Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (67602)	6/25/2015 2:19:17 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"no one likes Atheists" Where do you come up with these sewer balls of crap? Is it really true that nobody likes Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking? The hate really bubbles out of you when you are into the sauce, eh?? Let me speak really really slowly for you in the rather unlikely event that it will sanitise the stunned content of your mind and of your post: Brum had declared that she did not make a morally valid choice to avoid the "sin" of abortion because a religious upbringing made such a choice "sinful" and therefore not truly a choice that brought her either personal merit or fault. Thus, his implication was that her decision did not come from humanistic/humanitarian/ rational considerations—but rather from the mindless largesse of a religious upbringing! HO! HO! HO! But when she "sinned" in premarital sex and mothering a bastard child, we are to presume that this was a secular sin—and a secular (not a religious) choice? "Did she have a number of babies that she subsequently put up for adoption?” Was the plural form of “baby" used?? You waste 4 lines trying to benefit from a grammatical slip that turns out to be perfectly sound and valid even if she only had 1 baby! Another red herring from a puerile simpleton hits the sewer! The immature excitement that you feel when you think you have found an error in grammar is palpable and quite amusing! I guess a mental midget needs to try to score cheap points in any way possible. CHUCKLE! “You are building some kind of slam dunk logical case for the MORAL VALIDITY of ABORTION” Christ, you are a STUPID fellow!! Nobody ever talked about the moral validity of pre-marital sex, or abortion, or trespassing on crown land and filling up peanut butter jars with precious stones. The entire discussion was about the moral validity of the CHOICES being made--NOT THE ULTIMATE ASSESSMENT OF THE VIRTUE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACTS. "It is good that she was able to make the choice that she wanted." Tiger Paws "Jobs was grateful that she didn't abort him. His birth mother came from a religious family so I doubt she considered she had a morally valid choice." Brumstone Brum pretends that religious indoctrination has excluded the mother from any moral merit in her decision. Of course, we are to presume that the choice to have pre-marital sex and mother a bastard child was a choice that "she wanted". Tiger Paws was absolutely correct in his statement, and Brum's retort was ridiculous and an insult to the mother and the torturous decision making she must have (or may have) endured. ALL uncoerced choices are morally valid or there could be no judgement of the subsequent ACTS by mental midgets like yourself--nor by invisible friends like your love interest—“Jesus”. The moral validity of choices does not attach any preconceived value judgements as to merit. Rather, they are valid because they were actual decisions made between alternatives. The choice to abort is as morally valid as the choice to birth--regardless of how one measures or assesses the actual acts. Any apparent choice that is not an actual choice can have no moral judgment attached to it. A choice simply needs to be cogent and reasonable in order to be valid. When I consider the moral validity, I merely question whether the choice was freely made on facts and logic and without coercion. So if Job's mother had no alternatives to giving birth, then her "choice" is at best a "Hobson's Choice". But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that her decision not to abort was a Hobson's choice, while yet implying that her decision to transgress against her religious values by engaging in premarital sex was a wilful act of sin. The truth is that both of her choices being discussed here were wilful and valid. If you think your choices are pre-determined or coerced by instilled values as Brum does, then you can pretend that her choice to NOT abort was NOT morally valid (as Brum did). But then you must admit that her choice to sin previous to that was still NOT a true choice, and that (presumably) her religion was responsible as Brum claims. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, Kiddo!! If her religion made it impossible for her to abort, then her religion made it impossible for her to refrain from having premarital sex. It is unfair and illogical to credit the mindlessness of her religion with one act while absolving the mindlessness of her religion for a different act. Religion, per se, had nothing to do with her choices if she used reason and logic to arrive at her decisions. Regardless of whether you consider her separate acts to be immoral or otherwise, the choices were both morally valid or neither of them were. The choice and the act are separate questions, and in any event the same criteria must be applied to one choice as was applied to the other: Was it freely made? Were there options? "Killing another Human Being for the sake of convenience is murder” Of course it is. So why do you ALWAYS introduce straw men into discussions?? "Having sex outside of marriage is NOT a Morally Valid Choice for Christians." It is if they decide to have sex and their decision is freely arrived at. Having a religion does not deprive an individual of Reason or Autonomy. YOUR moral judgement is irrelevant to their decision. It is THEIR choice--NOT yours. HELLO IN THERE????? "atheists are hardly in any position to be making moral pronouncements about anything." I pronounce you a hateful, intolerant, and reprehensible BIGOT. I wonder why you hate freethinkers so much? Is it because you hate Reason--and like Martin Luther, you consider Reason a "whore"? Is it because Reason belies your childish illusions and your superstitious comforts??