I believe he’s referring to the decidedly unChrist-like holier-than-thou Satan span that refer themselves as “evangelicals”.Hey, no need to refer to Catholics in such demeaning terms.....Or Sunday Catholics as I call them.
Last edited:
Electoral College idiocy
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
A parent can sometimes be faced with a situation, where their child thru either drug use, or committing a crime, stealing, bullying someone, etc, suffers a consequence that can hurt the child, kill the child, etc.
The parent can't ALWAYS force the child to not do the thing that will get the child hurt or killed.
A parent can't always spend every second of their entire life surgically attached to Child to make sure doesn't do something to get themselves as a child, hurt or killed.
Kids do stupid stuff all the time that get themselves hurt or killed.
I remember as a boy, that me and other boys did stuff like jump bikes off of 5 feet jumps into 10 foot deep bike, skate bowls, getting 13 to 15 to 17 feet off of ground.
Many boys seriously hurt themselves, fortunately I wasn't seriously hurt, altho I could have easily been hurt by that.
My parents and the other boys parents didn't stop us.
Our parents could have stopped us tho.
At some point a parent has to either trust their kids to be on their own, learn, without interference, legally be forced to let them be on their own, without interference when they turn 18.
A parent either can't or shouldn't be surgically attached to their kid for 100 years, etc.
At some point a parent has to, should let the kid GROW UP, BE ON THEIR OWN, MAKE CHOICES, MAKE MISTAKES, SUFFER LIFE'S NATURAL CONSEQUENCES, EVEN IF IT GETS THEM KILLED, AND LEARN FROM CHOICES, MISTAKES, CONSEQUENCES, etc.
God as our Heavenly Father sometimes has to let us make choices, make mistakes, suffer consequences, that sometimes hurt us and other people, and let us learn, grow, progress from that.
If life was perfectly easy, and if there was no choice, no choosing, no consequences, and if God always interfered, then there would be no learning, no progression, no improvement, etc.
And God would be a Dictator King. And we would be automatons, robots, etc.
And it would be hell on earth, and we would want to be free, allowed to live our lives, without God stopping us, all the time.
We wouldnt want or need a HELICOPTER Heavenly Father, parent, any more then a HELICOPTER EARTHLY parent.
Huh, Mik:
Well gee, I found and posted the Danbury Baptist (get your spelling right) letter, and I don't see the words Separation of Church and State. Maybe your eyes are sharper than mine.
Also note that Jefferson's reply (excerpt copied below) DOES mention the Separation of Church and State, but in the context of that is what the constitution says, just using other words.
Letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists (1802) - Bill of Rights Institute
billofrightsinstitute.org
" I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
So yeah reconsider getting on meds, and be true to your comment about 5 of your posts ago where you said I'm not going to get into a argument, debate, long winded discussion with you on about this. Sure looks like you forgot you said that.
Ok it was from Jeffersons response to the Danbury letter and not from the Danbury letter.
I misremembered it, and thought it was from the letter.
Point is that the actual words SEPARATION FROM CHURCH AND STATE wasn't used in founding documents, constitution.
And the point of Jeffersons response, and the first amendment is that the govt can't or shouldn't establish, make any sect, denomination, religion a state sponsored, established religion, and over any other religion, religious belief.
That does not mean that govt should never ever have anything to do with religion, etc, like helping religion to end homelessness, etc.
If people want to pray in school, in, as part of govt, etc, LET THEM.
If govt wants to force people to pray, or make the Baptist or some other religion, religious belief the state sponsored, established religion, belief, over other religions, beliefs, etc, THATS NOT ALLOWED, AND IS FORBIDDEN BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION.
The ACLU, others have falsely claimed that the constitution uses the WORDS SEPARATION FROM CHURCH AND STATE, and falsely claim that the first amendment and separation from church and state mean that people can't pray in school if they want, and that govt can't help churches to end homelessness, etc.
In a sane world we’d all prefer not to vote for either.
I've never voted for any candidate...I've only voted against others. And I'll vote against Trump, unless he's running against Putin. Then it's a coin flip.
Note the qualification I gave: innocent human being. A home invader isn’t innocent.
And there are alternatives to directly killing the baby in the case of dangerous pregnancies.
No.
In my opinion the woman are the least culpable. The scenario you outline above is excellent evidence of that.
No, if there is clear evidence of mental distress and anguish that clouded judgement. We often don’t have murder or attempted murder charges for crimes of passion or for people in extreme emotional states.
One cannot do evil to achieve a good end. For example, we could end poverty in the US if we just killed every household with income below the poverty line. No poverty, a good end. The means are evil and cannot be tolerated.
