Subject:
|
Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 03:40:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
475 times
|
| |
|
|
> Scott, in the past, you have taken offense at my writing and it sounds as • if
> you may be here. If I'm wrong, discount this paragraph, but... I didn't • say
> that zealots only occupied one side of the issue. All issues have zealots • on
> both sides. What I said is that doctor-assasins are pro-life zealots. I • think
> that most of us can agree on that. It sounds below like you agree.
>
> > I don't think murdering people for
> > most reasons is acceptable (outside of capitol punishment or war, but • that's
> > another debate).
>
> No, that's this debate :-)
What I meant is that I was talking about abortion, and I didn't feel like
going over this again, because I think we discussed this before.
> Why is killing people in war OK?
Well, it is war, and killing is involved. There have been many battles /
wars in the Bible where God blessed them. (I am reading over King David's
reign right now) WWII is a good example. People were killed, but I think it
was for a proper cause. Not that war is good, we should try to deter it at
all costs.
> What about
> capital punishment? In fact, support of capital punishment is a perfect
> example for that other note to demonstrate how the right wants to impinge • on
> freedom. Surely killing people counts.
Capitol punishment is not infringing rights, as far as I am concerned. If
you are convicted of a capitol crime, you know the consequences. I do like
Larry P's suggestion, they should work for the victims. The whole system
needs to be looked at, though.
> If killing people in, say, the conflict in Vietanm, was OK because the • gubmint
> told people to,
Well, the North Vietnamese had a choice, right? they could have surrendered.
Vietnam was a disaster, one the US really should have never gotten in to, or
at least tried to do it different.
> then surely killing someone to save thousands of lives is
> OK...right?
Sometimes, yes. Like I said, it really depends on the circumstances.
> What did those North Vietnamese ever do to us?
Well, what was the war fought about? Weren't the Soviets and Chinese in it
too? There are a lot of issues here, Chris, the above statement is
simplistic and, IMHO, needs better defining.
> > I think killing people, or abortion doctors, or blowing up
> > abortion clinics is wrong.
> Well, good. But why? Why is it wrong?
Well, because right now, abortion is legal, and killing a person who
preforms abortions, even though how heinous he/she might be, is still
murder. Murders are sometimes justified, not in this case. There are other
ways of approaching abortion.
> Isn't saving lots of life at the
> expense of one or a few (especially when they're the murderers who would • end
> those lots of lives) worth it?
Well, Chris, start blowing up clinics then.
> I know that if I were in the position of having
> to kill someone to stop just a single rape, I would do it.
Yes, it is called self-defense. Left-liberals are trying to take gun
ownership and self protection away as well.
> (This is one of
> those hypotheticals where you don't get other options like you might have • in
> the real world.) Wouldn't you? If so, then how can something as little • as a
> single rape be worth a murder, but the salvation of thousands of lives not
be?
Well, Chris, I think murdering unborn children is wrong, and I do think God
will deal with those people. It seems like you have a real chip on your
shoulder when it comes to abortion, but in other areas, no. I don't get it.
> > Nobody in the churches I have attended favor it,
> > or want to do that.
>
> Me neither, I'm just playing with the logic.
No, you're playing with definitions when there are instances where there are
things that aren't always clearly defined. I think that there are so many
alternatives to abortion, that the number we do have in this county and
elsewher eis absurb. I think the view of sex has been so warped that it is a
fun, no risk situation, and that you should be able to do whatever. It is a
big deal. I think it is a matter of personal responsibility. I think people
who don't want to have kids, should either have contrceptives, or have a
serjury. I know of millions who would love to have a little child for
adoption, and can't get one.
> > This might be another case of the Christian-right-phobia.
> In who? Me? I don't get how you could think that. I'm basically saying • that
> I empathize with the pro-life zealots (who are likely to be Christian). • I'm
> obviously not against them. In what way am I demonstrating any stance at • all
> toward Christian conservatives?
Well I think pro-choice (I call pro-death) zealots are bad as well. Your
tone in this debate seems to hon in to me that there are several issues you
do not have on the table. There is a misconception of Right wing Christians
here, in which I grow weary of. Hence, Christian-right-phobia.
Scott S.
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) Scott, in the past, you have taken offense at my writing and it sounds as if you may be here. If I'm wrong, discount this paragraph, but... I didn't say that zealots only occupied one side of the issue. All issues have zealots on both sides. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
58 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
