This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Humanity Should Reach for the Stars
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Perhaps anger is sometimes constructive? I may not change the opinion of the jerk who doesn't care about dead babies, but I might succeed in salvaging a bit of hope in humanity, at least in my own eyes, by tearing down his house of horror.
Perhaps it is, if the anger is directed and controlled properly.
Is my anger directed incorrectly? Am I out of control? I'd say it is aimed properly at the dude who is lauding murder, and I'm not throwing insults, cursing, or kicking in my computer screen.
So... I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job. My first instinct when I read it was to kick in my computer screen and dig a hole to live in, where I would never have to meet another human.... but I'm more in control than all that.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HiVolt
Like it says, swaying someone's opinion through constructive means is a more valid tactic. If you start out with ridicule, chances are, all you will get in return is ridicule. Thus the argument devolves, and there is no winner.
The point isn't to win an argument. The point isn't to sway his opinion. That quite obviously isn't going to happen. The point is to express shock, anger, and remorse, as if the very fibers you are made of have just been savagely burned.
Well, if that's what you feel that you need to do, then there's nothing that I can say that will persuade you otherwise that I haven't already said.
I, on the other hand, think it better to try to bring the person under a more valid way of thinking, rather than lashing out. You never know what you can accomplish with the right words.
Post by
MyTie
Well, if that's what you feel that you need to do, then there's nothing that I can say that will persuade you otherwise.
I, on the other hand, think it better to try to bring the person under a more valid way of thinking, rather than lashing out. You never know what you can accomplish with the right words.
If I had been aborted, I would want someone to lash out and express proper anger at someone who doesn't find any big deal in my death. Anger? Yes, please.
Now, if someone wants to sit down and have a meaningful debate about abortion, that is one thing, and I am more than willing to have an objective and informed, constructive conversation, where no one feels intimidated. But, if someone just shrugs off abortion as no big deal in passing, then I don't mind expressing an emotional and measured response of anger.
Post by
HiVolt
Now, if someone wants to sit down and have a meaningful debate about abortion, that is one thing, but if someone just shrugs off abortion as no big deal in passing, then I don't mind expressing an emotional and measured response of anger.
A measured amount of anger directed at the person would be acceptable, if backed by valid argument, at least in my opinion.
But I just don't see ridicule as a truly valid response to the situation.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Now, if someone wants to sit down and have a meaningful debate about abortion, that is one thing, but if someone just shrugs off abortion as no big deal in passing, then I don't mind expressing an emotional and measured response of anger.
A measured amount of anger directed at the person would be acceptable, if backed by valid argument, at least in my opinion.
But I just don't see ridicule as a truly valid response to the situation.
I see anger as the
only
valid response to:
Dead babies? *shrugs*
Post by
HiVolt
I see anger as the
only
valid response to:
Dead babies? *shrugs*
Yes, anger is valid. But what is spawned from the anger might not be. It's just a matter of how well you can put your anger into something constructive.
Post by
MyTie
I see anger as the
only
valid response to:
Dead babies? *shrugs*
Yes, anger is valid. But what is spawned from the anger might not be. It's just a matter of how well you can put your anger into something constructive.
It is true that many actions triggered by anger are negative actions, and thus do not help the situation. That is not what we have in this thread.
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, let me posit something to you.
If the hole in the ozone layer was to grow to a point where it would wipe out all civilisation on earth in 2012, would you say it's more important to deal with than abortion rights?
i.e. Can you compare 6 billion deaths to the however many abortion deaths there are?
All I'm saying to you and Hyper is that you're looking solely at the acts of 'stopping babies from dying' and 'stopping a bunch of gases from disappearing', without looking at the follow-on consequences of those acts. By that argument, a bank would never lend you money, because they're losing money, notwithstanding that they'll get money back over the next 20 years.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
MyTie, let me posit something to you.
If the hole in the ozone layer was to grow to a point where it would wipe out all civilisation on earth in 2012, would you say it's more important to deal with than abortion rights?
i.e. Can you compare 6 billion deaths to the however many abortion deaths there are?
All I'm saying to you and Hyper is that you're looking solely at the acts of 'stopping babies from dying' and 'stopping a bunch of gases from disappearing', without looking at the follow-on consequences of those acts. By that argument, a bank would never lend you money, because they're losing money, notwithstanding that they'll get money back over the next 20 years.
