or the same level of intelligence it seems. The fact is more of the same just doesn't cut itQuote:
Not everyone has the same ability, or aptitude.
|
or the same level of intelligence it seems. The fact is more of the same just doesn't cut itQuote:
Not everyone has the same ability, or aptitude.
Sounds good to me.Quote:
1) You aren't being forced since you agreed to obey the law as an American citizen. Don't like the laws, change them LAWFULLY.
I haven't estimated their hardships one way or the other.Quote:
2)You under estimate they hardships they endure for a few bucks yet they still come for work despite the dangers.
Nope. The solution is for people to depend upon their own work to provide for their own needs.Quote:
3)You're welcome, but it's just insights and observations as the solution is obviously a better system.
That's possible.Quote:
4)Not you personally maybe, but the system does or tries to.
Once black people escaped slavery in the south, many of them walked hundreds of miles to northern cities to find a better life. I think they would be astonished at your reasoning that because it is difficult, then those people shouldn't even try.Quote:
5)Maybe the jobs aren't where they are sitting and they have no money or support to make a move, even though some have. Not everyone has the same ability, or aptitude.
Not everyone has the same ability or aptitude. So? Get out and get with it. Remember the three keys. 1. Don't get pregnant before marriage. 2. Graduate from high school. 3. Get a job (or two) and work hard at it (or them). I would add a fourth. Don't listen to ANYONE who provides you with excuses for not making it.
That's not my reasoning just your perception, which is in error, as obviously the struggle continues and it's always been difficult!Quote:
Once black people escaped slavery in the south, many of them walked hundreds of miles to northern cities to find a better life. I think they would be astonished at your reasoning that because it is difficult, then those people shouldn't even try.
Maybe so, but it's comments like this one that makes it sure sound that way. "Strange that people don't want to leave family and cities to work on a farm? What's strange about that?" You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't want to have to go to the trouble to leave place A and move to place B to get a job, then they should be able to simply take money from other working Americans. Perhaps I have misunderstood you?Quote:
That's not my reasoning just your perception, which is in error, as obviously the struggle continues and it's always been difficult!
One of us has to be nice....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yeah, yeah. I'd keep you up all night if I listed all the crummy, low-paying jobs I've had. And I stopped taking buses between home and college because they got to be too expensive. So we car-pooled for the 700-mile ride.Quote:
That's what buses are for. Good grief you must think those people are all barnyard stupid. When they want to go somewhere, they find a way. When I was in that situation? When I was teaching school, I worked at Walmart evenings and weekends to make ends meet. I've mowed yards, bagged groceries, worked at a sawmill, and hauled furniture in my lifetime and never thought anything of it, so don't talk to me about if I was "in that situation". You picked the wrong person for that liberal rhetoric.
Ouch!!Quote:
One of us has to be nice....
Exactly. That's why your taxpayer money should NEVER go to someone who simply doesn't want to work. "Might have to move to another place? So? Get moving and get on with your life."Quote:
Yeah, yeah. I'd keep you up all night if I listed all the crummy, low-paying jobs I've had. And I stopped taking buses between home and college because they got to be too expensive. So we car-pooled for the 700-mile ride.
But I still love you....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There are too many who would LOVE to work but are saddled with those born-kids conservative Christian shamed them into keeping during pregnancy -- and then those same "pro-life" Christians refuse to give those strugglng moms any financial help, leaving that mission to us liberal Christians -- "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."Quote:
Exactly. That's why your taxpayer money should NEVER go to someone who simply doesn't want to work. "Might have to move to another place? So? Get moving and get on with your life."
Thank goodness!Quote:
But I still love you....
If that's your beef, that those women listened to evil pro-lifers and did not kill their unborn children, then maybe we can pass a law to allow them to kill those darn pesky kids now before they can cause any more problems. After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?Quote:
There are too many who would LOVE to work but are saddled with those born-kids conservative Christian shamed them into keeping during pregnancy --
WG, I'm sorry to say this, but that's a flatly false statement. In our area you can count on no help at all from liberal dems, Christian or otherwise. The crisis pregnancy centers and church based help ministries are all supported by evangelical Christians or conservative Catholics. You don't know what you're talking about. You won't even join in a call for young single women (as well as single men) to postpone sex until after marriage to prevent this very kind of situation.Quote:
and then those same "pro-life" Christians refuse to give those strugglng moms any financial help, leaving that mission to us liberal Christians
And besides, just a few days ago you were loudly proclaiming on this board that you are not a liberal, but rather are a conservative. Remember that I asked you then to provide your conservative bonafides? So which way is it?
Quote:
WG, I'm sorry to say this, but that's a flatly false statement. In our area you can count on no help at all from liberal dems, Christian or otherwise. The crisis pregnancy centers and church based help ministries are all supported by evangelical Christians or conservative Catholics.
