View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:05 pm



Reply to topic  [ 451 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
 A Report from Terri Schiavo's Room 
Author Message
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Sandman wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
Sandman wrote:
Right. So the point is to get at the truth. From what I've read of the depositions, Michael's bad reputaiton is deserved.

Oh.. You mean the depositions the court dismissed as being unreliable?
I don't know what the court determined them to be, but they look credible to me.

GTRMAN wrote:
You're throwing religion into the fold again. :roll:
You're being a bigot again. Like I said, you're a jerk.


Again, with the personal attacks. Can't resist, can you? Ad hominem, indeed.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of others of different races or beliefs. That is more befitting of you. I respect your religious beliefs, but you should not judge others by your belief system as they may not follow it. You should worry more about how YOU stand up to the standards you are settting.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:30 am
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
Whatever. I stand by my statements.

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:40 am
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Sandman wrote:
Whatever. I stand by my statements.


I wouldn't expect any more from you.. 8)

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:46 am
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
ASSOCIATED PRESS
7:01 a.m. March 31, 2005
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nati ... terri.html

She was especially close to her mother. "When people say I was her best friend, I say no," said Meyer. "I was her closest friend. Her mother was her best friend."

Her friends and family say she was unhappy with Michael. He was controlling, they say, and tried to keep her away from them; he was abusive, they say, and told her that if she ever got fat again, he would leave her.

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:24 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 pm
Posts: 11819
Post 
EKG wrote:
Ken, check with the church, I understand cremation is allowed.

All the stuff Micheal pulled in the end there is shitty, but there MUST be more to it than meets the eye (as the media gives it to us)



I'm Catholic...it is allowed, but it's not normal. I'd bet 90+% of the Catholics are NOT cremated. Especially Catholics older than 30....

_________________
Ken Hower Wrote: My advice to everyone.....DO NOT purchase any of these photographs....Tim Findlay can jack off to his hearts content over his killer pictures...alone.

Regards,
Ken


Last edited by KenHower on Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:30 am
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 pm
Posts: 11819
Post 
GTRMAN wrote:
KenHower wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
He knew her better than anyone else. It's also his right as a husband.



There's a difference. He's not respecting ANY wishes of the parents. None.

If this was my wife...I would have worked WITH her parents and if her Mom said she really wanted her buried..I'd bury her.

He knows she's Catholic, yet he cremates her despite that. Arrogance and power tripping.

He also kicked the Shindlers out of the room 10 minutes before she died. He's about as Thoughtless as they get.



He has NO obligation to the Schindlers. Especially after the smear campaign they've waged against him and his character.

He married Terri, not her parents. He owes them NOTHING.



You obviously DO NOT have children and you're obviously not Catholic, hence your opinion here is null.

By Cremating her....especially to older, more traditional Catholics...it's as if he buried a Jew with a pig in the coffin.

You have no concept of what that means...clearly.

_________________
Ken Hower Wrote: My advice to everyone.....DO NOT purchase any of these photographs....Tim Findlay can jack off to his hearts content over his killer pictures...alone.

Regards,
Ken


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:32 am
Profile WWW
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
KenHower wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
KenHower wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
He knew her better than anyone else. It's also his right as a husband.



There's a difference. He's not respecting ANY wishes of the parents. None.

If this was my wife...I would have worked WITH her parents and if her Mom said she really wanted her buried..I'd bury her.

He knows she's Catholic, yet he cremates her despite that. Arrogance and power tripping.

He also kicked the Shindlers out of the room 10 minutes before she died. He's about as Thoughtless as they get.



He has NO obligation to the Schindlers. Especially after the smear campaign they've waged against him and his character.

He married Terri, not her parents. He owes them NOTHING.



You obviously DO NOT have children and you're obviously not Catholic, hence your opinion here is null.

By Cremating her....especially to older, more traditional Catholics...it's as if he buried a Jew with a pig in the coffin.

You have no concept of what that means...clearly.


I'm not Catholic BUT my father and that entire side of my family is so I know a little about it.. ;)

My girlfriend is Jewish.. She and I have had this talk. She doesn't care much what's done with her body once she's gone. She knows she won't need it any more.

As far as children... Who knows? Maybe.. ;)

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:45 pm
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
GTRMAN wrote:
I respect your religious beliefs, but you should not judge others by your belief system, as they may not follow it.

