Brant Gaede Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 20 minutes ago, moralist said: Notice how the love of promoting perversion is exactly the same for the secular libertarian right as it is for the secular radical left? The personal moral values of both are generally indistinguishable. Greg Collectivist moral slander. In your world there are two donkeys and you have two sets of three tails, "dope, perversion, and abortion," one set for each ass and Christians are off the hook for getting stuck for they aren't secularists. ("I have sinned!" Oops!) All three groups have many grades of moral stature and for many more reasons. That's because of degradation off the ideal--your idea of the ideal and others' idea of the ideal vetted, of course, by reality. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 19 minutes ago, Peter said: I think I am once again at the point of being SO appalled by Greg’s bigotry and stupidity that I am going to put him on my do not read list. Apey wrote: The personal moral values of both are generally indistinguishable. end quote There you go again. No they are not. A disbelief in platonic ideals floating in the air, ghosts, spirits, or imaginary deities is only indicative of increased rationality, not of any particular mind set or morality. Your mode of thinking and labeling is as flawed as any religionist, like an Islamist or believer in the spirit world. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s there was a resurgence in belief in fairies and the spirits of the dead who could be communicated with, using a huckster medium as a go between. Greg now claims superior knowledge through divine means. He claims to understand divine, gleeful revenge for not following his brand of cesspool Christianity. Why don’t you just shut up and go away? Once again. Ayn Rand stressed a system of scientific psycho-epistemology, and a way of living with others she described as rational self interest. And Rand was a secularist. Get it? Peter But not on your do not reply list. --Brant ya know he'll be quoted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Peter said: There you go again. No they are not. Yes, they are, Peter... ...and I used William as a perfect example of his promoting perversion because his own personal moral values are identical to those of radical leftist libertines. Oh sure, on macro public policies there are certainly differences... but on their own personal behavior regarding dope, perversion, and abortion... it is impossible to distinguish a leftist from a libertarian... because they both worship at the same secular altar and share the same Holy Trinity. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 22, 2016 Author Share Posted May 22, 2016 2 hours ago, moralist said: Yes, they are, Peter... ...and I used William as a perfect example of his promoting perversion because his own personal moral values are identical to those of radical leftists. Oh sure, on macro public policies there are certainly differences... but on their own personal behavior regarding dope, perversion, and abortion... it is impossible to distinguish a leftist from a libertarian... because they both worship at the same secular altar and share the same Holy Trinity. Greg So what? Does either the leftist or the libertarian harm anyone? I do not oppose abortion. Which means I do not interpose in the decisions others make about abortion. All of the children I and my spouse have made were born and are currently quite well. I have not stolen anything from my neighbors, nor have I swindled anyone, nor have I wrongfully shed blood. I have not set anyone's fields alight nor have I trampled their crops. A person's privately held beliefs are of no consequence. Only a person's actions matter. Tend to the observable. That is what counts. That which is private or hidden does not matter until it becomes action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Greg chanted: dope, perversion, and abortion... Greg it is entirely possible to let people be free to ingest what they want, but not BE for a hedonistic lifestyle or ingesting dope. It is perfectly reasonable to say a person IS BORN to be the way they are, and therefor because God or nature created them, they are not evil and they can do as they please with their sexual organs. It is perfectly sensible, from a rational, secularist view to say a woman’s life comes first in an emergency, if there is a problem with a pregnancy . . . but then to stipulate like (Roger Bissell and myself) and the College/Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology say, that past a certain point a fetus is viable, and it IS a moral issue, and after a certain point brain wave activity proves that there is a second person (the baby inside the womb) who’s life must be protected. What part of “is” don’t you get, you fucking moron? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 22, 2016 Author Share Posted May 22, 2016 35 minutes ago, Peter said: Greg chanted: dope, perversion, and abortion... Greg it is entirely possible to let people be free to ingest what they want, but not BE for a hedonistic lifestyle or ingesting dope. It is perfectly reasonable to say a person IS BORN to be the way they are, and therefor because God or nature created them, they are not evil and they can do as they please with their sexual organs. It is perfectly sensible, from a rational, secularist view to say a woman’s life comes first in an emergency, if there is a problem with a pregnancy . . . but then to stipulate like (Roger Bissell and myself) and the College/Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology say, that past a certain point a fetus is viable, and it IS a moral issue, and after a certain point brain wave activity proves that there is a second person (the baby inside the womb) who’s life must be protected. What part of “is” don’t you get, you fucking moron? Peter A human fetus has too little brain mass to be be a -person-. After birth it takes a month or two for the brain to grow and make sufficient neural interconnection to be a human person. Fortunately the brain is one of the fastest growing organs in newborn infants. There is a good reason why the brain is small at birth. The head is the largest diameter portion of the fetus' body. It must be small enough to pass through the vaginal opening. That is why, among the primates newborn human infants are the least developed (in relation to their adult form) of all the primates. It takes several years of nurturing before a human can survive autonomously. Among the other primates, the newborns require much less time to achieve autonomous survival (relative to their expected life span). Humans come half-baked out of the oven. It is doubtful that a newborn human is a person, but we customarily protect the lives of newborns. This was not always and everywhere true. In Athens and Sparta unwanted or damaged newborns were exposed and left to die. The same was true in Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 42 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: A human fetus has too little brain mass to be be a -person-. After birth it takes a month or two for the brain to grow and make sufficient neural interconnection to be a human person. Fortunately the brain is one of the fastest growing organs in newborn infants. There is a good reason why the brain is small at birth. The head is the largest diameter portion of the fetus' body. It must be small enough to pass through the vaginal opening. That is why, among the primates newborn human infants are the least developed (in relation to their adult form) of all the primates. It takes several years of nurturing before a human can survive autonomously. Among the other primates, the newborns require much less time to achieve autonomous survival (relative to their expected life span). Humans come half-baked out of the oven. It is doubtful that a newborn human is a person, but we customarily protect the lives of newborns. This was not always and everywhere true. In Athens and Sparta unwanted or damaged newborns were exposed and left to die. The same was true in Rome. An old demented person has too little workable brain mass to remain a person. --Brant so . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: So what? Does either the leftist or the libertarian harm anyone? I said nothing about harm, Bob... ...only that secular libertarian and secular leftist personal moral values are the same. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 53 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: A human fetus has too little brain mass to be be a -person-. Might your last name be Megele, Herr Bob?. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Peter said: It is perfectly reasonable to say a person IS BORN to be the way they are the view you just expressed is indistinguishable from that of radical secular leftism, Peter. The more you talk the more you keep making my point of the shared personal moral values between the extreme right and the radical left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 23, 2016 Author Share Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: An old demented person has too little workable brain mass to remain a person. --Brant so . . . In our society we accord such an unfortunate the rights of being a person. It is not true in all society. In some primitive societies the old were left to perish. I believe that was the case with the Inuits prior to them being Christianized. Most old folks in our society die while they still have most of their marbles. There are some unfortunate cases of people suffering from Alzheimer's Syndrome who become totally demented prior to dying. It is our custom to care for such unfortunate people. In societies living just on the border of starvation maintaining such a custom could be fatal to their society. It comes down to the case of two people in a desert with only enough water to sustain one till they can reach a water supply. If they share the water then both die. If one has the water and the other does not one lives and one dies. It makes perfectly good sense for one to live and one to die rather than both die. In our society we have so much surplus food and life support that we can afford to be charitable to the sick and dying. Lucky us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Greg wrote . . . the view you just expressed is indistinguishable from that of radical secular leftism, Peter. It is the contextual view of science. If it is indistinguishable it is because we both use science. You use Voodoo. What is odd intellectually is that the leftists diverge from science and use Voodoo to come to irrational conclusions. Greg and the leftist secularists are one and the same. They both use Voodoo. Greg! Embrace your crazy sister. The Theme to Game of Thrones can't be sung. If you try to hum it you sound moronic. Yet it is hypnotic. How do they do that? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 20 minutes ago, Peter said: Greg wrote . . . the view you just expressed is indistinguishable from that of radical secular leftism, Peter. It is the contextual view of science. This makes it twice you have expressed the identical view held by secular radical leftists... Science devoid of morality. Want to make it three? Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: In our society we accord such an unfortunate the rights of being a person. It is not true in all society. In some primitive societies the old were left to perish. I believe that was the case with the Inuits prior to them being Christianized. Most old folks in our society die while they still have most of their marbles. There are some unfortunate cases of people suffering from Alzheimer's Syndrome who become totally demented prior to dying. It is our custom to care for such unfortunate people. In societies living just on the border of starvation maintaining such a custom could be fatal to their society. It comes down to the case of two people in a desert with only enough water to sustain one till they can reach a water supply. If they share the water then both die. If one has the water and the other does not one lives and one dies. It makes perfectly good sense for one to live and one to die rather than both die. In our society we have so much surplus food and life support that we can afford to be charitable to the sick and dying. Lucky us. Why bother? Just abort them. That's your according of "rights." Rights are not accorded. Rights are protected and defended. --Brant your custom, my custom, who has the most and biggest guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 7 hours ago, Peter said: Greg chanted: dope, perversion, and abortion... Greg it is entirely possible to let people be free to ingest what they want, but not BE for a hedonistic lifestyle or ingesting dope. It is perfectly reasonable to say a person IS BORN to be the way they are, and therefor because God or nature created them, they are not evil and they can do as they please with their sexual organs. It is perfectly sensible, from a rational, secularist view to say a woman’s life comes first in an emergency, if there is a problem with a pregnancy . . . but then to stipulate like (Roger Bissell and myself) and the College/Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology say, that past a certain point a fetus is viable, and it IS a moral issue, and after a certain point brain wave activity proves that there is a second person (the baby inside the womb) who’s life must be protected. What part of “is” don’t you get, you fucking moron? Peter I'll say one thing about Greg, he doesn't engage in this kind of mishy-mashy. --Brant is that why he got to you? Rand and Greg's views on abortion are opposite but not about morality for Rand was all about morality so their argument would be a moral argument with Rand mixing in her political philosophy (rights)--that is, Rand was (above all according to her) a moralist so the rational question--the interesting and maybe important question to Greg--not to me--is how he deals with Rand's "secularism"?--oh, Rand vehemently eschewed libertarianism and libertarians (I believe as "hippies on the left") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 23, 2016 Author Share Posted May 23, 2016 8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Why bother? Just abort them. That's your according of "rights." Rights are not accorded. Rights are protected and defended. --Brant your custom, my custom, who has the most and biggest guns? I am in favor of letting people live, all other things being equal. I guess I am just a sentimentalist. Or maybe I don't like the idea of being left to perish. If I don't like when something is done to me, I am disinclined to do that thing to other folks if I don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: I am in favor of letting people live, all other things being equal. I guess I am just a sentimentalist. Or maybe I don't like the idea of being left to perish. If I don't like when something is done to me, I am disinclined to do that thing to other folks if I don't have to. How sentimental of you. None of these preferences make any sense with in the framework you claim to adhere to. These preferences and disinclinations imply such a thing as "free will". According to your "Man is Merely a Glorified Amoeba" theory, there could be no free will. I agree with Brant that you need to go read yourself some Ayn Rand. For obvious reasons, a good start would be her explication of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: I am in favor of letting people live, all other things being equal. I guess I am just a sentimentalist. Or maybe I don't like the idea of being left to perish. If I don't like when something is done to me, I am disinclined to do that thing to other folks if I don't have to. Okay. Now, about those babies . . . --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 23, 2016 Author Share Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, PDS said: How sentimental of you. None of these preferences make any sense with in the framework you claim to adhere to. These preferences and disinclinations imply such a thing as "free will". According to your "Man is Merely a Glorified Amoeba" theory, there could be no free will. I agree with Brant that you need to go read yourself some Ayn Rand. For obvious reasons, a good start would be her explication