Wonder what kind of help that you provide? What about those Southern Baptists and Methodist church folk I've read about? Who runs the hospitals and clinics?
Quote:
You don't know what you're talking about. You won't even join in a call for young single women (as well as single men) to postpone sex until after marriage to prevent this very kind of situation.
Never heard of WG advocating premarital sex ever, and she has been very clear about her choices many times. She doesn't seem to be keen of those fundies though from what I've read.
Quote:
And besides, just a few days ago you were loudly proclaiming on this board that you are not a liberal, but rather are a conservative. Remember that I asked you then to provide your conservative bonafides? So which way is it?
What kind of requirements to be a conservative do you accept? What are your conservative bonafides? I didn't know you had to be certified to be identified for and ideological standing. Or does it take just one drop of liberal blood to not be a conservative?
I have NEVER claimed she advocates for premarital sex. However, I've asked both you and her to advocate for postponing sex until marriage. You have both repeatedly refused.Quote:
Never heard of WG advocating premarital sex ever, and she has been very clear about her choices many times. She doesn't seem to be keen of those fundies though from what I've read.
People can debate those requirements, but she claimed to be a conservative last week while self-identifying as a liberal just now. Can't have it both ways.Quote:
What kind of requirements to be a conservative do you accept? What are your conservative bonafides? I didn't know you had to be certified to be identified for and ideological standing. Or does it take just one drop of liberal blood to not be a conservative?
Of the pregnancy help centers I have heard of and participated in, I've never run across one staffed and funded by "liberal Christians". It is always evangelicals and Catholics.Quote:
Wonder what kind of help that you provide? What about those Southern Baptists and Methodist church folk I've read about? Who runs the hospitals and clinics?
She won't answer this question. Perhaps you will. "After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?" It's a perplexing question for me. If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born? And please don't go down the old, worn out road of, "Yeah, but you conservatives don't want to take care of children with welfare."
Oh well. It seems to be the question that no one ever cares to answer. " If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?"
I've answered your question many times but it's up to you to accept it, agree or disagree or even dismiss it. It's quite redundant and rhetorical for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Anything that breaks our dependence on other nations for our crucial supplies are a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You've answered this question? "If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" When did you do that?Quote:
I've answered your question many times but it's up to you to accept it, agree or disagree or even dismiss it. It's quite redundant and rhetorical for sure.
Yes and yes!Quote:
Anything that beaks our dependence on other nations for our crucial supplies are a good thing.
LOL we post so much in these forums I can forgive an old coot like yourself for not remembering stuff. This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I understand you start a child at conception, and many others don't, so there you go back to the LAW of the land.
Thank you for your non-answer. I find that liberal dems will absolutely run away from that question. They know there is really no acceptable answer to it, and that being the case, it bothers their consciences. "If it's morally wrong to kill children, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" You and I both know that an appeal to the law is not the same as an appeal to moral values. I'm really disappointed when people do not want to engage in genuine discussion.Quote:
LOL we post so much in these forums I can forgive an old coot like yourself for not remembering stuff. This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?
I haven't refused; I just haven't responded to that gotcha question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I grew up liking Ike and registered as Republican. I still am one, though a moderate one who looks at each candidate as an individual and votes accordingly, not blindly for the party.Quote:
People can debate those requirements, but she claimed to be a conservative last week while self-identifying as a liberal just now. Can't have it both ways.
Yes, she'll answer this with a question. Why do conservatives wait to kill that child AFTER it's born?Quote:
She won't answer this question. Perhaps you will. "After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?" It's a perplexing question for me. If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born? And please don't go down the old, worn out road of, "Yeah, but you conservatives don't want to take care of children with welfare."
I didn't think you would understand my response, being the judgmental hard core right winger that you are who sees his moral values as higher than anyone else's. It's not even a genuine discussion but a set up to elevate yourself by putting others down. Nothing new as we have played that song before so many times and no doubt you knew my position well before you asked the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
By now I figured you had gleaned from my responses that while I understand your position, it matters little to my own. I engage just for the discussion and get insights into the positions of others.
How sad that you consider such a serious question to be so trivial. It seems to be the condition of our day, that people do not want to think through serious issues, but rather prefer to just blow it off as a "gotcha question". Well, the question still stands, and it stands unanswered because, truthfully, there is no answer acceptable to abortion supporters.Quote:
I haven't refused; I just haven't responded to that gotcha question.
First you were a conservative. Yesterday you were a liberal. Now you are a moderate. How confused you seem to be.Quote:
I still am one, though a moderate one
Nothing more than an outrageous accusation designed to placate the conscience of a supporter of abortion.Quote:
Why do conservatives wait to kill that child AFTER it's born?
