DescentBB

Good post, Flip.

tunnelcat wrote:As of the moment, abortion is a legal procedure. It doesn't violate the law. So when those Christian Holy Warriors go out and kill doctors that are NOT violating the law, all in the name of preventing murder, they are themselves murderers.

If you ask me, TC, the law on the books has no moral bearing on whether killing is murder or not.

tunnelcat wrote:... they are murderers. Worse, they are Holy Warriors.

Holy warriors are worse than murderers? I suppose that would have to depend on what/who they are holy to, and the nature of the war being waged. Better stick to words like "bogeyman", which already have nefarious meaning built-in.

tunnelcat wrote:OK, point them out to me.

OK

tunnelcat wrote:Those who kill for the sole reason they think they doing a greater good

isn't that what those that get abortions are saying? it's for their greater good?

tunnelcat wrote:Until abortion becomes illegal,

so you admit Abortion is killing but it's just legal killing

tunnelcat wrote:As of the moment, abortion is a legal procedure. It doesn't violate the law.

so just because it's legalized killing it's OK??

So when those Christian Holy Warriors go out and kill doctors that are NOT violating the law, all in the name of preventing murder, they are themselves murderers.

outside of the Derogatory Deit-phobic description of Christians, you're right they are murders. and not only in violation of man's laws but God's laws also

Yes, abortion does kill a human being, no argument there. But, at the present, it is a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. That's the operative phrase. To perform one murder to stop other murders is still premeditated murder, no matter how righteous you think you are. Whether you like it or not ST, you can't justify a murder just because you think some law is immoral and that gives you the right to stop it by violent means. If you think the law IS immoral, then pass laws against it, like in any civilized democracy, that the majority will approve of and agree with, if you can.

But making those laws so draconian that even methods which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus can be construed as murder, you will not get what you want passed as law, period. Birth control will always be around in one form or another and you and any other moralists will never stop it. You will run up against women who don't want the state, or the church, telling them how to run their lives or control their bodies either.

By the way ST and CUDA, Holy Warriors ARE worse than regular murderers because they think they have righteous moral justification to do what they do and that God will reward them for their deeds. Kind of like what Islamists think to justify their terrorist murdering mayhem.

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, abortion does kill a human being, no argument there. But, at the present, it is a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

tell that to the baby

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, abortion does kill a human being, no argument there. But, at the present, it is a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

tell that to the baby

I know that's not possible, but that still does not justify murdering a doctor who's doing something within THE LAW. Righteous indignation still does not give one the moral authority to take a life just to protect a life. If you think the law is immoral, then try to CHANGE IT! Intimidation, overreach and death threats will only harden your opposition against you just on principle.

Last time I checked “medicine” is something that cures or heals humans…not kills them. Abortion is elective surgery, and you can scream and yell “MEDICAL PROCEDURE” all day and night…but it won’t change a damn thing.

Yeah, and you can scream and yell all you want that it's murder, but another murder heaped on top is no more moral either. I'm not defending abortion, but I will defend a woman's right to use birth control. I don't see murdering another human as a rightful means to stop it. We are a nation of laws, not vigilantism.

I don’t recall ever calling abortion murder, but I won’t use words that paint killing a purdy picture either.

tunnelcat wrote:... Whether you like it or not ST, you can't justify a murder just because you think some law is immoral and that gives you the right to stop it by violent means. If you think the law IS immoral, then pass laws against it, like in any civilized democracy, that the majority will approve of and agree with, if you can.

I never justified murder in these cases. Here's what I believe: I believe that killing abortion doctors is murder. At the same time I don't believe that someone who kills a person with blood on their hands has committed as heinous a crime as someone who has killed an innocent person, and I do believe that abortion doctors have blood on their hands.

tunnelcat wrote:By the way ST and CUDA, Holy Warriors ARE worse than regular murderers because they think they have righteous moral justification to do what they do and that God will reward them for their deeds. Kind of like what Islamists think to justify their terrorist murdering mayhem.