Or less extreme, but relevant to today. We can end racism by being racist. Ending racism, good end. Being racist, evil means.
So, we use the principle of double effect. Four conditions. The bad outcome, even if foreseen, must not be intended. The act must be at least morally neutral. The good end must flow directly from the act. The good end must be sufficient to justify the bad outcome.
Apply this to chemo. Chemo therapy is morally neutral. It is possible, even likely, that the baby will die, but that is not the goal of the chemo. The removal of the cancer comes directly from the chemo. The saving of the mother’s life is sufficient justify the possible death of the child. So chemo is permissible.
Abortion fails this test in at least two ways. The act is not morally neutral. The killing of the child does not directly lead to the good end (removing the cancer).
But there are alternatives. If the pregnancy is a severe complication to the chemo therapy that threatens the life of the mother, the pregnancy can be terminated in a way that is not the dirext
Killing of the child. Apply the same principle. Ending a pregnancy by removing the child whole is a morally neutral act (e.g. Caesean sections). The death of the child, while foreseen, is not intended. The removal of the complication comes directly from the act. The good end of removing the complication may be sufficiently justified by the early delivery of the child.
The point here is the intentional killing of an innocent human being cannot and should not be tolerated. And in these difficult (and very rare) circumstances, the goal is the care of BOTH the woman AND the child. The child is not disposable.
I haven’t voted for anyone since Obama/McCain. But rather that vote for a POS, I leave that one blank and move down. A vote for a POS as a vote against a POS, is still a vote for a POS. I won’t hold my nose and vote for the likes of Trump or Biden (or DeSantis if he somehow makes it on the ballot).
Last edited:
A whole lot of really, really, really smart people disagree with you. And they have made rich, detailed, and extremely well formed arguments to prove the concept of God is hardly absurd.
Joe Heshemeyer has being doing a great 5 part series on atheist arguments and their shortcomings. His most recent on the Principle of Sufficient Reason was excellent. Ed Feser did a masterful job of rebutting the New Atheists in his book The Last Superstition.
I've seen things in my life that make me believe that there are higher powers that we lack the ability to comprehend. Out of that, the thing that I've really come to understand is that organized religion is mankind's feeble attempt to comprehend that higher power and unfortunately, because people are involved...it is routinely corrupted to serve the purposes and agendas of men. The area where I live didn't have large religious schools until the 60's and early 70's but were opened because white people didn't want their kids going to school with black kids. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and mandatory busing program in 1971 led to the opening of two large Catholic schools.
The Catholic church in my area has used racism to recruit new Catholics for 50+ years with their programs to reduce tuition to the schools if you either tithe 10% of your income to the church or volunteer at the school or Church for free. Don't want your kids around those n#ggers and spics? Find religion and we'll set you free!
Atheists would be well served to look around and be open minded, but religious folks should also be open eyed to the shortcomings of the church and realize that a lot of the things that we see the church promoting have nothing to do with God but everything to do with promoting that church. That includes using abortion as a culture war issue to get people to pick sides with the hope that it will bring in recruits.
5 posts in a row. You are approaching Mik for absurdity.. You've made your point ten times over. You are a super pro- life, Bible thumping right wingnut. Good for you.
Here's an article about who I assume is another one of your heroes. Hypocritical POS. Yet we blindly elect them. Think maybe I'll start a DeSantis thread.
The problem with refutations of the atheist arguments is that their target is too broad. Meaning, these current crop of popular atheists (Dawkins, hitchens, Harris, dennett) are specifically making their argument, not so much against "God" in general, but the Christian concept of God in particular.
It is MUCH easier to knock down the former argument, but next to impossible to take out the latter. It DOES pertain particularly to ones definition of god, so any discussion would need to start with that.
I would call myself a deist, because to me it is an impossible argument to say definitively that there is no god. Most atheists probably don't even hold that view as atheist is simply a lack of belief in a god rather than a positive assertion. There are those who are in that camp, however.
The claim of there absolutely being no god as described in the bible is an easier argument. I say THAT god doesn't exist. Taihtsat
Abortion has been legal - in most cases - only during the first trimester. Any C-section performed during this period (even if to save the mother) is guaranteed to kill the child. Are you arguing that this is OK because it’s not your intent to kill the child, even though you know it will happen?
Kind of sounds like you’re also less concerned with the fact the child dies than with the condition its body is in once it’s dead.
I didn’t post at all on this yesterday. I caught up this morning on the 10+ posts.
You must have missed the post about me leaving the section on the ballot for president blank when I voted in 2020. I mentioned there I wouldn’t even vote for DeSantis, even to unseat Biden. Before you put words in my mouth about my heroes you ought to read what I wrote.
