The question is not whether I feel right but whether I am. Glad to hear you do not feel hurt by what I have said, and thank you for clarifying that here. Abortion is a divisive subject. What these debates seem to emphasize is the great divide between the two camps so it is "tasteless" in two ways, the beef by the pro-life camp is how the unborn human beings are treated and villainized. That is our bias against your pro-choice position.
I revert to justice and justification because I do not believe it is sufficiently addressed. It is important. Yes, I believe pro-choicer's talk around justice and apply it only to the one group, the woman, not the unborn. That is not right.
I get it, it detracts from my argument because pro-choice don't like to hear it, but is it wrong to point out such things if the comparison is true - dehumanizing language is used; the worth is diminished and unjust laws are passed?
Look, I understand how tasteless and hurtful this topic is to you but I don't want it dismissed as rhetoric or absurdity on the mere charge that there is no comparison or connection. So when you voice your opinion with your OP in the Comments section I do not think you are giving it the scrutiny it deserves because believe it or not, you have a bias and you are Jewish. Thus the hurt it incites to discuss such a topic is evident. But it is important to realize what is being done to the unborn. Have the unborn been dehumanized and treated as less than what they are? I am willing to make that argument to bring attention to the subject of abortion and the injustice to the unborn, a subject that is seldom mentioned in comparing because the charge is immediately laid of argumentum ad Hitlerum (argument to Hitler) to invalidate the argument, as Wikipedia points out.
"The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent."
(Funnily enough, that is what I have been accused of here, derailing the argument)
"Since its inception, the 'reductio ad Hitlerum' fallacy has also inspired a counter-fallacy, whereby it has been cited not to point out a logical fallacy in an argument but instead to deflect valid allegations of acting with similar intent or beliefs to Nazism, allegations of collaboration with the Holocaust, or to support statements of Holocaust denial, by alleging that critics are exaggerating their allegations, irrespective of the actual specifics of the allegations or the evidence supporting them. In this counter-fallacy, any mention of historical events associated with the Nazis is used as a basis to dismiss the other fundamentals of the argument as 'reductio ad Hitlerum', even where there is a direct association."
I feel that in this discussion, initiated by my objection to Ragnar's use of it in his vote, and your objection as well to my citing Hilter or the Nazis, or even greater, your claim that I am calling Pro-choicers little Hitler's which I think is absurd, I would remind you if I have used such arguments of Reductio Ad Absurdum in my debates or forum posts I point out that Socrates used arguments of absurdity to great effect, so did Jesus, so they are not always a bad thing.
So, yes, I take a great risk in how it is perceived and I am prepared to suffer negative votes to bring the issue out in the public further by what you call, "inciting bias" by doing so. Perhaps a debate on such a narrow topic as dehumanizing language and how it is used in abortion and with the Nazis will expand on the topic further. Since you had not finished reading the debate but initiated the comment, did the red flag come up as soon as you saw I had taken the time to show how language and law created negative effects for many groups of people who were marginalized, but especially the Jews? And do you really believe that pro-choicers do not use much of the same kind of language of devaluation or marginalizing and degrading the Nazis did to present a negative view of the unborn, of pro-life and the pro-life position, for as much as I try to see the unborn upheld as a human being and with a right to life, the most fundamental of all rights, I seldom see that consideration taking into consideration by pro-choicers? They usually advocate for and side exclusively with the woman's rights or her freedoms. What about the rights and freedoms of this other class of human beings - the unborn? They do not seem to count.
You also say, likening abortion to the Nazis and what they did to human beings "is clearly meant to inflame emotionally." It does, yes, but the aim or "goal" is to educate and bring attention to what is happening. What has happened throughout human history when a group is singled out by this kind of negative language should be noted. And I am well aware that you "strongly disagree with it personally."
And,
"if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice,"
It is not the point but whether such devaluing and demonizing language is actually and factually used in discriminating and dehumanizing a particular group of human beings. Also, the same can be applied to you. You accuse me, assuming it is you who are correct.
You say,
"Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion."
The point is that human beings, yes, human beings, are being killed. That is a fact. Is that killing justified, and what spurs such killing? Usually, it is the unwantedness of these unborn human beings and the legal justification to do so made possible by the language we use to describe them. So, are these laws just? Is it just to kill innocent human beings simply because you or someone else says the moral justification for doing so is because they are not liked, or they are not wanted?
Ideas and their consequences shape nations, and that is why I never forgot what someone once said to me; that is, if you want to find out about someone, find out who and what influences them.
As for your vote, let me give you my opinion. I already had a good sense of where you were going with it in your OP. To me, that was the prep work to paint a particular portrait, and you come across to most as sober and fair-minded, and generally, that is the case. Thus, your opinion will set the stage for others. I also knew that the chance of winning a pro-choicer, which seems to me is the position held by the majority on debate forums, and possibly the American culture, is an arduous task. But hopefully, some will be aware of what language and laws can do and will think about such things in the future.
When you say,
"The goal of the comparison (between the Nazis and the unborn) isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities."
The goal is to show how language, then laws are used to paint a negative picture of and how they do demonize groups of people from fairness and justice by maligning them. Has that been done with the Jews in Nazi Germany, and has that been done with the unborn by abortion advocates? Did Hitler call the Jews parasites? I already quoted from Mein Kampf where he did. Do you deny he did this? Do pro-choicers label and call the unborn human using the same kinds of inflammatory and degrading language? If so, the comparison sticks. Words are being used to relegate the unborn to the garbage heap and cheapen its worth to society.
Carl Sagan and his wife said in Parade Magazine, April 6, 1990, p.6, speaking of the unborn that it "is a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus." - Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, by William Brennan, p.110.
Calling a human being a parasite is a way of providing a negative repulsive image of that person or human being, something that should not be wanted. It conjures up pictures of an unwanted INTRUDER, the same wording used in a debate on abortion at DebateArt.
Blackmun: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." [p. 160]
Do we not know when a human being begins to exist? "Need not resolve?" Why would you not resolve this difficult question before advocating for taking its life? If a small kid came to you and said, "Can I kill it?" before you said yes would you not ask what "it" referenced?
"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth."
"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/rvw/rvw09.htm
All these statements paint a negative picture of the worth and humanity of the unborn. They are not based on facts or reason.1) Justice should be based on fair-play/equality, not discrimination of the innocent. We know the unborn are treated differently from other human beings. 2) We know a new human life starts at conception.
Blackmun: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument." [p. 156]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-in-1973-knew-personhood-could-kill-roe-v-wade
If personhood is established his case collapses, yet he could not scientifically establish it was not a person, yet the idea was pushed into law that it did not deserve the same rights under the law. Surely, when unsure the benefit of the doubt should go to the unborn?
So with these examples, you see how law and language change the way the unborn is viewed.
Both have benefits and problems, but a debate is more focused on the topic at hand and deals with only one person in the bulk of the arguments. The difficulties encountered in both by my arguments are that the majority of the culture is mostly of pro-choice bias. That stereotype is used to address those talking points. As soon as Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned as a comparison of what was done with language or law, the immediate response is the claim of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Discussing the vote was in response to Ragnar's comment which I thought set the stage for how others would most definitely be influenced because he set the tone with these words,
"DOESN'T seem to FAVOUR CON IN ANY AREA, and TO VOTE HIM would CALL FOR likewise VOTING AGAINST CANCER AND STD TREATMENTS."
The analogy was not appropriate, in my opinion. Then your OP brought up the issue further, and in your words, without even having fully read the debate because of your dislike of comparing abortion language, law or practice in any way to Naziism. I could have used numerous other examples such as how negative language was used against women to deny them voting rights as men in the USA (i.e., the vote). Many other slants against them were held by the societies of yesteryear and even in some cultures today. I could have given you examples of Apartheid, that I experienced while living or vacationing in South Africa, or how colonialism which I also experienced exploited particular groups of society wherever it was found by language and in action. But with sheer numbers, the holocaust of abortion is most comparable to the Nazi Holocaust. Thus, I wanted to focus on what language and laws can do to sway a nation or nations against a particular group if the words are negative towards that group. Europe had a negative attitude towards the Jews long before Hitler came along (which was wrong thinking since we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity). Hitler escalated the language of discrimination and dehumanization with his hatred. Mein Kampf was full of such hatred. I wanted to highlight how abortion advocates do the same thing with wording and laws. They used both of these tools to change the way a culture viewed abortion. Blackmun did not establish scientifically that the unborn was not a person or not fully human yet Roe V wade set the table for justifying that it was okay to kill the unborn if the woman did not want it. The "not a person or fully human" legislated into law his negative view.