It is not my desire to justify people who kill in the name of God, but you have a funny way of looking at this (probably because of your bias against Christianity and/or religion). Holy Warriors are not worse than other murderers. The justification in the mind of the perpetrator cannot effect the severity of the crime. What they are is more dangerous. That speaks of potential, however, and still has no moral bearing on a specific wrong committed.

Just out of curiosity ST, is your opinion of Muslim Holy War any different than Christian Holy War? I mean, they both use their religious beliefs to justify murder or war on those non-believers, aka, infidels. Does one religion have any better or worse of a justification for their actions than the other?

Holy Warriors ARE worse than regular murderers

Why do you insist on making this about religion? IT IS NOT!!
Murder is Murder, just because one chooses to kill in the name of religion does not make him any better or worse then those that kill for any other reason. it's just in your mind that they are worse because of your biased hatred for those with a faith.

CUDA, I don't really hate Christians. I do have some very nice Christian friends that I LIKE! I think that Jesus was one of the most important and influential human beings to have ever been born. I think he was one of the wisest men to have ever lived and I do believe in a lot of what he taught.

What I don't like is hypocrisy. Christians revere life, but will not hesitate to call for the death of a criminal, or someone they think is a criminal. They're for helping the poor, but only when it's their choice and then NOT when it becomes something a government runs and delivers to reach a wider group. They're now sanctifying obtaining wealth and riches, when Jesus championed the poor and was poor himself. They will fight wars with the righteous fervor that they are right, but cry terrorist murderer when those evil Muslims kill in the name of Mohammed because they think they are right. Our own Air Force Academy is a bastion of Christian Warriors that shun or push out anyone else who is not of the faith. Twisted, for a religion that draws it's beliefs from a man of peace.

This may be a HUGE generalization on my part, but a lot of it fits to those who are outside the religion. Try looking from the outside in sometime for a different perspective.

tunnelcat wrote:Just out of curiosity ST, is your opinion of Muslim Holy War any different than Christian Holy War? I mean, they both use their religious beliefs to justify murder or war on those non-believers, aka, infidels. Does one religion have any better or worse of a justification for their actions than the other?

I'd never considered it. I know less about the justifications coming from Islam, and I know very little about what you would appropriately call present-day "Christian Holy Warriors". I've been exposed to videos and articles here and there, and I've gotten an impression of what drives them. I can say that they're in darkness, and Jesus promised that those who follow Him will have the light of life.

I believe that there is a lot of justification for the feelings of both Islamic and Christian holy warriors. This world is a mess, and there are governmental and societal contributors that most people are content to ignore--claim they aren't contributors, when they should be making issues of them. The U.S. shouldn't be over in the middle-east destabilizing and overthrowing other countries. Mainly because it has been done under false pretenses and sold to the U.S. public--a lie. Some of those people over there may not be totally innocent victims, but they are certainly victims of national and international conspiracy. Women should not walk around in public mostly naked. Homosexuality should not be encouraged and sold to children. People should not be ★■◆●ing with the natural world in ways that could conceivably cause catastrophe or irreversible change (Genetically Modified Organisms). The problem with these Holy Warriors is that they consider it their right to bring judgment, when they are not by any right in the place of a judge. They take liberties, they lie, they're hypocrites, and they ignore the truth for convenience' sake so that they can fulfill their sense of outrage at the expense of the rights of other people and in denial of their own shortcomings and weaknesses. I believe there is a place and a time for dealing, even violently, with wrongs committed against decent people (probably contrary to the popular opinion, which so many have been trained to use as their ultimate guidepost--a bad way to be in), but if you don't truly have justice on your side where are you? You can't deal with a complex world in denial of its complexity--certainly not without an understanding of its complexity.

You sounded pretty good until your latent homophobia oozed out in between your mostly rational and exceptional statement. You don't "sell" homosexuality to children. It's not a commodity. Most children are more intelligent than that and have figured out what their sexuality is before age 6.

