The War on PornographyPosted 9 years Ago

Porn:

http://www.youtube.com...
Forums Home > Society

Are White People Human *Posted 9 years Ago

At 10/15/2012 8:02:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/26/2012 11:14:00 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I thought it was just the Jews who were secret demonic-reptiles. Now ALL white people are demonic-reptiles?

That's a tad far-fetched, don't 'cha think?

That's exactly what the Freemasons want you to think...to keep our minds off the Illuminati, man will you be unprepared when the New World Order comes...I'll bet you don't even have a tin foil hat, you fool.


How do you know the Freemasons don't just want you to think that? Maybe they actually want to keep our minds on the Illuminati, because the New World Order is just a diversion! I'll bet you don't even have a banana hammock, you fool.
Forums Home > Society

Logical Argument against AbortionPosted 9 years Ago

At 10/14/2012 5:16:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 10/14/2012 3:35:04 AM, yuiru wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:07:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:15:36 PM, yuiru wrote:
At 10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?
Because sperms and eggs are by definition not even living organisms, therefore making them incapable of being a human beings.

So sperm are dead? I can't WAIT to hear your argument for that. Get my bib I'm about to eat some cake.


Are you stoned to the shizzle or something?

Actually...

Do you think rocks are living? so rocks are dead? Dead applies to things that were once living. You also seem to misunderstand what I said, I said they are not living organisms! That's pretty basic knowledge if you ever took a single biology class, but I must reiterate it for cronies like you. There is a good reason we don't consider leg on its own, a living organism, it doesn't have the properties of a living organism, it is only part of a whole. We also don't really consider a virus a living organism! Just because something is organic, does not make it living. To say a sperm is living, you would have to assume sperms cells have the capacity to reproduce autonomously. Yet they can and do not, sperm is produced from male genitalia , that alone disqualifies them. Alas they also do not experience adaptive qualities or growth, and lack the capacity to take on new nutrients. Simply, sperm cells are not "living" organisms, just like the hair on your body, blood cells, and lipids in you are not living organisms.

But "living organism" doesn't make a world of difference - you act as if it does.
Hold on...
Anyone who uses hand-soap or eats American hamburgers shows that just

Quite frankly, they don't.
because something is a full-fledged part of the club we call the technical "organism," which we admittedly have not even fully defined yet,

Not exactly true, but continue
it doesn't mean it's life has value in and of itself.

Because I was totally saying that? No, I was clarifying the sperm cell is not a living organism after you had provoked me to do that very thing. Anyone can easily argue everything is inherently valueless ad nauseam! So what?
And human DNA doesn't make you a person in and of itself either.

So? Under your definition, it definitely doesn't.
If a human exists that is not in functional-enough shape, e.g., mental or physical handicap, then it's hard to say that parents/society are going to maintain the life of something that only meets the requirement of human DNA, just because it supposedly has a soul.

So, are you saying a human that is not in "functional-enough" is not a person?
A lot of people who could be considered not "functional-enough" are maintained by their parents/society. Why does it matter if they have a soul or not? Why is that relevant?
There has to be some minimum standard of functionality, both physical and psychological, to a human to make it a person.

Okay, what?
Genetics is a field that is second, probably, to no other science than computers in terms of advancement speed. It is not far-fetched to assume that in the relatively near-future, we will be able to produce organisms that fit the human DNA requirements that will not qualify as people! And no doubt there will be a big Christian demonstration against it, for no other reason than that it will prove people like you wrong!

Okay, people like me? Lol, who are people like me exactly? What makes you think Christianity will be as strong as it is now, in the future?
Human organisms aren't what is important - people are.

Why? Non-persons still get moral consideration, is it morally justified to abuse, torture, and kill your pets?
People are human organisms, but human organisms aren't people.

You could also say,
"basketball players are people, but people aren't basketball players"
It serves no purpose, you can define "person" as whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
Is a 'person' that plays basketball, but not a fully functioning basketball player, not a basketball player? Can people become non-people?
That's the nail in the coffin for your argument, unless you introduce the dubious hypothesis of the soul.

Why? What argument? That sperm cells are not living organisms? Are you saying I must prove the hypothesis of the soul (which I never even affirmed, mind you) to show a sperm cell is not a living organism? What are you smoking, and is it perhaps called non-sequitur?
Person: an individual who's complexity grants them the capability of rational thinking, moral action, and a full range of emotional states. The only known entity organized so intricately is a human brain of at the very least several months of maturation.

Lol, under this definition, you haven't even shown yourself to be a person.

