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.

(USA Today)   Dick Mourdock clarifies his comments: "I didn't say God intended rape, he just intended the babies born out of rape. Got that?"   (usatoday.com) divider line 388
    More: Followup, Richard Mourdock, human beings, Indiana Senate, Susan B. Anthony List, Jennifer Psaki, American Bridge, Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

2176 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2012 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



388 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 09:50:11 PM

dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.


Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.
 
2012-10-24 09:51:08 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-24 09:51:29 PM
Oh, and thank you Fark for teaching me something new today. It does happen every now and then.


From The Ayn Rand Letter, Volume IV, Number 2, November-December 1975:


Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.

1. The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word-i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose-see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
 
2012-10-24 09:53:24 PM

hinten: Oh, and thank you Fark for teaching me something new today. It does happen every now and then.


From The Ayn Rand Letter, Volume IV, Number 2, November-December 1975:


Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.

1. The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word-i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose-see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.


Oh ya, most Conservatives who claim to be followers rand really RINOs.
 
2012-10-24 09:53:44 PM
that bosnian sniper:

Would you mind terribly if I email you?
 
2012-10-24 09:54:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


If this is really the logic you're using to confirm your faith, where exactly did you get the idea that this is the "only one single universe" that ever existed?

/I mean, we could also question why Conservative Fundamentalist Christianity is a better representation of God's nature than, say, Zoroastrianism, but it seems like your entire premise is fatally unimaginative.
 
2012-10-24 09:54:34 PM

hinten: (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose-see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2).


The page reference makes this somehow more religious and creepy to my eye.
 
2012-10-24 09:55:52 PM

TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.


I prefer "prosecuting attorney."
 
2012-10-24 09:57:42 PM

Hickory-smoked: TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.

I prefer "prosecuting attorney."


Satan is the original cop.
 
2012-10-24 10:05:05 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.

I prefer "prosecuting attorney."

Satan is the original cop.


He's also not the damn snake - that's just another, another, another example of Christians retconning bullshiat back into someone else's book. The Old Testament is Twilight, which makes the New Testament 50 Shades of Gray, which makes the Book of Mormon 50 Shades Of Gray fanfiction.
 
2012-10-24 10:05:47 PM

TaterTot_HotDish: forcing women to have sex = wrong

forcing women to have rape babies = right

The Lord works in mysterious ways


Maybe god wants women to get abortions? After all, His ways are mysterious, and Murdouch claiming he knows the will of God is just presumptuous.
 
2012-10-24 10:06:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.

mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.

Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


"Perfect for forming life" is a strange assessment of the universe. You could stick life on a planet around every star in every galaxy and the combined volume of all that life wouldn't even equal a rounding error on the volume of the universe as a whole. That doesn't seem very conducive to life.

As for the "fundamental constants omg!" argument, yes indeed there are an infinite number of universes where nothing would ever happen. There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.
 
2012-10-24 10:10:06 PM

BMulligan: However, that said, if there were a God, wouldn't you expect him (or it, or whatever) to be a God we can't see doing things we can't understand, in pursuit of a plan that we can't comprehend? I mean, really, isn't that kind of the very definition of "God?" Once one accepts the existence of God, all the rest of that just sort of seems to follow.


The definition of God being: "You can't observe his presence in any way, but he's constantly running around doing shiat. Also he makes no sense, so don't even try to observe him based on all the shiat he's doing."

That's the definition of a non-existent being.
 
2012-10-24 10:13:19 PM

TalenLee: A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.

I prefer "prosecuting attorney."

Satan is the original cop.

He's also not the damn snake - that's just another, another, another example of Christians retconning bullshiat back into someone else's book. The Old Testament is Twilight, which makes the New Testament 50 Shades of Gray, which makes the Book of Mormon 50 Shades Of Gray fanfiction.


This is getting creepier by the second.
 
2012-10-24 10:16:28 PM

evaned: Pappas: To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that anyone who claims to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception", yet supports exceptions for race/incest/health of the mother, to be the definition of hypocritical.
And even though I'm not in that camp, I think you're wrong (or, can be wrong even if you tend to be right in practice), and I've already explained why earlier in this thread: if you say the fetus is a little mini-human with rights, then it immediately becomes a balancing act between the rights of the fetus and mother; it's not at all unreasonable to say that a deliberate choice to engage in an activity that has a reasonable probability of producing a pregnancy means that the mother waives some of her rights thus moving the balance in favor of the fetus.
I think it's a much bigger hipocracy to be (as someone else pointed out) anti-abortion and anti-birth control.