To CUDA, I think I used the wrong term in my description of what I dislike about Christians. It's not really the hypocrisy, but the Christian Exceptionalism that bothers me. That sense of entitlement and superiority that they use in their politics that affects everyone else not of their faith. And when someone attacks that mindset, they play the victim card in response.

Nothing latent or homophobic about it. And if they're not selling it then why has so much effort gone into packaging and marketing it? But let's not get all bent out of shape over my choice of words--the reality is it has been made acceptable by a persistent marketing campaign, and there are people behind it.

And people like you fear something that's not really a problem, unless you like to make it into a problem just to denigrate a whole group of people you don't like.

Another one.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bro ... -1.1098129
This kindof thing really is a constant.

Maybe you guys can go tell the poor kid what a bad person he is coz he's gay, it'll make his day. I'm sure he's never heard it before.

Brooklyn family to sue city after son blinded by bullies in brutal assault at Roy H. Mann Junior High School - NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.

A Brooklyn teen was left blind in one eye after a brutal assault by bullies shouting anti-gay epithets in the cafeteria of a city middle school...

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, I don't really hate Christians. I do have some very nice Christian friends that I LIKE! I think that Jesus was one of the most important and influential human beings to have ever been born. I think he was one of the wisest men to have ever lived and I do believe in a lot of what he taught.

What I don't like is hypocrisy. Christians revere life, but will not hesitate to call for the death of a criminal, or someone they think is a criminal. They're for helping the poor, but only when it's their choice and then NOT when it becomes something a government runs and delivers to reach a wider group. They're now sanctifying obtaining wealth and riches, when Jesus championed the poor and was poor himself. They will fight wars with the righteous fervor that they are right, but cry terrorist murderer when those evil Muslims kill in the name of Mohammed because they think they are right. Our own Air Force Academy is a bastion of Christian Warriors that shun or push out anyone else who is not of the faith. Twisted, for a religion that draws it's beliefs from a man of peace.

This may be a HUGE generalization on my part, but a lot of it fits to those who are outside the religion. Try looking from the outside in sometime for a different perspective.

TC, I think Cuda's right there with you with his disdain for hypocrisy. I know that I am. Here's where I have a problem with your conclusion - I think that it's a human problem, not a "religion" problem. I think that people of all creeds are just as capable of hypocrisy and hate as anyone else. This gets my second angle on the matter: I think that "religion" is also a human condition. Everyone makes choices based on some construct of beliefs - in the broad sense, that's how I define religion.

So.... that's where I see the hypocrisy in your position. You are fine with being willing to separate yourself from the wackos that claim very similar beliefs to yours, but draw the conclusion that they should go kill people because of it; but you don't allow the church to do the same. (Picking on Roid's response to me earlier) You define a belief system within which you're expected to conveniently cherry-pick as you like, but you feel the right to criticize others flavor of cherry picking - while at the same time condemning others who are criticizing.

It comes back to logic and consistency to me. If you are willing to give up logic and consistency, then you can do as you like, think as you like, and post accordingly; but don't expect to be taken seriously by those to do like the idea of logic and consistency. If you want to hearken to logic and consistency, then the same should apply to yourself. If you're going to believe in tolerance and be logically consistent, then you paint yourself into a corner where you personally have to be tolerant of everything, including others intolerance.

Maybe I'm missing something... if you don't agree tell me upon what basis we can debate if logic and consistency are off-bounds. To put it in another way... how can we have debate when your stance can take upon whatever inconsistencies and changes prove to be convenient while mine can't?

Sorry snoopy, and CUDA, and ST, but my positions on Christianity are based on a personal piece of information that I'm not willing to reveal. That would probably explain my emotional diatribes much better, but I'm going to have to leave things up in the air I'm afraid. And no, I'm not gay if that's what you're thinking.

