| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should Peterson be charged with two counts of murder? |
| Yes |
|
91% |
[ 11 ] |
| No |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Christian Michael
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5133
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Evil Lorianne wrote: | | Quote: | Well Evil Lorianne, you reap what you sow. I think stating your lack of morals define who you are is pefectly fitting when you label yourself Evil then go on to address all of us humans like you do not include yourself in the group.
|
CM! You are so adorable!!!
I was completely unaware that that my screen name dictated my morality. Thank you! for clearing that up for me. |
You chose it not me. Anyway, my statement still stands. We are defined by our morals and lack thereof. You so far have done nothing to refute that.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | So tell me, when did I make myself out to be the prosecutor? Was it before or after I stated that this is opinion based and not legally based? |
Well, you DID (technically) take the side of the prosecution when you stated that this was absolutely dispicable. |
And how does offering my opinion of NOW and anyone who believes that it isn't a double murder case add anything to the prosecutions case? Does it offer any evidence? Does it argue that the accused must have been the one who did it? I think not. It is my opinion. And that will not change no matter who is the person charged with the crime. There was a double-murder committed by someone - maybe the husband, maybe not.
As tF has pointed out atleast twice now, the legal grounds are there. It is not for me to prove or disprove that.
| Quote: | | Quote: | I am still utterly disgusted that you would put a flimsy pro-choice agenda above common respect for human life. And if you are just doing this to get me "worked up" I am twice as disgusted that you take this issue so lightly and I would have to rethink whether or not my moral trap (that you fell for) was indeed correct the way you took it. Regardless, do not misinterpret my overzealous desire to be understood as getting me worked up.
|
A personal attack, such as one intended in your counter argument, is not an overzealous desire to be understood. Perhaps 'petty' would be a better word.  |
Refresh my memory, where was my personal attack? Are you still just taking offense to my wording (taking the bait)? Again, I stand by my statement. It is entirely valid. I don't have to know you to know that you are defined by your (lack of) morals. Certainly it is no worse than calling me "petty."
What makes you think it is you, and not the other readers of this forum, that I want to understand my point? I know you aren't going to understand.
| Quote: | And if you wanted to be understood, don't introduce circumstantial scenarios such as this: | Quote: | | I think the world is over populated, so is it ok if I go around and punch pregnant women in the gut so they have miscarriages? Or atleast in the cases where the say they didn't want the child anyway? |
This forces me to think that you are attemping to play on my sympathies to ultimately agree with you, NOT, as you so decidely (mistakingly) phrased it, understand you. |
I guess you do not understand using hypothetical examples as a means to reinforce a point (read: make a point easier to understand). Read around the forum, I'm sure you will see this is common practice in a debate.
So, are you going to try to refute my points or just attack me and my methods? I offered up several hypothetical examples that seem to parrellel this situation in one way or another. I created them to see how your view would apply to those situations. As of yet, you have not addressed a single one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sterling
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 1051
Location: Raider Nation, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, Eddie, for blowing the whistle early on so that there is some sort of precendence to this all.
Regardless of opinion, the law stands. I voted in the poll, but that's that. I think my opinions have been articulated enough in this thread that I have no desire to flog rotting equines.
_________________
.::sterling::. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LilRed
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 1249
Location: Macon like Bacon
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | ="Christian Michael
It's an opinion poll, not a legal knowledge poll. |
Double murder.
After seven months of development, Laci and Scott Peterson's son could use the four senses of vision, hearing, taste and touch. He could recognize his mother's voice. He probably heard her scream the scream that marked her death and his as well.
He never got to see his mother. Never held her thumb in his tiny hand...
He may have had Daddy's eyes and hair.
Had he survived...
He might have had the chance to play Little League, to care for a puppy, to love someone who loved him back.
He might have grown up to become the scientist who cures cancer, he might have helped an old woman across the street, he might have known the thrill of a bright red sports car.
Laci's son didn't get the chance to do any of those things. When Scott Peterson murdered his wife, he also took away his son's chance at life.
That is murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Michael
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5133
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LilRed wrote: |
Had he survived...
He might have had the chance to play Little League, to care for a puppy, to love someone who loved him back.
He might have grown up to become the scientist who cures cancer, he might have helped an old woman across the street, he might have known the thrill of a bright red sports car.
|
 Didn't you read Evil Lorianne's post? He might have also been a serial killer.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil Lorianne
Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright.
| Quote: | | So tell me, when did I make myself out to be the prosecutor? Was it before or after I stated that this is opinion based and not legally based? |
It was before you stated that this was opinion based.
However, throughout our heated discourse you have associated yourself with the prosecution in that you addmittedly believe Peterson commited two crimes . By default, because I have presented arguments that do not coincide with yours, I could be considered associated with the defense. Its all very black and white (well, not in real real life).
| Quote: | And with that being said, the fetus was unborn. Technically, it was not yet a contributing member of society. Whose to say that Peterson didn't do everyone a favor by killing the fetus? What if the fetus evolved into a serial killer...?
Tell me, would you know whether or not the child would be a serial killer one minute after it was born? If not, is that enough reason to kill it then, or at the very least excuse killing it then? |
My initial comment of the fetus was in fact a justifiable argument. My hypothetical scenario was an effort to draw someone out. (Honestly) To start a discussion about something other than war. Taking the bait as you so aptly put it. You ask later how I would feel if it were just the fetus that died- through the malicious intent of its creators. My answer is: Things cease to exist everyday. Am I to care about everything? Every injustice? Every misgiving? I care about me (not exclusively, but since YOU have thrust this small bubble upon me, I use 'me'). I would care of it was someone close to me. I might care if I were the one who found the dead body.
| Quote: | | And to think, all this time I thought "liberals" where supposed to be compassionate. |
Who are you talking about? Are you calling ME a liberal?
| Quote: | | Is it pro-choice or pro-abortion? |
Well...if I typed pro-choice, I probably meant pro-choice. A minor declaration of my general belief. Stated BEFORE any actual declaration of argument on my part. Maybe I should have just left it out completely.
| Quote: | | You would think if it were pro-choice you would take into account that the woman whose right it was to choose did not choose to have her baby killed. But I guess that is secondary to the political agenda... |
Traditionally speaking, you are absolutely right. But because of NOW's inclusion of a father's right to choose, and since Laci was probably dead before the death of the fetus, her option to choose was irrelevent.
| Quote: | Evil Lorianne wrote:
Again with the compassion and the sympathy. The woman is dead. What she wanted doesn't really matter anymore.
Well shit, why even try him for her murder then? She is already dead, his trial isn't going to change anything... |
We were talking about the fetus and my opinion that dead ppl can't have choices. Especially AFTER they are dead. Laci's murder is a seperate issue.
| Quote: | Evil Lorianne wrote:
The problem with you humans is that you rely too much on morality to dictate your actions or in this case, your arguments.
You say that like it should be something to be ashamed of...
My morals define me. Your lack of morals are what define you.
|
You delve into this whole 'your lack of morals are what define you' crap. Morals alone do not define a person. There is also a belief system associated with it- and how this belief system is rationalized in each individual's mind. Simply put: what is your definition of right and wrong? On a very fundamental level, our definitions are probably the same but in this specific instance, all I did was detach from any personal belief I might have had towards the case which (to me) allows for my antipathy , hence the disociation of my humanity therefore enabling me to phrase it as I did.
| Quote: | | Well Evil Lorianne, you reap what you sow. I think stating your lack of morals define who you are is pefectly fitting when you label yourself Evil then go on to address all of us humans like you do not include yourself in the group. |
Again, I was unaware that my choice of screen names has anything to do with the person I may or may not be. In reading your statement, I understand you to say that Lorianne is evil because she calls herself Evil Lorianne (with complete disregard for any other explanation). CM, please don't be offended, but that is straight up dumb. When I used the name Duchess, did you really think I was??
What do you think of Piper's screen name? Is he one who lays pipe?
Or Thesouphead...is his head really made of soup?
Transa firma...I'm just going to leave that one alone.
Or if I didn't know any better... Christian Michael...does that denote your religious preference?
Is the real issue that you have a hard time accepting that my altruism is based on a smaller 'universe' (bubble, scale, whatever) than yours?
| Quote: | | Spare me the righteous indignation and please (at the very least) acknowledge that it is a valid defense to his being charged with the 'termination of the fetus'. |
Perhaps I should have said 'would be a valid defense' but because of California law it obviously can't be. We aren't talking ACTUAL facts.
| Quote: | | He is charged with MURDER not "termination of the fetus." |
I use 'termination of the fetus' not as a pro choice/abortion/life term, but because I felt it was most appropriate considering the basis for my argument was not related to California law.
| Quote: | Quote:
I'm not confusing the two or attempting to 'blur the line'. I'm choosing my terminology carefully because he is not yet convicted of either murders. T'would be unfair to think someone guilty without ALL of the facts.
