Vivisection All Liberals

[Sparko]

No, science recognizes that knowledge changes over time.

It is the conservative world of 1984 that claims that they are always right and their science has not changed in over a thousand years.

You seem stuck on that theme. Is your brain in a loop?

[RumTumTugger]

So Starlight either was to cowardly to watch the video showing that it is the conservative readers of the bible that were anti slavery and those who read the bible like he and his liberal buddies do that were pro slavery. Or he knows he is wrong and arrogantly refuses to admit it.

[Sparko]

Yawn. I'd have been on the side of human rights for all back then, because I'm on the side of human rights for all. And it's quite clear that Jews, Gypsies, gay people, and whoever else Hitler was against, are beings who have a sense of self, memories, a sense of purpose, goals, aspirations, a sense of meaning, consciousness, the ability to feel pain and pleasure etc. Hence I'd have been defending human rights for them just as I do for all peoples now.

And likewise I defend and support the rights of the more intelligent animals who deserve to be recognized as "non-human persons" by virtue of their mental abilities. People eat them on a regular basis and I don't think that's morally acceptable. But you manufacture all sorts of over the top outrage about human infants who don't even have a fraction of the cognitive abilities of these animals that are being killed and eaten daily, and your silliness goes further than that and you even go to great length to protect fetuses (the majority of which get aborted naturally anyway). You care about clumps of cells that have not even yet developed a brain, but you are fine with killing and eating animals that not only definitely have a brain but whom exhibit a wide variety of high-level cognitive functions.

You are very inconsistent in your views.

First you argue that it is OK to kill infants and any "non persons" even severely mentally handicapped. Then you argue that you are for human rights for everyone and even extending that to intelligent non-human animals. Which is it? They are mutually exclusive.

[Mountain Man]

You are very inconsistent in your views.

First you argue that it is OK to kill infants and any "non persons" even severely mentally handicapped. Then you argue that you are for human rights for everyone and even extending that to intelligent non-human animals. Which is it? They are mutually exclusive.

Don't expect a straight answer. He exercises "situational ethics", meaning that his ethics are not consistent but change from situation to situation.

[Sparko]

Shunya,
I want you to understand the reason why you're going onto my ignore list.
You're going onto my ignore list because you don't tell the truth about anything.
At almost any point your assertions can be tested against real world data they are found to be flat out wrong.
You write what you hope is true, but it has no basis in reality - you spew bias and hate divorced from reality.

Here is the actual make up of the Tea Party:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-part...-they-believe/

Also, the Tea Party has a tendency to be better educated than the average American:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us...poll.html?_r=0

Your completely fabricated 95% white evangelical Christian claims fails on all three counts.
It isn't correct, not even on a single point.

Many other atheists here will say silly things but it is either presented as their opinion or they back it up.
Your posts are just ridiculous flights of fancy with no connection to the world as it exists.

-Meh Gerbil

To be fair, JimL does the same thing. Just spout off nonsense as if it were facts. Basically inventing the truth he wants to be true, even when it is not. Or as Adam on Mythbusters joked "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own"

[Mountain Man]

Or as Adam on Mythbusters joked "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own"

Are you sure that was a joke? The guy is an outspoken atheist who promotes characteristically naive anti-Christian arguments.

[Roy]

Chattel slavery was itself a liberal innovation in the first place, picked up by multiculturalists from Arabs and largely practiced by people who were comfortable living among blacks,

Chattel slavery is sanctioned in the Old Testament (Lev 25). I would hesitate to describe the Levitical codes as "a liberal innovation".

[Darth Ovious]

Reading all the liberals in this thread arguing that more intelligent people tend to be liberal is hilarious. Their arguments can be destroyed by one word. Japan.

Japan has an average IQ of 105 which is 7 points higher than that of the USA (98) and they are a lot more conservative than the US.

[Darth Ovious]

The above just does not jibe with your stated belief that mothers should have the option of killing their babies weeks to months after they're born if they decide they don't want them.

Just sayin'

Notice all those things were emotional and not intellectual.

[Meh Gerbil]

Chattel slavery is sanctioned in the Old Testament (Lev 25). I would hesitate to describe the Levitical codes as "a liberal innovation".

[Darth Executor]

Chattel slavery is sanctioned in the Old Testament (Lev 25). I would hesitate to describe the Levitical codes as "a liberal innovation".

That's not chattel slavery and colonial slavery pratices don't follow the OT slavery pratices anyway so this is just a red herring. Slavery was reintroduced to the west for a relatively short period of time as a result of coming into contact with Muslim civilizations (which practiced it gratuitously) and really boomed after the enlightenment. It was very much a liberal thing until it became a part of Western society at which point conservatives started defending it as liberals moved on to new and original forms of insanity and degeneracy. The cycle never ends.

[kiwimac]

Well, now you know this, you'll just have to die.