I know what it is and it has to do with your sister

Naw, but I do want some schadenfruede for that time she pushed me into a lake with all my clothes on. Next time we're near the water..........da duh ...... da duh .. da duh..............spuuuuuuulaaaaaaaaash!

lol

tunnelcat wrote:Sorry snoopy, and CUDA, and ST, but my positions on Christianity are based on a personal piece of information that I'm not willing to reveal. That would probably explain my emotional diatribes much better, but I'm going to have to leave things up in the air I'm afraid. And no, I'm not gay if that's what you're thinking.

Yeah... and that's really what it always comes down to.... personal experiences. MY take - the problem is that every single one of us is a screwed up person who can't live up to whatever ideals we might claim and/or strive toward.... and that's the best of us. Then, there are the people that purposely hurt others in the name of their creed... and on both cases you end up with both direct and collateral damage. I hope that some day you can find peace and forgiveness in your heart for whatever happened.

roid wrote:Another one.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bro ... -1.1098129
This kind of thing really is a constant.

Maybe you guys can go tell the poor kid what a bad person he is coz he's gay, it'll make his day. I'm sure he's never heard it before.

Brooklyn family to sue city after son blinded by bullies in brutal assault at Roy H. Mann Junior High School - NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.

A Brooklyn teen was left blind in one eye after a brutal assault by bullies shouting anti-gay epithets in the cafeteria of a city middle school...

Never mind that what that kid would receive from any one of us on this BB wouldn't even resemble bullying, and you know it. Is it willful ignorance, or malice that motivates you to draw comparisons like that? On a different note, apparently those bullies ain't buying what the schools are selling about homosexuality. You can't solve a problem with lies.

tunnelcat wrote:Sorry snoopy, and CUDA, and ST, but my positions on Christianity are based on a personal piece of information that I'm not willing to reveal. That would probably explain my emotional diatribes much better, but I'm going to have to leave things up in the air I'm afraid.

That's your right and your problem. Most of my experiences with Christians have been pretty negative. They're a confused lot, for the greater part. However my personal experience with Christianity and my exposure to the Bible are what I draw my conclusions from, thanks to my Dad. I believe that accounts for at least some of the differences in our perspective. I don't think I've ever mentioned it, but if it weren't for my dad's example of genuine Christianity I wouldn't be a Christian. I didn't have any use for the hypocrisy and formality (more of a vague impression at the time) of churches I've attended in my life.

snoopy wrote:Yeah... and that's really what it always comes down to.... personal experiences. MY take - the problem is that every single one of us is a screwed up person who can't live up to whatever ideals we might claim and/or strive toward.... and that's the best of us. Then, there are the people that purposely hurt others in the name of their creed... and on both cases you end up with both direct and collateral damage. I hope that some day you can find peace and forgiveness in your heart for whatever happened.

Don't worry, it's nothing horrible or scarring. And it's something I don't hold against all Christians, just a select few. I also tend keep a long sh*t list, something I inherited from my mother I'm afraid.

But you're right snoopy, keeping grudges is not a healthy thing. Life's too short for that and I'm getting too old to work at it. But it's still fun to b*tch once and awhile. I have to hold up my standards.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:On a different note, apparently those bullies ain't buying what the schools are selling about homosexuality. You can't solve a problem with lies.

It's unwise to appeal to bullies for moral direction. Children, left to their own devices, are savage.

"Appeal to bullies for moral direction." Hehe. It's O.K., my intellectual wheelchair has a Hemi.

Rather, I'm suggesting that the truth would have a positive effect on young people who don't know how to deal with the conflict that being told to accept homosexuality creates. It's not an argument.

But kids *have* become more accepting of homosexuality. Whether you see this as positive is a separate issue, but teaching kids to become more accepting has resulted in them becoming more accepting.

