No.
When you start a thread on a topic, it's common to write some words about what you think about the subject. What do you think about the content of the video? Do you believe it's persuasive and logically sound?
"180" Movie
- Thread starter JudeBrando
- Start date
No.
When you start a thread on a topic, it's common to write some words about what you think about the subject. What do you think about the content of the video? Do you believe it's persuasive and logically sound?
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Ah, what the hell. I'll watch it and take notes...
So the questions can be summed up as...
- Would you ever kill another person?
- You'd rather die than kill hundreds of Jews who'd be killed anyway, but you won't even speak out against killing babies in their mother's womb?
- When does life begin?
- If you're not sure when life begins, isn't having an abortion like blowing up a building without knowing if there are any people inside?
- Hitler justified killing Jews by saying that Jews weren't really human. Isn't that what you're doing when you say that the baby isn't a person until three months?
- When is it justified to kill a baby in the womb?
- Isn't abortion after rape the same as killing a child for the crimes of it's father?
- Isn't abortion for birth defects the same as Nazi's killing children with Down's syndrome?
- What if you were in Nazi Germany, would you ever say "I would never kill Jews, but I believe people should have the right to kill Jews"
And at the end he then goes on about the afterlife and asks...
- Have you ever lied?
- What do you call someone who lies?
- Doesn't that make you a liar?
- Have you ever stolen anything?
- What do you call someone who steals...
ETA: Looks like Ryokan beat me to it.
Last edited:
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Except for one old guy who goes on to say that he'd kill every member of Hitler's family (he lost a lot of his own relatives in WWII).
I noticed that this question has absolutely no relevance to Ray's arguments.
I wonder why nobody gave the obvious answer: Use the rifle to shoot the German officer and let the Jews live.
(Of course, Ray could get around that by stipulating that there is more than one German soldier pointing a gun at you. But why aren't they finishing off the Jews? It'd take ages with just one person, and you'd need to reload a lot.)
If only that's all there was. (See my last post.) I almost turned it off too.
Last edited:
JudeBrando
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,692
Some of my relatives left Auschwitz well-before, a little after the turn of the century,
and others surely died there.
I'm sorry to hear that. It's an understatement to say that it was a great tragedy. No one I know of in my family was killed during the war. I am, of course, eternally grateful that my grandfathers survived it, otherwise I wouldn't be here..
But the question is, knowing that and what the Nazis stood for, would you have been among those who took up arms to fight them? Millions did. I would. Would you?
Last edited:
From your synopsis, it sounds like it was just a repeat of the argument in my post #7.
I understand Ray Comfort's motivation in regard to this debate; it's about male control over a woman's reproductive system. I get that, but what's your motivation Jude? Same thing?
JudeBrando
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,692
Other relatives, a half-century further removed, were likely also among them as well.I'm sorry to hear that. It's an understatement to say that it was a great tragedy. No one I know of in my family was killed during the war. I am, of course, eternally grateful that my grandfathers survived it, otherwise I wouldn't be here..
But the question is, knowing that and what the Nazis stood for, would you have been among those who took up arms to fight them? Millions did. I would. Would you?
I'm a bit surprised, JudeBrando. With all that, why are you hesitating to tell me if you would have taken up arms against the Nazis or not? I think it's the most straight forward question I've asked on this forum, and surely easy to answer.
Wow, seems to be full of a lot of horrible reasoning and people who don't have a firm idea on why they think abortions are ok.
Few people think aborting an 8 month fetus is ok. Few people think aborting a 1 day old embryo is not ok if the woman wants to do it. Not a lot of people are very good at reasoning things out from there. This guy seems to be using fallacious reasoning to compare things to the Holocaust or to say "well, it looks kinda human, so destroying it must be murder, right?" Horrible.
If someone is brain dead and so will never regain any brain function, is ending what remains of that life wrong? I'd say "no." What gave them their personality, thoughts, and so forth is gone. All the remains is a shell. Ending that isn't killing or murder.
