I need to know, is it safe to come out yet? The sheer volume of PI's posts makes this zombie quake! What on earth is he on about?

Is it Ray? I sorta thought the thread was illustrative of leftism's selective morality... Where we took a look at the left's chronic proclamations that the LAW was the final arbiter of what is right and just... until the law turned on them.

You know... how the left declares it moral and just to murder the pre-born, but can't see the recognize the morality in a law that would, on the same moral grounds dispense a similar justice to them...

The thread really just points out that leftist morality is a hodge-podge of rationalizations designed to protect various practices to which they feel entitled and I think the lack of enthusiasm for this topic is a fair sign of that argument being a series of tightly placed hits in the ten...

So what you're saying is that God has already established what is and is not moral and that you feel compelled to point out that most of that was established before Christ closed the book on it? Hey that's fine with me Ray... I'm not here to sell you on anything. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning...


Secular? So Christianity is secular? ROFL... Again Ray, the inalienable Right to life is FUNDEMANTAL CHRISTIANITY. Secular humanism declares that you've a right to murder the most innocent of all human life... this is wholly antithetical to the inalienable right to life. GET SERIOUS. This entire line of reasoning will, in short order result on the forced euthanasia of the elderly... which will come directly from the means of the inability of Universal Healthfare and the State being overwhelmed by the expense of caring for the Boomers worldwide. It will all be very much the same irrational panic driven hysteria found in the AGW rush, which is precisely the same as the Eugenics hysteria of the early 20th century.

Now you may claim you'd disagree with that Ray; but that is irrelevant Ray, I imagine you'd disagree with a law that provides for the mass murder of Atheists, the point is that YOU SUPPORT THE UNPRINCIPLED RATIONALIZATIONS WHICH LEAD TO IT! Your entire screed intellectualizes how morals change given the needs, wants and desires of the culture at a given period and location. The fact is that what changes are rationalizations to accommodate behavior, not the immutable principles of morality.


Through sound reasoning... In this case I use the certainty that mass murder of atheists is immoral, mass murder of pre-born children: Immoral, Confiscating the product of the labor of one group to subsidize another group: IMMORAL!

What they have Ray, is a rationalization to accommodate a desired practice, which sets aside bed-rock moral principle.



Ahh so the goal is to survive... well the Jews survived the eugenics theory which ended up targeting them in one leftist cultural experiment Ray, minus 6million of their ranks... Europe survived Ray, Japan Survived... Life goes ON sport, but that has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT MORALITY IS FINITE AND DIVINE IN ORIGIN and that IMMORAL POLICY LEADS DIRECTLY TO CATASTROPHE...

The species is designed to survive Ray... Morality is not about surviving, it's about flourishing. Surviving is what one does DESPITE IMMORAL POLICY Ray, flourishing is what one does when one REJECTS it...




Great Concession Ray... you’re getting much better at that... but practice DOES make perfect, doesn't it?

Try thinking all the way through next time, even though it hurts.

I tried, but I just couldn't resist a "PI ism". Please forgive me.

The lack of enthusiasm for the topic is due more to your inability to debate without ridicule, condescension, and an incessant changing of definitions to meet your needs. Oh, and your belief that your opinions are "immutable facts", while actual facts are either blithely ignored, or blatantly disregarded. Yeah, that too.

__________________
Catz: "And, the ever-sage Volvo Driver:"

ROFL... Hey that's a GREAT rationalization... All juicy and fallacious... Good stuff and I'm sure you're right, since the ideological left is known far and wide for their tender feelings.

It never ceases to amaze me how when I show up for the first time the left is OUT THERE! Man they're talkin' smack a mile wide... Sadly it shadow deep and they never last long after a few weeks of kicking and screaming. Inevitably movig on to sites which provide for more of a Progressive Echo-Chamber...

While I understand why, I can't see the appeal. What's the value in goign to a place where everyone agrees with you? To me that is the absolute bottom of the pathetic barrel; but hey... to each is own and as long as they know their place in this world I suppose they'll be just fine.



"OH my GOD! What'd HE SAY? Well I NEVER...!"

Here's a clue sport, if they thought they had ANY SHOT at carrying the day on this issue they'd be hear tearing it UP!

They're not here because THEY know THEY HAVE NO SHOT. Human nature is human nature and there is NOTHING more predictable than a leftist friend.