I find the forums ineffective in communicating on such issues. First, the response to an initiated thread takes lots of work when you get bombarded with multiple posts at one time. Second, the thread usually gets derailed. Third, I have done a lot of thinking on this particular topic, and yes, like you, I don't have all the answers, but who does. Fourth, I believe my position is reasonable. Fifth, as I said before, I disagree with Ragnar in his assessment yet realize he is free to his opinion, just like I am. I pointed out my points of contention. Sixth, your original post already seemed predetermined to me.
a) You are "not a big fan of the Hitler comparison."
b) "[A]ssuming that it's an apt comparison, [you] would still find fault with it." Thus, as I said, you have a particular bias.
c) "if [my] goal is to earn votes for [my] side from those who are pro-choice, then [I'm] not doing [myself] any favors," in your opinion.
d) "Admittedly, [you've only read part of this debate." "[You] don't think the comparison is apt," so your mind is already thinking along those lines.
e) "[You are] both pro-choice and a Jew, so [you] feel it strongly on both fronts."
Not only this, on a forum that is largely secular and largely pro-choice, my changes of persuasion were slim from the start. The same goes for when I discuss Christianity with an atheist.
Yes, I am talking about the effects of negative language and what it does to our thinking. And what better example than what the barbary of the Nazis did to highlight what is being done through language and law to the unborn, granting you consider them human beings, and how can you not? Yes, I could have chosen other examples of societies using language and laws to discriminate against groups of people since I live in South Africa and witnessed what was done there, but on the scale of atrocities, the Holocaust is the example that comes closest in sheer numbers to what has been done to the unborn. Besides language, I'm also talking about justice and what that means. No matter how you frame it I do not understand how someone can believe in equality for all human beings then single out a particular group and treat them unjustly. As I said in the debate, justice is only just if it applies equally to all. The whole topic should abortion be of legal revolves around justice.
So, yes, you may think it ironic, what negative language can do to a particular group but pro-lifers are not the ones advocating for the killing of the unborn human being.
Regarding your last point, point four, I realize you do not appreciate it that I point out the flaws in such a view, but I could show you examples after examples of these very debates on abortion where the unborn are made to be lesser than they are through language. They are painted as less valuable human beings if they are even considered human beings. I could also go to the threads and show you pro-choice language that call the unborn all kinds of degrading and highly charged names like a parasite, cancer, an intruder, a group of cells, subhuman, not as human, and so on. I believe that is because our culture promotes such ideas of the unborn. As the gatekeepers of society go, so quite likely goes the main talking points and thinking of society, IMO.
I have already realized, very likely, I don't stand a chance with the vote because of the culture I operate in. I further realize my combative style in challenging the status quo will not win many over. My hopes and purpose are to perhaps drive the conversation deeper along the lines of how words in societies can have a very negative effect on our perceptions of groups of people to the point where laws are enacted and affected by such use of language to the detriment and exclusion of groups. Should abortion be legal? That is a moral issue that revolves around what the unborn is. Have you ever noticed how the pro-choice position clocks or disguises what we are speaking of, a human being? To argue it is not a human being or not as human as more developed human beings (more like a group of cells, or biological blob, or potential life, or potential human, instead of its own unique individual entity or organism, directing its own growth) is not to treat it with the same equality and value as other human beings.
Well, Whiteflame, I think people evoke and use the Hitler fallacy to squash any discussion on the comparisons on the two groups via language and laws. As I said, I think semantics are used to put a negative slant of what the unborn is, just like Hitler did with the Jew, the gypsy, and many other groups of human beings. Furthermore, I understand that everyone holds a bias to some degree and that the majority of people on DebateArt are not Christian or pro-life. I also think that what Hitler did was a sin against humanity and I hold nothing against you as a Jew. In fact, I admire and think highly of Jews, generally speaking., and I'm proud to say my Messiah was/is a Jew, and as a Christian, I identify the church as the New Israel of God, expressed in the parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
You charge me with Reductio ad Hitlerum, but if a comparison is true, or similar, what makes it fallacious? I'm glad we are having this discussion. I think that label is thrown around many times to detract from such discussions as a mere ploy to win arguments to those who are gullible.
Because I chose the Nazis as an example I got pigeon-holed into this fallacy. I could have chosen one of the other groups I mentioned in my last post but I think the Nazi example is most fitting because of the horror of what was done. The human Holocaust, language and laws are similar in both examples. I gave sufficient evidence to prove the terminology was similar in both the way the Nazis devalued the Jews and how abortion advocates devalue the unborn. The language used by the Nazis and abortionists compared both groups of victims to diseases and of lesser nature. Both groups victimized are further dehumanized and depersonalized. The German Nazi or the pro-choicer forms a picture of a disease or something less than human. It marginalizes a human being so it becomes easier to do things that should not be done to one of these humans in removing them. The fact is that both the Nazi and abortionists use language like disease, cancer, parasite, or garbage to disparage both groups.
I chose this aspect of comparison because this aspect of the debate on abortion is often the one that is most neglected or pushed to the side and ignored. Words paint a picture that is used to either present a positive or negative image of something and when negative words are used regarding human beings the unthinkable becomes the norm, something not worthy of life.
I could give you numerous examples of this disparaging language where the Jew and the unborn are compared to diseases, cancers, pestilence, an animal metaphor, a non-person, non-human, sub-human, parasite, waste product, non-entity, potential life, potential human, etc.
In Hitler's Mein Kampf as a lone example, he spoke of the Jew as "a foreign virus," "germ carriers," filth," "a pestilence," "moral pestilence," "infection," "worse than the Black Plague," "the worst kind of germ carriers in poisoning human souls," "unclean products in public cultural life," (p. 56) "a foreign people," (p. 57) "evil," "alien race," "leading our people astray," (p. 59) "a real leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate victims and cannot be removed," "a real scourge," (p.242) "the Jewish menace," "The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states," "monsters," "our general disease," "blindly ignored the virus," "The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations," "syphilis," spreading infection throughout the world.
Read pages 55-60 (Ch. 2) as a small sample of his rant and demonizing of the Jew.
https://mk.christogenea.org/_files/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Mein%20Kampf%20english%20translation%20unexpurgated%201939.pdf
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
Do you think the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger, fairs much better in her portrayals of the unwanted unborn and with many other topics of similarity with Hitler, such as euthanasia or separating people and groups from society?
I could present the same kind of language used to demonize the unborn by abortionists and pro-choicers to lessen its humanity. Whenever such negative language is used it works its way into how a group is viewed to the point where laws are passed to limits these groups freedoms and liberties to the point where their lives are threatened and taken (i.e., Roe V Wade changed a law that had stood since the 1800s). One law set a precedent permitting the killing of a group of human beings for almost any reason based on the will of the woman as to whether she wanted the unborn or not.
Thank you for casting your vote and I believe we are all deserving of expressing our opinions but I find your last statement suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion.
RAGNAR: "doesn’t seem to favour con in any area, and TO VOTE HIM would call for likewise voting against cancer and STD treatments."
The disease analogy was also not necessary. I think you misspoke here. I think the analogy was meant to say, "To vote for Con would be like voting for cancer." Am I right?
I also found the Nazi analogy taken out of context by you. The point of comparing the pro-choice and Pros position in the debate to what the Nazis DID was to highlight that LANGUAGE and LAWS have been used to discriminate and dehumanize particular groups of humanity, just like is done with abortion advocates. Sometimes that leads to mass extermination of these groups. I was nowhere saying Pro was a Nazi. The unborn are often treated no differently than unwanted cancer, a parasite, or a disease; something the Nazis did, and that kind of language was something that should be thought badly of and eliminated. Pro-choice uses words and laws in a similar manner. When those kinds of terms are used, and I have countless examples of were Pro-choice do such things with their semantics, it shapes how society at large view an unborn when it is convenient to them (i.e., the woman does not want the unborn). I think Pro-choicers never hold themselves accountable for what the unborn is - a human being; instead, they lessen what it is by words, just like the Nazis, American slavers, Apartheid, the Caste system in India, how women were sometimes looked upon in past centuries and different cultures as not in the same league as men, and so on. What other human beings would people opt to and advocate for in terminating their life because they don't see them as valuable enough to fight for? Justice is only just if applied without discrimination, equally to all human beings. How can justice be applied equally for all human beings when one class, the unborn, is excluded?
