forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Very true, Jyn, and important to say.

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Very true, Jyn, and important to say.

Look again (hint: more closely) and tell me where I said they all do (another hint: I didn't :) )

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Very true, Jyn, and important to say.

Look again (hint: more closely) and tell me where I said they all do (another hint: I didn't :) )

I know, I was just harnessing my inner obnoxious chaotic neutral lead

with this whole 1 innocent to save 1000 more thing
…what if some of those 1000 people were also innocent?
should those individuals have to lose their lives all for one person, when they've done nothing to deserve it?

Of course not. But I am not allowed to kill except in specific circumstances, and even then I have sinned. Only I have a good enough excuse.

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

I implied (but did not directly state, forgive me) that this incest was rape.

dom is being a little dumb tonight

Not more than normal.

domb

Ah, Ash. I thank you.

Dumk

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

I implied (but did not directly state, forgive me) that this incest was rape.

Then I'm confused on how you wanted me to respond

Exactly but Dom seemed upset that I said that instead of giving a proper response or whatever
Because ig telling him that he's spouting non sequiturs doesn't count as a valid answer to his quite frankly stupid ass theory. Sorry Dom. You know I love you.

Oh I am not upset, _{Except that some of you would theoretically kill me (I know your mindset and excuse you though.) but that's not really important.} Pickles. It takes a great deal to do that in a debate. everything is allowed to be said so you really have to mentally be ready. If I am spouting what looks like nonsense, that is because you don't understand, my argument is weak, or both.
And no. Non sequiturs are completely unrelated. What I said definitely was attached by multiple tendons.

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

Yes. If I look at it face on… yes. I am not to kill. So I shall not, unless I am killing someone who is being a danger to others by their actions.

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

I implied (but did not directly state, forgive me) that this incest was rape.

Then I'm confused on how you wanted me to respond

I am saying that if it is law, it is temporal. The law only matters today and cannot be depended upon for tomorrow.

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

I implied (but did not directly state, forgive me) that this incest was rape.

Then I'm confused on how you wanted me to respond

I am saying that if it is law, it is temporal. The law only matters today and cannot be depended upon for tomorrow.

It's 10:30 and I'd have no idea what you're saying even if I was awake, but laws take a long ass time to change don't they

Laws change. Theoretically anything can become legal.

Laws change. Theoretically anything can become legal.

"Commencing at the siren, any and all crime (including murder) will be legal for 12 continuous hours."

Lol exactly. Many things that were unthinkable are legal now. It will probably happen again.

Guess I better start training for the Purge.
Hopefully I'll be an adult when they eventually implement the Hunger Games.

Lol exactly. Many things that were unthinkable are legal now. It will probably happen again.

The gays have entered the chat

And things that used to be legal now aren't. Society changes it's mind so quickly. Look at prohibition, They said drinking isn't a good thing, but then they said drinking is a good thing and then it was a bad thing again and then it was a good thing and now it's an in between thing.

Lol exactly. Many things that were unthinkable are legal now. It will probably happen again.

The gays have entered the chat

Lol that too.

But to sum up.

1. I can't kill innocents because people shouldn't do that.
2. A parent cannot do whatever they wish with their child. Such authority is theirs to protect said child, not to donate their organs. It's the only good Paternalism.
3. Vaccines come from harvested human cells so I can't morally partake of them as it would be to protect myself with the blood of innocents killed.
4. Anyone who would kill someone else to save others bears the bloodguilt of that person.
5. So I can't do that and neither should anyone else because see 1.

well if i had a child (i know, highly unrealistic) that i specifically chose not to vaccinate, and they ended up getting the measles and spreading it to an immunocompromised friend, killing them within hours, would the blood not be on my hands?
or if my child got another preventable illness and i refused necessary treatment until they passed?

Hmm.
…
Nope! Because you didn't directly choose to spread measles. You didn't do something and it led to that happening. Now if you didn't take a safety precaution that was easy to do without a good reason, it might be your fault. But if you had a reason to not do the thing that caused the other thing, you're fine. I mean, think about if there's a random dude walking past you. Unknown to you he's off to shoot your bff. You don't stop him. Does that mean if you stopped him your friend wouldn't die? Yes. So in a way, you do bear fault. But it would be ridiculous for someone to point that out if they found Mr. Stokid walked by you earlier. Because why the hell should you have stopped him? You had a decent reason not too.