There are degrees of POS. Unqualified and incompetent seem like lesser sins than intentional manipulation and self-aggrandizement.
Historically, I’ve moved down the ballot and found a 7th or 8th candidate who had no chance to win but who didn’t make me feel like I needed a shower afterward. More recently, I’ve gone with the lesser evil.
In 2020, I couldn’t make myself vote for either Trump or Biden. My 4 year old wanted to vote, so I gave it to her on the condition that she could not vote for Trump. She said “Ew, daddy. I won’t.” In 2024, I’m not sure even she’ll be able to stomach the choice that has to be made. But it still won’t be Trump.
This is what the Principle of Double Effect is about. The desired end is not the death of the child, but to heal the mother. The means must be morally neutral, the good effect must follow directly from the act, the bad effect must be justified by the good outcome, and the bad effect must not be intended.
A C-section is morally neutral. The good effect—saving the mother—comes directly from felony the complication. Saving the mother is a justified even if the child may die. The desire is not to kill the child, even if we know it to be likely.
Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being, which is not a morally neutral act. The inent of the act is to kill the child, which leads to removing the complication.
No. I’m concerned about intentionally killing innocent human beings.
We have clearly different standards. Biden is qualified after his 30+ years in public office. Both him and Trump are incompetent for different reasons. And both are morally repugnant. Nah. I won’t vote for either.
Yeah this is a tough one. Of course no way in hell would I vote for Trump, unless the other candidate was Satan. Even then I would give pause. just wish the Dems had someone else to throw out there. Same with the repugnant ones. Susan Collins? Lisa Murkowski? I would maybe vote for one of those. IDK, maybe Manchin. Definitely not Kamala. Biden should probably dump her as his running mate. Although since I live in the People's Republic of Washington, until we do away with that BS electoral college my vote means nothing anyway.
This might be true of Harris and Dennett. But Dawkins and Hitchens are clearly opposed to the very concept of God. They may all be very bright and very well educated and accomplished in their fields, but they are exceptionally bad philosophers.
Dawkins praised Lawrence Krauss’s book “A Universe From Nothing” as the most important scientific book with implications for supernaturalism since Darwin. But it is all bad philosophy.
It’ll mean even less if we got rid of it. As would everyone’s votes in the middle of the country. CA and New England would basically decide the election.
As opposed to 5 or 6 states now, where all the candidates spend all their time. What’s the difference? At least a majority of all citizens would decide, instead of a minority.
So? This is a democracy after all. Every vote should count.
When was the last time a Repugnant presidential candidate won the popular vote? Hint: 2004.
We aren’t a democracy. We are a democratic republic.
And every vote does count. The states choose the president, not the people. The federal government represents the states, not the people. If you want a direct democracy why not jettison the federal system altogether? Why not a slate of national representatives and senators that the entire country votes on?
Ok, enough blah,blah blah about abortion. What felony would you have me charged with for getting a vasectomy in 1982. What would my wife have been guilty of for taking the pill for several years?
Exactly, buddy. That's what needs to be fixed. Every vote does not f-ing count currently. You really are a wingnut.
Democracy, republic. Tomato, Tomahto.
Just not 1 to 1. A in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.count more than votes in CA, NY.
Well not really because the # of electors is determined by state population. Not as precise as the popular vote unconstrained by state lines. It is true that D's lose a lot of close states, but usually have big margins in the Blue states. Thus 1996 and 2004.
They are nowhere near as smart as you think. You cannot prove that “god” or the “concept of god” is not absurd: you cannot “prove” anything that is based entirely on faith and faith alone. That is a fools errand.
And If in fact there is a “god” that exists it is infinitely more likely then not that this “god” is not what anyone believes or imagines and that this “god” doesn’t give a flying f*** about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other elaborate hoax.
For the vasectomy? None. No babies were killed.
For the pill? None since there is no evidence.
Happy?
It alpears you haven’t read even a summary of the arguments for the existence of at least a god. At least if you are posting in all seriousness. Which I’m not sure about given your other posts.
Talk to congress about it. It is they who put the cap at 435 (see the Reapprtionment Act of 1929). The Constitution says one representative for every 30,000 people. Go back to what the Constitution says, and CA, NY, WA, etc would have more electoral college votes. Don’t need an amendment or the popular vote compact to get what you want.
"because the relative # of electors is determined by state population."
Happy now?
300,000,000/30,000 is 10,000. Thats how many representatives we would have if we stuck to the Constitution.
And your CA, NY, etc. premise is WRONG. CA, etc, would still have the same proportion of electorals compared to other states that they have now.
I'm renaming this thread.
Similar threads