I don't see how it is any different for a fetus. Organized neural firings don't happen in the brain until something on the order of 4 or 5 months. That's when you first start having something that can arguably be called "human" or close to it. Before that you definitely only have something that resembles a person, and a resemblance does not a human make. I don't see anything wrong with stopping that from becoming a person anymore than there's a problem with using safe sex to stop an unwanted pregnancy before it happens. Thankfully, 4 or 5 months is plenty of time for someone to decide whether they want a baby or not.
Other people might have their own well-reasoned thoughts on the matter, but that's mine. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the above video presents people who have actually thought much about things.
Few people think aborting an 8 month fetus is ok. Few people think aborting a 1 day old embryo is not ok if the woman wants to do it. Not a lot of people are very good at reasoning things out from there. This guy seems to be using fallacious reasoning to compare things to the Holocaust or to say "well, it looks kinda human, so destroying it must be murder, right?" Horrible.
If someone is brain dead and so will never regain any brain function, is ending what remains of that life wrong? I'd say "no." What gave them their personality, thoughts, and so forth is gone. All the remains is a shell. Ending that isn't killing or murder.
I don't see how it is any different for a fetus. Organized neural firings don't happen in the brain until something on the order of 4 or 5 months. That's when you first start having something that can arguably be called "human" or close to it. Before that you definitely only have something that resembles a person, and a resemblance does not a human make. I don't see anything wrong with stopping that from becoming a person anymore than there's a problem with using safe sex to stop an unwanted pregnancy before it happens. Thankfully, 4 or 5 months is plenty of time for someone to decide whether they want a baby or not.
Other people might have their own well-reasoned thoughts on the matter, but that's mine. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the above video presents people who have actually thought much about things.
As much as Ray Comfort is totally wrong, I think this is an unfair characterization. I believe such people seriously think abortion is murder. Just because a fetus is attached to another human being doesn't mean they are against the 'murder' just because they want to control women. (Unless you have evidence to support your particular claim against Ray Comfort).
If a conjoined twin wanted to be separated from his/her other half, would it be allowable if only the one twin would survive and the other would almost certainly die? I don't think so. Is an abortion one day before the expected due date ok? I don't think so. Do you disagree with this? I think we must logically concede that at a certain point a fetus has matured enough to have human rights similar to what a baby has. The real question is at what point that is, though conception is a pretty ludicrous place to go with.
Let's be careful with our arguments here. Hypocrisy wouldn't invalidate what the guy is saying. The fact his arguments are full of false equivalences invalidates what he is saying.
Why?
I explained why. I don't believe it is his actual motivation and so it is a straw man argument. Do I need to go further? It's also an ad hominem attack, and one that is a bit questionable in itself.
Did you just read the first sentence of my post or something? Do you think it is ok to attack people rather than their arguments viciously, personally, and misrepresent them if they are wrong about something or have some undesirable traits? Did you not understand what I wrote? Something else? What?
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
So what if he had interviewed me?
Pay attention JudeBrando. My answers are in blue.
People are asked, it's 1939, you have a sniper rifle and have Hitler in your sights, would you shoot?
I would say I would not shoot him. For the following two reasons:
1) If I'm a time traveler and know what he will eventually do then me killing him will cause huge unanticipated changes to the future.
2) If I'm just some dude in 1939 then I don't know he's a monster yet and I'd just be assassinating some head of state that says a lot of nasty things.
He then asks, what if it's Hitler's mom, pregnant, would you shoot her?
Again, I would not.
Comfort then continues asking people questions.
It's 1943, you're in a concentration camp. The nazis have put you in a bulldozer in front of a ditch full of Jews. They tell you that either you drive the bulldozer and fill the ditch, or they'll kill you. Will you?
Probably. Even if I refuse they'll find someone else to do it. So they're dying anyways. No sense in adding my body to the pile.
He then asks if they'd been given a rifle instead, and asked to shoot all the Jews, would they still do it?
I don't see how it would make a difference.
