2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[sbjj]

Apples and oranges. There is a vast ocean of difference between beheading adults caught in the midst of a war which has more or less raged on in one form or another, whether secretly or otherwise, for the better part of the last nine hundred years and the molestation of children who will spend years upon years suffering the events captured on tape for random people to see.

On one side you have the stirrings of an old war taken up on new principles. On the other you have children who are unable to defend themselves while being abused in ways that will probably scar them indefinitely as well as alter the way they develop as human beings. Murder and rape aren't the same thing at all, nor do they have the same repercussions for those committing, viewing, or connected to any parties involved. People aren't downloading the videos of those captives to get pleasure from them or to perhaps one day behead a captive themselves. However that is the case for probably close to 99% of people who download child porn.

Also there is a general agreement that the rape of children is a much more despicable act than murdering someone. Even among criminals child molesters are instant targets in the general population. Often in prisons they are segregated for the entirety of they're incarceration in order to prevent them being killed in prison. The only other type of convict to receive this kind of treatment is a former police officer. I suppose the reasoning for this is that while there may not be honor among thieves there is a line that even multiple murderers and serial rapists consider "too far".

I'm not saying the punishments aren't out of whack, I'm saying that this "brand" of crime is unique in the sense that nothing else really measures up to the kind of damage this unleashes. It hits a spot for almost anyone. Everyone has at one time been a child and while not everyone has children everyone can at least relate to one. For Me whenever I hear about these types of crimes I immediately hope it never happens to one of the children in My own family, even though I don't have kids.

Everything you say makes sense. Except the fact that how many ACTUAL child molesters get a year or two for the actual rape of a child. Priests are poking young kids freely, while perverts with child porn on their computers are getting sentenced as if they actual molested kids.

It would be nice if they actually used some old fashioned detective work to track down the perps actually doing the molesting.

[SPX]

ZY, yea I know about it. I do not agree with it. But it is your states right IMO. But it will get overturned in the court system anyway.

I just do not understand the Pro-Life lobby(I was once Pro-Life). They have a clear cut argument that life begins somewhere around 4 to 5 months(I think). You know, where the child can possibly live outside of the mother. But they always go for this Life begins at conception crap.

I think there is a legit debate that the fetus(child) could be protected by the constitution before the child is actually born. But the religious folks do not help their case with life at fertilization crap.

I think you could argue that the fact that the child hasn't actually developed into a fetus is a mere technicality. You could say that the important thing is that, whether it's God or nature doing the dirty work, there is an intention that life be created and that process has begun. Regardless of whether it's at Stage 1 or Stage 10, by halting the process you're destroying a life that otherwise would be.

[sbjj]

I think you could argue that the fact that the child hasn't actually developed into a fetus is a mere technicality. You could say that the important thing is that, whether it's God or nature doing the dirty work, there is an intention that life be created and that process has begun. Regardless of whether it's at Stage 1 or Stage 10, by halting the process you're destroying a life that otherwise would be.

By that logic. Every man alive is a serial killer of potential life. I guess you would have to make masturbation a crime.

[SPX]

I don't agree with that at all, because ejaculation is merely one of many things that has to take place in order for life to come about. It's a step along the path, but is not, in and of itself, what creates a human. But once an egg is fertilized, without further human intervention it WILL develop into a child (unless there's a miscarriage or something of the sort).

[MMA_scientist]

Abortion for me is really about a philosphical debate about the value of a potential life. When "life" begins is really just a theory... whether the child could live outside the womb is completely arbitrary IMO. I really don't see how that is relevant. I do think the father should should have a say in the issue though.

[SPX]

^^^ I agree.

Ultimately it comes down to two questions:

1. God's sovereignty. Does God exist and are you authorized to interfere with his will?
2. Is a child a child while it's still in the womb? If so, is it a child only at specific points or the whole way through? Does it have rights? Is it murder to kill it?

[SPX]

By the way, do we have any religious people here? I've never once seen any member stand up for religion (except occasionally myself and Scientist in an indirect way). Seems like, considering the religious make up of America, there'd be at least one Christian among us.

