In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Jon Miller]

I think that most people agree that the Bible says that homosexual actions are a sin (although recently many (generally those who don't agree with Paul or the OT) disagree with that).

However, that says nothing about whether we should legislate it

if God wanted all of his laws legislated he would do that himself and we would be robots without any freewill

it is between a homosexual and God

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

BTW

I think that there will be homosexuals in heaven

Jon Miller

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
BTW, just talked to Chris 62 about the verses (and he looked them up). Only ONE of the four verses advocated killing homosexuals (the 2nd Leviticus verse). Another says homosexuality is a sin (1st Leviticus). The Corinthians verse says homosexuality as well as fornication and other sins will be judged harshly in the afterlife. And Romans 1 merely says homosexuality is wrong.

So THAT is advocated genocide of homosexuals? One verse out of the four?!

Try again.

Yes, if you write kill the jews then that would be advocating genocide, even if you also said a) the jews are evil, b) the jews are sinners, c) the jews are going to hell.

The existence of three other points does not change the point about killling homosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

If a homosexual repents, then yes.

For did not Jesus say that the tax collectors and prostitutes will be among the first to enter the kingdom of heaven?

"He who is forgiven much loves much."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, if you write kill the jews then that would be advocating genocide, even if you also said a) the jews are evil, b) the jews are sinners, c) the jews are going to hell.

The existence of three other points does not change the point about killling homosexuals.

Oy! Do not many Old Testament verses talk of killing in response? So if you quote an OT verse dealing with killing someone for stealing along with others admonishing stealing, would that mean you believe in killing people who steal? NO, don't be ridiculous.

This guy was looking for Biblical verses which said homosexuality was a sin. One verse said, in addition, kill them too. That means his entire ad was incitement to genocide?

Please, that is utterly ridiculous!

[Ben Kenobi]

The existence of three other points does not change the point about killling homosexuals.

Well, lets be thankful that Jesus has paid that price through his death, otherwise we would still be under the old law.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai, et al:

If you want to see the graphic abortion pictures, send me a PM, and I'll give you the link.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This guy was looking for Biblical verses which said homosexuality was a sin.

So now you know what this guy was thinking.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Stephen Hawkings was not born disabled. ALS occurred later in life.

There are people who want to kill all homosexuals simply because they believe that all homosexuals are evil and therefore they must die. Anything written with this attitude is hate literature.

AFAIK, Singer is different. His starting point is not hate. That's why it is not hate literature.

He starts with the ethical issues created by medical technology that allows us to keep people alive who might otherwise die. Is it better to keep a person alive, but in constant pain, or to let them die? Are we morally obliged to use all the technology we have to prevent death? Also, if we do nothing to prevent the death, is that any different from doing something that will hasten death?

Even though he may conclude that allowing infants to die is morally acceptable, it is not hate literature because his starting point is not hate.

What difference does it make where he starts as long as the result is the same, i.e., the killing of inocent children? I thnk that Singer is just more subtle and that is even more dangerous because innocent students of his are more easily sucked into his perverted ideas about ethics. Those ethics end with the death of innocent people who are not "normal" like him.

Anyway I think that Singer should be discredited by public opinion not by force of any hate-crime law. For some reason others believe that the laws should be used to silence those who oppose their particular moral outlook. Let's be consistent. Abandoning the principle of equal protection under the law will invariably cause more hatred not less. The way to counter this guy's ad is with another that demonstrates the falacy of his arguments not by silencing him by force of law.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln
What difference does it make where he starts as long as the result is the same, i.e., the killing of inocent children?

Hawkings had a "normal" life as a child and young adult that enable him to become a great scientific thinker.

Some children born with extreme disabilities lack the ability to think, communicate, physical movement, and live in constant pain.

Surely you can see the difference.

Apparently, your philosophy is to keep every person alive as long as possible, regardless of the pain you inflict on them and their families. How is that humane?

Originally posted by Lincoln
Let's be consistent. Abandoning the principle of equal protection under the law will invariably cause more hatred not less. The way to counter this guy's ad is with another that demonstrates the falacy of his arguments not by silencing him by force of law.

Yeah, that's what people said about the Nazis in the 30s. Just ignore them, or discuss it calmly. That really worked.

It is a simple fact of life that we need laws to protect our freedoms. Sometimes that means we deny people their freedom, such as locking criminals in jail. The important thing to ensure is a proper system of checks and balances.

Ignoring extreme hatred will not make it go away. It will only allow that hatred to fester and spread like a cancer.

We are not abandoning the concept of equality before the law. The fact is we maintain equality under the law.

The problem is that you don't understand the concept. You seem to think that a standard penalty is given for each crime. It doesn't work that way.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
OK, Inanticide Mr. Pedant. And you still evade the question in your attempt to distort the issue. Here it is again:

Why is a so called respectable intellectual allowed to advocate infanticide and the killing of people like Stephen Hawking (before he had a chance to grow up, in case you missed the fact that he was once an infant)? And it is not allowed for one to express his religious opposition to homosexuality?

As has been pointed out, Hawking wasn't born that way, so we'll ignore that specious point. And as for your them "not allowed to express religious opposition," that's bull****, as has been shown, since it wasn't the Bible verses that were the problem, it was the symbol plus the verses that got him into hot water under the local law.

Simply put, you defend the rights of Singer to express his views but not the right of Christians to express theirs.

