zedvictor4

Mull of Kintyre hey.

And Linda played the keyboards and made the veggie burgers.

And your mum got all slushy when she heard the bagpipes.

Oh, mist rolling in from the sea.

And then there was the one-legged woman.

Yep, fully researched I assume and very interesting.

And I am not without sympathy for the homeless.

Stupid people make up large crowds.

Sensible people avoid large crowds.

Nope.

Definitively, babies exist post-natal,  and I doubt that TWS1405 has ever killed one.

Foetuses exist pre-natal, and I doubt that TWS1405 has killed one of those either.

Prior to the foetal stage, there are zygotes and embryos.

Abortion tends to relate to the deliberate removal zygotic tissue or early-stage embryonic tissue.

Though pro-lifers will shout baby killer for dramatic effect anyway.

Thoughts are never random, because we have to think about them.

Every thought posted above, had to be deliberately made up.

They didn't just randomly appear on a screen of their own accord.

Do you mean the barrel?

Out of interest, where do the homeless shit?

If not in public, why do they no piss in the same place?

Is pissing in public just being lazy.

Apologies, I could have said defecate but shit seemed more in keeping with the thread.

It's a crime, because pissing involves sexual organs, which are something that society has been hung up about for a long time.

It's sort of ironic really that we piss out of the same devices that we procreate with.

I not sure that such physical duality could be described as intelligent design.

Why didn't the designer plumb the urethra the other way, so that we pissed out of our arses, and install a separate tube for procreational purposes.

And then there is the smell of stale piss, which is really breath-taking.

And then there is pissing in public and pissing discretely.

Sort of behind the bush, rather than in front of the bush, as it were.

But as I said, until we sort out the old penis vagina thing, I don't think that we are going to be lobbing them out on the high street any time soon.

As for fighting for just causes, I think that you are scraping the barrel with this one.

But I admire your altruism

And then there are public toilets.

Long since used as multi-purpose penis vagina activity centres.

Or so I am told.

Is this helpful?

Ah yes.

Putin,

Fresh faced and full of Ideas.

Nope, that's just wishful thinking on the part of the believer.

Red ink, green ink, purple ink can't alter the fact that there is absolutely no first-hand record of the utterances of a Jesus character who might have existed 2000 years ago.

Sorry, but all accounts are word of mouth reinterpretations of reinterpretations subsequently recorded to a written narrative sometime after an unverifiable event.

As such, it is more than likely that these accounts rendered to folk tales, were vastly exaggerated and embellished with fantasy.

Such is what religion is and what religion becomes.

Myth.

Firstly, not all Semites are Jews and not all Jews are Semites. But that's a technicality.

So, there is no global or universal standard of ethicality. Ethics are a variable concept, chiefly relative to the individual, but also relative to a collective in which the individual must function. Though sub-groups within a greater collective may have an ethical stance contrary to the greater collective. And therein lies a raft of contradictions and social conflicts.

Nonetheless, purely from the point of view of your hypothetical protagonists, the ideological zealot (IZ) is not acting contrary to their ethical standards, whereas the other individual is acting contrary to their own ethical standards for a reason. So, in terms of moral dilemma, IZ has a clear conscience and the other does not.

So, from an onlooker's perspective the other's predicament is worse, though how the onlooker views the overall situation relative to their own ethical standards is a separate dilemma for the onlooker.

Hey.

Sadolite the poet.

Good stuff.

Keep it up.

Sure enough.

Out of anxiety,

Came, 

Blissful expression.

Was that a metaphor or an analogy Doc?

Top of the morning to ya.

Well, I certainly never preferred the beating method.

And as I tried to make clear, I was suggesting two "broad" categories relative to corporal punishment.

Though the term corporal punishment tends to conjure up thoughts of abuse rather than methods of mild correction.

And encouraging artistic endeavours or not, is not necessarily relevant to the issue of corporal punishment.

The imposition of parental and social expectation upon a child has always been what it is, conditioning/coercion with or without physical correction/abuse. 

The transfer of religious ideology is a perfect example of this.

We might all have been great artist's if it weren't for.

But it's probably more of a benefit to society and evolution that we are not all great artists.

Though I would not be surprised if many great artists were subjected to the beating method.

The argument as ever is the relative argument.

Just as the opposing argument is the relative argument for the opposing opinion.

As ever there are two sides to an argument, neither of which is emphatically right nor emphatically wrong.

Just varying opinions based upon varying conclusions derived from acquired data.

As I suggested, post-dated narrative.

Though I have never stated that a relevant character never existed.

I have only ever sated that such narrative is unverifiable.

