Rayman Pirate-Community

Then again, aids compensates for that.

Okay that was mean, but face it, that continent still lives in the 17th century or so. It's just a complete fucking mess which nobody can do anything about unless they themselves start making a stand and either start thinking rationally, although obviously that won't happen so soon if they keep being brainwashed by their parents and leaders how they should kill tribes that aren't worthy, and 'god' knows what other shit they are told. Plus, their leaders don't care for anything else except their own wealth, and 80% of all the charity money goes straight into their hands, just to be spent on palaces of gold and luxury. No miracle.

stan423321 wrote:If we wouldn't find a way to colonise Sahara/center of Earth/other planets, you're right there...

In case of Tobbe's example of Africa, I'm sorry, but as far as I know, people there are... thinking another way than you and me. Going married at the age of 9 for female and 14 for male (married! not fianced or whatever is it called!)and making almost everybody breeding (indicate that every male HAS TO have a wife in most of these cultures) are primary reasons of these people having lots of children. Elimination of these could cause a major decceleration of increasing population. As far as I know.

Why do the Africans keep reproducing like that, anyway? With their AIDS problem you'd think they'd have the sense to implement a little self-control...

They aren't so well educated and don't really know their own sickness. It's quite common to believe that having sex with a virgin will cure your AIDS in Africa. At girl's schools they have security guards and high fences to keep people out of the school.
They also don't have so much knowledge about using protection like condoms and whatnot.
And last but not least, having a lot of children is the only way you can make sure you'll have someone to take care of you when you become too old to do it yourself there. Their society is completely different from ours.

Ours is better.

They keep reproducing to.... produce... workers. Boys who will grow up to be subjects to potential money income. And girls who will grow up to significantly help the mother in cooking and managing the household (no sexism implied ).

Newsflash: The Bible is not the infallible word of god. While most people who posess common sense figured this out a long time ago because a lot of the things in the Bible are either contradictory or scientifically disproven, some YEC's still claim it is, because apparently scientific proof isn't good enough for them ("It's just a theory, not fact!" People who use this argument clearly know nothing of scientific nomenclature, because a theory is the highest form of proof you can ever have in science. A theory is actually "worth more" than a law of nature.). But now it has been mathematically proven that the Bible is not infallible, and so cannot be the word of an omniscient and infallible supreme being:

I Kings 7:23 wrote:He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

For those of you who didn't already figure this out: This passage states that π = 3.0, something that is obviously wrong.

Let me tell you all why abortion is not always justified.

One argument for abortion is that it is not killing, since the child hasn't been born yet. Now, it occurs that a baby is born earlier. In some cases even 1 or 2 months to early. But then again, if you look at it you can see it move, and even cry. The case is that it's not fully developed yet, but it it alive, and it can feel pain. It's the same after a couple of weeks.

A second argument is that sometimes if a child is disabled, raising it is to hard. Oh, come on ! That's ridiculous. So because something is hard to do one should just not bother ?

Simple : don't want a baby but you have sexual desires, just use preventing pills or whatever. So you can prevent something alive from suffering.

Of course there are exceptions ( Raping, mother in danger, all others i have forgot ).

Joshua822 wrote:A second argument is that sometimes if a child is disabled, raising it is to hard. Oh, come on ! That's ridiculous. So because something is hard to do one should just not bother ?

If parents feel it's too hard for them to raise a child for some reason(s), then they shouldn't risk trying.

Joshua822 wrote:Let me tell you all why abortion is not always justified.

*sigh*

Xenon wrote:Surely, the option to abort is down to the parents. It should have nothing to do with what's 'morally right' or 'justified'; if a mother feels she cannot provide appropriate care for the child then what the hell is the problem with aborting it?

One argument for abortion is that it is not killing, since the child hasn't been born yet. Now, it occurs that a baby is born earlier. In some cases even 1 or 2 months to early. But then again, if you look at it you can see it move, and even cry. The case is that it's not fully developed yet, but it it alive, and it can feel pain. It's the same after a couple of weeks.

It is living just as a plant is. But the matter at hand is there is no functioning brain or nervous system, thus the organism can't experience pain or whatever. Ergo, it isn't cruel to destroy an undeveloped foetus. If this is your view on abortion I'd hate to see your view on masturbation.

A second argument is that sometimes if a child is disabled, raising it is to hard. Oh, come on ! That's ridiculous. So because something is hard to do one should just not bother ?

If the parent doesn't WANT to bring up a child, what's the point anyway? Your argument about parental difficulty is not only poor but also irrelevant.