That's an excellent point, and well taken in the case of rape. It makes sense that, using your likely scenario, a rape victim could be allowed an abortion (no deliberate choice, no waiving of rights). I don't think this address the issue of incest that isn't also rape (for obvious reasons, though this is admittedly rare) or the health of the mother, assuming it's not a guarantee that the mother will die. Like you said, she made a deliberate choice and waives her rights. Who knows what a court would decide? 50% chance the mom dies and she has to have the baby? Less? .

That being said, go back to rape: if this is going to be a legal matter in a mother V fetus scenario, who determines if the woman was raped? Do we take her word for it? Do we have to wait for her rapist to be caught and put on trial? What about an appeal? If this is a legal matter (mother V fetus), the facts have to be indisputable... and abortion is only an option for so long. That's where I think the legal argument breaks down... it's not -really- possible for it to be up for adjudication in the first place.

Regardless, I agree that being anti-abortion and anti-birth control is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Talk about abhorrent.
 
2012-10-24 10:31:37 PM

MorePeasPlease: I did a copypasta of the thread and extracted the all "rape". Here's what we have up to now:

raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperapeRaperaper a peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperapeRaperapeRaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape RaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperapeRAPERAPEraperaperape


I'm proud to sat I'm "RAPERAPE"!
 
2012-10-24 10:34:16 PM
elchip 2012-10-24 09:29:22 PM

When a rapist gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Yeah. Outta the rapist.
 
2012-10-24 10:49:43 PM

Gyrfalcon: This is getting creepier by the second.


You get used to it if you've been at Fark awhile. The atheist derp here is quite inspired.
 
2012-10-24 10:51:49 PM

LandOfChocolate: Remember this, GOP

You brought this on yourself

By ousting a long time "RINO" and courting the batshiat crazy American Taliban, you have no one to blame but yourselves for all the shiat currently being fanned on your candidates.


Love that.

Can't use it anywhere though... well, because librul media and all that.
 
2012-10-24 10:51:53 PM
So if you abort the antichrist, will you still go to Hell?
 
2012-10-24 10:55:29 PM

Hoboclown: [playingrickymorton.files.wordpress.com image 483x355]

This guy?


If Dickie was alive today I like to think he'd punch Mourdock in the face without spilling his Currs.
 
2012-10-24 10:58:21 PM

Jormungandr: So if you abort the antichrist, will you still go to Hell?


I think they're more worried about the next time God wants to rape and impregnate a young girl.
 
2012-10-24 11:00:31 PM

Kurmudgeon: Gyrfalcon: This is getting creepier by the second.

You get used to it if you've been at Fark awhile. The atheist derp here is quite inspired.


Yeah, because the fact that we have politicians who believe that part of God's grand cosmic plan involves women getting raped and forced to carry their rape babies to term whether they want to or not? That's perfectly reasonable.
 
2012-10-24 11:11:18 PM
Something something analogy 'anchor babies.' They shouldn't be here if people had obeyed the law, but we might as well make the most of the cards we were dealt. Right Republicans?
 
2012-10-24 11:11:57 PM
Fark is really slacking off

i71.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-24 11:14:08 PM

Tommy Moo: Thank god society has finally progressed in this country to the point where expressing backwards, asinine religious dogma is actually considered an embarrassing, career ending gaffe. We are about 20 years away from an atheist President and about 40 away from religion being a sad anachronism confined to the f***ing Ozarks.


Let's check back on November 7 to see if it's really career threatening.
 
2012-10-24 11:19:43 PM
i1024.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-24 11:51:28 PM

intelligent comment below: ilambiquated: intelligent comment below: So far that's 3 things in about 4,000 years

You said constantly getting pissed off

You haven't read the bible.


What else is there?


Would you like a freaking list?
 