So you have no answer, and yet that's my fault as a "judgmental hard core right winger". Wow. When you have no answers, you always resort to name calling. It's not my fault that you support the killing of unborn children. You'll have to deal with that yourself.Quote:
I didn't think you would understand my response, being the judgmental hard core right winger that you are who sees his moral values as higher than anyone else's. It's not even a genuine discussion but a set up to elevate yourself by putting others down. Nothing new as we have played that song before so many times and no doubt you knew my position well before you asked the question.
By now I figured you had gleaned from my responses that while I understand your position, it matters little to my own. I engage just for the discussion and get insights into the positions of others.
I have an answer that works for me no matter how opposed to it you are, so your purity tests are up to you. They don't work for me. Seems you'll have to deal with that yourself.
It's not name calling if it's true! Just another thing for you to deal with.Quote:
you always resort to name calling
Still the same. No answer, but that's OK. You are entitled to your own views. BTW, it is name calling. Asking serious questions does not make me a "judgmental, hard core right-winger". It makes me a person who has thought these issues through carefully for years and arrived at some pretty clear decisions.
That's good for you and am truly glad, but let's be clear here, it's not your questions that are objectionable, but the reaction to responses. Dismiss a response that doesn't agree with your own as a non answer is judgmental in my book. If you don't understand another position then keep asking questions. You are hardly the only one here who has given thought to their own positions.
Fair enough until you remember that the question was, "If killing a child is morally wrong, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" Your reply was essentially an appeal to the law. But then you gripe and complain all day long about tax laws that supposedly favor the rich, so the law clearly does not establish morality even in your mind. That's why I referred to it as a non-answer. It didn't strike me as anything you have seriously thought through, and it still doesn't. When you consider that, do you really believe just stating the law actually resolves a moral question? If that's true, then slavery was moral in 1850, but then immoral in 1870. That fairly clearly doesn't make sense, does it?Quote:
That's good for you and am truly glad, but let's be clear here, it's not your questions that are objectionable, but the reaction to responses. Dismiss a response that doesn't agree with your own as a non answer is judgmental in my book. If you don't understand another position then keep asking questions. You are hardly the only one here who has given thought to their own positions.
In your own words from another post, "The absence of data, rhyme or reason often illicits a negative response from me."
Quote:
This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?
what people don't realise is the law is not the moral abiteur, it is the lowest standard of behaviour
Very true. Laws are a very imperfect reflection of moral values.
The law can be and has been changed supposedly in the interest of the fairness and equality as set out in our constitution, and other documents to form a better union. Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level and they have a right to vote that morality or conscious. Thus we have laws subject to review and change.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I can agree but you must have a structure of LAW to set that standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So are humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?Quote:
Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level and they have a right to vote that morality or conscious. Thus we have laws subject to review and change.
It's called free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Most belief systems are imperfect, you have just demonstrated that, but we are called to a higher standardQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There are many that indeed do feel those things are okay, FOR THEM. People of like morality tend to flock together, and they do have a right to their beliefs in free nations anyway. Now you can disagree with whatever, and believe it's wrong, but changing people hearts and minds isn't an easy thing, and darn near impossible. It's not easy being human JL, whatever your positions are and for sure those that go in different directions and add to that the ordinary stressors of life's daily events it can be quite difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If Tal is correct, there is no higher standard. There is just individual moral beliefs, but no higher standard to which a person can appeal. So if I believe that being a racist is morally acceptable, then for me it is. The result, ultimately, is that there is really no such thing as morality. It's all just opinion. It's pretty much the exact opposite of Christian beliefs.
Not at all JL, as maybe the law reflects the lowest standard, there is nothing stopping anyone from having a higher standard for themselves is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?Quote:
there is nothing stopping anyone from having a higher standard for themselves is there?
So what's that higher standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As an individual, I have my own standards for morality, that's between me and my God so what exactly are you aiming for? That's how I can say what's right and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.." He appealed to a higher standard. It's interesting to me that you cannot get to human rights in the Declaration of Independence without first going through a Creator.Quote:
So what's that higher standard?
Tal, my question was, "If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were wrong?"
Your answer was, "As an individual, I have my own standards for morality, that's between me and my God so what exactly are you aiming for? That's how I can say what's right and wrong." Without wanting to hurt your feelings, please allow me to point out that you completely dodged the question. You gave an answer that basically says, "It's wrong because Tal says so." I know you are plenty smart enough to know just how lame that is.
Now you might be appealing to a "god" of some sort, but if you are, then doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? "Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level." So is morality guided by people, or is it guided by a higher standard you are calling "my God"? And if your god really is "God", and not simply a figment of your imagination, then shouldn't everyone listen to what He says? In what way should people have a right to outvote God?
Quote:
So what's that higher standard?
The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.."
right on right on right on !!!!
That says nothing about a higher standard of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?
And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM. |