion that present abortion in a better light.
novice
Who is the stooge now?
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:
Now where else have we read someone make that idiotic claim?
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Status