iGod

I agree with you that Abortion is infanticide. I however disagree with you that the infant has inalienable rights. He himself is an alien. A fetus, embryo, 8 month old infant requires to some degree or another another human host to survive... unlike an adult, child, or infant human being. It is his dependence on another human being that is the issue, NOT whether or not it is "fully human"! Just like all other human beings, it is NOT owed anything unless it has the voluntary agreement of another. A potential mother still has the choice to make whether or not she will host another life form within her own body. A baby's inalienable rights DON'T in my view take precedence over the rights of his mother. Extract if you want to (at your own expense) the fetus, embryo, zygote, or whatever and allow it to develop in an incubator; but to chain a woman to it is immoral! True dat. But the sacrifice of one life for another is wrong, especially where the life being sacrificed is also forced to host with her own body the life form that will drain her life for at minimum the next 18 years. Not to mention the possibility of her own life ending during the birth process, or the deterioration to her own physical beauty as a result thereof. "Pro life" people should resign themselves to NEVER aborting their own children, and realize that their choice should NOT be forced on the rest of the world. C!

My commendations! I felt that it was highly inappropriate to close the thread in the first place. I am glad that you resumed the discussion, and feel a need to say to you that although you and I differ in opinion on this matter, it speaks well of you that you chose not to hide under the cover provided to you by David, but to meet me on the battlefield of ideas, and engage me on the points I raised.... but you are dead wrong, as I will now illustrate: How did these civil rights activists go about doing this? The answer is: BREAKING THE LAWS! Immoral laws should be challenged, and to do so it is by breaking them. How can you say this?!!! Easily. All you have to do is ignore all points I raise, and pretend that he did not own the land that the kennels were located on, nor the dogs that he killed. Once you have done that, you can forget that I stated that this situation is a violation of Mike's property rights, and then you can have a weak leg to stand on in saying that i am "an over-enthuastic sports nut who refuses to believe atheletes can do anything morally repulsive because you gain enjoyment from them."... once again, you funny. The weakest truth here that annihilates this argument is: Michael Vick's leeching off the welfare state when he was a child is NOT morally wrong. He owes NOTHING for what his parents did... Reparations are NOT in order for the citizens of Virginia, and can't be taken from Michael Vick in the form of violating his property rights. Now you sound like a democrat discussing how best to spend the profits generated by oil companies! Need? Are you REALLY an objectivist, or perhaps a misdirected socialist. I agree. Given the fact that there are so many "haters" in the USA today, so many racists, so many people with gross inferiority complexes, etc., he should have realized that they would gather together with any half assed excuse they could muster and do all they could to take from him what he amassed by the sweat of his own brow. You make such bigoted statements. "Worse" to who? By who's standard? By what standard? How does dog fighting make a neighborhood "worse"? Wrong again. The context was NOT dog fighting, the context was the principle of ownership. I won't let you slide so deeply into an evasion on my watch! Yes. I don't participate in such any longer as I am now a lot older than I was during my tenure of raising dogs and fighting them. Most of the people I knew though are still friends of mine, and I like then just fine. What you are once again evading is the fact that there is NO difference between raising chickens for slaughter, or dogs. The motive is NOT food for the chicken producer, but $. The same motivation for the pit bull breeder. Be real, and stop the evasion! No. It's a veiled attempt to get you to check your premises. C!

Then like with him, I ask you to "Please describe the "insult". Better yet, and most appropriate: describe the insult, or take back the insult you made of me with a mistaken or false allegation!". I don't see any "sarcasm" or un"civil tone" in this request. I read "Forum Rules" and took extra special care as to not be considered guilty of: "Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and accusations of irrationality or immorality.". I am aware of the rule in short. Please demonstrate my non-compliance or apologize please.

Whooa! I guess that your barrage of 5th grade English terminology was supposed to get me off balance... NOT! Perhaps you might have a chance with this tactic if I were lost on the fact that when I said: "An insult by definition is a statement. I asked you a question", that I was responding to Superliminal not you. Why are you responding to a statement that was never made to someone else? Do you see how "weird" this is? Why are YOU so personally involved? To further put the matter in its context, subliminal initially said: "Should he be allowed to fight dogs? Sure so should I. But I am not. If I did and was caught doing so would I go to jail? Yes. I would not feel outraged even if I was the one doing time.". I responded: "Taking a step backward in American history... During the Boston Tea Party, do you think that everyone who participated drank tons of tea, or were there a plethora of individuals there who recognized the GREATER ramifications of such a demonstration? Are you really that shallow?" Please describe the "insult". Better yet, and most appropriate: describe the insult, or take back the insult you made of me with a mistaken or false allegation! Feel free to state my insult in declarative, imperative, interrogative, connotation, denotation, or any other syntactic form it may have taken... HAW! You still funny.

