Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Rudy Giuliani in trouble for receiving holy communion during the pope's visit because he supports abortion rights. Jesus Christ   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 465
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

5692 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2008 at 10:55 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



465 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-29 03:56:08 PM  
It is really quite a sight to watch an actual real live dumb person who knows they are smart and goes on and on and on to prove it.

And they are sure all the smiles in the room are all about his intellectual performance. Ironically, on this point, they are right on.
 
2008-04-29 03:59:48 PM  
mccallcl: Inflatable Rhetoric: You made some assertions that were off the subject.

I simply asked you to back up your assertion that a church must be held to a higher standard than a non-religious institution, which you have refused to do. Are you planning on getting to that any time soon or are you just going to continue to dodge?

Inflatable Rhetoric: I haven't attempted to prove anything.

Yeah, I know, which is a problem when you're asked to prove something. If you can't, you can't, but you really should admit it if you want to seem honest. Right now it appears as if you can't back up your original claim, or at least refute my counter-claims which have disproved your original claim. You do not have to concede, you have already done that by default by refusing to prove your assertion.

Inflatable Rhetoric: You won't answer a simple question, claiming I have to jump through some hoops first.

I will answer you, but it's not me that set up your second claim as dependent, it was you, as I have demonstrated twice now. As soon as you successfully prove your claim, we can discuss dependent claims, but not a moment before. This decision is not even in my hands, it is inherent in the way logic works.

Inflatable Rhetoric: You resort to name calling

I called you a name, but I did not resort to namecalling, since my argument is sound.

Inflatable Rhetoric: You're in the wrong league. And you know which league I mean.

The "sound, logical argument you can't refute" league. Sorry, you have already lost, the only reason I am even still replying is to see if I can ride you into the ground. So far, so good. Sorry, everyone else, I know this is annoying, but I just have to see if I can power through this troll.


So far so good in your mind. You "called me a name", but you didn't resort to name calling" is good example of the "sound, logical argument" that I am not able to refute.
 
2008-04-29 04:03:25 PM  
Let's concede for the sake of argument that abortion is wrong. Does it then necessarily follow that it should be illegal? Certainly, an act's wrongness is a part of the analysis about illegality. But lots of bad acts -- lots of acts forbidden by the Bible and the church -- are not illegal. Dissing your mama or your papa gets a "Thou Shalt Not" in the Decalogue, whereas abortion doesn't. And there's the pesky problem that US laws, at least, have to be based on secular purposes. What is the secular purpose served by outlawing abortion and, presumably, imposing some sanction on the providers (jail? license revocation?) and/or the mothers who use their services? Do we need more population? That was the justification the Romanians used in Communist days, and the Germans today.

I take the position that laws should (a) prohibit only those things that the government can effectively enforce prohibition of, (b) have the support of a large majority of the population, and (c) address matters of public concern in a manner that is proportional to the harm to be prevented.

Which one of those does anyone want to disagree with?
 
2008-04-29 04:06:36 PM  
kronicfeld: Is communion denied to those who do not adhere to the church's stance against capital punishment?

QFT.

/also, wonder what kind of reception The Pope would have received if he tried that "love your enemies" stuff at Ground Zero
 
2008-04-29 04:12:20 PM  
HoozierDaddy: Let's concede for the sake of argument that abortion is wrong. Does it then necessarily follow that it should be illegal? Certainly, an act's wrongness is a part of the analysis about illegality. But lots of bad acts -- lots of acts forbidden by the Bible and the church -- are not illegal. Dissing your mama or your papa gets a "Thou Shalt Not" in the Decalogue, whereas abortion doesn't. And there's the pesky problem that US laws, at least, have to be based on secular purposes. What is the secular purpose served by outlawing abortion and, presumably, imposing some sanction on the providers (jail? license revocation?) and/or the mothers who use their services? Do we need more population? That was the justification the Romanians used in Communist days, and the Germans today.

I take the position that laws should (a) prohibit only those things that the government can effectively enforce prohibition of, (b) have the support of a large majority of the population, and (c) address matters of public concern in a manner that is proportional to the harm to be prevented.

Which one of those does anyone want to disagree with?


*********

Me first, I guess.

All of them.

a) Government has no place inside a woman's body. Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton notwithstanding.

b) The Tyranny of the Majority is stil Tyranny.

c) I dont know where you got that, it's too big for a bumper-sticker, but it is speaks to your point "A". The Government's rights cannot supercede a persons freedoms in any just society.

