Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[spoonitnow]

This is a sad side of you. Attack troll spoon is at least entertaining to watch. Defense troll spoon is just pure cringepity.

Could you then explain how abortion is not murder instead of going into ad hominem attacks? Here's a definition:

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Unlawful? Check. It's unlawful in plenty of places.
Premeditated? Check.
Killing? Check.
Of one human being? Check.
By another? Check.

Edit: Fixed a bracket.

[BananaStand]

Unlawful? Check. It's unlawful in plenty of places.

C'mon man....you know better

[spoonitnow]

C'mon man....you know better

I'm illustrating the absurdity of endless semantics-based arguments that only have the purpose of derailing the actual conversation.

[OngBonga]

I'm illustrating the absurdity of endless semantics-based arguments that only have the purpose of derailing the actual conversation.

The purpose from my pov is to amuse myself while you lot waffle on about abortion.

[boost]

Hate to do this, because you've been my biggest cheerleader as of late, but this post represents some cracked thinking.

I'm really not familiar with the Kenya situation. I have read some about similar programs going on in Europe. One of the major problems I see, is that the program is billed as "experimental". If you're referring to the Kenya program as "a study", then chances are it's been advertised as such. That insulates people against feeling entitled to the benefit. Rather, it is perceived as a "bonus".

So this "study" is rigged. It's artificially inflating income while not dis-incentivizing work. Once this program has been in place for a few decades, it's certainly reasonable to think that might start to fall apart. Once the benefit becomes perceives as a secure, guaranteed, entitlement, that's when the incentive to work starts to degrade.

And you can't put in a program like this for that long, and then take it back later. So the debate must absolutely occur in theory. Any real-life experiment is bull-shit....unless maybe it can show that the incentive to work lasted through say 50+ years. But there is no such data.

think about it like this....did savings fall off of a cliff after social security was enacted? Nope. People still saved. It took four generations for us to reach our current state where 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 for an emergency expense.

the program was really meant to support non-working women. They overwhelmingly lived longer than their husbands, and usually never worked a day in their life. How the fuck are they supposed to survive once they're widowed? It was enacted to start paying out after age 65, at a time when life expectancy for men was right about 65. So, now that feminism has happened, and two-income households are more common than not, you could argue that Social security is totally obsolete. But how the fuck do you stop the program now?????

How can you not infer the same result from UBI's? Rigged results early, consequences much much later, and the program becomes so entrenched, that even if it is proven to be an abject failure, you can never take it back.

One other thing to note. I mentioned that 1/3 of American adults couldn't pull together $1G on a day's notice. That's not even that bad. I recall some threads recently with some socialist libtards touting the greatness of Denmark, Shitserland and Scandanavian countries that provide citizens with tons of entitlements.

Wanna guess who is the world leader in household debt??

Hate to do it? Why? I don't compliment or negatively critique you or anyone to gain favor-- at least not in the context of a discussion. I think you're making mostly good points and arguments and keeping it civil. That's what's needed for a good discussion that helps get at the truth.

Could you then explain how abortion is not murder instead of going into ad hominem attacks? Here's a definition:



Unlawful? Check. It's unlawful in plenty of places.
Premeditated? Check.
Killing? Check.
Of one human being? Check.
By another? Check.

Edit: Fixed a bracket.

It's lawful in the context of the discussion. If you want to discussion abortion rights as they apply to a jurisdiction in which abortions are illegal, then you will get no push back from me for calling it murder.

I'm illustrating the absurdity of endless semantics-based arguments that only have the purpose of derailing the actual conversation.

You're doing a poor job of it. In the context of the discussion your semantic nit pick does not hold up.

[spoonitnow]

It's lawful in the context of the discussion. If you want to discussion abortion rights as they apply to a jurisdiction in which abortions are illegal, then you will get no push back from me for calling it murder.

Thank you for proving my point.

So getting back to what we were all talking about before you guys decided to take a big circlejerk semantics shit on the discussion:

I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, and I am pro-choice.

[boost]

I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, and I am pro-choice.

Do go on, we all are dying to hear how this makes any sense outside of being a cute trick for a contrarian to pull out when abortion comes up. Oh wait, we've already covered this ground, you did not produce, and yet you claim victory.

zzZzzZzz

[spoonitnow]

Do go on, we all are dying to hear how this makes any sense outside of being a cute trick for a contrarian to pull out when abortion comes up. Oh wait, we've already covered this ground, you did not produce, and yet you claim victory.

zzZzzZzz

Riveting.

I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, and I am pro-choice.

Within the realm of Christianity and the oral traditions and other stories that were pieced together to help create its foundations, there's not really any concept of intentional contraception, at the very least of any reliable consistency. Figuring out where that would have fit if they were to have it back then is pretty interesting to think about.

One avenue is to go the Catholicism route that dictates that contraception usage is wrong because sex should only be for procreation. Lust itself is a deadly sin, but the word "lust" in that context only means an uncontrolled desire that leads to bad judgment and doing other seemingly bad things like fucking sheep or raping people, not a regular level of desire (particularly within the context of a monogamous relationship). Then you get into how much desire is "too much" desire, which would then qualify as lust as a deadly sin, and it all gets pretty hairy and arbitrary.

I propose a different route:

A central tenet of most of the themes you see from Christian mythology is the idea of taking responsibility for yourself, even if the outcomes you encounter are affected by things outside of your control. You see this in all of the themes of sacrifice and how to sacrifice correctly. One of the greatest sacrifices you can make is of your child, and we see that in a variety of different stories.

One of the key stories of sacrifice of your child is the crucifixion, which in one way can be seen as God sacrificing his child (or Jesus sacrificing himself) for the betterment of human beings (ie: society).

I think this provides one possible archetype for abortion: You're sacrificing your child for the betterment of society as a form of taking responsibility for yourself and what you put into the world.

[boost]

Could you then explain how abortion is not murder instead of going into ad hominem attacks? Here's a definition:

I have. As for the bold, well, sorry, but you don't get to play this card when you have gone to such great lengths (or was it you being careless?) to obfuscate the difference between serious spoon and troll spoon and the insult is "you're being a troll and a shitty one at that."