An insult by definition is a statement. I asked you a question. Is questioning the integrity of your statements insulting? I wonder why if it is. (another question, not insult ) Well, if questioning you for further clarity causes you to be silent with me.... Like I said: "I aint Al Sharpton."

Taking a step backward in American history... During the Boston Tea Party, do you think that everyone who participated drank tons of tea, or were there a plethora of individuals there who recognized the GREATER ramifications of such a demonstration? Are you really that shallow? Do you really see what Vick's incarceration REALLY means for you? Step outside your (if you have it) disdain for athletes or any other group Michael Vick is a part of , and reason. I am not some person trying to get you guys up in arms about some ------. but a thinker that is beyond race, and is becoming worried about his own personal life. WAKE UP. Well, since you made this statement you are not covered by Thade's posting: We are talking about a moral issue, not a legal one. Check your premise. I aint Al Sharpton.

Your analogy is skewed. Let's say that you met a farmer. This guy farms say... chickens for a living. He prides himself on producing the absolute best in quality breast meat. He takes you on a tour of his operations, and while demonstrating the greatness of his brood he notices a scrawny rooster in the midst of female chickens that might in theory impregnate some of his stock and ruin the gene pool of his successful chicken farm. He kills the rooster... - CUT! THIS is an appropriate approximation of the situation... what were you wondering about Michael Vick's character? Be real with yourself. Check your premises. BTW: Today I am not on my iPhone making posts to this forum, so I am available for unmitigated discussion.... I so enjoy this shyt!

Superliminal: To begin I would first like to say to you that my intent when posting this thread was to discuss the utter contempt that I have at yet another example of the United States of America violating its very founding principles. In this instance the right to property. However, the discussion did no go as I would have hoped to expect, where I admit to "jumping the gun" a bit when I labeled a certain bit of evasion "racist". I have no concrete proof of what I still believe to be an accurate assessment, which means that I should have simply kept my thoughts to myself at that point. However, in regards to the remark: "Then on the other hand you claim that "successful businessmen" are exempt from this "standard"... tuck your sheet in, it's starting to come out from under your clothes.", I did a perfect job of demonstrating a text book double standard which makes my statement one that I stand by 100%. As a side note my statement: "The right to one's self and property are absolutes. "The Wall" needs a little maintenance work done on it, you yourself shyly admit. - BIG PROPBLEM. You seem to be a bit biased against athletes or entertainers... maybe?" makes no statement, but asks a most VALID question. Mammon on one hand said about businessmen: "Jailing successful businessmen who help companies become propely valued through "insider' knowledge is a moral tragedy." However, on the other hand he said of Michael Vick: "Yeah, and Vick knew full well it was a crime and continued to do it. He is a criminal and deserves the punishment for it." and: "So some good has come of this in the form of sending this guy to jail to become some guy's boyfriend and maybe that will teach him not to be a cocky criminal anymore." I already believe that seeing this illustration gives my statement validity, but I will go one further and explain how this is an obvious double standard, and that I have the right to understand the contradiction. On one hand Mammon says that a "criminal" who is a businessman tried and convicted on an immoral law is worthy of the status of Moral tragedy victim, but on the other hand a "criminal" tried and convicted by an immoral law who happens to be an entertainer/athlete should be sodomized by by hardened criminals. I legitimately question his motivation for saying such.... don't you? To answer your second question about how to handle inappropriate use of race in a discussion: Check all premises! Openly, and without apology. I won't label this evasion racist, as I can't prove the underlying reasons why someone actually says that being taxed or ripped off by a contractor are both EQUAL in devestation to a person's life as being caged for two years, but I will simply state that this is a "classic" evasion... Y'all funny ...