Despite direction otherwise, kids will always bully other kids for anything that they think will make them appear more popular. But if you look at what kids make fun of other kids for, it's rarely for immoral behavior. They often make fun of kids for looking or being different, and, in fact, it's often their virtues--staying out of trouble, being studious, being smart. Being bullied is an endorsement, but unfortunately most kids don't realize this until they become adults, if even then.

roid wrote:
Maybe you guys can go tell the poor kid what a bad person he is coz he's gay, it'll make his day. I'm sure he's never heard it before.

Brooklyn family to sue city after son blinded by bullies in brutal assault at Roy H. Mann Junior High School - NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.

A Brooklyn teen was left blind in one eye after a brutal assault by bullies shouting anti-gay epithets in the cafeteria of a city middle school...

I wonder if Jerry Sandusky was trying to bring out the latent gayness of the young boys he was fondling and butt reaming. If so he should be awarded some sort of medal eh?

I don't care what that kid did, they put his friggin EYE out. I would have serious funda-mental issues if that were my kid. Probably make me a sharp stick, put some camo on, wrap my forearms and shins with spiked leather...........you get the point. I couldn't imagine losing an eye. Terrible.

It's not clear from the article if he even is gay.

hey woodchip
can you stop your lame offtopic baiting and trolling, which is also highly disgusting?
that would be peachy

- the world.

O hai Roid, Just responding to your angst ridden and thought provoking post.

Hugs Roid in a manly way.

Feel the love.

Whatever one feels about the morality of homosexuality... can everyone in here at least agree that bullying (especially when it ends in violence) is a problem?

Totally agreed,

but how do you expect people to respond properly on that subject in an online forum, when everyday there is bullying going on right here on this BB

The Sandusky case is a pretty good example of why homophobia is not productive, and even harmful. I'm betting that all those boys would have told an adult and come forward far sooner if they hadn't had that irrational societal male fear of being labeled as little homos, because as we all know, homosexual encounters can create more homos. That's the fear most male victims think about after being sexually abused by another male isn't it?

TC, I understand your point, but you're making a huge leap there. The fears that rape victims experience are common and fairly universal; I don't think "worry about homophobic reaction" ranks very high on the list.

Well, how do you explain the reaction when the opposite happens? We've got 2 cases in our local area of male teachers being accused of having sex with underage female students, which, in the eyes of the law, is statutory rape, consent or not. I don't see anywhere near the sensational reactions from people, or even the press, locally, that the Sandusky case has generated nationally. There was one headline in each case and then everything's dropped off the radar so to speak. I've also heard of the rare case of a female teacher abusing a female student and even that didn't garner the freakout publicity that most of these male on male child molestations seem to generate. The only reason I can think for this discrepancy is male homophobic fears and what the victim will think the public will perceive about the sexual state of the victim, namely that the victim is now queer because of the incident. Maybe there needs to be a study on when a child reports a molestation and what roles the genders of the molester and the victim may have played in influencing whether it was reported to an adult sooner, or later. It would be important to know if this is the case so that we could help male children not fear reporting male on male molestations in the future.

TC, the reason the Sandusky case is getting so much attention is not because it was male abuse of males... it's because Sandusky was already well-known and connected to Penn State football, and even more because beloved coach Joe Paterno was fired because of the scandal!

If it wasn't for that, the Sandusky case (like other similar cases, which happen all the time) would never have been noticed by the media. And yeah, that's pathetic.

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe there needs to be a study on when a child reports a molestation and what roles the genders of the molester and the victim may have played in influencing whether it was reported to an adult sooner, or later. It would be important to know if this is the case so that we could help male children not fear reporting male on male molestations in the future.

I'd be curious to see that type of report, as well. I'd bet that psychologists out there could at least give you an idea of what the current theories on the matter are.

I know that there's a lot of shame and self-blame associated no matter the genders involved..... so my guess would be that the "homophobic" factor is probably not really all that different from factors involved in mixed-gender situations. You might argue that our society's message that rape is wrong contributes... and I'd agree... but I'm also going to agree with society on the matter.