Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?

by Spectrum 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hellrider

  Caedes:

  Hellrider,

  At last we are getting somewhere, you are conceding that I was not judgemental but have in fact been complaining about my sarcasm. It suddenly all becomes clear, at least I hope it is, since you have failed to actually show me in what way I have judged Forscher…again. I consider it intellectual cowardice to ask other posters to back up a point that you are failing or unable to make yourself.

  No, I am not conceding that you were only being sarcastic. From where did you draw that conclusion? No, far from it. You were judgemental. J-u-d-g-e-m-e-n-t-a-l. And I have not failed to show in what way you judged Forscher, to do that I simply had to quote your post. The judgemental attitude in your post is clear for all to see. Is it intelectual cowardice to ask other posters to judge for themselves? Why? Do you have something to hide? Actually, when trying to teach/show someone something, and it just bounces off like a beebee-gun on the head of an elephant, there is no other way than to ask other people to take a look at it, and make up their own mind. A valid comparison, one which I would assume you would agree with: Have you ever tried discussing the Holocaust with a neo-nazi/"revisionist"? It doesn`t matter how many valid arguments you come up with, it doesn`t matter how much evidence you show him, it simply bounces off. That does of course not mean that the kind of person in question has a point.

  See my reply to Abaddon on this issue. Only a ...intelectually challenged person...would fail to see that even though we, as humans, sometimes have to weigh ethical principles towards eachother, and then, as a result, choosing to lay more wight on the one than the other, this does not excuse our behaviour, nor does it establish a presedence for ridding ourselves of the ethical principle that in some situations are outweighed by other principles. The fact that both you and Abaddon continue to harp on this, even though I have offered an explanation that is considered as legitimate among all philosophers and others that write and do research on ethical questions, is just ...beyond me.

  So you are also arguing that "Only a ...intelectually challenged person" would fail to agree with your opinion.

  That is correct.

  Personally, I hate to use fanciful words and expressions when it is clear as day that these terms and expressions are designed with an agenda. Much better to just call a spade a spade.

  
  Unlike your "pro-abortion" statement, that wasn’t designed with an agenda? You should really be more honest with yourself.

  Are you unable to read? I showed how both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are designed with an agenda. And yes, of course it could be argued that my term "pro-abortion" is designed with an agenda, but you and Abaddon have both thruout this entire thread been more than insinuating that any "anti-abortionist"-view is a view that is basically anti-womens rights. So clean your own doormat before you start complaining about mine.

  Both you and Abaddon are discussing this with the running presumption that fetuses do not have the right to be considered as creatures with human value (ironically, based on a completely unlogical and backwards medical reasoning, you still claim that they do...after a certain number of weeks), that fetuses do not have ethical and legal rights! In fact, that there even exists such a thing as a "choice" in matters of whether to carry a fetus full term or not, relies on these running assumptions of your! While, in fact, that there is such a thing as a choice, could only be established as a matter of fact IF, and only IF, it could be establlshed as fact that fetuses do not have human value, that fetuses do not have ethical and legal rights.

  
  

  And I am just shocked beyond belief that you are intelectually unable to realize this.

  I do understand the legal and ethical issues behind this issue, and I would agree that a foetus does have value just not the same value as an adult human. Do you now wish to debate the case for abortion on legal grounds? Up to now you have indicated you didn’t wish to argue it on legal grounds. The ethics of the matter are for individuals to determine within the context of the current legal status of abortion. As I have repeatedly stated it is my opinion that it is up to individuals to choose not for someone else to choose for them.

  Since when have I refused to debate this case on legal grounds? Could you please show me? As for "the ethics of the matter are for individualts to determine...etc": Good! Now you are realizing what we are discussing. My view is that the current law should be changed, and I have made this clear all along. Is that not making a statement on legal ground? If you can`t see that this entire debate (since the beginning) has both medical, ethical and legal dimensions, then that is your problem, not mine. If something opens your eyes way out into the debate, that you have been unable to see, although it has been there since post 1, how is that my problem?

  those lefties
  
  politically correct outrage
  
  (and ironically, an argument that isn`t considered politically uncorrect when worded by liberals)

  Just some of the occasions where you have attempted to use the term liberal and pc in a derogatory way. After all we are agreed on calling a spade a spade, so why the act of innocence, why not admit that you are using these terms with your own agenda?

  He he, have I never denied that I have an agenda? Of course I have my personal little agenda, which is, in my opinion, a "search for truth" - regardless of what, at the moment, is considered pc or not pc. The only problem here is, that unlike what you might like to believe, I don`t have any kind of "right-wing"agenda. Neither do I have a religious agenda. I am perfectly pc on a number of liberalist-issues, such as issues like racism, gay marriage/gay rights, but I also have some views that are not very pc, such as that I am critical towards Islam, and I oppose the right to adopt children, for hoosexuals (and of course, you`re probably seeing red now, and you`re just itching to jump on me in your little politically-correct, selfrightous, morally superior outrage, just because I mentioned that, but these things are a completely different debate, I only mentioned them to prove a point, that my views are complicated and transcends the traditional distinctions left/right, conservative/liberal) . Unlike certain people, I don`t just go along and "mean" whatever is popular within a certain group. I am constantly searching for truth and ethical principles, right and wrong, regardless of the distinction right/left, conservative/liberal. So whatver you mean with "admit that you are using these terms with your own agenda", I hope your not insinuating that I have some dark-blue-motivations, because I don`t.
• 

  Hellrider

  Lots of 'outrage', but no comment about your statement;

  I have continously referred to ETHICS, NOT EMOTIONS!