Like I said, he is charged, not convicted of, murder. It seems pretty clear to me.
|
Initially, you questioned my phraseology. I believe I've already covered why I used 'termination of fetus' instead of murder (but yes, I know that CA is charging Peterson with murder).
| Quote: | | I think the fact that she did not get an abortion (you know, since not only did she carry it through the first and second tri-mester, but almost made it through the third before she was killed) is a pretty good indication outside of hearsay that she wanted to keep the child. |
Anything- any opinion her friends or family might have, any intention they think she may have had towards the fetus, anything they might have heard her talk about (including the name of her fetus) is all hearsay because she is not alive to confirm it. Yet another attempt to separate the factual and emotional. Its all about what can be proven.
| Quote: | | Tell me something, if a pregnant women is in labor, but hasn't delivered yet, do you think she should still be able to "abort?" |
I think that it is a woman's right to do what she will. Not because I agree or disagree with any one view, but because I would want the same consideration: to choose what I want for my reasons.
| Quote: | | Refresh my memory, where was my personal attack? Are you still just taking offense to my wording (taking the bait)? |
Your personal attack was when you presented it in such a way that indicated that morals (positive phrasing) define you and lack of morals (negative phrasing) are what define me. Like its something I should be ashamed of. At first I was going to call you close minded, but I've changed my adjective to overly empassioned. You did clarify later in the post though: | Quote: | | Regardless, not only am I defined by my morals, I am also defined by my lack of morals (as I am not perfect). Just as not only are you defined by your lack of morals you are also defined what morals you do have. |
heh. nice recovery. But make up your mind because last I checked, I was defined ONLY by my lack of morals.
And I must point out that I was using exaggeration to bait (anyone really) where as you were being pithy.
| Quote: | | What makes you think it is you, and not the other readers of this forum, that I want to understand my point? I know you aren't going to understand. |
Am I to conclude that because I debate with you, in that I propose an argument contrary to yours, you know that I am not going to understand? We had been addressing each other (at least I thought we were since we had been quoting each other. Maybe I just don't know how this forum thing works. Silly me. First the screen name thing and now this. Who's up for writing a Lunar for dummies handbook??) in numerous posts. How can you say you want others to understand? Are you implying that they are too dumb to understand it the first 2 or 3 times you said it? Have you that low of an opinion on the reading comprehension of our company?
Did you consider that my debate was because I understood? It has not escaped me that there is a legal precedent to this case. I read it. Twice. (short pause as Lorianne steps outside of the box) I guess it would be appropriate to say that I began this scenario with an undefined 'transformer' (if you will). I set aside the legal precedent (by ignoring it); re-writing history (-ish). Think French! Philosophers that is. Its a very loose application of the philosophy, but then again, what isn't?
| Quote: | I guess you do not understand using hypothetical examples as a means to reinforce a point (read: make a point easier to understand). Read around the forum, I'm sure you will see this is common practice in a debate.
|
A common practice in debate is actually debating something, not just relying on your creative ability to use various hypothetical scenarios which you hope reinforce your point(s) (which have nothing to do with the case at hand). Should we have created an outline? Technically, since you are addressing me, the only person you have to worry about understanding anything is ME. I don't see how your punching women in the gut to get them to abort/miscarry because you think the world is over populated is in any way related to whether or not if we were not in the state of California or even if there was no legal precedent in CA state, how Peterson could use a pro-choice argument as part of his defense.
I'm sure you'll tell me if I didn't answer something to your satisfaction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yossarian
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 4165
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CM wrote: | | My morals define me |
Your morals only partially define you. I think they are much more important when taken in the context of an individual's actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roboto
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 744
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yossarian wrote: | | Your morals only partially define you. I think they are much more important when taken in the context of an individual's actions. |
Especially in the case of women. Their looks define them much much more than their morals.
Their 'actions' too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Michael
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5133
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil Lorianne wrote: | Alright.
| Quote: | | So tell me, when did I make myself out to be the prosecutor? Was it before or after I stated that this is opinion based and not legally based? |
It was before you stated that this was opinion based. |
What part of: | What I wrote: | | NOW is protesting the second murder charge because the child was not yet born. I think this is absolutely dispicable. |
indicates anything to do with legality? Is dispicable a legal term now?
| Quote: | | However, throughout our heated discourse you have associated yourself with the prosecution in that you addmittedly believe Peterson commited two crimes . By default, because I have presented arguments that do not coincide with yours, I could be considered associated with the defense. Its all very black and white (well, not in real real life). |
Point to where I have stated I believe Peterson is guilty. I believe there were two crimes committed. I don't know if he did it or not. That is an issue for the jury, not me.
| Quote: | And with that being said, the fetus was unborn. Technically, it was not yet a contributing member of society. Whose to say that Peterson didn't do everyone a favor by killing the fetus? What if the fetus evolved into a serial killer...?
