Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 19, 2014, 05:31:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality  (Read 9704 times)
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10825


Be honest...


« Reply #375 on: June 01, 2012, 02:01:18 PM »

I was referring to Nazis in general.  Please read above.

So are you speaking of the Nazi movement today or the folks who fought in WWII? Many Nazi soldiers were just following orders, much as our military does today.

Understand, I have no argument with your not agreeing with Peter Singer's opinions or teaching. That is your right. He is a controversial person. No doubt there are a number of people who take exception to what he says. But to compare him or his followers to Nazis is really taking a leap. The quotes you provided are taken out of context and obviously intended by the original publishers to incite a negative reaction from the reader. It's all good though, because it gets folks thinking and talking about these subjects. They are touchy topics and yet ones that should not go ignored.

I live in Oregon. Oregon has a "right to die" law which allows for death with dignity. This too is a controversial topic. I happen to agree that we should have the right to have death with dignity.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #376 on: June 02, 2012, 06:46:39 AM »

So are you speaking of the Nazi movement today or the folks who fought in WWII? Many Nazi soldiers were just following orders, much as our military does today.

Understand, I have no argument with your not agreeing with Peter Singer's opinions or teaching. That is your right. He is a controversial person. No doubt there are a number of people who take exception to what he says. But to compare him or his followers to Nazis is really taking a leap. The quotes you provided are taken out of context and obviously intended by the original publishers to incite a negative reaction from the reader. It's all good though, because it gets folks thinking and talking about these subjects. They are touchy topics and yet ones that should not go ignored.

I live in Oregon. Oregon has a "right to die" law which allows for death with dignity. This too is a controversial topic. I happen to agree that we should have the right to have death with dignity.

I think you know who I am comparing Peter Singer to.  I am comparing Peter Singer to all the Nazis responsible for the death of thousands of disabled people in the 1940s, simply because they were disabled.  

When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes.  That is not taken out of context.  Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation?  The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.  

I personally don't believe that Peter Singer is a fool or a bad person.  But his ideas are very bad and very dangerous, especially for a man in his position.  As someone said  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42592

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #377 on: June 02, 2012, 09:39:58 AM »

I think you know who I am comparing Peter Singer to.  I am comparing Peter Singer to all the Nazis responsible for the death of thousands of disabled people in the 1940s, simply because they were disabled.  

When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes.  That is not taken out of context.  Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation?  The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.  

I personally don't believe that Peter Singer is a fool or a bad person.  But his ideas are very bad and very dangerous, especially for a man in his position.  As someone said  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Completely agree.  Except for the part about him being a fool.   Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10825


Be honest...


« Reply #378 on: June 02, 2012, 04:25:19 PM »

When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes.  That is not taken out of context.  Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation?  The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.  


Excerpt of an interview with Peter Singer:

The Sanctity of Human Life
 

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.  As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.  That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do.  It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment.  That will often ensure that the baby dies.  My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely. 

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it.  And that’s a good thing, of course.  We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby.  It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child.  Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #379 on: June 02, 2012, 07:01:20 PM »

I think you know who I am comparing Peter Singer to.  I am comparing Peter Singer to all the Nazis responsible for the death of thousands of disabled people in the 1940s, simply because they were disabled. 
When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes.  That is not taken out of context.  Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation?  The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.  

I personally don't believe that Peter Singer is a fool or a bad person.  But his ideas are very bad and very dangerous, especially for a man in his position.  As someone said  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I'm aware of Singer's work, his utilitarian foundation, what he takes from Bentham, Sidgwick, etc etc. Could you provide the non-existant quote where he says what I have bold above. You are misinterpreting him to make his arguments seem much more weak than they really are.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #380 on: June 03, 2012, 02:29:16 PM »

I'm aware of Singer's work, his utilitarian foundation, what he takes from Bentham, Sidgwick, etc etc. Could you provide the non-existant quote where he says what I have bold above. You are misinterpreting him to make his arguments seem much more weak than they really are.