... And by that logic "criminals" such as Michael Fay who at 18 pled guilty in Singapore to vandalism and was sentenced to being beaten with a cane are due no mention or sympathy. Perhaps an American eating bacon in Egypt should be beaten as this is a crime there as well. The point here is that laws that violate an individual's right to himself and his property are invalid, and the person who violates them is under no moral obligation. Yes I recognize that it might be unwise to violate such repression, but submission to overwhelming force, is NOT surrender; but resignation. In all your quoting and response, I notice how carefully you evade the point I raise which is the issue of property rights. You truly come across like some sort of animal rights advocate or environmentalist. Value? To whom? To a vegan such as myself? Really? Are you saying that since I believe that people who mutilate say... chickens for people who have to consume flesh "in order to get a hard on" have no value in my life, that I should also believe that they can't possibly have value in the lives of others? Bigotry is an amusing disease! This is a classic double standard. On one hand you say that "violation of a law is violation of a law"; that no consideration for the laws moral basis, objectivity, or individual rights should be given: Then on the other hand you claim that "successful businessmen" are exempt from this "standard"... tuck your sheet in, it's starting to come out from under your clothes. The right to one's self and property are absolutes. "The Wall" needs a little maintenance work done on it, you yourself shyly admit. - BIG PROPBLEM. You seem to be a bit biased against athletes or entertainers... maybe? It's interesting how you call a man who faces 300+ pound men, paid to take his head off for a living a coward.... as you type away safely at your computer... I will simply mention this time that your double standard creeps in yet again! You funny. I do sleep.

I disagree totally. My disagreement is on two points: 1). Michael Vick is the victim of the government grossly violating his property rights. - Moral Outrage 2). Michael Vick is NOT your average face in the crowd, but arguably the greatest athlete on the planet. This is the man being jailed because he killed a dog, or a million dogs. - Moral Outrage. Is a dog property? Should man at his best be jailed and disgraced because he disposed of his property in a manner in which his neighbors disapprove? Just askin.

Madam and Pimp are not interchangeable. A pimp does not manage assets; he sets his foot - managing @ss! Pimpin aint easy, and as such puttin' a foot up a ho's posterior goes far beyond job description... it's more definition. Pimps use nothing other than force to acquire and manage their stables. As I have said, and continue to say it was inappropriate to equate Michael Vick to a pimp or drug dealer.

I for one can see how things will be better! Bottom line: If the government, individual, or any mob in-between violates the individual rights of anyone the outcome is ALWAYS a disaster waiting to happen. Back on topic: Does the government have the right to create laws governing how people handle their property?

ditto.

1. When the prissy anti-Christs tell you the Bible stands in the way of science, inform them that the greatest scientific geniuses in history were devout Christians—and scientists from Newton to Einstein insisted that biblical religion provided the key ideas from which experimental science could develop. Ok... but prey tell thee how this statement offers evidence to the existence of god. Citing that a scientist has a mistaken notion in no way validates the notion. Why not cite the EVIDENCE that Newton or Einstein brought out of their laboratories to the existence of God... back to square one. 2. When the pissy God haters tell you the Bible condones slavery, you can remind them that slavery was abolished only when devout Christians, inspired by the Bible, launched a campaign in the early 1800s to abolish the slave trade. Ok... so some Christians made the first step towards something rational: They broke the laws of the book they cite as their guide to life. Good. 3. When the screechin’ teachers tell you the Bible has been proven false by archaeology, hark back and show them that each year a new archaeological discovery substantiates the existence of people, places and events we once knew solely from biblical sources, including the discovery of the Moabite stone in 1868, which mentions numerous places in the Bible, and the discovery of an inscription in 1961 that proves the existence of the biblical figure Pontius Pilate, just to name a few. No one ever said that there is no truth in the Bible, just that most of the relevant things are impossible! Why doesn't the author point to the burning bush, or pictures of the sea splitting?

Albeit true what was said in that dog fighting is a "victimless crime", the redneck mind can't quite grasp other facts that truly elevate Michael Vick and other dog fighting participants from the muck of pimps selling 14 year old girls to fat and grotesque losers and illiterate retards "slangin rocks" to the misfortunate. Don't get me wrong, I totally abhor any laws that make it illegal to consume or sell drugs or poonani. I do however still recognize the need to keep these activities from children which is why i think these individual rights trampling laws are still being maintained. On average a pimp is a merchant of child sex, and on average a drug dealer could care less the age of his crack clientele. On average neither the pimp or drug dealer is an exceptional person. In reality Michael Vick is... ... and thus the purpose of my posting: the fact the the best in mankind is being sacrificed to those who love dogs. Michael Vick did not kill someone else's dog, but his own. The laws are immoral, and to equate Michael Vick to a drug dealer or pimp is a racist evasion. You don't have stretch the truth so grossly.... just cheer for Payton Manning