I found your argument weak. You failed to take into account that the Bible discloses that Son subjected Himself to the Father when He became human to redeem humanity. He did this so to live the perfect life as a human being on behalf of those who would believe. Thus, speaking in His human capacity He could say, "The Father is greater than I am." So, it does not take away from His deity. Not only this but what is applied solely to God in the OT is now applied to Jesus Christ in the NT. This can be demonstrated by Scripture in so many ways.
Lunatic: "We are all just a bunch of neck beards on the internet. Our opinions don't mean anything.
My stance on God should be irrelevant to your belief."
***
Unless, of course, you care about the truth of an issue and/or someone is misaligning an issue and/or creating a mindset that encourages others to do the same.
If you do not believe truth is worth fighting for or discussing there is no point in debating, IMO, other than to stoke your ego if you win. So what is the motive of the debate?
The question of God's existence is of paramount importance as it pertains to the truth.
If God is, you are answerable to Him.
If God is not, who cares about truth or ultimately anything? Ultimately it is all meaningless. Do your pleasure or whatever you like in as much as you can get away with it. It doesn't matter. Why live as though it does and be inconsistent? If God does not exist why should I act as you want me to, as long as I have the power to resist your preferences?
As a believer in God to another believer, it is disappointing to me once again that you commit to a debate and then you do not follow through with it, giving someone a cheap win and discrediting Christianity/Judaism as a logical and reasonable viewpoint.
Thus, if the Preterist Christian position is true, the Jews have not recognized their Messiah.
Remember, it was you who said: "For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I disagree with this statement. I believe it is blatantly false. I am willing to put my position against yours as more reasonable. What "those things" boils down to is the OT teaching on the Messiah - prophecy and its fulfillment.
You made the statement. I disagree with its truth claim, not believing it was a true estimation of all Christians. Thus, I challenge you, not someone else.
And, if as you say, I am an antisemite, why would I spend a week out of my life, in the 1980s, working with Jews For Jesus in reaching the Jews with the gospel if I was an antisemite? As a Christian, I am taught in Scripture to love and forgive others as I have been loved and forgiven. People label me with charges that are not true. Buzz words like antisemite, racist, misogynist, are thrown around to incite hatred and anti feelings way too often. It is a way to poison the well or shut down the dialogue as a way of avoidance and it is a vicious attack.
You originally blocked me. I went on your profile, saw the padlock symbol, and was curious if it unblocked. So I clicked on it not realizing it blocked you. I have intentionally blocked only one person in my years online and that was because of vulgar language that I did not want to read.
***
I do not preach antisemitism. This is another ad hominem. against my character. I am reiterating biblical teaching. I can logically show you NT Scripture after verse that shows many Jews during the time of Jesus rejected Him and His teaching. Why would I be against Israel or the Jews when Jesus, in His incarnation, was a Jew?
John 1:11 (NASB)
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
He came in judgment of an Old Covenant people, Old Covenant Israel (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A1-12&version=NASB).
Luke 3:4-12
4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.
5 ‘Every ravine will be filled,
And every mountain and hill will be brought low;
The crooked will become straight,
And the rough roads smooth;
6 And all flesh will see the salvation of God.’”
7 So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 9 Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Logically, if many in Israel during Jesus' ministry did not receive Him, did not recognize Him, then many today would believe the same thing since they would still be looking for their Messiah to come.
"It is Reasonable to Believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah"
The guidelines for this debate will be the Old and New Testament support (or lack of) for the belief, plus what can reasonably be gleaned from the history of the times.
This would be based on your statement in Post 46 in the comment section in which you stated:
"Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I happen to be one of those Christians who disagrees with that last statement (i.e., every Christian knows, He did not). By "those things" I take them to be the OT writings and the prophecies concerning the Messiah.
Here is what I should have said to make it clearer:
"Again, you have charged a person with a fallacy many times in your debates without providing sufficient evidence (a constant theme).
Do you believe I am schizophrenic, brain-damaged, in a pathological condition, or believe I am about to have a stroke? It is a serious charge.
What I stated on the temple is not only my views. Many others have similar views on the subject."
You said: "As best I can understand, you want to prove the temple was rebuilt by unstated non-physical standards; if so open the debate with the description detailing what criteria for proof you'll use."
***
What I stated is what I believe the NT teaches on the final temple. I gave reasons (i.e., NT Scripture) for a spiritual rather than physical fulfillment of the final temple. I gave reasons for this thinking in comparing many physical things to the spiritual fulfillment as noted many times in the NT.
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:1-2 states, "1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."
The fathers (ancestors) through the prophets are the OT writings.
"These last days" were the time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Furthermore, the sayings attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18, "17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" cannot happen after AD 70.
After AD 70 the Jews cannot live up to the covenant as stated and agreed to (Exodus 24:3, 7). Thus, they cannot make atonement for sin in the prescribed manner of the Law, through animal sacrifice. The Levitical Priesthood is no longer able to do this since it no longer exists in the prescribed manner (hence, Rabbinicalism). The temple/tabernacle no longer stands. The curses of the covenant, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28 have taken place.
The NT is a constant warning of soon, coming judgments. Not one NT canonical writing has a mention of an already fallen temple. For this reason and many others, it is reasonable to believe every NT gospel of epistle was written before AD 70, before judgment.
"Word salad is a term applied to rants that completely fly off the rails of normal grammar and meaning.
Word salad (schizophasiaWikipedia's W.svg) can be a sign of schizophrenia, brain damage or other pathological conditions.
Keep in mind that if an otherwise coherent person suddenly starts speaking word salad, it could be a sign of an impending stroke."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad
***
Again, you have charged a person with a fallacy many times in your debates without providing sufficient evidence (a constant theme). What I stated is not only my views. Many others have similar views on the subject. Do you believe I am schizophrenic, brain-damaged, in a pathological condition, or believe I am about to have a stroke? It is a serious charge.
What, in particular, of my response are you terming word salad?
***
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1])..., typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Association with insults
It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.
So, the challenge I made in post # 50 stands. I would be glad to debate you on that topic. I believe Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. I still believe my biblical viewpoint makes sense of the whole Bible, both Testaments. I don't believe Dispensationalism or Futurism does. I believe the history available to us supports Scripture and the Preterist view is more reasonable than other views which have more inconsistencies to them. I believe the Jews back then and the Jews today do not recognize the Messiah because He did not fit their preconceived beliefs yet they do the Scriptures.
If you are interested, I will set up the debate which will be initiated in the first week of September after my brother-in-law leaves. We can hash out exactly what to include, what the title will be, etc.
a spiritual sacrifice, the Second Adam, the Second Moses, the Second Exodus, the spiritual temple, the greater sacrifice that the old sacrificial system was pointing to but could never take away sin, just cover it until Jesus, the new land, the heavenly country, not of this earth, and so on and on.
"The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer")."
There are five heavy focuses, perhaps more, that I identify off the top of my head; the Messiah, judgment on Israel, repentance and redemption, the fulfillment of OT prophecy, the coming kingdom. Actually, I will add another that ties in with fulfilled prophecy, the greater truth of the spiritual realm which is intertwined and foreshadowed by the physical realm. Thus you have a physical realm (this world of the people), a physical people (Israel) that God makes a physical blood covenant with, a physical country (the land of Israel), a physical deliverer (Moses), a physical exodus (crossing the Red Sea), a physical sacrificial system (animal sacrifices), a physical priesthood (Levitical priesthood), and comparison after comparison between the two systems as laid out in the NT in fulfillment of the OT. So, in almost every OT page of Scripture, you have a typology of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah.
In the NT you have a spiritual coming kingdom (a spiritual realm), a spiritual people (the church of the living God/those born spiritually),
I'm not sure who you are speaking with. Are you referring to me blocking you, because I never did? If I have by mistake, I will find out how to fix it because I believe in free speech and would not do this by choice.
***
Regarding Jesus building the temple, the final temple, I contend, was a spiritual temple, not a physical one. Four examples:
Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
2 Corinthians 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Ephesians 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
This speaks of the church, the called-out believers, the final temple.
***
Since you did not expand on your link I will supply one without expanding on it too.
You said: "For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I very much believe He did live up to those prophecies and I believe the evidence is reasonable to the point that other views are inconsistent. Are you interested in a debate along this line? If so, we can narrow down the topic. It would have to be after my brother-in-law leaves since he is coming for a ten-day visit starting August 23rd.