I have already done that.  Anything else I can get you, Mr. Magoo?
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #381 on: June 03, 2012, 02:30:14 PM »


Excerpt of an interview with Peter Singer:

The Sanctity of Human Life
 

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.  As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.  That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do.  It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment.  That will often ensure that the baby dies.  My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.  

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it.  And that’s a good thing, of course.  We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby.  It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child.  Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.



This does not sound any better.  Either way, when asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered "Yes."
Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #382 on: June 03, 2012, 06:24:44 PM »

This does not sound any better.  Either way, when asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered "Yes."

lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".

The first is true, the second is false.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10825


Be honest...


« Reply #383 on: June 03, 2012, 06:54:27 PM »

lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".

The first is true, the second is false.

Thank goodness there is someone reading these post who is willing to be objective about Peter Singer. Personally, I don't know or follow Peter Singer. However, I find it concerning when folks jump to conclusions and only skim the service when it comes to these matters. Jumping to conclusions is one of the things that gets all of us into trouble.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10825


Be honest...


« Reply #384 on: June 03, 2012, 06:57:31 PM »

This does not sound any better.  Either way, when asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered "Yes."

How unfortunate....you've made up your mind and thus it is closed to reasonable conversation. Well, don't feel too bad; you are among a herd of sheep who have the same problem.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20872


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #385 on: June 03, 2012, 07:02:31 PM »

lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".

The first is true, the second is false.
If my child was going to come into this world so fucked up, that he would spend his life as a vegetable, youre damn right id abort him.
What kind of life is a life where you cannot function on your own? Id rather be dead than be a vegetable my whole life.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10825


Be honest...


« Reply #386 on: June 03, 2012, 11:20:12 PM »

If my child was going to come into this world so fucked up, that he would spend his life as a vegetable, youre damn right id abort him.
What kind of life is a life where you cannot function on your own? Id rather be dead than be a vegetable my whole life.

And Shockwave, you are a rational and independent thinker. Kudos to you. I believe you get what Peter Singer is saying howeve unpopular that may be.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #387 on: June 04, 2012, 01:34:23 AM »

If my child was going to come into this world so fucked up, that he would spend his life as a vegetable, youre damn right id abort him.

Peter Singer is not talking about abortion.  He is clearly talking about killing born infants.  Clearly I am not the one who isn't reading and who isn't paying attention here.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #388 on: June 04, 2012, 01:41:14 AM »

lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".

The first is true, the second is false.

I am not sure what you are saying here.  How am I switching back and forth?  Peter singer says he would kill a disabled infant and he says that is morally permissible.  You are agreeing with me above.  Why would he kill a disabled infant?  Simply because he/she("it" as Peter Singer says) is disabled.  The infant's disability is what gets him/her labeled by Singer as "Not a person" and it is what gets him/her killed by Singer.  Not the case with an infant who is Not disabled.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4111


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #389 on: June 04, 2012, 01:50:59 AM »

I am not sure what you are saying here.  How am I switching back and forth?  Peter singer says he would kill a disabled infant and he says that is morally permissible.  You are agreeing with me above.  Why would he kill a disabled infant?  Simply because he/she("it" as Peter Singer says) is disabled.  The infant's disability is what gets him/her labeled by Singer as "Not a person" and it is what gets him/her killed by Singer.  Not the case with an infant who is Not disabled.

It's not the infant's disability that causes Singer to not label the infant a person. The exact criteria were posted on the last couple of pages, repeatedly, which makes me suspect you are either stupid or just dishonest.

Which leads me to my next point: are you stupid or just dishonest?
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #390 on: June 04, 2012, 02:12:43 AM »

It's not the infant's disability that causes Singer to not label the infant a person. The exact criteria were posted on the last couple of pages, repeatedly, which makes me suspect you are either stupid or just dishonest.

Which leads me to my next point: are you stupid or just dishonest?

Why are you still here?  Are you stupid or dishonest?

And to close out my participation in this discussion

So, which are you?
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4111


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #391 on: June 04, 2012, 10:38:30 AM »

Why are you still here?  Are you stupid or dishonest?