Tell me, would you know whether or not the child would be a serial killer one minute after it was born? If not, is that enough reason to kill it then, or at the very least excuse killing it then? |
| Quote: | | My initial comment of the fetus was in fact a justifiable argument. My hypothetical scenario was an effort to draw someone out. |
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, hypothetical scenerios are okay for you to use... 
| Quote: | | (Honestly) To start a discussion about something other than war. Taking the bait as you so aptly put it. You ask later how I would feel if it were just the fetus that died- through the malicious intent of its creators. My answer is: Things cease to exist everyday. Am I to care about everything? Every injustice? Every misgiving? I care about me (not exclusively, but since YOU have thrust this small bubble upon me, I use 'me'). I would care of it was someone close to me. I might care if I were the one who found the dead body. |
So, in this case you have no opinion? They why are you even in this debate. Are we to believe that if you don't care it isn't murder? Either take a side, or stop just being antaganistic.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | And to think, all this time I thought "liberals" where supposed to be compassionate. |
Who are you talking about? Are you calling ME a liberal? |
I am talking about "liberals." Are you a "liberal?"
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Is it pro-choice or pro-abortion? |
Well...if I typed pro-choice, I probably meant pro-choice. A minor declaration of my general belief. Stated BEFORE any actual declaration of argument on my part. Maybe I should have just left it out completely. |
But there is absolutely no indication that a choice for death of the child was made by the mother. And you believe with the lack of evidence of a choice for life (even though she carried through two terms and almost the third) is enough to discard murder charges. To me that looks like more pro-abortion than pro-choice. I'm sure not all of the votes in this poll are from pro-lifers, yet there is only one vote that thinks this wasn't a murder.
| Quote: | | You would think if it were pro-choice you would take into account that the woman whose right it was to choose did not choose to have her baby killed. But I guess that is secondary to the political agenda... |
| Quote: | | Traditionally speaking, you are absolutely right. But because of NOW's inclusion of a father's right to choose, and since Laci was probably dead before the death of the fetus, her option to choose was irrelevent. |
Um, that article that mentioned the father's right to choose was sarcasm from www.scrappleface.com I would have thought that was obvious.
So, are you going to champion the "Father's Right To Choose" campaign now?
| Quote: | | Quote: | Evil Lorianne wrote:
Again with the compassion and the sympathy. The woman is dead. What she wanted doesn't really matter anymore.
Well shit, why even try him for her murder then? She is already dead, his trial isn't going to change anything... |
We were talking about the fetus and my opinion that dead ppl can't have choices. Especially AFTER they are dead. Laci's murder is a seperate issue. |
Do you think we should get rid of wills then?
| Quote: | | Quote: | Evil Lorianne wrote:
The problem with you humans is that you rely too much on morality to dictate your actions or in this case, your arguments.
You say that like it should be something to be ashamed of...
My morals define me. Your lack of morals are what define you.
|
You delve into this whole 'your lack of morals are what define you' crap. Morals alone do not define a person. There is also a belief system associated with it- and how this belief system is rationalized in each individual's mind. Simply put: what is your definition of right and wrong? |
Everything you just stated has to do with morals.
| Quote: | | On a very fundamental level, our definitions are probably the same but in this specific instance, all I did was detach from any personal belief I might have had towards the case which (to me) allows for my antipathy , hence the disociation of my humanity therefore enabling me to phrase it as I did. |
Do you detach yourself from being a human often? What form do you take then?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Well Evil Lorianne, you reap what you sow. I think stating your lack of morals define who you are is pefectly fitting when you label yourself Evil then go on to address all of us humans like you do not include yourself in the group. |
Again, I was unaware that my choice of screen names has anything to do with the person I may or may not be. In reading your statement, I understand you to say that Lorianne is evil because she calls herself Evil Lorianne (with complete disregard for any other explanation). |
I didn't call you evil. I said the way I worded my statement is justified in respect to how you choose to label yourself.
| Quote: | CM, please don't be offended, but that is straight up dumb. When I used the name Duchess, did you really think I was??