So if I believe, say, that theft is wrong, I can't judge someone for stealing because they might not believe as I do, that it's wrong?

And aren't you juding my position based upon your belief system? What am I missing here? Is it, if one bases their understanding of morality partially on religious teachings, their views are illigitimate? But if one bases thier understanding of morality on nothing in particular, just "what seems right" to them, their views are legitimate? Help me here.


GTRMAN wrote:
Sandman wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
You're throwing religion into the fold again. :roll:
You're being a bigot again. Like I said, you're a jerk.


Again, with the personal attacks. Can't resist, can you? Ad hominem, indeed.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of others of different races or beliefs. That is more befitting of you. I respect your religious beliefs, but you should not judge others by your belief system as they may not follow it. You should worry more about how YOU stand up to the standards you are setting.


The ad hominem fallacy is attacking the presenter of an argument verses the argument itself.

The genetic fallacy is rejecting an argument based upon who the presenter of the argument is.

I'm not sure I've done either. And I think you have committed the genetic fallacy. My guess is it's based upon a bigoted attitude toward Christianity and Christians.

My position was that the principle you were espousing was immoral (dishonoring the wishes of parents regarding the care and eventual burial preparations for their child). My personal opinion is that someone who embraces such an immoral principle is deserving of disrespect. Especially if it adversely affects the lives of other people. In my vocabulary, such a person is "a jerk".

When you criticize a moral principle because it comes from a religious source, (for instance, rejecting the moral principle of honoring your father and your mother because it's a Commandment in Judeo/Christian religions), you are committing the genetic fallacy. The fact of the matter is, that principle of honoring parents is not exclusive to any one religion or culture. And there's nothing in logic that precludes a principle in a religion from being good and true even if the religion itself is not generally good and true.

To further illustrate the fallacy of rejecting the principle due to its association with a religion, let's consider some other standards of behavior from Judeo/Christian religions: "you shall not murder," "you shall not steal," "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (i.e. don't lie in court), and "love your neighbor as yourself." Are we about to reject those because they have their origins in, or are associated with, a religion?

Incidentally, your very argument for respecting the covenant of marriage between Terri and Michael Schiavo is based upon a Judeo/Christian value. And your argument of respecting someone’s wishes is based upon a Judeo/Christian value (doing unto others...). So one could just as well reject your position on the same grounds you reject mine.

In summary, I don’t think I actually committed the ad hominem fallacy. I wasn’t rejecting your argument based upon a rejection of you personally. I was rejecting your argument because of the immorality of your presupposition. And I was basically saying, I'm not going to agree with your conclusion in this case, because, on its face, you have an immoral presupposition. Additionally, I was communicating that I have very, very little respect for people who promote such immoral principles.

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Last edited by Sandman on Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:38 pm
Profile
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:00 pm
Posts: 8264
Location: Denver, CO.
Post 
Didn't you guys know?...

Bashing Christians is the "in" "hip" thing to do these days. With all the subtleties from Hollywood, mainstream media, & even some folks on this board, there's no question. So come on guys, let's pile on! Yee-haa!

Where else can John Travolta be praised for "dianetics", Madonna for her "kabala" or whatever it is this year, and the former guitarist from Korn be ridiculed for his recent induction into "Christianity", but here in the good ole "blue state" U.S. of A?

I have to follow this by saying although I've read some of Gtrman's posts carefully, I haven't read others as much. Perhaps if he's even doing this, there's a chance it isn't deliberate.

But then, I could be way off on all sorts of things. :roll:

_________________
Social justice is for pussies!


Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:19 pm
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Rich L. wrote:
Didn't you guys know?...

Bashing Christians is the "in" "hip" thing to do these days. With all the subtleties from Hollywood, mainstream media, & even some folks on this board, there's no question. So come on guys, let's pile on! Yee-haa!

Where else can John Travolta be praised for "dianetics", Madonna for her "kabala" or whatever it is this year, and the former guitarist from Korn be ridiculed for his recent induction into "Christianity", but here in the good ole "blue state" U.S. of A?

I have to follow this by saying although I've read some of Gtrman's posts carefully, I haven't read others as much. Perhaps if he's even doing this, there's a chance it isn't deliberate.

