301. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159978 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:42 pm

That's an example of presuming to know the mind of God. Speaking for God.

Nope. That is an example of knowing that God exists independently of me, and you. He cannot deal with you the same as me, because we're not the same.

Would it make it easier on you, if I did speak for God? Certainly it would make it easier for you to dismiss me. But it would immeasurably increase my burden.

Who would want to be a prophet, unless it was for profit?

302. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159974 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Jesus seems a bit boring though.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same person. Maybe you are confusing him with some of His misguided "followers".

303. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159964 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:29 pm

That would be like my listening to the ringing in your ears.

Not at all. God will treat you in your own way, not the way He treats me. We are joined, but not the same.

304. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159961 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Peacebeuponme:

I think that it is Jesus, but He declined to identify Himself.

305. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159959 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I was not specifically suggesting a discussion with Vox, Steve. I was suggesting that his is a place where MaxD will find a lot of theists eager to debate with an atheist.

I read your exchange with Vox on your blog. He is correct that you repeatedly made an unsubstantiated sleight on his book as being full of straw man arguments... but for his part he neglected to deal with the other criticisms that you made.

It was like two ships passing, throwing out grappling hooks, and only managing to snare each other's hooks. Nobody wanted to board the other ship.

Still, if you're down for a challenge, try fighting on his turf. I have found it most entertaining.

306. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159950 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Kardashovel - you are an interesting character. I'll give you that.

Aw. Thanks.

But if you think I'm interesting, you should try talking to God.

307. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159948 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm

You should give it a go, MaxD. It would be illuminating.

I suggest that you head over to Vox's, and make a comment peripherally related to the topic... then when you get pounced on, it will not be you that derailed the thread. Then commence to defend yourself. It should be fun. But I encourage you to be sincere an not act the troll.

308. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159944 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Catholic until age 13. Went to a charismatic Southern Baptist church from 13 to about 16ish.

That's like popping the clutch into first gear while going 60mph the wrong way on an interstate.

I am so pleased that I was raised as an atheist.

309. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159943 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 12:48 pm

I did a cursory search, but turned up no results...

Has the topic of Dr. Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation ever been discussed in this forum?

310. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159927 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I was hoping for either #2~Lunatic, or #7...

311. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159926 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 12:15 pm

How curious.

If you don't mind my asking, what denomination were you aligned with, when you were a theist?

312. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159923 by Kardashovel on April 13, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I am interested to know where I fall in Dr. Benway's taxonomy of commenting theists.

And I am quite amused at Corylus' offer to argue as a mercenary.

I would comment that the most frustrating aspect of engaging in a discussion here is the pile-on effect. But I'm not sure that there is any reasonable way to address the problem. I think that the onus is on the brave theist to face all challenges of interest. Unfortunately, it is hard to do so when there are so many, and they lead in too many different directions...

313. Beware the Believers

Comment #156103 by Kardashovel on April 6, 2008 at 6:34 pm

::taps MaxD's gloves:::

No big deal. For what it's worth, I can fully understand the disgust that many people here show towards Christians in America.

Since I have never attended a church*, and I lean left/libertarian in my political philosophy, I don't really get exposed to the "there oughta be a law" nonsense that permeates the culture.


*Except on anthropological missions when I was an atheist.

314. Beware the Believers

Comment #155673 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:33 am

I've gotta go to a birthday party now. Good day.

315. Beware the Believers

Comment #155672 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:33 am

MaxD. And that is because he has been the most egregious offender of the type I have protested against.

Someone that misrepresents my opinions and argues against them as if they are my own is, at best, half an opponent.

316. Beware the Believers

Comment #155670 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:29 am

What about ectopic pregnancies?

IANAD, but:

As I understand it, these are invariably fatal or severely damaging to the mother. As such, abortion is the only ethical choice in that situation, and it should be performed as soon as possible to avoid damage to the fallopian tube.

However, I would want to know how soon such a condition can be diagnosed with certainty. The abortion should not be done prematurely if there is a chance that the pregnancy is normal.

317. Beware the Believers

Comment #155668 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:20 am

I was responding to Bonzai, Enlighteme. Their post was about me. Get a grip.

318. Beware the Believers

Comment #155665 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:15 am

This last exchange helps me understand why many of you have taken offense at some of what I have said.

319. Beware the Believers

Comment #155663 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:14 am

Not only that, but after setting that up, he also went on to denote that its' termination is to kill it (knowing full well I suspect that someone like me is gonna jump on him) with a ready-made response in mind that equivocates the terms kill/murder - in further readiness with a 'not my religion' type response to being called on it!

I don't understand this. Murder is the deliberate killing, without just cause, of a human being. If I thought that the early fetus was a human being, then I would support laws against abortion because murder is illegal. I have not said this, but rather the opposite.

On the other hand, while it may not yet be human, it is still a living being with the potential to become human, which is closer to realization every day that it develops. So I have said that the moral hazard increases with time.

320. Beware the Believers

Comment #155661 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:10 am

Fertilization is not enough; the fetus must gain purchase in the womb.

Is there a term, other than "fetus" for this state of affairs?

321. Beware the Believers

Comment #155658 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:06 am

Bonzai (and Steve):

Yeah I too notice there is a hint of passive aggressiveness about Kard behind the seemingly reasonable facade..

Have a look at this quote from Enlightenme:

I, along with many others here, greatly admire your skills, Cartomancer, and was actually hunting around myself trying to find where the misunderstanding arose.

Here is an example of someone who greatly respects Cartomancer, and was persuaded by his post to look for where I was such a homophobic bastard. This is precisely why I must defend myself, at the expense of a smooth flow in the conversation.

Now, considering that his next statement is about quote mining, I am sure that you will all see this as another example of my "passive aggressiveness", instead of my simple defense of my words and actions.

If you, like me, would rather discuss something other than Kardashovel, then why do people keep making this about me?

If the consensus is that you do not respect me, and therefore won't listen to my point of view, then I'll just shove off. There are plenty of places for me to scratch the itch of needing to argue to improve my positions.

322. Beware the Believers

Comment #155657 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:05 am

Enlightenme... (and Quetzalcoatl)

However, you have remained consistent in your assertion that the termination of a conceptus is to kill it.

Can you not see the contradiction?

Yes. Due to this discussion (primarily with Steve before he got in a huff) I have moderated my feeling about abortion. Fertilization is not enough; the fetus must gain purchase in the womb.

323. Beware the Believers

Comment #155656 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 7:04 am

Apology accepted, Cartomancer. Perhaps I'll respond to the rest of your rebuttal post a bit later...

~~~

Neverthelss, I detect a hint of playing the victim here.

I think it is more accurate to say that Steve is playing Don Quixote, senselessly defending "victims" like you and annabanana, who don't seem to have taken much offense at my remarks.

Oh... you mean me.

You do seem awfully keen to assume that everything we say is a direct attack on you, and that we are necessarily misrepresenting your position rather than just discussing a position that we disapprove of in the abstract.

You wouldn't be blaming the victim here, would you Cartomancer? If the ad hominem attacks cease, then so will my defense against them.

For the record, pretty much all the vocal theists I have ever encountered in this fine country - almost without exception - have been homophobic bigots.

I am distressed to hear that, but sadly I am not surprised. If you don't mind my asking, did they vocally justify their bigotry with their theism? Those types make me want to puke.

324. Beware the Believers

Comment #155618 by Kardashovel on April 5, 2008 at 5:24 am

Contrary to popular belief there are other people apart from you making statements here too...

Name any of them that you think achieved the "height of condescension"... you can't. You meant me.

If you read through my comments you'll see me arguing precisely the opposite with annabanana and Quetzalcoatl.

But that quote was the crowning accusation of your post directed at me, and anyone joining the discussion who read that post would assume that you meant me. Since it seems that many around here respect your opinion, that means that I must now defend myself against your inane aspersion instead of arguing the matter at hand.

Wow. Since I joined this discussion, I have been portrayed as an ugly, Vox-like sexist, homophobic prude that believes that women who get abortions are murderers. There is no reason for any of these conclusions based on what I have written, and in fact I state precisely the opposite in all cases.

What makes this worse is that your weak justification and snooty demeanor clarify that the reason for your false accusation is simply based on my being a theist.

It's sad really. I suppose it is because you are living in a country where vocal theists are uncommon, so that you aren't often confronted with the limitations of your prejudice. Nevertheless, it does make me wonder how you developed these notions... perhaps from hanging around this echo chamber?

Here's a clue for you and those that share your prejudice: Fred Phelps is an agent provocateur. Christians are commanded to love you like we love ourselves and our Lord.

325. Beware the Believers

Comment #155571 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Cartomancer, I too have availed myself of a night on the town, and I am about to stumble to bed after having read your thorough comments above.

I intend to respond to them later, but I could not walk away without mentioning one point.

In your last paragraph, you say:

I think it the height of condescension to assume that I, as a gay man who will never have children or face the prospect of having an abortion, am, because of that fact, somehow less qualified to speak on this issue than other people. We are not talking about individual situations here, we are talking about underlying moral codes - and that's an abstract discussion anyone can join in with irrespective of whether they have a vested interest in the outcome.

Is this directed at me? If so, why?

326. Beware the Believers

Comment #155529 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Enlightenme, the question was about people that never wanted to have kids at all, as you quoted.

In the situation you mention, I would recommend that the man get a vasectomy. In the very unlikely case that pregnancy should result... then the couple will need to debate their options.

I can only hope they would choose to keep the kid, but I cannot make their decisions for them as there is not a clear cut subject and I think it defies legislation.

If they did decide to abort, I can only hope that they would not tarry because the more the fetus develops, the more brutal the consequence.

327. Beware the Believers

Comment #155503 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I did manage to offend Steve, tho. He thinks I'm Vox.

328. Beware the Believers

Comment #155496 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Diacanu, I was wondering what you thought about the video that is the subject of this post...

329. Beware the Believers

Comment #155491 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Shux. Ah well. You certainly don't seem the type to take a mercenary attitude towards argument.

330. Beware the Believers

Comment #155486 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Corylus:

Kardashovel, let's do an experiment; you have chatted to me for a bit, but I don't recall giving you any particularly personal information...

What sex do you think I am? I'm curious.

I would be very surprised if you were not male. However, you have a curious nature and a gentle, therapeutic demeanor. That is less common for males than females, but uncommon for anyone.

But what difference does it make since we are talking about humans and you are an acrobatic mouse?

331. Beware the Believers

Comment #155484 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:41 pm

annabanana:

I think I would need to see some peer reviewed research before I bought into it.

IMO, it is utterly pointless to argue a position if you wouldn't actually act on it.

Well, theres another data point for us.

I'm going out of town for a race tomorrow morning. Wish me luck and please don't pray for me.

Good luck! and... too late.

332. Beware the Believers

Comment #155482 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Q said:

...the risk of pregnancy should not have to be a barrier to a couple having sex.

What if neither of the couple want kids at all?

Post vasectomy pregnancy rates are 0.2% for life. That is ten times better than the perfect condom use pregnancy rate, per year. Hysterectomy is more invasive, but 100% effective. If people are sure that they do not want to have children, this is a much better option from an ethical perspective.

333. Beware the Believers

Comment #155475 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:26 pm

If that's what she said about men, what did she say about women?

I was too busy arguing to fall for her diversion.
[rimshot]
Just kidding.

She said that women tend to be more emotionally invested in their opinions, and less likely to experiment by arguing tangentially.

334. Beware the Believers

Comment #155473 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm

annabanana:

what's the point of having an ethical position if that's not what you truly intend to do when the situation arises?

Ethics are what we think we'll do. Morals are what we feel we should do, or should have done.

The road to hell is paved with intentions. Action comes from the heart.

335. Beware the Believers

Comment #155470 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm

annabanana:

You should probably expand on this as the statements following it had no real bearing on this statement.

My wife, who majored in ecofeminism, has informed me that men tend to be more mercenary in arguments: taking on positions that are extensions or reductions of their actual viewpoint, but arguing forcefully nevertheless.

Do you think she is correct?

336. Beware the Believers

Comment #155463 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Quetzalcoatl, comment #646:

And if they use protection, to prevent such a possibility? What if the couple are married?

There is no form of birth control that is 100% effective, assuming vaginal intercourse. So, people need to consider what they will do if they roll snake eyes.

If they are married, they have that much less reason to consider abortion, since they are in a committed relationship that would hopefully provide the baby with the resources and capabilities of two loving parents...

337. Beware the Believers

Comment #155458 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Why does it matter whether or not the circumstances are hypothetical? If a person supports an ethical position, then that usually translates into what the person would do when and if the situation arose.

I wish. If that were so, I suspect the world would be a much better place. Christians are often the worst; especially the ones that are clutching to the idea that faith-alone justifies them.

I don't understand why you only consider people unethical/immoral if they act on their arguments, but not if they don't.

I mean no offense by this, but I suspect that this might be a gender communication issue. Although I am firmly stating my beliefs here, some of them are not as firm as I would like. I argue with the full intention of changing my positions, by either strengthening them or weakening them. A secondary objective is to change the minds of my opponents.

A corollary of that admission is that I would assume that when somebody makes a statement in an argument about ethics, it does not determine how they will act when the situation changes from hypothetical to real. Besides the argument, there might be other discussions or experiences that change the persons attitude prior to taking action.

Talk and thought are important, but when it comes to morality, action is what ultimately matters.

BTW, annabanana, in case you missed it above. I apologize if I came off as overly caustic in my last comment to you.

338. Beware the Believers

Comment #155443 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Doesn't say precisely when. Straight away? The assessment of immorality seems to be based solely on what the cell might one day become.

It says it in the text you quoted, Q. From the day of conception. I don't know how long it takes for a sperm to penetrate and fertilize an egg, and for the resulting "conceptus" to firmly implant itself in the womb... if that is more than a day, then after that. But once we have a viable embryo, it is immoral to kill it, in my opinion.

I'll repeat myself for the eight time: it may be even more immoral to allow that embryo to be born. That depends on circumstance. But in most circumstances that I can imagine, I would say that it was then immoral for the couple to have sexual intercourse and put themselves in the situation of having to make such an unpleasant choice.

As for the disparaging words about my arguments about the potential of the embryo, I'd suggest you should reread my post #587, addressed to Cartomancer.

339. Beware the Believers

Comment #155434 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

In a moment, Quetzalcoatl.

Thanks for the kind offer, but I would rather you dealt with the issues that MaxD and I have mentioned:

When precisely does the immorality of destruction of the products of conception start?

Sorry Steve, but you accused me of some nasty stuff up there. Back it up, or retract it and then we can continue discussing things like adults.

340. Beware the Believers

Comment #155428 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Sheesh.

As for rudeness, I do not intend it. By context I guess you think I was rude to annabanana. I reread what I wrote and I suppose I can see why. But she was also rude to me, by repeatedly insinuating sexism where it did not exist and scolding me about being 'ugly' when in fact I am simply answering my critics. Perhaps I was overzealous in my rebuke, and for that I apologize to annabanana. It is not an excuse, but I will note that I am taking fire from multiple directions.

I never dismissed anyone as "half a person"... just half an opponent. Shall I show you in their own words where they agree with this assessment?

If I have jumped from one topic to another that is because I am answering so many of you at once. I believe I have stayed on topic.

I have changed no definitions. I have left some issues ambiguous, such as the difference between ethics and morals; but I defy you to provide a single example (with quotations to back it up).

What people and motives have I attacked? Back it up, Steve.

341. Beware the Believers

Comment #155421 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Diacanu? Only a cameo?

342. Beware the Believers

Comment #155420 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 1:10 pm

You are confusing a conversation or opinion about ethical maxims with the actual circumstance.

LOL. No, I'm not Vox.

Please, tell me how I remind you of him...

343. Beware the Believers

Comment #155417 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 1:05 pm

On the one hand you say that it is not unethical to want your wife to have an abortion. On the other, you then say that it is IMMORAL to want your wife to have an abortion because a child would ruin career plans.

Actually, I said that it would be unethical to want your wife to have an abortion. I never said otherwise.

I said that there is nothing unethical about holding the opinion that it is ethical to have abortions as a matter of convenience.

You are confusing a conversation or opinion about ethical maxims with the actual circumstance. If you want to tell me that you intend to tell your wife to abort a fetus, then I'll be willing to say that is immoral and you probably shouldn't do it, unless there is a strong reason to avoid having the child.

Does anyone want to make this a discussion about a particular abortion in their life? Does anyone want me to call them a "murderer"?

It's bizarre. I thought we were just talking situational ethics about human rights and when they are endowed.

344. Beware the Believers

Comment #155411 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I see, so what you mean to say is that you weren't being ugly because what you said doesn't meet your definition of ugly.

If you want to characterize my statements here as "ugly" then that is your prerogative... You've been wrong about several things in the last few posts, so what's one more?

I won't let it bother me anymore that you can't distinguish between banter (like calling someone an artless dodger) and having someone pretend that I think people that get early-term abortions are murderers. After all, you can't seem to understand the difference between arguing about ethics and suggesting that one's opponent is unethical when all of the circumstances are hypothetical. I don't think I'll be able to reach you.

345. Beware the Believers

Comment #155406 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm

But surely you cannot be claiming that it is immoral for the man to want the woman to abort the baby, in other words to have an opinion?

An opinion about the ethics of abortion? No... even if it were your stated opinion that all Caucasian fetus' should be aborted and served for breakfast, I would say that you are misguided, but have done nothing unethical.

On the other hand, if you tell your wife that she should abort a particular fetus because a kid would screw up some career plans, then... yes, I would say that would be immoral behavior. And if she protested and you relentlessly needled her about it then I would say that you are acting especially immorally.

346. Beware the Believers

Comment #155399 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:36 pm

I can't tell whether you think I was being underhanded in some way.

Not at all.

And what's this about "four and a half" opponents? There are either four, or five. Nobody on this forum is worth less than anyone else.

Sigh. Are you and annabanana the moderators here?

I will attempt to keep my insults in check. Would you consider asking certain other posters to avoid misrepresenting my positions? Thanks, chief.

347. Beware the Believers

Comment #155393 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Annabanana, to be more concise, let me answer this question:

So would you consider their arguments different if they were coming from a woman who has the potential to get pregnant and subsequently have an abortion?

No.

348. Beware the Believers

Comment #155389 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm

First of all, a number of others thought that you were implying that they were immoral as well, so if you weren't implying that, then your language is sloppy.

Possibly. Or perhaps there are a bunch of people on this site with preconceptions about how theists think about ethics... I still can't understand how anything I have said was taking the conversation in the "ugly" direction that I was referring to, wherein the typical fundamentalist would scream that you are a bunch of immoral baby killers. But you in particular seem determined to get offended. I just don't do that sort of thing. I'm sorry if that makes it more difficult for you to dismiss my arguments... ;P

I'll leave the other three out of this since you seem to want to exclude them based on their being men.

You really need to get the chip off your shoulder. What have I said that indicates that I want to exclude anyone except for MaxD?

Men who would insist on their partner getting an abortion would be as ethically culpable as their partner, and more-so if they argue against her wishes to keep the baby. What now?

In any case, I don't think that you or anyone is unethical for having this conversation or for thinking a certain way. Now if you have gotten an abortion, or if any of the men arguing with me have attempted to persuade or coerce someone to get an abortion, then I would say that you acted unethically, somewhere along the line. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing for you to get that hypothetical abortion...

349. Beware the Believers

Comment #155381 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Right. So there is no immorality until the embryo is fixed in the womb?

Steve, if you want to talk about stem cell research, just say so. :)

Whazzup Diacanu! I thought I smelled something burning. I'll be back after a reboot.

350. Beware the Believers

Comment #155380 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I don't know who or what you mean by this, but even if you didn't mean anything by it, you should be more careful of what you say. Do you not recall the discussion we had yesterday about theists coming on this site and not respecting the arguments the women have presented?

MaxD is a woman? I would not have guessed...