This definition does not exclude non-humans, so its not a very sound definition since it says that so far humans are only capable of fitting it.
There are non-humans animals that are capable of thinking rationally, and they also have moral action and a full range of emotional states. http://www.gmanetwork.com...
And not all humans possess these abilities either (yes, humans at-least several months of maturation)
Does one cease to be a person when they lose any of the abilities?

Personhood is as about as solid as the belief in souls, you can not objectively argue the subjective.
Why establish our rights upon the the shifting sands of philosophical personhood and not the reliable and solid foundation of scientific humanity?

I will defend this definition and the relevance of personhood on moral matters to anyone. Your arguments cannot withstand my assault because the only workable measure of a person is complexity, and complexity requires time and effort. That's the problem with the soul; it is metaphysical nonsense. You are not suddenly endowed with a soul at the moment of conception, you are meticulously created piece by piece through pregnancy and don't emerge as anything significant until you EARN life by being born.

You have problems with the soul, but obviously no problem with any other pseudo-scientific and "metaphysical" non-sense. Humans are not "meticulously created piece by piece" like toys in a factory, they grow! People also do not earn life. What kind of gross system is that? You have to earn life? Should you have to earn your rights too?
You haven't offered any "assault" either, just unjustified assumptions.
Forums Home > Society

Logical Argument against AbortionPosted 9 years Ago

At 10/14/2012 3:13:56 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
D. i.A person born without arms and legs is still human.
ii.A person who cannot speak is still human.
iii.A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.


This is false, and somewhat dishonest. A person is one who has personality, not reliant on any one specific person genetically, and Self-Aware.

Then that would include other species of animal as "persons" since they have self-awareness and personality.
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...

It would additionally exclude newborns and young children, since they are not self aware.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

These young "persons" have never been in the opposite at one time before, so why is it they are persons? Why is it we don't call dolphins people? They posses self-awareness and personality, they are in fact very intelligent too.

What is it really that makes someone a person?
Forums Home > Society

Logical Argument against AbortionPosted 9 years Ago

At 10/13/2012 10:07:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:15:36 PM, yuiru wrote:
At 10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?
Because sperms and eggs are by definition not even living organisms, therefore making them incapable of being a human beings.

So sperm are dead? I can't WAIT to hear your argument for that. Get my bib I'm about to eat some cake.


Are you stoned to the shizzle or something? Do you think rocks are living? so rocks are dead? Dead applies to things that were once living. You also seem to misunderstand what I said, I said they are not living organisms! That's pretty basic knowledge if you ever took a single biology class, but I must reiterate it for cronies like you. There is a good reason we don't consider leg on its own, a living organism, it doesn't have the properties of a living organism, it is only part of a whole. We also don't really consider a virus a living organism! Just because something is organic, does not make it living. To say a sperm is living, you would have to assume sperms cells have the capacity to reproduce autonomously. Yet they can and do not, sperm is produced from male genitalia , that alone disqualifies them. Alas they also do not experience adaptive qualities or growth, and lack the capacity to take on new nutrients. Simply, sperm cells are not "living" organisms, just like the hair on your body, blood cells, and lipids in you are not living organisms.
Forums Home > Society

Are White People Human *Posted 9 years Ago

At 10/13/2012 9:51:03 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:50:11 PM, yuiru wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:06:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
No one is a human until they are able to live outside of a womb.
You have to be as mental as inferno to believe that bollocks.

According to who? and what the funk are they if they aren't human? A living organism belongs to the species they derive from and can not magically change species as they develop. This is basic biology!

There is a difference between a human and a person, however.

Big deal, legal definitions aren't necessarily scientifically accurate, or true.
Especially in a world where it is seen as coherent to arbitrarily assume rights based on a human beings age, sexual orientation, and sex.
Forums Home > Society

Are White People Human *Posted 9 years Ago

At 10/9/2012 5:06:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
No one is a human until they are able to live outside of a womb.
You have to be as mental as inferno to believe that bollocks.

According to who? and what the funk are they if they aren't human? A living organism belongs to the species they derive from and can not magically change species as they develop. This is basic biology!
Forums Home > Society

Logical Argument against AbortionPosted 9 years Ago

At 10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?
Because sperms and eggs are by definition not even living organisms, therefore making them incapable of being a human beings.
Forums Home > Society

What would you ask?Posted 9 years Ago

I would ask the candidates in the face.
Forums Home > Personal

Personal anecdotePosted 9 years Ago

Once I was walking out side after staring at the sun and taking some pills, I saw god as a reptilian avian like creature. He told me, "Woe unto the one who spites bacterial mats, take my shoe, throw it at the clown." Immediately after that I found a shoe in front of me that said, "God" so I threw it at a clown named Jekins. After this there was a huge earthquake and I saw Tommy Lee Jones' face over the horizon.

This really happened to me! Help!!!
Forums Home > Personal

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.