To make other materials fit I deleted a portion of my response in R3. This contained a citation [1]. Instead of reassigning all citations I started with [2]. There are only eleven citations instead of twelve (i.e., 2-12).
(and bsh1)
Correction: Round 2, under 'To the Readers and Judges' the sentence "...especially to those in power who make the rules of preference binding" should have read, "...especially by those in power who make the rules of preference binding."
@ Ragnar:
PS. Since you have blocked me I cannot challenge you to debate yet you continually challenged me to do that very thing.
I.e., Added: 06.10.19 01:21PM
--> @PGA2.0
Reply
"If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law."
@ Ragnar
This challenge to debate abortion with you, Ragnar, is a result of the match between Caleb and you. Based on the three points Cabel cited in his first round, I did not find your arguments and rebuttal particularly convincing; in fact, I thought your logic flawed and in need of further exploration. Thus, I want to exploit your reasoning further by challenging you to a debate on the same three foundational points formulated by Caleb in his opening round (R1) plus your position on slavery and dispute any other areas that may arise from these four contentions.
These contentions are,
1. The unborn child is very much alive and very much human;
2. Abortion is murder ;
3. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective;
4. Your position on slavery
I want to change the point order slightly and add a few adjustments to the wording:
1. Concerning human beings, the unborn from conception is very much alive and very much a human being;
2. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective.
3. Abortion is murder (except when the woman's life is threatened such as by a tubal/ectopic pregnancy that will result in her death if not terminated) ;
4. Slavery association with pregnant women.
***
Four Rounds.
First Round is reserved for opening statements
No new arguments in the final round.
Your reference to Answers in Genesis and Dr. Ron Rhodes, however, is correct regarding plagiarism. Here is the policy that not everyone would know since I had to search for it and it was not listed with the article:
"Since we are constantly updating the articles on the website, we request that any reference to website published articles include no more than the first paragraph, and must include the ministry’s name and a link to our website, preferably to the actual article. Copying entire articles (other than the first paragraph) or materials to other websites is strictly prohibited; however, we encourage links to the article from your website."
Ragnar, I am not following your claim that Skye "is merely copy/pasted spam lines of the bible without context from a website (one to which he did not even give credit)" and how that relates to plagiarism? Various Bible translations are public domain. Others allow a good amount without reference. I usually supply the version in my quote (i.e., NASB).
"Works that are in the public domain may be used freely, without obtaining permission from or compensating the copyright owner."
https://www.copyrightlaws.com/what-is-the-public-domain/
Here is a list of them from biblegateway.com
The following Bibles in our library are in the public domain:
American Standard Version (ASV)
Darby Translation (DARBY)
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
King James Version (KJV)
World English Bible (WEB)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Reina-Valera Antigua (RVA)
Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE)
If a Bible is in the public domain, its publisher will be listed as "Public Domain" on its version information page...
Skye used the NKJV. Here are their stipulations:
The text from the New King James Version® (NKJV®) may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of 500 verses or less without written permission, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do verses quoted account for 25% or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, and the verses are not being quoted in a commentary or other biblical reference work.
"I take it you are in middle-upper class and have been your whole life, yes?
Do you comprehend what taxes are good for?" - RM
I used to be middle class but I have retired and would not regard myself as such any longer. But what is your point?
Taxes are good up to a certain point. Free enterprise gives us jobs that make our countries wealth. Big government takes over private enterprise. It shuts it down as it gets involved in more and more endeavors. When the government starts charging its rich citizens a 70% tax rate it kills free enterprise and gives very little to reinvest into its economy. That is the insanity that is being pushed in your country - kill wealth and give more and more power to the big government so that they will dictate exactly how you live, what you will be able to do and what you will be banned from doing. If big government looks after all your needs what incentive is there to work and try to get ahead? Why should I seek an incentive to improve my life if everyone gets the same thing?
Anyone who votes Democrat, IMO, is an utter turkey. New Democrat's have no solutions, just a masquerade in how these liberal fools will solve all your problems with their supposed panacea. Meanwhile, what have they done that is constructive lately? Nothing.
Florida: $12,439.09 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $6,696.18
State income taxes paid: $0.00
Gas taxes paid: $392.03
Sales taxes paid: $2,705.38
Property taxes paid: $2,646.00
Florida is a state with no income tax, so that helps offset high gas taxes paid in the state. Property taxes and median home values are a bit above average, but in spite of this, many cities in Florida are ideal for buying investment property.
California is rated the worst State for businesses in one survey:
https://www.ocregister.com/2016/05/19/survey-california-still-worst-state-for-business/
California has the highest State tax rate:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/PIT-01.png
California's infrastructure is falling to pieces. Report card ratings give bridges a C- rating, transit a C- rating, and roads a D rating.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/california-infrastructure-repairs-to-cost-187-billion
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ASCEBrochure-CA-Final.pdf
Californias single-payer health care system could cost the State 400 billion:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.html
California quality of life ranks worst of the 50 states:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Illinois: $19,965.03 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $8,983.74
State income taxes paid: $3,118.10
Gas taxes paid: $366.77
Sales taxes paid: $3,461.30
Property taxes paid: $4,035.00
High sales, property and state income taxes contribute to a large total tax bill in Illinois. Taken altogether, Illinois residents pay nearly 32 percent of their income, on average, toward taxes, the fourth-highest percentage of all states.
***
New York: $20,744.64 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $9,402.18
State income taxes paid: $3,326.75
Gas taxes paid: $419.97
Sales taxes paid: $3,377.75
Property taxes paid: $4,218.00
New York has the eighth-highest total taxes paid and — when taking all forms of taxes together — consume nearly 32 percent of income. A relatively high median household income of $64,894 plays a role in big federal and state income tax bills. And gas, sales and property taxes paid here are much higher than in most states.
***
Texas: $15,351.02 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $8,150.82
State income taxes paid: $0.00
Gas taxes paid: $251.90
Sales taxes paid: $3,250.43
Property taxes paid: $3,698.00
Even though there’s no state income tax, the total taxes paid in Texas are higher than nearly half the rest of the country. That’s because sales and property taxes paid here are higher than in a majority of states.
"Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand all directly disprove this notion.
Social Democracy can and does work. Socialism doesn't work.
Soc-dem =/= dem-soc" - RM
The kind of socialism Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (stupid, stupid person) or your Democrat Party is pushing (big government control) is a killer of growth and private enterprise. With a tax rate of 70% for those who fuel jobs and private industry what incentive do the rich have to stay invested? That is why so many are fleeing from States like California, NY, Illinois, and other Democrat controlled States. They don't work. They use up the resources fast with their socialist agendas.
Do you realize what percentage that Canadians pay for health care and big government?
So, you pay about 11%-20% whereas we pay about 42% in taxes every year. The upper middle class in Canada pays more for the tax rate goes up depending on how much you make.
***
California: $23,316.16 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $10,922.60
State income taxes paid: $4,004.48
Gas taxes paid: $484.98
Sales taxes paid: $3,397.64
Property taxes paid: $4,506.00
California has the fourth-highest tax burden, on average, because of high tax rates across the board. It has the second-highest gas taxes paid. And property and income taxes paid are high because of the state’s high home values and high median household income.
"Why would you want freedom when you can have harmony instead?" RM
You don't get harmony from socialism nor liberalism. Look around the world and point to a socialist government that has harmony. What you eventually get is tyranny and despotism if driven to the natural outcome of those idealisms.
The question is not whether I feel right but whether I am. Glad to hear you do not feel hurt by what I have said, and thank you for clarifying that here. Abortion is a divisive subject. What these debates seem to emphasize is the great divide between the two camps so it is "tasteless" in two ways, the beef by the pro-life camp is how the unborn human beings are treated and villainized. That is our bias against your pro-choice position.
I revert to justice and justification because I do not believe it is sufficiently addressed. It is important. Yes, I believe pro-choicer's talk around justice and apply it only to the one group, the woman, not the unborn. That is not right.
I get it, it detracts from my argument because pro-choice don't like to hear it, but is it wrong to point out such things if the comparison is true - dehumanizing language is used; the worth is diminished and unjust laws are passed?