2012-10-25 12:01:57 AM

hawcian: "Perfect for forming life" is a strange assessment of the universe. You could stick life on a planet around every star in every galaxy and the combined volume of all that life wouldn't even equal a rounding error on the volume of the universe as a whole. That doesn't seem very conducive to life.


Lmao. In your little rat brain, does a universe conducive to life mean that life must exist everywhere.. or 50, 75% of the universe? I'm talking about the properties required to form matter and the structures that are required to form life. One minor difference and the biological structures within our cells would be incoherent, and that is dictated by the properties of the universe. Tell me, what is your ideal of the universe if you think you could make an improvement.. let's hear it. I'd be glad to tear your models apart. Surely, you being an intelligent being can create something better than random chance was able to.
 
2012-10-25 12:04:29 AM

DemonEater: Of course, abb3w will probably be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am, and how I'm wrong, but that's ok.


I don't pretend either QM or Free Will makes much sense to me, particularly when you mix "God" into the mess.
 
2012-10-25 12:28:14 AM
This is the idiotic reasoning that shows just how evil religion is.
 
2012-10-25 12:30:29 AM

Pappas: I don't think this address the issue of incest that isn't also rape (for obvious reasons, though this is admittedly rare) or the health of the mother, assuming it's not a guarantee that the mother will die. Like you said, she made a deliberate choice and waives her rights. Who knows what a court would decide? 50% chance the mom dies and she has to have the baby? Less? .That being said, go back to rape: if this is going to be a legal matter in a mother V fetus scenario, who determines if the woman was raped? Do we take her word for it? Do we have to wait for her rapist to be caught and put on trial? What about an appeal? If this is a legal matter (mother V fetus), the facts have to be indisputable... and abortion is only an option for so long. That's where I think the legal argument breaks down... it's not -really- possible for it to be up for adjudication in the first place.


Real-world complications to the theoretical are part of why I am in favor of a blanket allowance. There are other practical concerns too -- e.g. it's possible to act responsibly with regard to the possibility of pregnancy but the condom breaks or you get the one-and-a-million occurrence (odds made up) of the pill failing, or whathaveyou. In the case of rape, I'd also really worry about someone feeling forced to claim rape when it wasn't in order to get an abortion.

So essentially my opinion on the issue is that, at least early on (again, left deliberately vague -- at least long enough that it'd be pretty impossible to not know you're pregnant) the rights of the mother are strong enough that when you consider the practical problems with allowing abortions here but not there, the best ("least bad"?) course of action is to give a blanket allowance and trust the women involved to make "the" right decision, whatever it may be for them. The cost of prohibiting abortion is higher.

(Which isn't to say that allowing it is free of practical problems -- in particular, what if the father disagrees about whether there should be an abortion? How much if any say should he have? What if he wants an abortion but she refuses -- should he be on the hook for child support? If she wants an abortion but he doesn't, should that weigh into the picture somehow?)
 
2012-10-25 12:53:30 AM

intelligent comment below: Out of all that nonsense, the only new addition to the list is Sodom and Gamorra


I'll chuck in one, how about the prophet Elisha.

'cuz, you know, sending a bear to eat the fark out of a bunch of little kids, who aren't even of the age of accountability, because some bald asshole that can't take a joke says so the the shiznit.
 
2012-10-25 12:58:01 AM

evaned: (Which isn't to say that allowing it is free of practical problems -- in particular, what if the father disagrees about whether there should be an abortion? How much if any say should he have? What if he wants an abortion but she refuses -- should he be on the hook for child support? If she wants an abortion but he doesn't, should that weigh into the picture somehow?)

 
Men do not have any legal rights over a child until it is no longer in a woman's body. That's easy enough to understand- you can't give one person legal rights over another person's body.

Child support laws do not exist to protect women. They exist to protect children, and a man can't opt out of his legal obligation to a child simply because he'd prefer that child not have existed.


 
 
2012-10-25 01:01:32 AM

intelligent comment below: HeartBurnKid: Would you like a freaking list?


Out of all that nonsense, the only new addition to the list is Sodom and Gamorra

Nothing else was God punishing people for free will

"He killed X because God told him to"

"You should sacrifice a lamb because of X"

That isn't helpful to this argument. Try again


Some of it was.

