Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Dear GobSmacked.
Are you right about anything?
Did you get teased a lot at school?
Dear Danielle.
No keyboard macro. Trust me. If I didn't keep reminding you lot about the facts I base my judgments upon you'd make up something else in order to ridicule what I say. So how about you get over that you don't like the facts and deal with what I say rather than what you wish I'd said.
I suppose you could repeat lies to yourself. That'd be pretty silly though.
-
Who is this guy you keep talking about?
...
:D
-
I notice everybody's ability to describe poverty has improved immeasurably. However I am not advocating that laws be passed that prohibit poverty. I am suggesting that "Do not steal" is a good law.
I admit that I will always be outdone by people who want to describe conditions where stealing could be seen as an act justified by desperation. I don't agree and do not have the emotional rebuttal required to defend the law against such stories. So instead I will ask those who think poor people should be allowed to steal how they intend to implement such a law?
Perhaps you could write a law so that every person with under a certain amount of tax to pay could be allowed to take a certain amount of goods from somewhere every year. Maybe you could specify certain rich corporations as the ones that should have their goods taken. Or maybe everyone above a certain tax level should be forced to donate some money in order to prop up people who live in cardboard boxes.
For mine, I will risk the condemnation of the emotionally frail and suggest that poor people will always be with us. The fact that some people are poor is not a reason to suggest stealing should be regulated (read legalised). Just as the fact that some people rape a reason to suggest rape be regulated.
Unfortunately New Zealand has followed the rest of the world to the point where all four of the laws I suggested as the basis of a good legal system have been perverted. Murder and theft are state sanctioned procedures that our population fights for as rights. Adultery is not even considered bad by many. I can only assume that with the lack of integrity shown in the law that perjury is a way of life as well.
Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal and do not commit perjury are good laws. There is never a necessity to break any of them nor should anyone be charged for obeying them.
-
But we started with Murder should be illegal.
I started off with, "Do not murder". Of course that should be against the law if murder is defined as unjustified killing or even unlawful killing.
And now you're defining murder as illegal killing.
What would you like me to define it as?
So what you're saying is that you have a deeply held moral belief that something thats illegal should be illegal because its illegal...
Illegal because it's in opposition to the command, "Do not murder".
It's called a circular argument, and strangely, it goes nowhere and proves nothing.
Strange how you recognise a good definition, but cannot correct those who defy good logic...
Do you also suggest that some murders should be legal?
-
Justice and justified are not the same word. Neither are justice and law. Unjustified and unlawful are certainly not the same thing.
Certainly not without context. But if you look at the two statements:
Murder is unlawful killing
and
Murder is unjustified killing
All one needs is an assumption that the law is just to make the connection.If it would help I would adjust my terminology to say Murder is unlawful killing. Unfortunately I get the distinct impression that people here believe right and wrong to be determined by the laws of men.
-
Linger:
Of course people do judge others. But if there's any consistent thread in Christian teachings, it is that any judgements people make should be made compassionately, as persons, with the full awareness of their own limitations as individuals. Most of the time, you seem to be judging instead as some abstract embodiment of perfect law. I merely seek reassurance that there is a person in there somewhere.
There is a person in here. He cares more about the innocent victim than the person acting incorrectly. I guess that's a really difficult thing for people with the capacity to respond to accept. So, while I may be unpopular, I'm still right.
I think also we may be getting misled by the word "judge".
I understand that you are actually (rightly, in my ...judgement) making an important distinction between "judging" and "sentencing". But then is a "judgement" merely an "opinion"? Or is it something more -- such as an "informed opinion"?A judgment is a thing made to inform action. Our choices and actions are limited by the law. So while I judge that abortion is wrong I am in no place to rightly pass sentence.
On the other side we have people making choices and passing sentence without justice. They then act to defend their choice. Unfortunately the act is so polarising that the capacity to see good judgment after the act is far too condemning. You see where a lack of good judgment leads?
...in which case, can you see how an opinion informed by scientific evidence or by the reported real-life experiences of others may be more convincing than an opinion informed by one person's own interpretation of some abstract principles?
My judgment is based on scientific fact. Judgment is an abstract concept, like love or faith, that informs my choices and opinions. Are you able to accept the facts? The facts are that at conception a baby is alive and human. I judge that enough evidence to recognise a human being and to recognise that ending that life, without justification, is wrong.
...and both may be less convincing that an account from personal experience. For an example of what I mean, one need only turn to David Slack's most recent post; or indeed to the comment 20-odd pages upthread by "anonymous for obvious reasons". I have nothing as valuable to offer; and so I shall end here.
I do not understand why I am being asked these questions! Of course it is tragic that babies die! Of course a mother devastated by an ectopic pregnancy has just as much right to grieve as a mother of a nine year old! What I have been saying supports all that. Can you please explain to me how babies dying tragically has any impact on my wish that mothers not kill their babies!
-
Grant, you still haven't answered that all-important question.
Your comments about ectopic pregnancies seem to suggest that you may not yet be adequately prepared to judge the decisions of others in that situation. (I know I'm not: I don't have enough relevant enough experience to fully place myself in that situation. The knowledge and experience that I do have suggests to me that there is nothing necessarily morally wrong in early-stage abortion, but I might still feel differently if it was actually happening to me.) Until you reach that stage of enlightenment, you have insufficient grounds for a conclusion that any decision is not in fact the right one for that individual concerned.And you still have not come to terms with the fact that all people judge. I just happen to judge in a manner that you do not like.
However if you were to understand what I say then you would realise that my judgment (if applied) would not mean that a woman must die in order to avoid a murder rap when she has an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is a clear case where intervention needs to happen and needs to happen quickly.
It is a very poor judge who asserts that because we must face these tragic situation then it is necessary to have abortion. The intent is the key. In an ectopic pregnancy the intent is to save the mother. There have also been attempts to save the baby by moving him to the right place. These attempts have not been successful, but perhaps one day they will be.
With an abortion the intent is to kill the baby.
The only connection an ectopic pregnancy has with abortion is that the baby nearly always dies. Associating the two, using one to justify the other, is insane. It's sort of like saying we should regulate (read: legalise) stealing because sometimes people lose their wallets.
I really hope I'm making sense to you here!
-
I take it you see no connection between justice and law...
-
Grant, I hate to break it to you. As evidenced by your comments in another thread, it's just really obvious that you have some sort of belief that everything in life is black and white. You even said that there are all sorts of views, most of which are generally wrong, one of which is right. Let me guess which one that would be? Yours, right? I don't know that you have any idea just how sanctimonious you are making yourself look with your comments. I find it breathtaking that you really believe that there is, generally, only ever one view that is right. Are you playing devil's advocate? Or are you really, really, that arrogant? Women request terminations for many, many reasons. Doctors carry out terminations for many, many reasons - and yes, some for medical reasons. It should be clear to you that this somewhat academic argument you have been having has been read by people who are personally invested in this issue. Who have had terminations. Who have tried to have children and cannot. Some of them have contributed to this discussion, and shared their experiences. This is not academic to these people. It is personal. You have the right to your opinions, but please remember, they are just that. Opinions.
Your opinion is noted.
-
In a different shade of poker dot, some thing I'v noticed about your comments Grant, is that there's almost no mention of emotional affect. Have you considered, that you might just be feeling squeamish about abortion, but lack the resources in which to express that appropriately. I suggest, you go and hug a tree.
Roffle! I believe it is usually pro-life people who are derided for using emotion as an argument. Now I'm being encouraged to share?
Tree .. tree hugging... uh...
OH! You mean cut trees down and carry them in for firewood? :gotcha: