3RU7AL

Someone is free to leave just as soon as join without any punishment. But if they choose not to leave, then they must adhere to the government or society they joined.

FWIW, I think that liberals and conservatives alike are brainwashed by cult propaganda techniques.

as is the case with contraceptives (as they were new at the time).

that killing a child is not murder

You can have a moral system that objectively follows from the core standard, but the standard itself will always be chosen by the individual, making it necessarily subjective.

how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically

Not sure you can.

are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?

No

love and wants are personal feelings and not objective.

They are if theirs an objective presence supporting them.

Bullshit. Many atheists hate the concept of god itself.

Have you even read the Griswold case, 3RU7AL? it literally agrees with me and says married couples has a right to use contraceptives in a married relationship....and as I've previously said, constitutional rights are always accidently not followed (these end up getting solved in the future) as is the case with contraceptives (as they were new at the time).

Actually... I realize I was using the wrong word this whole time!!! Whenever I said "qualify" I meant "qualitate." I can see how the conversation went this direction now lol.

Logic supports God.

please provide your personally preferred definition of "explain"

please provide your personally preferred definition of "mean"

Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.

The New Testament was eyewitness accounts about Jesus in the Gospels.

As if you have studied dating and heterosexual love more than the experts

Our social contract with society and the state and other peoples in our society says (dictated through democracy) that we ought to have rights to privacy and property. If someone doesn't  like that, they should either move to a country without human rights or advocate for the abolishment of them.

Thanks for your baseless tautology

Social status is perhaps a direct factor for men and can definitely be compensated for if you properly read tbe variables I said.

ok, well within the current framework of how modern western society works. My position wins, unless you argue to completely roll back of human rights, my position will remain more consistent as long as property laws exist. You have to go ultimate skeptic (destroying all presumed axioms) to have a "critique" against me. I could say the exact same thing about anything, from rape to murder. Its a none argument.

--> @Sidewalker

i personally feel god's love in my heart

and that's how i know god is verified by science

According to you, “science requires INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of results.”

How is science able to independently verify your personal feeling god's love in your heart?

don't you have to have a "Y" chromosome in order to be considered "male" ?

No. 

Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.  

I don't know, if you don't accept the real world of logic and science,

Free Will is contradictory an omniscient God and it's contradictory to life in general whether and omniscient God exists. Freedom is one thing. Free Will is another entirely. If we had free will then we could make whatever choices we want and follow through on them. We can't for all sorts of reasons money, attitude, upbringing, place of birth, type of government in our country. There's a reason  psychology exist because people are predictable animals. We rarely if ever change and we really with ever step outside our comfort zone. You're freedom lets you to make choices in regards to what you eat, who you marry, if you have kids, in some way where you live and what you do. Free will to make any choice you want to, at any time, no matter what, does not exist. We are slaves to nature and nurture.

or present an alternative third option

 

OK, let’s go with the real world, perhaps as science tells us it is.  The deterministic laws of Newtonian mechanics have been subsumed into stochastic laws of quantum and chaos theory, and relativistic models of multidimensional space/time.  But unless I missed a memo, the scientific world did not conclude that therefore everything is random, cause and effect are no longer valid, and there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.

does that mean you won't get into heaven ?

You will not be judged for reacting differently but for rejecting the word of God.

Finally Judaism which is the original source of the Abrahamic God rejects your conclusions in the New Testament.

The good is people are not abandoning the Bible. They are just reacting differently.

I am skeptical of all claims which cannot be substantiated through reason or evidence.

Men have all kinds of factors, 

I fail to see the connection between a syllogism and Hume's Guillotine. My statements were saying that if something is real, then it can be defined, and therefore there are objective facts about it.

The Bible is consistent, but that does not imply those that convert to Christianity are consistent. Hence the variety of Christian denominations.

The most obvious argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident. 

Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence,

and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid.

and then recognize that determinism is not a conclusion of science.

Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random.  It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will.  Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism. 

Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises. 

It could very well be that the universe is Stochastic and not deterministic. I touch on it in my own free will debate. There's also just very little evidence from neuroscience to suggest we don't have free will. Determinism is a loser ideology. It makes you into a loser, believing in determinism.

The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options.  This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.

apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it

which i'm going to compare to the following,

apparently, at least in america, a person can purchase a weapon any time they wish

This is a terrible analogy;

it omits anthe key error in your argument. The two key errors as I keep pointing out, is one of classification: that all purchases are A,

whereas some are actually B;

and that you are using the results of one category of crime as a basis to assume that another category of crime would be treated similarly.

Fixing your analogy:

“Anyone can decide to buy a nuclear weapon  - because the punishment for illegally purchasing a fire arm is normally less than a year.”

Or let’s try another:

“Any wife can decide to murder their husband - because the punishment for battered wive defences is normally less than a year in prison.”

That’s the issue with your argument:

The issue I keep pointing out, and you keep purposefully stripping out of your responses and ignoring is:

• Buying a nuclear weapon would not be categorized as illegally purchasing a firearm.
  