We know that when a baby dies that it dies. We think that we're causing the ozone layer to shrink at a rate we're not sure about.
Big difference.
Post by
Squishalot
We know that when a baby dies that it dies. We think that we're causing the ozone layer to shrink at a rate we're not sure about.
Big difference.
Better the devil we know, than the devil we don't?
If we're not sure about something, we can just ignore the possible consequences?
We know there's a correlational link between global warming and the incidences of hurricanes in the world. Poor sympathy for those families being wiped out, if you're ranking their lives below
a bunch of foetuses that haven't even been born
.
I'm not passing judgement or saying one's more important than the other (though I personally think abortion rules in Australia are fine, not sure what they are exactly in the US) - I'm just saying you're being too closed minded on issues that you view as unimportant and ridiculous, when you know the consequences will be drastic, simply because you don't know how soon the drastic-ness is coming.
I can go out and live however I want now, since even though I know that God will come eventually and smite me down, I don't know how soon it's going to happen, so I don't care about the future consequences
That's essentially the attitude you're taking.
Edit:
We know that when I'm happy, I'm happy. We think that we're doing the wrong thing by God, who will come back at a time we're not sure about.
Big difference.
Post by
MyTie
If the hole in the ozone layer was to grow to a point where it would wipe out all civilisation on earth in 2012, would you say it's more important to deal with than abortion rights?
If a giant flaming boogermonster was going to wipe out humanity in 11 days, I would do everything in my power to try to stop it. That would still not diminish the ethical significance of slaughtering unborn babies.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If the hole in the ozone layer was to grow to a point where it would wipe out all civilisation on earth in 2012, would you say it's more important to deal with than abortion rights?
If a giant flaming boogermonster was going to wipe out humanity in 11 days, I would do everything in my power to try to stop it. That would still not diminish the ethical significance of slaughtering unborn babies.
I agree 100%. All I'm saying is that you're judging the other guy's view about the ozone layer to be incorrect or false or ridiculous or not worthy, on the basis that it doesn't compare to the ethical significance of slaughtering unborn babies.
I'm just saying that you haven't fully considered the effects of not making the ozone layer any worse, and as a result, can't consider the ethical significance of leaving it alone.
Post by
Squishalot
HOWEVER (and this is the important bit) Global warming != Hole in the ozone layer.
So please don't lump the two in together just because they're both related to environmental damage.
Yes sir. I was always a horrible science student :D
Insert other cataclysmic disaster here instead.
Personally I believe that the hole in the ozone layer is a
bigger
issue than abortion due to the fact that it effects the basic survival of the species. But that's just me...
Hyperspacerebel will disagree, but see his reasoning in the Freedom of Speech thread, based on the hierarchy of rights.
Post by
MyTie
All I'm saying is that you're judging the other guy's view about the ozone layer to be incorrect or false or ridiculous or not worthy, on the basis that it doesn't compare to the ethical significance of slaughtering unborn babies.
Actually, what he said was:(i am not talking baby killing...the more important stuff like ozone layer sh**)And, frankly, I don't care if it is fine to judge his view about the ozone being more 'worthy' than the slaughter of unborn babies.
Post by
MyTie
the fact that it effects the basic survival of the speciesJust like the fact that the earth is flat.
Post by
Squishalot
And, frankly, I don't care if it is fine to judge his view about the ozone being more 'worthy' than the slaughter of unborn babies.
So what you're saying is, if his view of the ozone layer was on the grounds that a giant flaming boogermonster was going to appear in 11 days and slaughter humanity, it's still of less significance and less worthy to be dealt with than the slaughter of unborn babies, despite the fact that the slaughter of humanity will still result in the slaughter of unborn babies?
Anyway, opinion vs fact. Things like the math stuff can be demonstrated as fact. Things like morality, by definition, are not factual, they're subjective. That the earth is flat is a question of fact. That the destruction of the ozone layer will result in humankind's destruction is a question of fact. That saving humankind from the destruction of the ozone layer is more important than saving unborn babies is a question of morality, and there may be a universal true answer to it, but not one that we, as humans, can identify with 100% confidence.
Post by
400276
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.