What you are advocating is gang rule.

People like you who assume you speak from a position of reason 'for us all' scare the crap out of me.

I just hope that you live far, far away from me.

Take your fascistic, misogynistic, Hobbesian nightmare and keep it the hell away from me and the people I love.

You are a monster without horns or hooves.
 
2008-04-29 04:15:29 PM  
HoozierDaddy: Let's concede for the sake of argument that abortion is wrong. Does it then necessarily follow that it should be illegal? Certainly, an act's wrongness is a part of the analysis about illegality. But lots of bad acts -- lots of acts forbidden by the Bible and the church -- are not illegal. Dissing your mama or your papa gets a "Thou Shalt Not" in the Decalogue, whereas abortion doesn't. And there's the pesky problem that US laws, at least, have to be based on secular purposes. What is the secular purpose served by outlawing abortion and, presumably, imposing some sanction on the providers (jail? license revocation?) and/or the mothers who use their services? Do we need more population? That was the justification the Romanians used in Communist days, and the Germans today.

I take the position that laws should (a) prohibit only those things that the government can effectively enforce prohibition of, (b) have the support of a large majority of the population, and (c) address matters of public concern in a manner that is proportional to the harm to be prevented.

Which one of those does anyone want to disagree with?


I would start with taking issue with B. I recall the Nazis either outnumbered or outpowered the Jews.
 
2008-04-29 04:25:12 PM  
would start with taking issue with B. I recall the Nazis either outnumbered or outpowered the Jews.

You've confused necessary with sufficient.

It should have property x to be a good law does not mean if it does have property x it is a good law.
 
2008-04-29 04:32:02 PM  
Tigger: would start with taking issue with B. I recall the Nazis either outnumbered or outpowered the Jews.

You've confused necessary with sufficient.

It should have property x to be a good law does not mean if it does have property x it is a good law.


I'm getting all the blame today.
 
2008-04-29 05:02:23 PM  
TheBlackFlag: I take the position that laws should (a) prohibit only those things that the government can effectively enforce prohibition of, (b) have the support of a large majority of the population, and (c) address matters of public concern in a manner that is proportional to the harm to be prevented.

Which one of those does anyone want to disagree with?

*********

Me first, I guess.

All of them.

a) Government has no place inside a woman's body. Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton notwithstanding.

b) The Tyranny of the Majority is stil Tyranny.

c) I dont know where you got that, it's too big for a bumper-sticker, but it is speaks to your point "A". The Government's rights cannot supercede a persons freedoms in any just society.

What you are advocating is gang rule. [Etc., ad hominem attacks snipped]


Way to miss the point. Lots of things inside your body are matters of public concern. For example, if you have a pacemaker installed. I'm arguing for democratic support for laws, and you call tyranny? Bizarre. And as for point c, there are no absolute freedoms except to believe whatever you want, and maybe to petition the government for redress of grievances. Every other right is subject to limits and has to be balanced against the public good.

Are you a libertarian? Sure sounds like it.
 
2008-04-29 05:13:28 PM  
Good ol organized religion. +1 for subby
 
2008-04-29 06:21:02 PM  
Pope in trouble for visiting because he supports pederast priests. Jesus Christ
 
2008-04-29 09:37:12 PM  
Has anyone mentioned yet that all religions are just made up fairy tales?

Because if they haven't, then I just want to say that "all religions are just made up fairy tales".
 
2008-04-30 09:05:19 AM  
Has anyone mentioned yet that all religions are just made up fairy tales?


probably because most people on all sides are sick of hearing it? They wish the people saying it would get better script writers?
 
2008-04-30 09:54:07 AM  
cwolf20: Has anyone mentioned yet that all religions are just made up fairy tales?


probably because most people on all sides are sick of hearing it? They wish the people saying it would get better script writers?


Apparently some haven't gotten the message, tho. It's similar to churches, telling a group of people something "religious" about once a week. They get paid to do that, tho.
 
2008-04-30 11:30:22 AM  
Inflatable Rhetoric
Apparently some haven't gotten the message, tho. It's similar to churches, telling a group of people something "religious" about once a week. They get paid to do that, tho.


allow me to clarify. I was referring to people on all sides being sick and tired of hearing this, and as a result wish that the people saying this would get better script writers so they might actually get someone to pay attention to their yapping again.:

" all religions are just made up fairy tales?"
 
Displayed 15 of 465 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report