What do you think of Piper's screen name? Is he one who lays pipe?
Or Thesouphead...is his head really made of soup?
Transa firma...I'm just going to leave that one alone.
Or if I didn't know any better... Christian Michael...does that denote your religious preference? |
Heh, well, you still don't get it. You can call it dumb. Many people insult ideas they don't understand.
| Quote: | | Is the real issue that you have a hard time accepting that my altruism is based on a smaller 'universe' (bubble, scale, whatever) than yours? |
I have a hard time accepting that any person would have such little respect for human life that they would think killing a child a few weeks before it was to take it's first breath is not murder.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Spare me the righteous indignation and please (at the very least) acknowledge that it is a valid defense to his being charged with the 'termination of the fetus'. |
Perhaps I should have said 'would be a valid defense' but because of California law it obviously can't be. We aren't talking ACTUAL facts. |
Maybe you should be a lawyer.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | He is charged with MURDER not "termination of the fetus." |
I use 'termination of the fetus' not as a pro choice/abortion/life term, but because I felt it was most appropriate considering the basis for my argument was not related to California law. |
The basis for this discussion was MURDER. You either agree it was murder, or you don't.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
I'm not confusing the two or attempting to 'blur the line'. I'm choosing my terminology carefully because he is not yet convicted of either murders. T'would be unfair to think someone guilty without ALL of the facts.
Like I said, he is charged, not convicted of, murder. It seems pretty clear to me.
|
Initially, you questioned my phraseology. I believe I've already covered why I used 'termination of fetus' instead of murder (but yes, I know that CA is charging Peterson with murder). |
You mention not labelling anyone guilty. I was simply carifying that I have not declared him guilty.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I think the fact that she did not get an abortion (you know, since not only did she carry it through the first and second tri-mester, but almost made it through the third before she was killed) is a pretty good indication outside of hearsay that she wanted to keep the child. |
Anything- any opinion her friends or family might have, any intention they think she may have had towards the fetus, anything they might have heard her talk about (including the name of her fetus) is all hearsay because she is not alive to confirm it. Yet another attempt to separate the factual and emotional. Its all about what can be proven. |
Can it be proven that she carried it through two terms and almost through to delivery?
Regardless, the question do you believe it is murder?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Tell me something, if a pregnant women is in labor, but hasn't delivered yet, do you think she should still be able to "abort?" |
I think that it is a woman's right to do what she will. Not because I agree or disagree with any one view, but because I would want the same consideration: to choose what I want for my reasons. |
And that disgusts me. I am pro-choice politically, prolife personally. But I definitely think if you were to kill your baby inside of you right before you gave birth you should be convicted of murder. I think it is very, very, very selfish to think that just because the baby hasn't come out yet that it isn't a life with value.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Refresh my memory, where was my personal attack? Are you still just taking offense to my wording (taking the bait)? |
Your personal attack was when you presented it in such a way that indicated that morals (positive phrasing) define you and lack of morals (negative phrasing) are what define me. Like its something I should be ashamed of. At first I was going to call you close minded, but I've changed my adjective to overly empassioned. You did clarify later in the post though: | Quote: | | Regardless, not only am I defined by my morals, I am also defined by my lack of morals (as I am not perfect). Just as not only are you defined by your lack of morals you are also defined what morals you do have. |
heh. nice recovery. But make up your mind because last I checked, I was defined ONLY by my lack of morals. |
Did I say that? Where?
I know I am dumb and all, but don't you think it is even possible I set you up, and you fell for it, and now you are still falling for it. Even after I have fessed up several times. Can you just not accept that? "No, no, it can't be. He must have had just a good recovery. He can't have planned it all along..."
| Quote: | | And I must point out that I was using exaggeration to bait (anyone really) where as you were being pithy. |
Well thank you. I do believe I had substance and a point. Is that suppose to be bad?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | What makes you think it is you, and not the other readers of this forum, that I want to understand my point? I know you aren't going to understand. |
Am I to conclude that because I debate with you, in that I propose an argument contrary to yours, you know that I am not going to understand? |
No. Your repsonses indicate you aren't going to understand. I can only tell you flat out so many times why I have said what I said only for you to repeat the same responses as if I had never clarified for you before I just have to believe you simply do not understand. At that point I just keep going because this is an openly read forum and not a private conversation. If we were having this conversation, I would have stopped talking awhile ago.
| Quote: | | We had been addressing each other (at least I thought we were since we had been quoting each other. Maybe I just don't know how this forum thing works. |
It's pretty simple. People log in and read what we write, no matter who it is addressed to...
| Quote: | | Silly me. First the screen name thing and now this. Who's up for writing a Lunar for dummies handbook??) in numerous posts. How can you say you want others to understand? Are you implying that they are too dumb to understand it the first 2 or 3 times you said it? |
You still don't understand, are you going to insult your own intelligence?
| Quote: | | Have you that low of an opinion on the reading comprehension of our company? |
Yeah, that's it...