Though my real contention with any theistic/deistic narrative is the fantasy stuff.

So, assuming that a Jesus character actually existed, then was he a liar and a lunatic?

Who knows.?

Perhaps he was just an ordinary bloke, who put a lot of time and effort into a fantasy creation hypothesis.

And as we know there a plenty of people about today, who still do that sort of thing.

Educating is conditioning.

If a society has a standard educational regime, then this is social conditioning.

And if you think about it every adult was a conditioned child. So, an adult's experience may or may not have value, other than the perpetuation of a flawed regime.

But of course, what actually is a perfect regime?

And who or what has the authority to implement the perfect regime.

And therefore, who or what actually has the authority to define morality.

As things stand, we rely upon a collective decision which may or may not be perpetually flawed.

And as I initially stated, with regard to the topic in question we can separate the physicality of the parent child relationship into two broad categories.

1. Correctional.

2. Abuse.

Wherein purpose, intent and outcome are distinctly different.

The purpose of correction is to prohibit unwanted behaviour contrary to social expectation.

Whereas the purpose of abuse, is the satisfaction of the abuser, relative to the social failings of the abuser. (Flawed conditioning maybe).

The argument for abortion is the right of the mother to utilise surgical and medical procedures to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Just as the hypocritical pro-lifer will rightly utilise remote slaughtering procedures to convert a living creature into their succulent dinner.

Just as a hypocritical pro-lifer will revel in the glory of battlefield butchery. (As long as it's the enemy of course).

 Hopefully, you are vegan pacifist hermit and can prove me wrong.

I did actually submit a full profile when I first joined Dart, but it was erased for some reason, and I have never renewed it.

Though as I said, profiles can only be taken at face value anyway, as we have no way of verifying the information.

And as I also said, we actually know nothing about the Jesus character other than second-hand tales, contained within a narrative that is undeniably mythical.

Accepting such unverifiable tales as fact is no different to accepting phoney profiles as fact.

So, the character was a Jewish carpenter's son from the Middle East who spoke the regional language and was interested in the regional religion.

So, prove to me that all these details are actually true and relative to an individual whose name was Jesus.

But once again you admit that Jesus was the son of a carpenter and not the son of a GOD. So, you are also admitting that certain aspects of Jesus's profile, were in fact phoney.

Which would therefore infer that all of Jesus's latterly made-up profile was probably all phoney.

Maybe.

My advice is to ignore that which you do not wish to interact with.

As it is, you continue to interact with that which you say you do not wish to interact with.

This begs two questions.

A. Do you actually enjoy interacting with Shila in this way?

B. Why can you not ignore that which you do not wish to interact with?

Because as it is, they have the upper hand.

I personally have no problem with Shila.

Childre have always been subject to social and parental oppression.

It's what's known as conditioning or education.

What is the alternative?

@Poly

Nope, nope and nope.

Lazy and liar,

Worthless atheists,

Chanted big mother troll,

As she danced naked,

In the light of the full moon.

#18

Has Poly started talking to herself?

Semantics and ethics can vary, relative to conditioned sensibilities and established ideas.

I could have said 26 days, I could have said 29 days. And the same differences would be apparent to me.

You say personhood, I say human embryonic tissue.

Just as I would say bovine embryonic tissue and make no distinction between the life within a calf and the life within a human.

Nonetheless a lot of selectively moral pro-lifers will happily kill and consume a calf.

Just as they will be content in the righteousness of slaying their enemy on the battlefield.

Such are conditioned sensibilities and consequent moral contradictions.

And there are still distinct differences between a 29-day embryo and a 9-month foetus.

Whereas a 9-month foetus and a new-born baby are distinctly similar.

We actually know nothing of the Jesus character. Other than second hand accounts written into unverifiable folk myths.

Similarly, remote debateart users will actually know nothing of each other.

Even a full profile can only be taken at face value. It's also often quite evident that some profiles are blatantly phoney.

Nonetheless, odds are that I do actually exist.

And odds are that a lot of the unverifiable myth is phoney.

And odds are that 2000 years ago a carpenter did have a son, who spoke the language he was taught and followed the religion he was taught.

So put two and two together and come up with five.

No.

I'm just a human being, who like everyone else has no way of knowing what went on all those billions of years ago at the point of creation.

Tales from 2000 years ago are what they are.

A pre-born at 8 months and 29 days is obviously different to a 28-day embryo.

And then there is evolved social and intellectual waffle, often based upon a peculiar belief in the super-natural.

And then we shoot each other gloriously on the battlefield and adorn our chests with medals and pray in thanks to our chosen super-natural peculiarity.

Humans are brilliant.

No.