Look, I understand how tasteless and hurtful this topic is to you but I don't want it dismissed as rhetoric or absurdity on the mere charge that there is no comparison or connection. So when you voice your opinion with your OP in the Comments section I do not think you are giving it the scrutiny it deserves because believe it or not, you have a bias and you are Jewish. Thus the hurt it incites to discuss such a topic is evident. But it is important to realize what is being done to the unborn. Have the unborn been dehumanized and treated as less than what they are? I am willing to make that argument to bring attention to the subject of abortion and the injustice to the unborn, a subject that is seldom mentioned in comparing because the charge is immediately laid of argumentum ad Hitlerum (argument to Hitler) to invalidate the argument, as Wikipedia points out.
"The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent."
(Funnily enough, that is what I have been accused of here, derailing the argument)
"Since its inception, the 'reductio ad Hitlerum' fallacy has also inspired a counter-fallacy, whereby it has been cited not to point out a logical fallacy in an argument but instead to deflect valid allegations of acting with similar intent or beliefs to Nazism, allegations of collaboration with the Holocaust, or to support statements of Holocaust denial, by alleging that critics are exaggerating their allegations, irrespective of the actual specifics of the allegations or the evidence supporting them. In this counter-fallacy, any mention of historical events associated with the Nazis is used as a basis to dismiss the other fundamentals of the argument as 'reductio ad Hitlerum', even where there is a direct association."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
I feel that in this discussion, initiated by my objection to Ragnar's use of it in his vote, and your objection as well to my citing Hilter or the Nazis, or even greater, your claim that I am calling Pro-choicers little Hitler's which I think is absurd, I would remind you if I have used such arguments of Reductio Ad Absurdum in my debates or forum posts I point out that Socrates used arguments of absurdity to great effect, so did Jesus, so they are not always a bad thing.
So, yes, I take a great risk in how it is perceived and I am prepared to suffer negative votes to bring the issue out in the public further by what you call, "inciting bias" by doing so. Perhaps a debate on such a narrow topic as dehumanizing language and how it is used in abortion and with the Nazis will expand on the topic further. Since you had not finished reading the debate but initiated the comment, did the red flag come up as soon as you saw I had taken the time to show how language and law created negative effects for many groups of people who were marginalized, but especially the Jews? And do you really believe that pro-choicers do not use much of the same kind of language of devaluation or marginalizing and degrading the Nazis did to present a negative view of the unborn, of pro-life and the pro-life position, for as much as I try to see the unborn upheld as a human being and with a right to life, the most fundamental of all rights, I seldom see that consideration taking into consideration by pro-choicers? They usually advocate for and side exclusively with the woman's rights or her freedoms. What about the rights and freedoms of this other class of human beings - the unborn? They do not seem to count.
YOU: "You should probably just start a debate on if Reductio ad Hitlerum is still a fallacy or not when used in abortion debates."
Would you be willing to have such a debate?
You also say, likening abortion to the Nazis and what they did to human beings "is clearly meant to inflame emotionally." It does, yes, but the aim or "goal" is to educate and bring attention to what is happening. What has happened throughout human history when a group is singled out by this kind of negative language should be noted. And I am well aware that you "strongly disagree with it personally."
And,
"if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice,"
It is not the point but whether such devaluing and demonizing language is actually and factually used in discriminating and dehumanizing a particular group of human beings. Also, the same can be applied to you. You accuse me, assuming it is you who are correct.
You say,
"Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion."
The point is that human beings, yes, human beings, are being killed. That is a fact. Is that killing justified, and what spurs such killing? Usually, it is the unwantedness of these unborn human beings and the legal justification to do so made possible by the language we use to describe them. So, are these laws just? Is it just to kill innocent human beings simply because you or someone else says the moral justification for doing so is because they are not liked, or they are not wanted?
Ideas and their consequences shape nations, and that is why I never forgot what someone once said to me; that is, if you want to find out about someone, find out who and what influences them.
As for your vote, let me give you my opinion. I already had a good sense of where you were going with it in your OP. To me, that was the prep work to paint a particular portrait, and you come across to most as sober and fair-minded, and generally, that is the case. Thus, your opinion will set the stage for others. I also knew that the chance of winning a pro-choicer, which seems to me is the position held by the majority on debate forums, and possibly the American culture, is an arduous task. But hopefully, some will be aware of what language and laws can do and will think about such things in the future.
When you say,
"The goal of the comparison (between the Nazis and the unborn) isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities."
The goal is to show how language, then laws are used to paint a negative picture of and how they do demonize groups of people from fairness and justice by maligning them. Has that been done with the Jews in Nazi Germany, and has that been done with the unborn by abortion advocates? Did Hitler call the Jews parasites? I already quoted from Mein Kampf where he did. Do you deny he did this? Do pro-choicers label and call the unborn human using the same kinds of inflammatory and degrading language? If so, the comparison sticks. Words are being used to relegate the unborn to the garbage heap and cheapen its worth to society.
https://www.thenewscommenter.com/news/please-let-this-pro-choice-protest-sign-calling-the-unborn-parasites-be-a-photoshop/1146399
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rtlofneo/pages/192/attachments/original/1425400981/Unborn_a_Parasite_12-6-13a.pdf?1425400981
https://randalrauser.com/2016/06/fetus-as-parasite-a-disturbing-trend-in-pro-choice-rhetoric/
Carl Sagan and his wife said in Parade Magazine, April 6, 1990, p.6, speaking of the unborn that it "is a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus." - Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, by William Brennan, p.110.
Calling a human being a parasite is a way of providing a negative repulsive image of that person or human being, something that should not be wanted. It conjures up pictures of an unwanted INTRUDER, the same wording used in a debate on abortion at DebateArt.
Blackmun: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." [p. 160]
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/supreme-courts-response-to-the-question-when-does-life-begin.cfm
Do we not know when a human being begins to exist? "Need not resolve?" Why would you not resolve this difficult question before advocating for taking its life? If a small kid came to you and said, "Can I kill it?" before you said yes would you not ask what "it" referenced?
"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth."
"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/rvw/rvw09.htm
All these statements paint a negative picture of the worth and humanity of the unborn. They are not based on facts or reason.1) Justice should be based on fair-play/equality, not discrimination of the innocent. We know the unborn are treated differently from other human beings. 2) We know a new human life starts at conception.
Blackmun: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument." [p. 156]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-in-1973-knew-personhood-could-kill-roe-v-wade
If personhood is established his case collapses, yet he could not scientifically establish it was not a person, yet the idea was pushed into law that it did not deserve the same rights under the law. Surely, when unsure the benefit of the doubt should go to the unborn?
So with these examples, you see how law and language change the way the unborn is viewed.
Both have benefits and problems, but a debate is more focused on the topic at hand and deals with only one person in the bulk of the arguments. The difficulties encountered in both by my arguments are that the majority of the culture is mostly of pro-choice bias. That stereotype is used to address those talking points. As soon as Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned as a comparison of what was done with language or law, the immediate response is the claim of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Discussing the vote was in response to Ragnar's comment which I thought set the stage for how others would most definitely be influenced because he set the tone with these words,
"DOESN'T seem to FAVOUR CON IN ANY AREA, and TO VOTE HIM would CALL FOR likewise VOTING AGAINST CANCER AND STD TREATMENTS."
The analogy was not appropriate, in my opinion. Then your OP brought up the issue further, and in your words, without even having fully read the debate because of your dislike of comparing abortion language, law or practice in any way to Naziism. I could have used numerous other examples such as how negative language was used against women to deny them voting rights as men in the USA (i.e., the vote). Many other slants against them were held by the societies of yesteryear and even in some cultures today. I could have given you examples of Apartheid, that I experienced while living or vacationing in South Africa, or how colonialism which I also experienced exploited particular groups of society wherever it was found by language and in action. But with sheer numbers, the holocaust of abortion is most comparable to the Nazi Holocaust. Thus, I wanted to focus on what language and laws can do to sway a nation or nations against a particular group if the words are negative towards that group. Europe had a negative attitude towards the Jews long before Hitler came along (which was wrong thinking since we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity). Hitler escalated the language of discrimination and dehumanization with his hatred. Mein Kampf was full of such hatred. I wanted to highlight how abortion advocates do the same thing with wording and laws. They used both of these tools to change the way a culture viewed abortion. Blackmun did not establish scientifically that the unborn was not a person or not fully human yet Roe V wade set the table for justifying that it was okay to kill the unborn if the woman did not want it. The "not a person or fully human" legislated into law his negative view.
Sorry, it should have been "lived in South Africa."
Also, it should be "chances of persuasion" instead of changes.