Again, murder, or not murder? That is the issue...
| Quote: | | Did you consider that my debate was because I understood? It has not escaped me that there is a legal precedent to this case. I read it. Twice. (short pause as Lorianne steps outside of the box) I guess it would be appropriate to say that I began this scenario with an undefined 'transformer' (if you will). I set aside the legal precedent (by ignoring it); re-writing history (-ish). Think French! Philosophers that is. Its a very loose application of the philosophy, but then again, what isn't? |
Relevance? Murder or not murder?
| Quote: | | Quote: | I guess you do not understand using hypothetical examples as a means to reinforce a point (read: make a point easier to understand). Read around the forum, I'm sure you will see this is common practice in a debate.
|
A common practice in debate is actually debating something, not just relying on your creative ability to use various hypothetical scenarios which you hope reinforce your point(s) (which have nothing to do with the case at hand). |
So you can't see the parrellels?
And what have you been debating then? The issue of whether it was murder? I think this is the first reply to me where you actually, finally, mentioned something that truly indicated that you believe it is not murder. And how did I come to that conclusion? Well, one of your responses to my hypothetical scenerios. Hmm, imagine that...
| Quote: | | Should we have created an outline? Technically, since you are addressing me, the only person you have to worry about understanding anything is ME. |
Techincally, this is an open forum. I should worry about everybody that reads my words.
[/quote]I don't see how your punching women in the gut to get them to abort/miscarry because you think the world is over populated is in any way related to whether or not if we were not in the state of California or even if there was no legal precedent in CA state, how Peterson could use a pro-choice argument as part of his defense. [/quote]
Me either.
But then again, that wasn't my concern the first, middle, or last place. I was trying to figure out if you think babies that aren't out of the womb yet, no matter their development, had any inherent value. I know the answer now. And it truly sickens me.
| Quote: | | I'm sure you'll tell me if I didn't answer something to your satisfaction. |
You answered it alright.
Last edited by Christian Michael on Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yossarian
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 4165
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Piper wrote: | Especially in the case of women. Their looks define them much much more than their morals.
Their 'actions' too. |
<porno wah-wah guitar riff>bow-chika-chika bow-chika bow bow</porno wah-wah guitar riff> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Michael
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5133
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think how we choose to look and act is directly influenced by our morals.
But I guess it all depends on how you want to define define. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roboto
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 744
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hahah..
Oh wait. You are right. Maybe its their (lack of) morals or (loose) morals that define them more
Bewm chika chika
What do you think Lorianne? Porno time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yossarian
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 4165
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Michael wrote: | I think how we choose to look and act is directly influenced by our morals.
But I guess it all depends on how you want to define define. |
Hmmm. Your right it is a question of semantics.
Maybe a judgement of someones actual morals (as defined by how they act) vs the morals they espouse?
I made the distinction because I've met a lot of people who claim to have high (often christian) morals that aren't aligned with the actions they take. I suppose you could argue that those aren't really their morals, but I would disagree. People don't always have the strength or even the inclination to stand by what they think is moral. That changes my opinion of an individual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil Lorianne
Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever, CM.
You say potato(e), I say potato.
 
I could go for some porn.
I want to see Piper and Eddie wrestling in butterscotch pudding.
And I want CM to be the ref. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
transa firma
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 11063
Location: Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, Basement Level
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
this self-professed propensity for yello-on-yello violence must end!!
it's very immoral!!
| Evil Lorianne wrote: | | I want to see Piper and Eddie wrestling in butterscotch pudding. |
_________________
´¯`·.¸¸..><((((º>.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸·¸<º))))><
`·.¸¸.¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸·¸><((((º> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Michael
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5133
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil Lorianne wrote: |
You say potato(e), I say potato.
|
Yeah, yeah, it's all relative. You say abortion, I say murder...
Anyway, this thread keeps making me think of that South Park episode where Cartman's mom wants to have him aborted. She sleeps her way all the way up to Bill Clinton to try to change the late-term abortion laws (I think she was in her 40th term). It didn't work.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