• Murdering your husband for arbitrary reasons would not be categorized as a battered wife  defences.
  

• Deciding to kill your baby - would not be categorized as infanticide.
  

And:

• The penalty for illegally purchasing a weapon being is less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical or different offences are also treated leniently
  

• The penalty for a battered wife being less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently
  

• The penalty for infanticide being less than a year doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently.
  

Your responses are akin to:

• But nuclear weapons are technically fire arms, as they are weapons, that law would apply. 
  

• A wife would never kill their husband unless she could argue he was harmful to her in some way.
  

• But I didn’t say it was ALWAYS less than a year! You’re making stuff up, I never said that!!!
  

You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.

YOU CLARIFIED YOUR STATEMENT BASED ON MY OBJECTIONS THEREFORE YOU ARE A LIAR

By all means cite the post where I called you a liar. You can add it to the citation of where you feel I am selectively quoting you, or where I have failed to respond to one of your key arguments… I’m still waiting on those:

and sure, SOME women may be convicted of murder instead of infanticide for killing their own children within the first 12 months

Bingo. Nailed it. Let’s try and get you over the edge. Pay attention. Let me walk you through the issue and problem in your argument, yet again. Hopefully, you will not strip out and ignore this critical point this time - as you have continued to do throughout. Here we go:

There are very rare, heartbreaking instances of women after childbirth, not thinking straight for a variety of reasons - through forms of inaction or momentary breaks - kill their children (Crime A).

The law recognizes that this type of scenario is not the same as cold blooded killing of a stranger,

so has a special law to cover it (Law A) - when Law A is applied to crime A, typically the courts are lenient and aware limited jail time (Punishment A)- if any; and that’s not unreasonable. A day old baby screaming for a entire days on end, a mother in pain at her wits end, snaps for just a split second and shakes her baby - that’s not cold blooded murder and shouldn’t be treated that way.

There are also - even rarer - pretty horrifying murders of children, callous abuse, or bordering on psychopathic decisions where a mother kills a child.

(Crime B). The law recognizes this scenario is as murder, and typically ends up with the mother charged for Murder (Law B); being convicted and going to prison for multiple years (punishment B). There is perhaps one or or two case where the woman commits such a murder and is charged with infanticide, and faces larger jail time than in Punishment A (Punishment B) - perhaps there is some mitigation, but is generally punished by Murder with lots of jail time. Perhaps not all, not all cold blooded murders yield the same result after all  - but generally so.

Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)

Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 

No. That’s stupid. As I have been saying throughout.

What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.

How? Why? Because you say so?

I explained why this argument was semantic - in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored

in most cases it's actually true.

Not at all; and I described exactly why in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored

Punishment for Crime A is meaningless as an indicator of the punishment for Crime B

contradicting is not the same as "refuting"

But in your case - you explicitly state that killing your child is not murder - that Crime B is treated as Crime A. Showing that people committing Crime B are charged with Crime B, not Crime A both contradicts- and refutes the claim. This was covered in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored.

And this is really your issue: rather than explain why what I said didn’t refute your claim; you’re just objecting to my characterization of what some data does, on a technicality.

to be perfectly clear, there is an extremely significant difference between ALWAYS and MOSTLY

And if I was basing any of my argument on this difference, your complaint would be relevant - but it’s not.

but seriously, just make "your point" clearly … what the hell is your "central point" anyway ?

This is getting to the point you’re being purposefully dishonest.

Literally the 5 paragraphs above the portion you quoted spell out the details of what my objection is. Why are you chopping out all the paragraphs where I clearly spell out my point - and then demand I clearly spell out my point. 

This is ridiculous.

This post was a reiteration of post 131: where I detail what you’ve said, what my objection to it is, and why: you completely ignored the detail of that entire post too - fixating on a minor semantic issue - childish parroting, and assertion:

This post was a summary of post 81 - which you almost entirely ignored, and also post 90 - when I specifically repeated this same argument - and upon which you largely ignored in order to focus on simply reiterating the claims being contested that a.) “But a nuclear weapon is a type of firearm”, b.) “Firearms offences normally carry a lower sentence”, and c.) nuh-uh.

At this stage you seen comprehensively unwilling to even acknowledge - leave alone respond to what I’m actually saying.

By all means, in my previous long post - I have explained my primary argument - by all means - argue with it.

Rights are conceived, acknowledged, and maintained by moral agents. Any right you claim that the zygote/embryo/fetus, or even infant, has would be an extension of someone else's prerogative.

With over 2 billion Christians Christianity is a fact. Christians converted because they believe the Bible, that too is a fact.

The Bible must be internally consistent to Christians for them to commit their lives to Jesus Christ.

There is no escaping fate. It is beyond one’s control or free will.

But one can improve his Karma by meditation and living a pure life.

Objectivity is subjectivity dressed up.