of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. I am programmed (or "wired") to do as I do and think as I think. However the underlying quantum processes are non-deterministic. Free Will dwells within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Please keep in mind that all of us Terran animals are physical down to the subatomic level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 On May 21, 2016 at 11:14 PM, moralist said: "The man who rules himself cannot be ruled by others." --Greg On May 22, 2016 at 0:30 PM, moralist said: I went to public high school only because I had to... So you were ruled by others! You "had to"? Hahaha! What a leftist feminized pussy! Who made you go to public school, Apey, and why weren't you man enough to stand up to them and rule yourself? Because you're a girlie weakling who gets what she deserves!!!! You deserve to be ruled and told what to do!!!! Ah hahahahahaha!!!! On May 22, 2016 at 0:30 PM, moralist said: ... and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with my education... except to teach me not to be a public employee. It taught you how to be obedient to the State!!! Despite not being a "public employee," you were a wussy coward weakiing who did what others ordered him to do rather than stand up for himself. You're ruled by others! You comply with the leftist State's incursions into your profession! On May 22, 2016 at 0:30 PM, moralist said: So instead of sitting like an inert lump listening to the useless drivel of IDIOT government parasite educated intellectuals who NEVER produced anything useful in their shitty lives... I learned a trade just by working at it, and started my own business as a self made independent private sector American Capitalist entrepreneur. My net worth is seven figures (not counting the cents) with zero debt. At 67, I'm healthy and happy with two Grandkids to play with. I'm still constantly creating new ventures, and will retire when I'm dead because I'm doing what I love. You went out and got permission and licensing from the State. You complied with what they ordered you to do. You allowed yourself to be ruled by leftist pervert bureaucrats!!! J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jonathan said: So you were ruled by others! Sure, Jonathan... ...every child is ruled by adults until they grow to become an adult who rules themselves... something you obviously failed at. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 37 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: I am programmed (or "wired") to do as I do and think as I think. However the underlying quantum processes are non-deterministic. Free Will dwells within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Please keep in mind that all of us Terran animals are physical down to the subatomic level. Can you point me to an authoritative source for the statement that free will dwells within the HUP? Not being snarky. i am genuinely interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 19 minutes ago, moralist said: Sure, Jonathan... ...every child is ruled by adults until they grow to become an adult who rules themselves... something you obviously failed at. Are you saying that you haven't been an adult when you've allowed yourself to be ruled by the State and when you've spinelessly complied with its licensing requirements for your profession?!!! You're not an adult yet!!! Hahahaha!!!! I could actually believe that, since you act like such an insecure child!!!! Anyway, it is only from your wimpy, State-compliant perspective that you imagine that I've failed at something. You allow yourself to be ruled by State licensing impositions. Your being a subordinate, subservient bitch to the State has turned you into a self-loathing dunce who can't even think without the State's ordering him what to think. You're wholly dependent on the State. Without the State telling you how to do your work, you would have electrocuted yourself to death long ago due to trying to "think" on your own like you try to do here. Hahahahaha!!!! J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Jonathan said: Are you saying that you haven't been an adult when you've allowed yourself to be ruled by the State and when you've spinelessly complied with its licensing requirements for your profession? That's not being ruled. I voluntarily chose to enter into a contract with the government so I can enjoy the privileges of a Contractors license. It enhances business status and credibility to be legally licensed and bonded. In short, it's good for business because you can make a LOT more money. You really don't know much about the adult business world, do you? Your ugly attitude all but guarantees your failure at it because no decent person would ever want to do business with someone with your perpetually pissed off demeanor. I sure wouldn't. You've got crappy ethics, and that renders you unworthy of the trust of others. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I have a commercial driver's license and a pilot's license. If the government didn't require them insurance companies would--or equivalents. The principle (Rand) is it's okay even to work for the government--say as a teacher--if that's work that would be done privately, but not work that shouldn't be done by anybody. Take you friendly IRS agent--please. It's fun to watch Greg being chased around a tree with a stick when Greg isn't moving. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now