The "sin" of Onan was. Onan didn't want to get his brother's wife pregnant, so god killed him for it. Sounds pretty much like free will to me.
The people of Korah "complained" and god killed them for it (Numbers). So they exercised their free will to go against god, and god didn't like it.
Some people supported one king (Abilemech) instead of the one god wanted, and were killed on god's orders. So they picked one candidate over another and were executed. (Judges)

There's just lots of examples of god killing people for exercising free will in the Bible, no matter how hard you want to deny it.
 
2012-10-25 01:06:13 AM
Also, this article was posted earlier and it's a lovely reminder that the fact that these assholes can even discuss this as a pure hypothetical is a function of their privilege:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/pregnancy-as-lab or /264070/ 

This was my favorite comment on the piece:

"When I was a kid, my mom, an OBGYN, worked pretty much 24/7 to reduce infant mortality in the Middle East so I grew up steeped in knowledge of women's health issues. The complications that arise in pregnancy are often incredible, I learned. The notion that it's some kind of easy process is bunk. It's not a Hallmark card. When I was 7, a couple came to my mom for counselling. Tests revealed that if she didn't have an abortion, there was a good chance that she might die. She was terrified as all hell to a degree that was obvious to me as a kid. The fear in her eyes, I don't believe I've often seen the like. She knew what was coming and she didn't have the ability to do anything without her husband's consent, whether through some lack of means, opportunity or fortitude. Her husband, on the other hand, by all accounts a kind and generous man, was of the opinion that all this is a blessing and God's will and that under no circumstances was his wife to get an abortion. When my mom tried to obtain his consent, he quoted Scripture quite naturally while sitting beside a woman who knew she was going to die. When I think about why I'm vehemently and militantly pro-choice, it comes down to this. Here was a man concerned with abstractions and sin and God and the potential of human life and not about the person sitting right beside him who he claimed to support, a living, breathing person confronting her own mortality. She died. He came by a month afterwards to give my mom a gold watch for her trouble.

The pro-life position strikes me as the epitome of male privilege, even when expressed by women, the ability to discount the existent in favor of the abstract, theoretical and non-existent." 
 
2012-10-25 01:10:27 AM

Weaver95: leaving aside for a moment the philosophical implications of believing in a god that condones violent acts against his followers...did Mourdock really intend that press conference to succeed? c'mon man...I was watching it. he tried to say that his words were 'twisted' against him. while i'm sure that you could make that case in other circumstances the record seems pretty clear: he kinda/sorta seems to believe that rape babies happen because it's god's will and his press conference didn't really clear any of that up.


That would imply a kind of empathy or self-reflection that would preclude his religious beliefs in the first place. This argument is fundamentally the "problem of evil" philosophical quandary.

As Vitamin_R posted;
i71.photobucket.com
Just replace "evil" with "rape."

But as a true-blue believer Mourdock has spent a good portion of his life ignoring and avoiding that question, he has layers and layers of denials and mental gymnastics to keep from asking the question "why evil?" and the idea that other people would NOT have those layers of denial and repression are just as alien.

Coincidentally this is the process by which people who know how objectively terrible the GOP is and how little they can afford the promised middle-class tax-hikes are willing to say BSABSVR and vote for Mitt Romney.
 
2012-10-25 01:13:44 AM

intelligent comment below: That's just another of the "something bad happened, lets blame God"


...you haven't actually read the story of Elisha and the bears, have you. The meaning and context are pretty crystal clear.

That's a case of God acting subordinately to a man possessing of free will to punish children not of the age of accountability. I'd love to hear you explaining that one without equivocation, like you just attempted.
 
2012-10-25 01:21:01 AM

GhostFish: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Meh. I can't say for sure what a believer would say, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Satan's power comes from God.

He's not mentioned a whole lot in the Bible, but if you go by the apochrypha and other fan fiction then Satan is widely considered to be a fallen Angel. So God can be pointed at as the source of any initial power in that case.

Satan is also generally not free to use all his talents on all people. He needs God's permission, like with Job, or he needs people to give themselves over to him freely before he can really screw them over. Or people need to piss God off so much that he withdraws his protection and Satan gains free reign.

So Satan doesn't really have any power outside of what God allows, as far as I can tell. So it's still a pretty monotheistic system that way.