I mean, inaction is kinda the enemy of progress, right? At least, that’s the way I see it. It’s up to interpretation. My belief is, unless you or a person you are legally responsible for have a medical condition that prevents them from becoming vaccinated, then you should absolutely get a vaccine, not just for yourself but for your whole community. For people who medically cannot get vaccinated, it is a matter of life and death if enough people who are medically able to choose to vaccinate themselves and their loved ones. People need to work together to protect the vulnerable members of our community, and if getting vaccinated doesn’t threaten your life at all, why not help save someone else’s? By actively making a choice to not get vaccinated, you could be hurting others, and the full knowledge of the fact is available to anyone with access to the Internet or a library. Just my view of things, not trying to force it on anyone else. Have a good day everyone!

Yes, but if that stranger has recently talked about really wanting to kill your best friend and you see them casually walk past in the direction of their house with multiple weapons and despite seeing a cop standing conveniently nearby you don’t do a thing about it cause it’s not your business, yeah it’s kind of your fault

These illnesses are known to kill. If you are fully aware of this, choose not to prevent any disaster with those convenient vaccines, and still let your child go hang out with poor little billy, you should take all the guilt if billy ends up dead at age 7 from preventable disease.

But to sum up.

1. I can't kill innocents because people shouldn't do that.
2. A parent cannot do whatever they wish with their child. Such authority is theirs to protect said child, not to donate their organs. It's the only good Paternalism.
3. Vaccines come from harvested human cells so I can't morally partake of them as it would be to protect myself with the blood of innocents killed.
4. Anyone who would kill someone else to save others bears the bloodguilt of that person.
5. So I can't do that and neither should anyone else because see 1.

I agree with all of these points presented by Dom. I've arrived late, and with much confusion, but upon reading this I absolutely agree with every point and would just like to throw that in there. Thank you, Dom.

1. A parent cannot do whatever they wish with their child. Such authority is theirs to protect said child, not to donate their organs. It's the only good Paternalism.

You know damn well that that wasn't the point I made. If that was your takeaway, then fine, I guess it didn't get through to you, but don't think you can misconstrue my words and the argument I provided.

My issue with Vaccines is a little more removed from the actual vaccines, I have a problem with the fact that they do all of this work to get rid of a disease and it's completely eradicated to the point where we can't get it any more, And what do they decide to do, they take that thing and they put it in a glass tube and they store is somewhere. Case and point Smallpox. Why, why would you want to unleash that on the world as a Bio weapon. How messed up can you be to keep that stuff around. That's my problem with Vaccines, Why would you work so hard to get rid of something only to keep it just so you can wipe out a bunch of unprepared people.
Sure it say's that we research it just in case some one else decides to use it as a Bio weapon. But the fact that they're thinking that makes me believe their prepared to do that. If you get rid of it No one can use it as a weapon. It's removed from vaccines in a way but connected in another way.
If I have kids will I get them Vaccinated, yah probably. As a Mom if my kid got something deadly and I could have prevented it by giving them a shot, I would feel terrible. It's my fault that my kid is suffering. It's my job to protect that kid to the best of my ability. If I were the parent of a kid who physically couldn't get a vaccine and they got something and died from it. I'd be livid, because that's my child and someone killed my child by not getting their kid vaccinated.
I understand why you wouldn't do it, I understand that it's a moral grey area and it's a really really hard choice if you think about it from that stand point Dom. I just can't not think about the children who can't get one and then have the disease spread to them by someone else. The Parent's of that kid, Have you ever seen a parent who's lost a child?
"No parent should have to bury their child."- Theoden, LOTR
My mom lost a baby when he was two months old from SIDs. 36 years later, she still cries on his birthday, she cry's every time she tells a story about him. My dad cries when he tells stories about him, I've only seen my dad cry twice, when he was talking about that baby and when my nephew died.
My Nephew was three months old when he died. He went to sleep, rolled off of my sisters bed and a pillow fell on top of him. He suffocated. I don't think I've ever seen someone more distraught then my sister and her husband. I've never seen someone hate themselves more then my sister did because she blamed her self for his death.
Having seen that grief, having seen how a child's death effects the parent. If I didn't vaccinate my kid and they got sick with a preventable illness and then they gave it to a kid who died from it. That's my fault. I'm the one that caused that parent to hurt, I'm the one who caused that kids death. That's my fault. That's blood on your hands. That's grief caused by you.

I’m sorry to hear about your nephew, though my question is why was he sleeping in your sister’s bed when he was only 3 months old, and not in a crib like other babies…??

There physically wasn't room at their house to have a crib up.

That's quite unfortunate.. Once again, my condolences.