I find the forums ineffective in communicating on such issues. First, the response to an initiated thread takes lots of work when you get bombarded with multiple posts at one time. Second, the thread usually gets derailed. Third, I have done a lot of thinking on this particular topic, and yes, like you, I don't have all the answers, but who does. Fourth, I believe my position is reasonable. Fifth, as I said before, I disagree with Ragnar in his assessment yet realize he is free to his opinion, just like I am. I pointed out my points of contention. Sixth, your original post already seemed predetermined to me.
a) You are "not a big fan of the Hitler comparison."
b) "[A]ssuming that it's an apt comparison, [you] would still find fault with it." Thus, as I said, you have a particular bias.
c) "if [my] goal is to earn votes for [my] side from those who are pro-choice, then [I'm] not doing [myself] any favors," in your opinion.
d) "Admittedly, [you've only read part of this debate." "[You] don't think the comparison is apt," so your mind is already thinking along those lines.
e) "[You are] both pro-choice and a Jew, so [you] feel it strongly on both fronts."
Not only this, on a forum that is largely secular and largely pro-choice, my changes of persuasion were slim from the start. The same goes for when I discuss Christianity with an atheist.
Yes, I am talking about the effects of negative language and what it does to our thinking. And what better example than what the barbary of the Nazis did to highlight what is being done through language and law to the unborn, granting you consider them human beings, and how can you not? Yes, I could have chosen other examples of societies using language and laws to discriminate against groups of people since I live in South Africa and witnessed what was done there, but on the scale of atrocities, the Holocaust is the example that comes closest in sheer numbers to what has been done to the unborn. Besides language, I'm also talking about justice and what that means. No matter how you frame it I do not understand how someone can believe in equality for all human beings then single out a particular group and treat them unjustly. As I said in the debate, justice is only just if it applies equally to all. The whole topic should abortion be of legal revolves around justice.
So, yes, you may think it ironic, what negative language can do to a particular group but pro-lifers are not the ones advocating for the killing of the unborn human being.
Regarding your last point, point four, I realize you do not appreciate it that I point out the flaws in such a view, but I could show you examples after examples of these very debates on abortion where the unborn are made to be lesser than they are through language. They are painted as less valuable human beings if they are even considered human beings. I could also go to the threads and show you pro-choice language that call the unborn all kinds of degrading and highly charged names like a parasite, cancer, an intruder, a group of cells, subhuman, not as human, and so on. I believe that is because our culture promotes such ideas of the unborn. As the gatekeepers of society go, so quite likely goes the main talking points and thinking of society, IMO.
Sorry, should be cloak, not clocks.
I have already realized, very likely, I don't stand a chance with the vote because of the culture I operate in. I further realize my combative style in challenging the status quo will not win many over. My hopes and purpose are to perhaps drive the conversation deeper along the lines of how words in societies can have a very negative effect on our perceptions of groups of people to the point where laws are enacted and affected by such use of language to the detriment and exclusion of groups. Should abortion be legal? That is a moral issue that revolves around what the unborn is. Have you ever noticed how the pro-choice position clocks or disguises what we are speaking of, a human being? To argue it is not a human being or not as human as more developed human beings (more like a group of cells, or biological blob, or potential life, or potential human, instead of its own unique individual entity or organism, directing its own growth) is not to treat it with the same equality and value as other human beings.
Well, Whiteflame, I think people evoke and use the Hitler fallacy to squash any discussion on the comparisons on the two groups via language and laws. As I said, I think semantics are used to put a negative slant of what the unborn is, just like Hitler did with the Jew, the gypsy, and many other groups of human beings. Furthermore, I understand that everyone holds a bias to some degree and that the majority of people on DebateArt are not Christian or pro-life. I also think that what Hitler did was a sin against humanity and I hold nothing against you as a Jew. In fact, I admire and think highly of Jews, generally speaking., and I'm proud to say my Messiah was/is a Jew, and as a Christian, I identify the church as the New Israel of God, expressed in the parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Not something you are aware of, perhaps.
You charge me with Reductio ad Hitlerum, but if a comparison is true, or similar, what makes it fallacious? I'm glad we are having this discussion. I think that label is thrown around many times to detract from such discussions as a mere ploy to win arguments to those who are gullible.
Because I chose the Nazis as an example I got pigeon-holed into this fallacy. I could have chosen one of the other groups I mentioned in my last post but I think the Nazi example is most fitting because of the horror of what was done. The human Holocaust, language and laws are similar in both examples. I gave sufficient evidence to prove the terminology was similar in both the way the Nazis devalued the Jews and how abortion advocates devalue the unborn. The language used by the Nazis and abortionists compared both groups of victims to diseases and of lesser nature. Both groups victimized are further dehumanized and depersonalized. The German Nazi or the pro-choicer forms a picture of a disease or something less than human. It marginalizes a human being so it becomes easier to do things that should not be done to one of these humans in removing them. The fact is that both the Nazi and abortionists use language like disease, cancer, parasite, or garbage to disparage both groups.
I chose this aspect of comparison because this aspect of the debate on abortion is often the one that is most neglected or pushed to the side and ignored. Words paint a picture that is used to either present a positive or negative image of something and when negative words are used regarding human beings the unthinkable becomes the norm, something not worthy of life.
I could give you numerous examples of this disparaging language where the Jew and the unborn are compared to diseases, cancers, pestilence, an animal metaphor, a non-person, non-human, sub-human, parasite, waste product, non-entity, potential life, potential human, etc.
In Hitler's Mein Kampf as a lone example, he spoke of the Jew as "a foreign virus," "germ carriers," filth," "a pestilence," "moral pestilence," "infection," "worse than the Black Plague," "the worst kind of germ carriers in poisoning human souls," "unclean products in public cultural life," (p. 56) "a foreign people," (p. 57) "evil," "alien race," "leading our people astray," (p. 59) "a real leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate victims and cannot be removed," "a real scourge," (p.242) "the Jewish menace," "The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states," "monsters," "our general disease," "blindly ignored the virus," "The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations," "syphilis," spreading infection throughout the world.
Read pages 55-60 (Ch. 2) as a small sample of his rant and demonizing of the Jew.
https://mk.christogenea.org/_files/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Mein%20Kampf%20english%20translation%20unexpurgated%201939.pdf
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
Do you think the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger, fairs much better in her portrayals of the unwanted unborn and with many other topics of similarity with Hitler, such as euthanasia or separating people and groups from society?
I could present the same kind of language used to demonize the unborn by abortionists and pro-choicers to lessen its humanity. Whenever such negative language is used it works its way into how a group is viewed to the point where laws are passed to limits these groups freedoms and liberties to the point where their lives are threatened and taken (i.e., Roe V Wade changed a law that had stood since the 1800s). One law set a precedent permitting the killing of a group of human beings for almost any reason based on the will of the woman as to whether she wanted the unborn or not.
Thank you for casting your vote and I believe we are all deserving of expressing our opinions but I find your last statement suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion.
RAGNAR: "doesn’t seem to favour con in any area, and TO VOTE HIM would call for likewise voting against cancer and STD treatments."
The disease analogy was also not necessary. I think you misspoke here. I think the analogy was meant to say, "To vote for Con would be like voting for cancer." Am I right?
I also found the Nazi analogy taken out of context by you. The point of comparing the pro-choice and Pros position in the debate to what the Nazis DID was to highlight that LANGUAGE and LAWS have been used to discriminate and dehumanize particular groups of humanity, just like is done with abortion advocates. Sometimes that leads to mass extermination of these groups. I was nowhere saying Pro was a Nazi. The unborn are often treated no differently than unwanted cancer, a parasite, or a disease; something the Nazis did, and that kind of language was something that should be thought badly of and eliminated. Pro-choice uses words and laws in a similar manner. When those kinds of terms are used, and I have countless examples of were Pro-choice do such things with their semantics, it shapes how society at large view an unborn when it is convenient to them (i.e., the woman does not want the unborn). I think Pro-choicers never hold themselves accountable for what the unborn is - a human being; instead, they lessen what it is by words, just like the Nazis, American slavers, Apartheid, the Caste system in India, how women were sometimes looked upon in past centuries and different cultures as not in the same league as men, and so on. What other human beings would people opt to and advocate for in terminating their life because they don't see them as valuable enough to fight for? Justice is only just if applied without discrimination, equally to all human beings. How can justice be applied equally for all human beings when one class, the unborn, is excluded?
Thank you!