A lot of that, interestingly, is because the role of Satan has evolved as Christianity evolved from Judaism--it seems the original role of Satan (or ha-Satan) was basically as God's prosecuting attorney (yes, that's right, the original concept of Satan was basically as God's own Miles Edgeworth, and the book of Job is basically a semi-parody of the concept of the Court of the Divine with Job as the defendant for all of humanity).

During the occupation of what is now Israel by the Persians, Judaism was exposed to one of the dualist religions that evolved in isolation from the Semitic family of faiths--early versions of Zoroastrianism, which posited the existence of an Ultimate Good Deity (Ahura Mazda or Ormazhd) and an Ultimate Evil Entity in opposition to the Ultimate Good Deity (Ahriman). This did have some substantial influence on at least some sects of Judaism, including the branch that spawned Christianity; the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Essenes) in particular had latched onto the "elevation" of Satan into an Ahriman-archetype opposed to God. (Most of the Apocryphal works depicting Satan as a fallen angel were written around this period of transition of Satan from "God's own Miles Edgeworth" to "Ultimate Evil".)

Needless to say, Christianity really ran with the Zoroastrian-influenced trope, to the point that it (and Islam) pretty much have functional dualism (or in the case of trinitarian Christianity, a triumvirate "three-headed Deity" versus Ultimate Evil--there has been some speculation there could have been influence from remaining Vedic practice in Iran before Zoroastrianism took over as the state religion, but it's more likely that trinitarianism evolved independently).

(And for even more fun, there's Gnosticism, which has been speculated as having been influenced by Buddhism--which posits that the Old Testament God is pretty much a spiritless bastard of the real creative forces of the universe and is perpetually throwing a galactic temper tantrum, and Jesus came to pretty much show the true nature of things. :D Needless to say, it didn't really get along with mainstream Christianity at all and there were systematic attempts to wipe Gnosticism out for the better part of a millennium.)
 
2012-10-25 01:24:42 AM

Great Porn Dragon: (And for even more fun, there's Gnosticism, which has been speculated as having been influenced by Buddhism--which posits that the Old Testament God is pretty much a spiritless bastard of the real creative forces of the universe and is perpetually throwing a galactic temper tantrum, and Jesus came to pretty much show the true nature of things. :D Needless to say, it didn't really get along with mainstream Christianity at all and there were systematic attempts to wipe Gnosticism out for the better part of a millennium.)



Yup. Gnosticism is actually the school of thought that allowed me to see the real beauty in Christian ideals.
 
2012-10-25 01:25:18 AM
So if someone believes that life begins at conception and that murder should be illegal, what is it about that opinion that makes it any more ridiculous than the idea that abortion should be legal no matter what even right up until the full term child's head is coming down the birth canal?

Logic is logic and it doesn't give a damn about feelings.
 
2012-10-25 01:30:06 AM
In all fairness, at least he's honest about what he feels instead of one of those "whatever it takes to get elected" like Romney who does support a woman's choice, then doesn't support a woman's choice, and then only supports it in cases of incest of rape, or whatever he feels bound to say to his financial backers today.

Now, I didn't say I agreed with it, but I can have more respect for someone who at least doesn't lie at the drop of a hat like Mittens
 
2012-10-25 01:34:46 AM
"I do want to clarify one thing that Congressman Murphy had said about this, um, the rape issue and contraception. That was asking the Hartford Courant review board, and it was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape... that was my response to it."

- Republican senate candidate Linda McMahon (CT)
October 15, 2012


As opposed to a planned rape?

"Mr. Rapist? Hi, this is Susan... I can't do the rape thing tonight, I have to work late. Yes I know walking back to my car alone in the parking garage will be my best opportunity this week, but I just can't make it. Much too busy. How about friday, say 11 pm - midnightish? That will give me a whole weekend of mental trauma to go through after you're done with me.
I'll be coming back from dinner with the girls and I'll be in the lot at my apartment complex. Yes, the bushes near my usual parking spot are nice and high, and there's even a drainage ditch you can throw me into afterwards on the other side where I might not be found for a day or two. Sure, I can wear a skirt and no pantyhose... no problem. You know my address? I'll be driving a white VW bug with a butterfly sticker on the window. Okay, see you on friday. Buh-bye! *click*"

Stupid.

Seriously.
 