Stupid is as stupid does.

All depends upon the application of acquired knowledge.

Cleverness is no guarantee of common sense.

And humanity knows full well, both the upsides and downsides of physics and engineering.

Though perhaps this all achieves a necessary preordained evolutionary conclusion and ultimately a universal conclusion......Who knows?

Or maybe we are just inconsequential organic fluff.

All hail the technology though.

Tis seemingly the way forwards Einstein.

Jesus was perhaps, from a region, spoke a language, was someone's son, and was probably taught a deistic fantasy ideology which he decided was important.

Sort of a very typically conditioned human.

And we agree that he was not the biological son of a GOD, but the biological son of a carpenter.

Good, we have reached common ground.

How does one become an atheist tomorrow?

Or identify as a Christian for that matter.

And an embryo is not a baby

And most theists are as selectively moral as most atheists are.

Data transfer and formative conditioning can easily perpetuate a myth. Especially when there's wealth and power up for grabs.

Who and what Jesus actually was, is not known. As things stand, he is just a character from hand-me-down Middle Eastern tales.

Two billion people are easily be trained to bleat like sheep.

There is corporal punishment.

And then there is the enforcement of parental authority.

And then there is deliberate abuse for no good reason.

The anti-smacking lobby adds two and two together and always comes up with five. Which may or may not result in long term benefit to the individual, the family or to the wider society.

Though it is unlikely that a ban would prohibit the actions of those who would deliberately abuse a child for no good reason.

Do you think that Best.Korea is Korean?

I am non-religious.

I am also pro-choice and pro-life relative to the necessity of survival.

Absolute pro-life is an impossibility for any living organism.

Though some people do tend to compartmentalise their thoughts in a contradictory way.

Save the foetus shoot the Russian eat the fried chicken, as it were.

That's the funny thing.

No one knows who or what Jesus actually was.

That's assuming that he actually existed.

The reliability of subsequent hand me down tales will inevitably be questionable.

Best case is that he was a bloke who gave a lot of credence to the Idea of supernatural entity/deity, so much so that he considered himself the son of a GOD.

Which if you think about it, was a reasonable conclusion for any theistically/deistically inspired person.

And if he was charismatic enough, he could undoubtedly inspire others to follow.

The proof of you is also self-evident.

As I stated, we base our measure of class upon differing criteria.

Though I was questioning how China would remain competitive, with an overpaid and over expectant population.

What do you think?

Facts are facts.

And superfluous comments are superfluous comments.

The prove is self-evident.

For sure, I expected nothing better from you.

Best not think about it too much.

Basing an assumption of a stranger's attitude and demeanour upon linguistics, is probably why you made that incorrect assumption.

Which to be fair is easily done.

And your entirely superfluous comments are based upon what?

13 minutes 58 seconds too long for me.

I may be happy with the system.

But I tend to ignore the pomp.

I have alternative opinions.

Disagreement is futile.

Though I do like satire, which some people are not always comfortable with.

And how would you have any idea of a remote darters attitude and demeanour?

That can only be an assumption, maybe based upon incorrectly constructed internal conclusions.

Mental pictures are rarely accurate.

I only assume that you are banally sophomoric incel.

But nonetheless you're welcome.

Obviously at 62 years of age and married with two daughters in their thirties, I hardly fit the criteria.

And to a degree we could all be described as banal, very little if anything we say or do is original.

Ah.

So, your measure of class is based upon solely upon wealth.

Whereas my measure of class is based upon a broader application of intellect.

So, for example.

An extremely rich anti-social dickhead would lack class.

Whereas an extremely rich altruist would be classy.

One could also apply the same criteria to not so well-off people.

Class is also apparent in style, deportment and a raft of other characteristics.

You are just categorising people relative to poverty indicators.

Thanks to the "Wests" reliance upon cheap Chinese exports and cheap labour.

So, whilst there are still people doing the donkey work for peanuts all will be fine and dandy.

Therein lies contradictory logic.

Or illogic.

Or a misconception.

I'm not certain that the Chinese authorities will allow the bubble to completely burst.

What say you?

 

Remove your logical fallacy logical fallacy problems and you would understand that we probably agree.

Your assumption.

Your assumption.

My strong assumption based upon your illogical logical fallacy problems.

Thank you.

Living matter is being rendered lifeless via abortion.

Human in origin, though how we choose to label it further is a semantics issue rather than a moral issue.

How we choose to compare said matter with post-natal human beings varies.

As does how we choose to apply viability and importance during the process of pre-natal development.

And unfortunately, as does how we apply importance to fully developed humans and other living organisms.

Hence Hypocrisy and selective morality are rife.