  ... which I quoted above. You respond to the other quote, the one that allows you some room to wriggle, but I provided TWO QUOTES, as I realised the first one you would be able to mitigate to some extent, but the absolute statement above? The one that shows the extent of your contradictory and muddled argument? You ignore it rather than admit error. Either that or you don't know what the word 'continuously' means, as the fact you 'continously' DO refer to emotions AND ethics means this statement is simply FALSE. Which of the two options is it?

  Here we go again...Well, you are unable to relate to more than one level in a discussion at once. Well, to clear this up once and for all, is that I have said, is that both ethical considerations and emotions, take part in the Law (as a whole). While the laws themselves are based on ethical considerations (as in "murder is wrong, therefore it is illegal" - in addition to the social-contract-aspect, that if everyone went around killing everybody, we would have anarchy) -emotions do take part when sentences are being given, to those that trespass the law. There are not ethical or medical considerations present, when a murderer is sentenced to life in prison, or to the death penalty (in countries where they have it). These sentences are based on the peoples (as in, the nations) sense of "justice" as a whole,which has been reflected in the countrys judicial system, and in the "sense of justice", emotions are a very, very important part, particularly the emotion "desire for revenge". So, when I have "continously" said that both ethics and emotions are part of the Law, then there is nothing wrong with that! - because they are both part of the Law (as a whole) - but the point here is that I have never, not even once, said that the Law is based on emotions! I am pretty sure that if I had, you would be able to point this out to me, and shown me, no? Could you please provide me with a quote in which I have said that the Law is based on emotions?

  I`ll make it easy for you, I`ll give you one now (you will be confused even further now, I assume): In previous times, emotions did take part, also in the basis for the Law. That is, not only were they part in the "punishment-aspect" of Law, they were actually, in some cases, basis for the Law. See, lately, in connection with the whole moslem outrage over the cartoons, I now remembered something, that there actually still are a couple of laws that are based on emotions, old laws, what is usually referred to as "sleeping" laws. One of these is the law against blasphemy. Most European countries have had this Law against blasphemious expressions, and in most countries, the Law is still there in the countrys legislation, although it is never used anymore. In my own country, this law was in use not to many years ago, when the movie "Life of Brian" was not shown in the movie theatres in my country, because it was considered blasphemous. The same thing happened in a couple of other European countries.And fifty years ago, the state prosecuted an author in my country, for writing a book that was considered blasphemous. The author was prosecuted on the basis of this law. The law is still there, but it is never used anymore, and I believe the same is the case in some other European countries. Of course, this law should be done away with. I just mentioned it as a side-note, because I find to be so weird that you are able to come with all these strong-headed opinions about the nature of the Law, when you obviously have absolutely no clue about these things. Anyway, the fact that you refused to answer my objections to your claims (in my last post) but still insist on things I have proven to be wrong, speaks for itself.

  Also, no proof of your claim;

  you dismissed all my insisting on the fact that ethics are the basis off all lawmaking

  ... which I asked for above, because you CAN'T prove it, because it is a FALSE claim. Do you retract the statement?

  But I have proven it. I have proven how you continously, thruout the entire debate, has tried to confuse the words being used, by referring to all my statements about ethics (!!!) as just "emotions". I showed you two examples on this in my previous post. Do you want me to post more examples? Or does it hurt when I shove your own mistakes, your own dishonesty and your own less than honorable debating techniques in your face? It is unclear whether or not this statement is also meant to say that my statement "ethics are the basis of all lawmaking", is a false claim. If this is what you are trying to say, then I`m not going to dignify that with a response, nor am I going to try to explain you anymore that it is.

  There is one more thing I would like to bring up before we`re done here:

  This will enable you to continue ignoring the fact your insistence of ethical implications is only possible through a sustained circular argument of equivalence, which under standard terms of proof and debate, it is your duty to demonstrate, as it is your claim - and one extraordinary enough to require firm proof, having as much substance as a religious claim of abortion being wrong.

  and:

  The "ethical perspective" you present is only present because you ignore the medical perspective, ignoring is not responding, mentioning something in passing and then going straight back to your original and unproven argument is not responding;

  Yes, medical considerations are of course part of this issue, but that doesn`t mean that this issue is, was and always will first and foremost an ethical issue.

  It's your circular argument of equivalence again, that any fetus = born human, constantly repeated, never proven.

  Without this being proven there is not an ethical perspective.

  I just want to know: Why should the burden of proof lay on the anti-abortion-camp? We all know that the fetus in the mothers womb is born a baby. So obviously, there is a connection fetus-baby, no? Or are you going to say that the baby that is born, had nothing to do with the fetus that was inside the womb? The point is: Before abortion is allowed, it should be proven beyond a doubt that the fetus has no human value whatsoever, and that it has no ethical and legal rights. That this be proven beyond a doubt (!!!) is extremely important, because unless it is, then abortion is murder. In my opinion, the pro-choice camp has failed in doing so. And your "This will enable you to continue ignoring the fact your insistence of ethical implications is only possible through a sustained circular argument of equivalence" - is just ridicolous! I have allready ripped apart a couple of your "medical considerations", and shown how these "medical considerations" aren`t sufficient enough to allow abortion. And: "it is your duty to demonstrate, as it is your claim - and one extraordinary enough to require firm proof, having as much substance as a religious claim of abortion being wrong" is also not very impressive. In fact, it should be the other way around: Because we know that babies used to be fetuses (duh...) - then the burden of proof should be on the pro-choice-camp, not the other way around.

  I now have a new challange for you; why not go one step further and instead of not reading what I write properly (a charitable way of explaining your mistakes), simply don't bother reading what I write at all?

  I would like to throw that challenge right back at you.