2012-10-25 01:36:19 AM

jvl: For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

But please continue hyperventilating as if he had said something truly wacko like "women can naturally abort real rape."


Don't apologize for him. It's not grown-up.
 
2012-10-25 01:40:53 AM

Bigdogdaddy: In all fairness, at least he's honest about what he feels instead of one of those "whatever it takes to get elected" like Romney who does support a woman's choice, then doesn't support a woman's choice, and then only supports it in cases of incest of rape, or whatever he feels bound to say to his financial backers today.

Now, I didn't say I agreed with it, but I can have more respect for someone who at least doesn't lie at the drop of a hat like Mittens


There's a third choice you know. There's "being honest" (which is code for "I'm about to say something ignorant, stupid or racist"), lying like a Persian Rug, or simply NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.

Sorry, I can't "respect" anyone just because they say what they think, only because what they think is what should garner the respect and not the fact that they said it.
 
2012-10-25 01:45:24 AM

vernonFL: I don't see what the big deal is.

Have you read the Bible? The God that these people worship is all about rape.


The Book of Job, is essentially a story in which the devil bets god that if he turns his life upside down and kills him; god accepts the bet. God eventually wins, but Job's life is figuratively raped and then killed. And that's the "male on male" story... do I even need to Google the female rape and pillage rape?
 
2012-10-25 01:48:16 AM
Good lord.

... if he turns his life upside down and kills him, Job will denounce god; god accepts the bet.

what I don't even
 
2012-10-25 02:00:34 AM
(*sigh*) These Republican nutjobs spout this stuff, and Republican voters will still vote for them. No wonder things are so f*cked up these days.

/independent
//vote the candidate, not the party
///critical thinking -- exercise some
////it might just make a difference
 
2012-10-25 02:02:03 AM

Vindibudd: So if someone believes that life begins at conception and that murder should be illegal, what is it about that opinion that makes it any more ridiculous than the idea that abortion should be legal no matter what even right up until the full term child's head is coming down the birth canal?

Logic is logic and it doesn't give a damn about feelings.


We don't have a really good objective line in the sand for what constitutes personhood.

According to science we are animals, and it's pretty widely accepted that killing other animals when it benefits you can easily be perfectly acceptable.

So what makes human animals an exception to this would seem to be the concept of personhood.
At some point, a human supposedly transcends the state of being a mindless animal and becomes more than just a complex stimulus and response machine. We think and feel, emote and ruminate and wonder about our existence and empathize with others and all that crap. And that supposedly makes us special and above all the other animals that we kill whenever we want to.

It's easy to say that we have this gift by nature of being born human, but there's no real evidence of that. By all measure, human newborns are about as mindless and idiotic as any other animal on the planet. They have potential, but at the time of infancy they really are nothing by complex stimulus and response machines.
It offends our sense of empathy to consider it, but in any way we can tell there really isn't a rational reason that killing a newborn is any worse than killing anything else. And that's kind of a scary thing that we probably won't address anytime soon.

We'll just continue to squabble over when a human life becomes something that can be empathized with, and we'll use that as our measure to decide when and where abortion is acceptable.

We're a silly and subjective species. Just a bunch of psychotic apes, really.
 
2012-10-25 02:02:35 AM

Tommy Moo: Thank god society has finally progressed in this country to the point where expressing backwards, asinine religious dogma is actually considered an embarrassing, career ending gaffe. We are about 20 years away from an atheist President and about 40 away from religion being a sad anachronism confined to the f***ing Ozarks.


Religion in general? Nah. It'll be around forever.

Anything even remotely recognizable as Christianity to any Christian born before 2000? Yup, in a few decades that shiat's gonna be about as prevalent and socially acceptable a view to openly hold as KKK membership currently is. Because this kind of shiat is... actually very well-supported by the bible and the Protestant clergy.

And... well, good. Sola scriptura Christianity needs to die in a farking fire as soon as practically possible. It can take Wahhabist Islam and "genuine" (i.e. non-hippie-and-drug-fueled) Buddhism out with it while it's going, as far as I'm concerned.

//Catholicism will probably survive because they built their religion with mechanisms to change its positions when needed like, y'know, rational people designing an organization.
 
Displayed 50 of 388 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report