I found your argument weak. You failed to take into account that the Bible discloses that Son subjected Himself to the Father when He became human to redeem humanity. He did this so to live the perfect life as a human being on behalf of those who would believe. Thus, speaking in His human capacity He could say, "The Father is greater than I am." So, it does not take away from His deity. Not only this but what is applied solely to God in the OT is now applied to Jesus Christ in the NT. This can be demonstrated by Scripture in so many ways.
Lunatic: "We are all just a bunch of neck beards on the internet. Our opinions don't mean anything.
My stance on God should be irrelevant to your belief."
***
Unless, of course, you care about the truth of an issue and/or someone is misaligning an issue and/or creating a mindset that encourages others to do the same.
If you do not believe truth is worth fighting for or discussing there is no point in debating, IMO, other than to stoke your ego if you win. So what is the motive of the debate?
The question of God's existence is of paramount importance as it pertains to the truth.
If God is, you are answerable to Him.
If God is not, who cares about truth or ultimately anything? Ultimately it is all meaningless. Do your pleasure or whatever you like in as much as you can get away with it. It doesn't matter. Why live as though it does and be inconsistent? If God does not exist why should I act as you want me to, as long as I have the power to resist your preferences?
As a believer in God to another believer, it is disappointing to me once again that you commit to a debate and then you do not follow through with it, giving someone a cheap win and discrediting Christianity/Judaism as a logical and reasonable viewpoint.
It is a shame. I was looking forward to hearing Contenders arguments.
Test
Thus, if the Preterist Christian position is true, the Jews have not recognized their Messiah.
Remember, it was you who said: "For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I disagree with this statement. I believe it is blatantly false. I am willing to put my position against yours as more reasonable. What "those things" boils down to is the OT teaching on the Messiah - prophecy and its fulfillment.
You made the statement. I disagree with its truth claim, not believing it was a true estimation of all Christians. Thus, I challenge you, not someone else.
And, if as you say, I am an antisemite, why would I spend a week out of my life, in the 1980s, working with Jews For Jesus in reaching the Jews with the gospel if I was an antisemite? As a Christian, I am taught in Scripture to love and forgive others as I have been loved and forgiven. People label me with charges that are not true. Buzz words like antisemite, racist, misogynist, are thrown around to incite hatred and anti feelings way too often. It is a way to poison the well or shut down the dialogue as a way of avoidance and it is a vicious attack.
***
You originally blocked me. I went on your profile, saw the padlock symbol, and was curious if it unblocked. So I clicked on it not realizing it blocked you. I have intentionally blocked only one person in my years online and that was because of vulgar language that I did not want to read.
***
I do not preach antisemitism. This is another ad hominem. against my character. I am reiterating biblical teaching. I can logically show you NT Scripture after verse that shows many Jews during the time of Jesus rejected Him and His teaching. Why would I be against Israel or the Jews when Jesus, in His incarnation, was a Jew?
John 1:11 (NASB)
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
He came in judgment of an Old Covenant people, Old Covenant Israel (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A1-12&version=NASB).
Luke 3:4-12
4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.
5 ‘Every ravine will be filled,
And every mountain and hill will be brought low;
The crooked will become straight,
And the rough roads smooth;
6 And all flesh will see the salvation of God.’”
7 So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 9 Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Logically, if many in Israel during Jesus' ministry did not receive Him, did not recognize Him, then many today would believe the same thing since they would still be looking for their Messiah to come.
Proposal for Debate:
"It is Reasonable to Believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah"
The guidelines for this debate will be the Old and New Testament support (or lack of) for the belief, plus what can reasonably be gleaned from the history of the times.
This would be based on your statement in Post 46 in the comment section in which you stated:
"Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I happen to be one of those Christians who disagrees with that last statement (i.e., every Christian knows, He did not). By "those things" I take them to be the OT writings and the prophecies concerning the Messiah.
That was in response to Post #57
Here is what I should have said to make it clearer:
"Again, you have charged a person with a fallacy many times in your debates without providing sufficient evidence (a constant theme).
Do you believe I am schizophrenic, brain-damaged, in a pathological condition, or believe I am about to have a stroke? It is a serious charge.
What I stated on the temple is not only my views. Many others have similar views on the subject."
Correction: "What I stated (regarding the temple) is not only my views."
You said: "As best I can understand, you want to prove the temple was rebuilt by unstated non-physical standards; if so open the debate with the description detailing what criteria for proof you'll use."
***
What I stated is what I believe the NT teaches on the final temple. I gave reasons (i.e., NT Scripture) for a spiritual rather than physical fulfillment of the final temple. I gave reasons for this thinking in comparing many physical things to the spiritual fulfillment as noted many times in the NT.
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:1-2 states, "1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."
The fathers (ancestors) through the prophets are the OT writings.
"These last days" were the time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Furthermore, the sayings attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18, "17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" cannot happen after AD 70.
After AD 70 the Jews cannot live up to the covenant as stated and agreed to (Exodus 24:3, 7). Thus, they cannot make atonement for sin in the prescribed manner of the Law, through animal sacrifice. The Levitical Priesthood is no longer able to do this since it no longer exists in the prescribed manner (hence, Rabbinicalism). The temple/tabernacle no longer stands. The curses of the covenant, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28 have taken place.
The NT is a constant warning of soon, coming judgments. Not one NT canonical writing has a mention of an already fallen temple. For this reason and many others, it is reasonable to believe every NT gospel of epistle was written before AD 70, before judgment.
"Word salad is a term applied to rants that completely fly off the rails of normal grammar and meaning.
Word salad (schizophasiaWikipedia's W.svg) can be a sign of schizophrenia, brain damage or other pathological conditions.
Keep in mind that if an otherwise coherent person suddenly starts speaking word salad, it could be a sign of an impending stroke."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad
***
Again, you have charged a person with a fallacy many times in your debates without providing sufficient evidence (a constant theme). What I stated is not only my views. Many others have similar views on the subject. Do you believe I am schizophrenic, brain-damaged, in a pathological condition, or believe I am about to have a stroke? It is a serious charge.
What, in particular, of my response are you terming word salad?
***
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1])..., typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Association with insults
It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
So, the challenge I made in post # 50 stands. I would be glad to debate you on that topic. I believe Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. I still believe my biblical viewpoint makes sense of the whole Bible, both Testaments. I don't believe Dispensationalism or Futurism does. I believe the history available to us supports Scripture and the Preterist view is more reasonable than other views which have more inconsistencies to them. I believe the Jews back then and the Jews today do not recognize the Messiah because He did not fit their preconceived beliefs yet they do the Scriptures.
If you are interested, I will set up the debate which will be initiated in the first week of September after my brother-in-law leaves. We can hash out exactly what to include, what the title will be, etc.
continue,
a spiritual sacrifice, the Second Adam, the Second Moses, the Second Exodus, the spiritual temple, the greater sacrifice that the old sacrificial system was pointing to but could never take away sin, just cover it until Jesus, the new land, the heavenly country, not of this earth, and so on and on.
Ragnar:
"The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer")."
There are five heavy focuses, perhaps more, that I identify off the top of my head; the Messiah, judgment on Israel, repentance and redemption, the fulfillment of OT prophecy, the coming kingdom. Actually, I will add another that ties in with fulfilled prophecy, the greater truth of the spiritual realm which is intertwined and foreshadowed by the physical realm. Thus you have a physical realm (this world of the people), a physical people (Israel) that God makes a physical blood covenant with, a physical country (the land of Israel), a physical deliverer (Moses), a physical exodus (crossing the Red Sea), a physical sacrificial system (animal sacrifices), a physical priesthood (Levitical priesthood), and comparison after comparison between the two systems as laid out in the NT in fulfillment of the OT. So, in almost every OT page of Scripture, you have a typology of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah.
In the NT you have a spiritual coming kingdom (a spiritual realm), a spiritual people (the church of the living God/those born spiritually),
I'm not sure who you are speaking with. Are you referring to me blocking you, because I never did? If I have by mistake, I will find out how to fix it because I believe in free speech and would not do this by choice.
***
Regarding Jesus building the temple, the final temple, I contend, was a spiritual temple, not a physical one. Four examples:
Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
2 Corinthians 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Ephesians 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
This speaks of the church, the called-out believers, the final temple.
***
Since you did not expand on your link I will supply one without expanding on it too.
https://bibleprophecy.com/blog/2013/07/17/more-on-the-temple-and-the-return-to-the-garden-don-k-preston/
Look forward to hearing the lines of reasoning from both of you!