Because, as much as I want to stay out, I can't just sit idly by while you blatantly distort the truth as you do.


So, which are you?

You first.

Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #392 on: June 04, 2012, 11:01:23 AM »

Because, as much as I want to stay out, I can't just sit idly by while you blatantly distort the truth as you do.


You first.



I am neither, and I am not distorting the truth.

You next.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4111


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #393 on: June 04, 2012, 12:14:19 PM »

I am neither, and I am not distorting the truth.

You next.

You blatantly distorted Singer's position - deny it to yourself if you must, but it's pretty damn obvious. Which leads me to my next question: are you stupid or just dishonest?
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9162

Getbig!


« Reply #394 on: June 04, 2012, 12:17:58 PM »

You blatantly distorted Singer's position - deny it to yourself if you must, but it's pretty damn obvious. Which leads me to my next question: are you stupid or just dishonest?

No, I did not.  Neither.

You must think these people are either stupid or dishonest as well:

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10825


Be honest...


« Reply #395 on: June 04, 2012, 06:44:31 PM »

No, I did not.  Neither.

You must think these people are either stupid or dishonest as well:

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

In each of these links, there is an excerpt taken out of context and a lot of personal opinion about Peter Singer. I posted an interview with Peter Singer where he addresses the topic of disabled infants and infants in general with reference to his book containing this topic. Did you not read the interview at all?

No matter how hard you try to simplify and misrepresent Peter Singer, you fail. You cannot simply point to a link that contains an out of context quote and use that as proof of your point. BTW taken out of context generally means without all of the details. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of an utterance in order to assign undue importance or meaning to a part of it. For example: Joe says "I think Fred is not a man to trifle with." The CNN network anchorman gleefully reports it as "Joe says Fred is not a man." That is taking Joe's words out of context. In this case Peter Singers view are have more depth than you are allowing for.

Taken out of context is a form of a lie. Therefore to do so is being dishonest. If you didn't realize with all the provided information, that you were continuing to be dishonest then you are lacking in intelligence.
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6516


Never question my instincts.


« Reply #396 on: June 04, 2012, 07:14:24 PM »

.


* somepeoplearegay.jpg (29.59 KB, 500x375 - viewed 118 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

G
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #397 on: June 04, 2012, 07:17:09 PM »

In each of these links, there is an excerpt taken out of context and a lot of personal opinion about Peter Singer. I posted an interview with Peter Singer where he addresses the topic of disabled infants and infants in general with reference to his book containing this topic. Did you not read the interview at all?

No matter how hard you try to simplify and misrepresent Peter Singer, you fail. You cannot simply point to a link that contains an out of context quote and use that as proof of your point. BTW taken out of context generally means without all of the details. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of an utterance in order to assign undue importance or meaning to a part of it. For example: Joe says "I think Fred is not a man to trifle with." The CNN network anchorman gleefully reports it as "Joe says Fred is not a man." That is taking Joe's words out of context. In this case Peter Singers view are have more depth than you are allowing for.

Taken out of context is a form of a lie. Therefore to do so is being dishonest. If you didn't realize with all the provided information, that you were continuing to be dishonest then you are lacking in intelligence.

This. But Primemuscle, I wouldn't put too much effort in your responses to Loco. He has a tendency of ignoring what he doesn't agree with and reposting saved links and stuff with bold words, usually out of context, to back up his original position. He'll do it over and over then resort to name-calling or a red herring to distract from the argument. Either he's too dishonest to engage productively in an argument or he's too dumb. I bet his reply to this will only be something against me personally, and not refuting anything I've said.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42592

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #398 on: June 04, 2012, 08:31:30 PM »

Unlike many of the people who post on this site, loco backs up what he says.  You may not agree with what he says, or his interpretation, but he doesn't just make stuff up. 

And he's absolutely right about Singer. 
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16102


Getbig!


« Reply #399 on: June 04, 2012, 08:36:51 PM »

.

And many people think homosexuality is sin. Get over it!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!