You people complain about my ego... but you're not anti-ego, you're just anti-biggerego then yours. I get the same thing with Attorneys and Surgeons; well at least when they turn out to be 'moderate, independent progressive, centrists...'

PI I seriously tried to follow your posts out of respect for the admirable effort you put into them but I am unable to discern what the issue is. English is my second language and although I am fairly well educated I do not follow at all.
Sorry.

It no longer comes as any surprise; this eruption of “ideas” and the sheer volume of verbiage from the forum member Pubis, who holds her self-admittedly bigger-than-thine ego in such high esteem.

I wondered why, after her repeated challenges for anyone to put forth a right by which any entity might confiscate the product of one man's labor to the benefit of another, that when I explicitly did that very thing in reference to the Dred Scott decision, no response was forthcoming.

It now makes perfect sense... her strategery, finally embodied in this thread, would be scuttled by an examination of the history of slavery in America with respect to the founding fathers, founding documents, and Christian morals with which she likes to think she is smacking, well, all of us (leftists, fake conservatives, et al) up-side the head.

...what rationalizations would be made for the very man who penned these words stating the mechanism by which all men are free:

...who by his own inventory, owned 187 "equal men" just two years before his death in 1826?

What rationalization would be made for the founding fathers who laid down in their founding document the rules for the trafficking of men:
...and the rules by which an owned man must be returned from one state to another; to the "rightful" owner:
What rationalization would suffice?

Indeed, what rationalization could be made for the very document of her faith wherein it instructs slaves on having a gentle attitude toward their masters:
I believe it will come as some surprise to any observer when this person even attempts at rationalizations for these things. It shall not, however, come as any surprise when the response forthcoming takes the form of "ROFLMNAO..." or "Ahh it's the often advanced but rarely admired ‘[NON SEQUITUR HERE]’ defense..." or "That's precious..." or "You have absolutely NO IDEA how to form a valid argument do ya sport?" or perhaps "He's gone... YARD!"

I’m sure I missed one. Which one did I miss, Pubis?

Fair enough and thank you for your explanation...

In effect the argument here is to demonstrate that what the left sees as principle is not principle at all... It is invalid, spurious rationalizations to accommodate any number of behaviors which, while despite their craving to engage in such, are nonetheless counter-productive to the best interests of the individual themselves, thus by default, they are counter-productive to the culture on the whole.

The scenario merely sets out a circumstance wherein, the core element of the radical left: the atheist (With atheism being central to Marxism specifically and leftism in general) has been determined by a strong popular majority of "The People" to be Persona non Grata ( personally unacceptable or unwelcomed) and beyond that, they've been declared the enemy of the State and set for destruction; collectively having been popularly determined to be guilty of high cultural crimes thus subject to summary execution on site.

The idea is pretty simple; it places the left who as a general rule demand that the law is the final arbiter of what is right and just... supported by the left's propensity to advance their agenda via judicial fiat... They do so because they garner the color of justice from such rulings, despite more often than not, rulings to their favor being decisions set upon spurious reasoning. Roe -v- Wade is a classic example. A right today said by the moderates to be a right which it is hoped is never or that is rarely exercised.

Ask yourself, what other rights would one hope they never use? Someone once said they hope that they never have to defend their life and take the life of another person. To which I responded that such is not a right, it is the duty inherent in the right to life; it is the sacred, weighty responsibility and that absent such, there can be no right... they finally agreed that they were indeed happy to exercise their right to life and that they would just as happily execute their responsibilities in defending that right.

The bottom line is that the left comes to this scenario unable to advance their classic agendas against the 2nd amendment, abortion or social entitlements... that to advance any position on this scenario except "I'd turn myself into the state for summary execution..." is to expose themselves as that second most egregious of all leftist states... that of the HYPOCRIT or WORSE... to advance a desire to defend their life against a citizenry which is legally carrying out their execution...

Clearly there is no right to set an entire group to death, thus no such law could ever be moral, thus it could never serve justice; but if they adhere to that, then my friend they have to admit that Roe is an immoral farce, that there is no moral justification to kill the pre-born for convenience and the free love lunch is out the freakin' window and there is no force on earth which can keep these people from their debauchery.


Thus their reticence to engage...


So that's where we're going. I do hope you can come with us, you seem like a great person and we'd love to have ya...

First, I'm not a liberal.

Second, I'm not an atheist.

A rejection of Christianity does not imply acceptance of Atheism.

Furthermore, the concept of human rights being inherent did not even exist as a concept until the mid 16th century. So tell me...why didn't nature god think of them, until then?