It is living just as a plant is. But the matter at hand is there is no functioning brain or nervous system, thus the organism can't experience pain or whatever. Ergo, it isn't cruel to destroy an undeveloped foetus. If this is your view on abortion I'd hate to see your view on masturbation.

Yes, but still, then again, you're also taking someone's right to live away.


And masturbation is something really different then abortion. Since you can't stop development of something that isn't in development. It's okay. Seeing also that there are millions of seed cells ( or whatever they are called in English language ) and maybe only one, two or sometimes 3 will be born.

f the parent doesn't WANT to bring up a child, what's the point anyway?

Read my whole post please.

[/quote] Your argument about parental difficulty is not only poor but also irrelevant.[/quote]

Sorry, i should have quoted, indeed.

2) There's something wrong with the fetus: If there's something wrong with the fetus abortion might be the best alternative both for the fetus and the parents. Let's say there's a high risk that a child will be born with a severe mental or physical incapability, like Down's syndrome. Raising such a child is extremely hard for the parents (trust me, I know people who have a kid with Down's), so abortion is definately justifiable in cases like that.

Tobbe wrote:Newsflash: The Bible is not the infallible word of god. While most people who posess common sense figured this out a long time ago because a lot of the things in the Bible are either contradictory or scientifically disproven, some YEC's still claim it is, because apparently scientific proof isn't good enough for them ("It's just a theory, not fact!" People who use this argument clearly know nothing of scientific nomenclature, because a theory is the highest form of proof you can ever have in science. A theory is actually "worth more" than a law of nature.). But now it has been mathematically proven that the Bible is not infallible, and so cannot be the word of an omniscient and infallible supreme being:

I Kings 7:23 wrote:He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

For those of you who didn't already figure this out: This passage states that π = 3.0, something that is obviously wrong.

Well, you think Jews from 2100 years ago knew about "not-a-full number"? You're wrong. And in case you mean there should be 31 or 32 "cubits": how was it counted? Approximately, I think.

So the Bible is the ""Approximate Word of God"?

This sounds funny... but yes, the "rewriters" of it had to make it understandable. Just imagine - how would you tell a Jew from -200 about second world war? C'mon, tell me how.

I think abortion is justified if the unborn foetus is suffering from some kind of disease like Down's Syndrome (which would make its life pointless, and destroy the lives of its parents, too), if the child was conceived through rape or incest (though I find incest so repulsive that I think anyone who commits it should be killed, pregnant or not), or if the mother is sick and the child is threatening her life, I suppose.

If the child was conceived through carelessness of the parents' part: tough.

I support embryonic stem cell research, though.

Downsies are really hard work, but some of the worst is when you get a kid like Juliana Wetmore and have to work extra hard to give her any sort of chance to live. Personally if I knew that any child I was pregnant with was going to have a deformity like that, I wouldn't want to keep it alive. In fact I'm surprised that she's still alive, most other children with facial handicaps like that don't live for as long. Juliana can hardly eat or breathe without all those tubes and shit, and I believe she's blind in one eye and can't hear.

Is anyone here in favour of eugenics?

stan423321 wrote: Well, you think Jews from 2100 years ago knew about "not-a-full number"?

YES!

stan423321 wrote:You're wrong.

No

stan423321 wrote:And in case you mean there should be 31 or 32 "cubits": how was it counted? Approximately, I think.

You suggest that the people who built this:



used "approximate" methods of measurement? No way, José.
I cannot be certain of this, but I think the basin on this picture is the "Sea of cast metal" from the passage I quoted - the object which allegedly breaks the laws of mathemathics.

Of course, the only thing this prooves is that the Bible is not inerrant and thus was not written by an omniscient supreme being. Watch this: [youtube]

spiraldoor wrote:Is anyone here in favour of eugenics?

Natural Selection is Nature's way of eugenics. Survival of the fittest, and all that. There is no need for us humans to consciously interfere, especially not by killing people (like Hitler).

And masturbation is something really different then abortion. Since you can't stop development of something that isn't in development. It's okay. Seeing also that there are millions of seed cells ( or whatever they are called in English language ) and maybe only one, two or sometimes 3 will be born.

The principle is the same: you're terminating potential life. Besides, there's no difference in killing a sperm and killing a sperm that is under early development.

So the Bible is the ""Approximate Word of God"?

It actually is, and most religious people are aware of this. After all, it wasn't written by someone who beared witness to the entire Jesus-born-live-die story.

Xenon wrote: It actually is, and most religious people are aware of this. After all, it wasn't written by someone who beared witness to the entire Jesus-born-live-die story.

Correct. It's not the word of any god at all. It, and all other "holy books" were completely written by men, and not objective men either. Again; watch the video I linked to.