But then, I could be way off on all sorts of things. :roll:


I don't bash Christians. I actually haven't bashed anyone on this thread. If you feel threatened, then maybe you should re-examine YOUR position. However, I am the one who's been berated and had to endure the personal attacks(ad-hominem).
I've been called a Bigot and accused of learning my "version of morality" from Hitler. IF those aren't personal, then I don't know what is.

And I would never praise anyone for "dianetics" or Kabala.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Last edited by GTRMAN on Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:56 pm
Profile
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:00 pm
Posts: 8264
Location: Denver, CO.
Post 
I hope you read my post carefully enough to realize this was a statement of our current culture more than it was about you. That's why I put the word "if" in there. See? :wink:

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not bashing you, either!

_________________
Social justice is for pussies!


Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:58 pm
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
GTRMAN wrote:
I don't bash Christians. I actually haven't bashed anyone on this thread.

What is it when you cry "foul" if someone brings up anything that has any relation to religion? It's hard to discuss ethics without there being some overlap.

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:03 pm
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Sandman wrote:
So if I believe, say, that theft is wrong, I can't judge someone for stealing because they might not believe as I do, that it's wrong?


Stealing us universally regarded as wrong. It's not(necessarily) a religion-based argument.

Sandman wrote:
And aren't you juding my position based upon your belief system? What am I missing here? Is it, if one bases their understanding of morality partially on religious teachings, their views are illigitimate? But if one bases thier understanding of morality on nothing in particular, just "what seems right" to them, their views are legitimate? Help me here.


I'm examining and debating(not judging) your position based on logic and the law.

Sandman wrote:
The ad hominem fallacy is attacking the presenter of an argument verses the argument itself
The genetic fallacy is rejecting an argument based upon who the presenter of the argument is.[


Then you've done both.

Sandman wrote:
Incidentally, your very argument for respecting the covenant of marriage between Terri and Michael Schiavo is based upon a Judeo/Christian value. And your argument of respecting someone’s wishes is based upon a Judeo/Christian value (doing unto others...). So one could just as well reject your position on the same grounds you reject mine.


Marriage is not necessarily a "religious" doctrine. It's been around a LOT longer tha Judaism and Christianity. Every culture and theology(even atheists) practice marriage. So, again, Christians don't have exclusive rights to it. Not only that, but my comments are regarding the LEGAL aspects of marriage. Afterall, the government recognises it as a LEGAL CONTRACT. Not religious doctrine.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:06 pm
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Sandman wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
I don't bash Christians. I actually haven't bashed anyone on this thread.

What is it when you cry "foul" if someone brings up anything that has any relation to religion? It's hard to discuss ethics without there being some overlap.


Because I'm approaching this as a Legal and logical argument. I'm trying to keep a level playing field.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:08 pm
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Rich L. wrote:
I hope you read my post carefully enough to realize this was a statement of our current culture more than it was about you. That's why I put the word "if" in there. See? :wink:

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not bashing you, either!


I appreciate that.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:09 pm
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
GTRMAN wrote:
Sandman wrote:
So if I believe, say, that theft is wrong, I can't judge someone for stealing because they might not believe as I do, that it's wrong?

Stealing us universally regarded as wrong. It's not(necessarily) a religion-based argument.

But that hasn't stopped your criticism. My arguments haven't been (necessarily) religion-based either.

GTRMAN wrote:
Sandman wrote:
And aren't you jading my position based upon your belief system? What am I missing here? Is it, if one bases their understanding of morality partially on religious teachings, their views are illegitimate? But if one bases their understanding of morality on nothing in particular, just "what seems right" to them, their views are legitimate? Help me here.


I'm examining and debating(not judging) your position based on logic and the law.


So, for you, if it's legal, then, by definition, it's moral? That in itself has obvious problems. But if one were to take that approach, how would one determine if a proposed new law was moral or not? In such a veiw, such a determination would be meaningless, because law defines morality. And since no law yet exists, there is nothing to be determined. Law and morality are one and the same. No law, no moral priniciple to apply.

In such a worldview, no law could be considered unjust -- all law is just (moral) by definition. And no law could be improved upon, because all laws embody justice. So if the law of a country changed to outlaw slavery, no one could make claim that the new law was any more just than the old. Both are just by definition. They're just different.

You see, in a theistic worldview, laws are judged by a standard of justice that is "above" the law. Laws can be just or unjust. And in practice, that's what human beings actually assume, which is part of why I personally have come to the conclusion that atheism is a really crippled worldview; it makes little sense of morality/ethics if applied with consistency.