You said: "For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I very much believe He did live up to those prophecies and I believe the evidence is reasonable to the point that other views are inconsistent. Are you interested in a debate along this line? If so, we can narrow down the topic. It would have to be after my brother-in-law leaves since he is coming for a ten-day visit starting August 23rd.
Clarification:
To make other materials fit I deleted a portion of my response in R3. This contained a citation [1]. Instead of reassigning all citations I started with [2]. There are only eleven citations instead of twelve (i.e., 2-12).
(and bsh1)
Correction: Round 2, under 'To the Readers and Judges' the sentence "...especially to those in power who make the rules of preference binding" should have read, "...especially by those in power who make the rules of preference binding."
@ Ragnar:
PS. Since you have blocked me I cannot challenge you to debate yet you continually challenged me to do that very thing.
I.e., Added: 06.10.19 01:21PM
--> @PGA2.0
Reply
"If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law."
I choose abortion as the first challenge.
@ Ragnar
This challenge to debate abortion with you, Ragnar, is a result of the match between Caleb and you. Based on the three points Cabel cited in his first round, I did not find your arguments and rebuttal particularly convincing; in fact, I thought your logic flawed and in need of further exploration. Thus, I want to exploit your reasoning further by challenging you to a debate on the same three foundational points formulated by Caleb in his opening round (R1) plus your position on slavery and dispute any other areas that may arise from these four contentions.
These contentions are,
1. The unborn child is very much alive and very much human;
2. Abortion is murder ;
3. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective;
4. Your position on slavery
I want to change the point order slightly and add a few adjustments to the wording:
1. Concerning human beings, the unborn from conception is very much alive and very much a human being;
2. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective.
3. Abortion is murder (except when the woman's life is threatened such as by a tubal/ectopic pregnancy that will result in her death if not terminated) ;
4. Slavery association with pregnant women.
***
Four Rounds.
First Round is reserved for opening statements
No new arguments in the final round.
Agreed!
PS. Your citation # 3...what point in the video are you referencing
and in relation to what point in your opening round?
Round 1, a good argument to date. Short, concise, to the point, and enough fact or evidence to support it!
There is a learning curve for most in this field of copyright. I'm still learning.
Your reference to Answers in Genesis and Dr. Ron Rhodes, however, is correct regarding plagiarism. Here is the policy that not everyone would know since I had to search for it and it was not listed with the article:
"Since we are constantly updating the articles on the website, we request that any reference to website published articles include no more than the first paragraph, and must include the ministry’s name and a link to our website, preferably to the actual article. Copying entire articles (other than the first paragraph) or materials to other websites is strictly prohibited; however, we encourage links to the article from your website."
Ragnar, I am not following your claim that Skye "is merely copy/pasted spam lines of the bible without context from a website (one to which he did not even give credit)" and how that relates to plagiarism? Various Bible translations are public domain. Others allow a good amount without reference. I usually supply the version in my quote (i.e., NASB).
"Works that are in the public domain may be used freely, without obtaining permission from or compensating the copyright owner."
https://www.copyrightlaws.com/what-is-the-public-domain/
Here is a list of them from biblegateway.com
The following Bibles in our library are in the public domain:
American Standard Version (ASV)
Darby Translation (DARBY)
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
King James Version (KJV)
World English Bible (WEB)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Reina-Valera Antigua (RVA)
Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE)
If a Bible is in the public domain, its publisher will be listed as "Public Domain" on its version information page...
Skye used the NKJV. Here are their stipulations:
The text from the New King James Version® (NKJV®) may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of 500 verses or less without written permission, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do verses quoted account for 25% or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, and the verses are not being quoted in a commentary or other biblical reference work.
No luck. I sent a post to the Moderator.
Yes, it should in my opinion. I will ask the moderator to change it. Sorry. That was my error. I figured that Con equaled Contender.
"I take it you are in middle-upper class and have been your whole life, yes?
Do you comprehend what taxes are good for?" - RM
I used to be middle class but I have retired and would not regard myself as such any longer. But what is your point?
Taxes are good up to a certain point. Free enterprise gives us jobs that make our countries wealth. Big government takes over private enterprise. It shuts it down as it gets involved in more and more endeavors. When the government starts charging its rich citizens a 70% tax rate it kills free enterprise and gives very little to reinvest into its economy. That is the insanity that is being pushed in your country - kill wealth and give more and more power to the big government so that they will dictate exactly how you live, what you will be able to do and what you will be banned from doing. If big government looks after all your needs what incentive is there to work and try to get ahead? Why should I seek an incentive to improve my life if everyone gets the same thing?
Anyone who votes Democrat, IMO, is an utter turkey. New Democrat's have no solutions, just a masquerade in how these liberal fools will solve all your problems with their supposed panacea. Meanwhile, what have they done that is constructive lately? Nothing.
Florida: $12,439.09 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $6,696.18
State income taxes paid: $0.00
Gas taxes paid: $392.03
Sales taxes paid: $2,705.38
Property taxes paid: $2,646.00
Florida is a state with no income tax, so that helps offset high gas taxes paid in the state. Property taxes and median home values are a bit above average, but in spite of this, many cities in Florida are ideal for buying investment property.
https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/filing/how-much-do-americans-pay-in-taxes-state/#11
California is rated the worst State for businesses in one survey:
https://www.ocregister.com/2016/05/19/survey-california-still-worst-state-for-business/
California has the highest State tax rate:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/PIT-01.png
California's infrastructure is falling to pieces. Report card ratings give bridges a C- rating, transit a C- rating, and roads a D rating.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/california-infrastructure-repairs-to-cost-187-billion
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ASCEBrochure-CA-Final.pdf
Californias single-payer health care system could cost the State 400 billion:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.html
California quality of life ranks worst of the 50 states:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Illinois: $19,965.03 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $8,983.74
State income taxes paid: $3,118.10
Gas taxes paid: $366.77
Sales taxes paid: $3,461.30
Property taxes paid: $4,035.00
High sales, property and state income taxes contribute to a large total tax bill in Illinois. Taken altogether, Illinois residents pay nearly 32 percent of their income, on average, toward taxes, the fourth-highest percentage of all states.
***
New York: $20,744.64 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $9,402.18
State income taxes paid: $3,326.75
Gas taxes paid: $419.97
Sales taxes paid: $3,377.75
Property taxes paid: $4,218.00
New York has the eighth-highest total taxes paid and — when taking all forms of taxes together — consume nearly 32 percent of income. A relatively high median household income of $64,894 plays a role in big federal and state income tax bills. And gas, sales and property taxes paid here are much higher than in most states.
***
Texas: $15,351.02 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $8,150.82
State income taxes paid: $0.00
Gas taxes paid: $251.90
Sales taxes paid: $3,250.43
Property taxes paid: $3,698.00
Even though there’s no state income tax, the total taxes paid in Texas are higher than nearly half the rest of the country. That’s because sales and property taxes paid here are higher than in a majority of states.
"Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand all directly disprove this notion.
Social Democracy can and does work. Socialism doesn't work.
Soc-dem =/= dem-soc" - RM
The kind of socialism Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (stupid, stupid person) or your Democrat Party is pushing (big government control) is a killer of growth and private enterprise. With a tax rate of 70% for those who fuel jobs and private industry what incentive do the rich have to stay invested? That is why so many are fleeing from States like California, NY, Illinois, and other Democrat controlled States. They don't work. They use up the resources fast with their socialist agendas.
Do you realize what percentage that Canadians pay for health care and big government?
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadians-pay-42-of-income-in-tax-more-than-they-spend-on-food-shelter-clothing-combined
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/average-canadian-to-pay-37700-in-taxes-this-year-47296992.html
Compare that to your country.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/how-much-americans-really-pay-in-taxes
So, you pay about 11%-20% whereas we pay about 42% in taxes every year. The upper middle class in Canada pays more for the tax rate goes up depending on how much you make.
***
California: $23,316.16 in Total Taxes Paid
Federal income taxes paid: $10,922.60
State income taxes paid: $4,004.48
Gas taxes paid: $484.98
Sales taxes paid: $3,397.64
Property taxes paid: $4,506.00
California has the fourth-highest tax burden, on average, because of high tax rates across the board. It has the second-highest gas taxes paid. And property and income taxes paid are high because of the state’s high home values and high median household income.
***
"Why would you want freedom when you can have harmony instead?" RM
You don't get harmony from socialism nor liberalism. Look around the world and point to a socialist government that has harmony. What you eventually get is tyranny and despotism if driven to the natural outcome of those idealisms.