He then says, so you value life?
I value certain kinds of life. Self aware life to be precise about it.
He then asks, what do you think about abortion?
I support it.
He asks, so when does it become a life?
It's always life. But that's irrelevant.
He then asks, ok, finish this sentence: It's ok to kill a baby in the womb when...?
At any point. Never while it is in the womb is it a self aware being.
So he asks, ok, I'm a construction builder, and I'm going to blow up a building. There's a possibility there's someone in there, but I just don't know. I'm going to blow it up anyway. What would you say?
I wouldn't say anything. I'd slap the freaking controls out of your hand.
The question goes unanswered, as he jumps right to asking, what justifies killing a baby in the womb?
If it can't be given a good life. There are others of course. A father that might murder you if he finds out you're pregnant is another.
So he ask, can you say that's like saying, before you bury those Jews alive, just give us a though and then bury them alive.
Listen Ray, if you can't speak intelligibly there is no point here.
He then says, so you would give your life for the Jews who would die anyway (remember, I wouldn't), but you won't speak up about abortion, you won't speak up about the murder of children in the womb? I would like you to say, that's wrong! To kill a child in it's safest place, it's mother's womb, and to actually go in there and destroy it, for selfish reasons?! Tell me a reason for killing a baby in the womb!
It might grow up to be another mindless Ray Comfort apologist.
Pay attention JudeBrando. My answers are in blue.
People are asked, it's 1939, you have a sniper rifle and have Hitler in your sights, would you shoot?
I would say I would not shoot him. For the following two reasons:
1) If I'm a time traveler and know what he will eventually do then me killing him will cause huge unanticipated changes to the future.
2) If I'm just some dude in 1939 then I don't know he's a monster yet and I'd just be assassinating some head of state that says a lot of nasty things.
He then asks, what if it's Hitler's mom, pregnant, would you shoot her?
Again, I would not.
Comfort then continues asking people questions.
It's 1943, you're in a concentration camp. The nazis have put you in a bulldozer in front of a ditch full of Jews. They tell you that either you drive the bulldozer and fill the ditch, or they'll kill you. Will you?
Probably. Even if I refuse they'll find someone else to do it. So they're dying anyways. No sense in adding my body to the pile.
He then asks if they'd been given a rifle instead, and asked to shoot all the Jews, would they still do it?
I don't see how it would make a difference.
He then says, so you value life?
I value certain kinds of life. Self aware life to be precise about it.
He then asks, what do you think about abortion?
I support it.
He asks, so when does it become a life?
It's always life. But that's irrelevant.
He then asks, ok, finish this sentence: It's ok to kill a baby in the womb when...?
At any point. Never while it is in the womb is it a self aware being.
So he asks, ok, I'm a construction builder, and I'm going to blow up a building. There's a possibility there's someone in there, but I just don't know. I'm going to blow it up anyway. What would you say?
I wouldn't say anything. I'd slap the freaking controls out of your hand.
The question goes unanswered, as he jumps right to asking, what justifies killing a baby in the womb?
If it can't be given a good life. There are others of course. A father that might murder you if he finds out you're pregnant is another.
So he ask, can you say that's like saying, before you bury those Jews alive, just give us a though and then bury them alive.
Listen Ray, if you can't speak intelligibly there is no point here.
He then says, so you would give your life for the Jews who would die anyway (remember, I wouldn't), but you won't speak up about abortion, you won't speak up about the murder of children in the womb? I would like you to say, that's wrong! To kill a child in it's safest place, it's mother's womb, and to actually go in there and destroy it, for selfish reasons?! Tell me a reason for killing a baby in the womb!
It might grow up to be another mindless Ray Comfort apologist.
Last edited:
Hmm, what's your basis for that assertion? Do you not think a baby is self-aware 30 seconds after being born too, or is it not ok to kill it then? I don't see how a birth imbues the baby with different cognitive properties than it had just before birth.
Not a strawman, not ad hominem. Untwist them, they're in a bunch.