[sbjj]

SPX, we are talking POTENTIAL life. If the embryo can not survive on its own, it is still potential. Just as the sperm is also potential life. It comes down to common sense. If a women can abort a 4 month old fetus because it is not yet life. Why would a man face a murder charge if he killed that non life inside her?

Bottom line, life starts somewhere, but as a nation we have never had a discussion on when a fetus becomes a life. Fanatics on Pro choice side believe only after birth. While Pro Lifers believe it as conception. i just have a hard time with the stopping of a life that can live outside of the womb. Just my opinion.

Check out the movie Lake of Fire. Excellent movie on abortion. Shows the aftermath of what I believe was a mid term abortion. The pieces of the baby sure as hell looked like a life to me. But even though I personally believe that mid and late term abortions are wrong. I see nothing in our constitution that gives the Fed. Gov. the right to regulate it. Unless a fetus can be considered a citizen. Some Libertarians are die hard pro life and believe the fetus is covered under our constitution and is therefor protected by it.

[poopoo333]

By the way, do we have any religious people here? I've never once seen any member stand up for religion (except occasionally myself and Scientist in an indirect way). Seems like, considering the religious make up of America, there'd be at least one Christian among us.

Not me

[sbjj]

By the way, do we have any religious people here? I've never once seen any member stand up for religion (except occasionally myself and Scientist in an indirect way). Seems like, considering the religious make up of America, there'd be at least one Christian among us.

I am agnostic. Yet find myself defending religion quite a bit. I think religion gets a bad wrap at times. And I believe as a whole, the world might be a worse place without it.

[Ludo]

Everything you say makes sense. Except the fact that how many ACTUAL child molesters get a year or two for the actual rape of a child. Priests are poking young kids freely, while perverts with child porn on their computers are getting sentenced as if they actual molested kids.

It would be nice if they actually used some old fashioned detective work to track down the perps actually doing the molesting.

I already covered that a few posts back on the issue. I was responding to Svino's post directly because the discussion sort of took a turn into new territory.

[MMA_scientist]

By the way, do we have any religious people here? I've never once seen any member stand up for religion (except occasionally myself and Scientist in an indirect way). Seems like, considering the religious make up of America, there'd be at least one Christian among us.

I think since we are all degenerates, you are not getting an accurate representation of religions...

I go to church. I sometimes call myself a Christian, mostly for convenience if I am asked about my faith. But if you asked a true Christian if my beliefs make me Christian, they would definitely say no. I remain agnostic on the existence of God in general... but I like the philosophical teachings of Jesus, and I generally try to abide by them. I like the ideas of reverence for a God and that there is some thing that is above our immediate desires. I like the idea of making yourself less than your neighbor. There are other philosphical teachings that might be more well reasoned... but to me it is about both right and wrong, and also about admirable qualities. I don't think it is wrong to live your whole life to only satisfy your desires, but I don't think it is admirable either.

I look at the Bible in a literary and historical context for the most part, I don't actually believe that there is a heaven or a hell or that Jesus was divine. But I like to talk about ethics and metaphysics, and church-folk are the people that are the most adept at discussing these things and also being involved with your process IME. That is generally why I go.

[Ludo]

By the way, do we have any religious people here? I've never once seen any member stand up for religion (except occasionally myself and Scientist in an indirect way). Seems like, considering the religious make up of America, there'd be at least one Christian among us.

I bet sideloaded was Christian.

[MMA_scientist]

I bet sideloaded was Christian.

He did tell us we were all going to hell for gambling at one point...

[Svino]

Anyone see this 'personhood initiative' my state is voting on today? That life begins at 'fertilization'.

I don't know much detail about what you're actually voting on, but I can tell that the only way this would be constitutional is if it's an amendment to the constitution, or is followed up by one.

The Constitution is not going to get amended in this way, there is clearly nowhere near the nationwide support for that. So why have this vote? Simple: like many similar measures in different states, it is there to get the conservative religious base mobilized to come out to the polls, so they can also vote for the Republicans running for office. That's pretty much the only reason it exists. I seriously doubt that most Republicans in national office actually even want Roe v. Wade repealed; it would deprive them of a wedge issue they desperately need to mobilize voters on their behalf and put their jobs at risk.