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

Well when he penned those words Slaves were not considered equal men... to the contrary, in some circles, black slaves were not considered human at all, but property on the level of livestock, animals, beasts of burden... perhaps if you had advanced the source from which you drew the Jefferson Inventory in 1826, we could examine it for context... sadly you omitted the source and no such consideration can be addressed.

It's worth noting that the principles laid down by Jefferson, despite his personal ownership of slaves, inevitably lead to the freedom of all black slaves and the abolishment of slavery in the Americas, all together.

Which leads to the wonder of what your intentions might be in advancing that well known fact? Is it to cast disparagment onto the man whose wisdom in recognizing the immutable principles did not recognize Black slves as men? Perhaps you're implying Jefferson a hypocrit? If so, to what legitimate end, pray tell could that even possibly serve?

Is it your impression that Jefferson's owning of slaves represented reflected the entirety of thought on the issue by his contemporaries?

John Adams, certainly his closest and longest living friend from the Continental Congress, himself a farmer never owned a slave, nor did he ever hire labor which utilized slaves... He did so intentionally and on the grounds set forth by Jefferson... religious, specifically Christian grounds... Adam's in contrast to Jefferson indeed saw Black Slaves as men, thus recoginized their rightfull equality...




LOL... Here you've chosen to point out an article which proves the very point from whcih you're arguing; this text speaks to a point sufficiently distant in the future, wherein the congress appeased the slave owning states, that no legislation could be passed to restrict slavery until the date noted in the referenced source. This is incontestable evidence that debate was in progress at the time of the ratification, which challenged the nation that Slaves were in fact human beings, born rightfully equal to all other men... (Now that my friends is a SWEET IRONY INDEED! Isn't it?)

This is purely a function of law... AGAIN... at a time when, as noted above Black slaves were the equivilent to livestock: property and as such this represented protections for the "RIGHTFUL" ownership of such.

You clearly seem desperate to project todays understanding, brought on in large measure (AGAIN as noted above) by the pinciples laid forth by Jefferson and signed in adherence by the whole of the Continental Congress... principles which lead to understanding that Blacks were in fact men and the inevitably the emancipation of all Black Slaves at the cost of a million American lives; with the wholly distinct understanding of that era...

Such is a specious premise and as such a thoroughly invalid species of reasoning.

(Isn't it wonderful when they learn a new word?)

These were hardly rationalizations, they were understandings taken for granted, wrought from necessity and as such given to great commitments; thus firmly entrenched in the psyche of their day. Again, you denounce the practice, but refuse to accept the immutable fact that the principles which lead to their freedom were enumerated by these very men.

I see below that you simply change the attack to the religion which lead to that very principle... by cherry picking various verse, ripping each from its context to vomit more of this disreputable, wholly ahteistic, anti-American screed.




Perhaps you'll explain what the purpose is, beyond the obvious, that you intend to impart some endorsement by the scriptures of slavery...

What would you have the scirptures say? Would you have it tell the slaves to revolt and kill their owners? I mean they were legal property... so it's hardly feesible to argue that they were in a position to do much else in protest... to stop work was to punish yourself, as a dead Christian slave can only make it harder on the other Christian slaves...

Of course IF the Scriptures HAD commanded the slaves to kill their masters, then you could of used that verse to ridicule it as endorsing murder and lawlessness...

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious... Sweet mother... Friends, what we've seen in this members advocacy is just more of the same fallacious drivel that we see in every leftist argument... In this case the member clambers on about Jefferson owning slaves even while he posts as SOURCE Jefferson enumerating the very PRINCIPLE THAT INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE FREEDOM OF ALL MEN!

As I've said many times... You can lead a Leftist to REASON... but you can't make them THINK! This is just a better example than most.

*personal insults are a violation of forum rules.*

But there is no substitute for a quality example of the legitimate variety...

So thank you sis... and I left you a note in the thread you referenced... and yes... it's gonna hurt: The left lies and heres a beauty!

Yeah that's what I hear...

Hey if you say so...

It didn't? Where you gettin' that? Is there something you meant to offer in example or argument to support the implication and just forgot, or were you hoping no one would challenge it?

Perhaps you're confusing the limitation inherent in early man to recognize that which was self evident by the time of and to Thomas Jefferson and that of the Infinite Wisdom of the ages... AKA: Nature's God.

Let me know what ya come up with... kitty.