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:27 pm
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
Sandman wrote:
And in practice, that's what human beings actually assume, which is part of why I personally have come to the conclusion that atheism is a really crippled worldview; it makes little sense of morality/ethics if applied with consistency.

To ellaborate, if one were to claim that morality is essentially a society's consensus on acceptable behavior, what's to prevent someone from saying, "Well why should I care anything about your society's consensus? If 'morality' is defined as what you guys all want, well, I want something different. I'll do what I please. I'll follow my own morality."

But you see, at that point, the concept of morality is really gone. Morality in the sense of being principles that one has an obligation to adhere to is gone. It becomes meaningless to say that what another person is doing is wrong. It's not wrong -- it's just not what you'd prefer.

What you end up with are "laws" that amount to nothing more that what some people want others to do. And then, who's to say that those others are wrong not to comply with their wishes? Who wrote that law? (And in such a view, what does the concept of wrong mean, anyway? Moral obligation as a concept is out the window.)

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:49 pm
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Sandman wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
Sandman wrote:
So if I believe, say, that theft is wrong, I can't judge someone for stealing because they might not believe as I do, that it's wrong?

Stealing us universally regarded as wrong. It's not(necessarily) a religion-based argument.

But that hasn't stopped your criticism. My arguments haven't been (necessarily) religion-based either.


I know.. That's why I've continued to DEBATE with you. However, I let you know as soon as religion begins to rear its head in the argument.
Sandman wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
Sandman wrote:
And aren't you jading my position based upon your belief system? What am I missing here? Is it, if one bases their understanding of morality partially on religious teachings, their views are illegitimate? But if one bases their understanding of morality on nothing in particular, just "what seems right" to them, their views are legitimate? Help me here.


I'm examining and debating(not judging) your position based on logic and the law.


So, for you, if it's legal, then, by definition, it's moral? That in itself has obvious problems. But if one were to take that approach, how would one determine if a proposed new law was moral or not? In such a veiw, such a determination would be meaningless, because law defines morality. And since no law yet exists, there is nothing to be determined. Law and morality are one and the same. No law, no moral priniciple to apply.

In such a worldview, no law could be considered unjust -- all law is just (moral) by definition. And no law could be improved upon, because all laws embody justice. So if the law of a country changed to outlaw slavery, no one could make claim that the new law was any more just than the old. Both are just by definition. They're just different.

You see, in a theistic worldview, laws are judged by a standard of justice that is "above" the law. Laws can be just or unjust. And in practice, that's what human beings actually assume, which is part of why I personally have come to the conclusion that atheism is a really crippled worldview; it makes little sense of morality/ethics if applied with consistency.


In our nation, being that all men are "equal", laws are not based on theology but the common good and individual rights to life, liberty, happiness. The government intervenes(in theory) when my rights to life, libert, happiness are endanger of being infringed upon by someone else. Theology does not exist there.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:03 pm
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Denver
Post 
GTRMAN wrote:
In our nation, being that all men are "equal", laws are not based on theology but the common good and individual rights to life, liberty, happiness. The government intervenes(in theory) when my rights to life, libert, happiness are endanger of being infringed upon by someone else. Theology does not exist there.

Theology does exist there:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In fact, without theology, there would be no basis for rights. Why should you have any more rights than a rock in my front yard? All you are is a different type of matter!

_________________
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961


Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:08 pm
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Maryland
Post 
Sandman wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
In our nation, being that all men are "equal", laws are not based on theology but the common good and individual rights to life, liberty, happiness. The government intervenes(in theory) when my rights to life, libert, happiness are endanger of being infringed upon by someone else. Theology does not exist there.

Theology does exist there:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In fact, without theology, there would be no basis for rights. Why should you have any more rights than a rock in my front yard? All you are is a different type of matter?


"Creator" does not have to be a deity.. It could refer to nature or the combination of parents. It could be Earth, itself. That's why they did NOT mention the Christian god, specifically. Remember, many of the "founding fathers were Deists rather than christians.

_________________
WARNING: Racer X forumites have determined that listening to Getting Heavier with your stereo dial turned above 2 may cause blown speakers, traffic citations, and possible hearing loss..


Last edited by GTRMAN on Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 451 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.