The legal system says OJ Simpson did not commit murder, so it must be true
Advertisement
by Crockerland » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:34 am
by Holy Tedalonia » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:34 am
Petrolheadia wrote:Holy Tedalonia wrote:Moreso kill. I have not yet seen a law saying machinery can't kill.
Murder is the illegal form of killing, so it is moreso likely that it would be killing.
You can't kill something with no conscience, unless you think scrapyard workers are mass-murderers.
And fetuses don't have it until about 24th week.
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:37 am
by The Galactic Liberal Democracy » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:37 am
Kyrinasaj wrote:They're both just very ambiguous terms to simplify political debate, so yes it is misleading
Cossack Khanate wrote:This shall forever be known as World War Sh*t: Newark Aggression. Now if I see one more troop deployed, I will call on the force of all the Hindu gods to reverse time and wipe your race of the face of the planet. Cease.
The Black Party wrote:(TBP kamikaze's into all 99999999999 nukes before they hit our territory because we just have that many pilots ready to die for dah blak regime, we also counter-attack into your nation with our entire population of 45 million because this RP allows it.)
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Galatic Liberal Democracy short-circuits all of NS with FACTS and LOGIC
by Petrolheadia » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:37 am
Holy Tedalonia wrote:Petrolheadia wrote:You can't kill something with no conscience, unless you think scrapyard workers are mass-murderers.
And fetuses don't have it until about 24th week.
Did you read my text, I said kill not murder.
I'm assuming you consider euthanasia, and the killing of those who are in deep coma's and etc completely ok.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:41 am
The Free Joy State wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Yeah, the latter's always struck me as a more meaningful argument.
Who gets to say where "body" ends and "everything else" begins? If you are physically required to show up, in person, for jury duty, are they "using your body" too?
Pro-choice doesn't even begin to describe EITHER of these philosophies being expressed anyway, let alone criticisms thereof. Its use discredits everyone who has ever used it.
When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver?
No?
Then it's not comparable.
What did you say? You "support abortion access"? Are you quite sure about that, because -- after that nod-of-the-head platitude -- I can't help but note that you're making a lot of pro-life arguments.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by BigOstan » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:42 am
The Free Joy State wrote:When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver?
The Free Joy State wrote: Could you die with dangerous high blood pressure due to doing jury duty?
by The Free Joy State » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:43 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver?
No?
Then it's not comparable.
What did you say? You "support abortion access"? Are you quite sure about that, because -- after that nod-of-the-head platitude -- I can't help but note that you're making a lot of pro-life arguments.
Congratulations, you have discredited yourself.
Imagine that. Accused of lying precisely because I'm too honest to go along with empty platitudes. Guess that's what happens when you're the only one not taken in by this "political cause first, principles second" fad.
by Galloism » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:43 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Galloism wrote:To be honest, the former is a better straight up argument in my opinion.
After all, if my cousin is dying and needs a kidney, he has no right to mine - even though I can live perfectly well with only one.
The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.
Emphasis mine. Keeping both kidneys isn't just a matter of "bodily autonomy for its own sake." It also means that if one of your kidneys fails, you don't have a spare. Even if it doesn't, there's also the stress of that fact hanging over your head.
Also, requiring people to provide others your kidneys gives them less incentive to take care of their own.
Abortion is perfectly legal by default. The right to it doesn't depend upon how good a reason someone has to abort.
by Galloism » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:44 am
BigOstan wrote:Galloism wrote:The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.
Should people be required to perform CPR if they think someone needs it and there's no threat to their safety? It seems like another case of my self-determination vs someone's life, but law often makes a different decision here.
by Eglaecia » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:45 am
by Crockerland » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:45 am
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:48 am
The Free Joy State wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Congratulations, you have discredited yourself.
Imagine that. Accused of lying precisely because I'm too honest to go along with empty platitudes. Guess that's what happens when you're the only one not taken in by this "political cause first, principles second" fad.
I have more to do than going through years of other people's posts. Imagine that.
My points about how non-comparable jury duty and pregnancy are still stand.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:51 am
Crockerland wrote:Who do you think came up with the definition of murder exactly? Either the legal system is infallible in determining what murder is and isn't, and thus OJ Simpson didn't commit murder, or it isn't, and thus appealing to it's opinion on the definition of murder is pointless.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:55 am
The New California Republic wrote:Crockerland wrote:"I can't debunk this, b-but.... uhhh... this isn't comparable!! "
Of course I can't debunk something that isn't comparable.Crockerland wrote:Who do you think came up with the definition of murder exactly? Either the legal system is infallible in determining what murder is and isn't, and thus OJ Simpson didn't commit murder, or it isn't, and thus appealing to it's opinion on the definition of murder is pointless.
Defining an action as murder or not is different from implementing said definitions during, say, miscarriages of justice in a trial .
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Lost Memories » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:55 am
by Estanglia » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:55 am
Eglaecia wrote:Yes it is. The baby doesn't get a choice, only the woman who puts herself before a child. Abortion supporters should just hurry up and embrace the term "pro-abortion" (or pro infanticide) because let's be real, that's what they're really advocating.
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:56 am
Lost Memories wrote:What about:
Pro Early Human Rights
Pro Late Human Rights
(implied, the rights of a child)
by Estanglia » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:57 am
Lost Memories wrote:What about:
Pro Early Human Rights
Pro Late Human Rights
(implied, the rights of a child)
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
by Lost Memories » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:58 am
by The Black Forrest » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:58 am
Lost Memories wrote:
If we go by the focus of the debate, which the op wisely determined into: "Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof?" some better labels would be:
Pro Human Rights Asap.
Pro Delayed Human Rights.
The New California Republic wrote:You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".
It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s
by The Black Forrest » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:59 am
by Lost Memories » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:59 am
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:01 am
Lost Memories wrote:What about:
Pro Early Human Rights
Pro Late Human Rights
(implied, the rights of a child)
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:02 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bienenhalde, Big Eyed Animation, Boainn Bezy, Floofybit, Gaybeans, Haganham, Herador, Ifreann, Israel and the Sinai, Port Carverton, Sky Reavers, Tungstan, Varisland
Advertisement