No, I don't, because Christians can express their views without using images that dredge up violence against gays. Exodus did it. When has Singer ever taken an add out in a public paper with a picture of an infant with a slash through it? Never. Singer doesn't want to kill infants or encourage people to go around killing infants. His ethics, which he goes at great lengths to explain in his writings, are theoretical and an aspect of his utilitarianist outlook. It's also a way in which he advocates animal rights, as he shows that the value of a life of severely disabled infant shouldn't be more than that of a healthy chimpanzee. Of course, folks like you love to ignore that context and accuse Singer of calling for baby-killing, which isn't the case.

If Singer ran an ad in a paper calling for killing the disabled, with a picture of a disabled child with a slash through it, he'd be up for the same punishment as this guy, yes. That's because he'd be inciting hatred of the disabled. Does that answer your question?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yep. Biblical Passages against unbelievers = to a slash through a Jewish symbol or Israel do not necessarily advocate hateful actions and genocide towards Jews. Unless you think converting Jews or speaking against Jews in religious debates are hateful actions?

Which of those passages calls for converting gays? We're not talking about converting gays. We're talking about killing and exiling them! You'll read anything

Yes, of course, just run an ad with cites to Biblical verses. Like ANYONE WOULD KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?! Really? How daft do you have to be to believe that listing cites to biblical verses would make his point? What utter bull****.

You're not really this daft, Imran...come on. He could run the actual verses. You know, print the text? Since Bible verses are protected under the law, he wouldn't have had a problem and he would have made his point. Duuhhhhh!

Yeah, actually that is a pass. Since 90% (and that may be too low) of the people reading the ad will have no idea what it means without the picture, then yeah. They will say that Biblical verses are against homosexuality. That's clear from the pictures. Biblical passages = no homosexuality to a vast majority of the readership. What, because like 5% know that the passages say kill gays and cast out gays that the ad is a secret code to kill them? Please .

O lord, you can't be serious. The entire point of that ad is to either get nodding approval from people who know the passages, or get others to look up those verses if they don't know them. And then they'll see right there the calls for execution and exile. Again, the guy who placed the ad knows exactly what they said. Why would he choose such harsh Old Testament verses instead of ones that don't advocate killing if his intent were so benign?

A slight difference which does not matter at all in this context.

No, Imran, it does matter in this context, precisely. There is a big difference between saying the Bible does not condone homosexuality and saying the Bible = no homosexuals. The former is a religious opinion, the latter a call to eliminate homosexuals.

Because comparing the NAZIs to any other political/religious group is the same as comparing objects such as iron or water?

Imran, look up the f*cking word analogy. It's not about comparing the different groups in them. It's about establishing a comparison of a situation using two groups that are [b]otherwise dissimilar[/i]. Take an English course while your back at school, please. I wasn't comparing iron and water, that was the entire point of posting the analogy! It was showing that the subjects of an analogy are not being compared, merely the situations.

Analogizing some group with the Nazis is a very charged issue and is intentionally done to bring the group down. Why do you think Israelis get irate when someone compares something Israel did to the Nazis... because it is meant to say 'you are as bad as the Nazis', not a simple analogy.

Again, you don't know the difference between a "comparison" and an "analogy." Your ignorance of this difference is your problem, not mine.

Comparing someone to the Nazis would involve saying "Hey, you guys are like the Nazis!" Note that was never said, just made up in your (very thick) skull.

Thought you were a bit brighter than that to see complexities in the situation.

I thought you were bright enough to know that an analogy is as opposed to a comparison, but you'd rather make stuff up in your head...

No, it really applies every time someone is compared to the Nazis... and an analogy surely qualifies.

No, it doesn't, Imran, as explained before, several times. Learn the difference between comparison and analogy.

Analogizing Nazis v. Jews and Christians v. homosexuals is an obviously failed analogy to anyone with half a mind. Therefore an alterior motive (Christians = Nazis?) becomes apparent.

Thankfully, this is a strawman, because I didn't say "christians v. homosexuals." Once again you make up your own crap, because I distinctly said "extreme fundamentalists," not all Christians. Yet you leapt in with your shrieks of "you're calling Christians Nazis!" which was just an obvious attempt to cloud the issue and dodge the analogy. You can substitute extreme fundamentalist Christians with extreme fundamentalist Muslims and arrive at the same scenario. No more strawmen now, mmmkay?

I already answered the question, using anti-Israeli, anti-Judaism groups instead, if you opened your permanent shut eyes, blinded by your own bias. Right after I chastized you for comparing the Christians to Nazis. Of course your bias shows so greatly that you can't be arsed to actually READ anything, can you?

Yes, after your bull**** chastising for something that wasn't said in attempt to cloud the issue, you made some specious comments about anti-Israeli groups because you want to dodge the question. I'll ask it again:

If a neo-Nazi group ran an ad that said "kill/exile/dislike" the Jews, plus a graphic of a Jew or Jewish symbol with a slash through it, are you telling me that wouldn't be inciting hatred against Jews? No more obfuscation, Imran...just answer. Yes or no?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Hawkings had a "normal" life as a child and young adult that enable him to become a great scientific thinker.

Some children born with extreme disabilities lack the ability to think, communicate, physical movement, and live in constant pain.

Surely you can see the difference.

Apparently, your philosophy is to keep every person alive as long as possible, regardless of the pain you inflict on them and their families. How is that humane?



Yeah, that's what people said about the Nazis in the 30s. Just ignore them, or discuss it calmly. That really worked.

It is a simple fact of life that we need laws to protect our freedoms. Sometimes that means we deny people their freedom, such as locking criminals in jail. The important thing to ensure is a proper system of checks and balances.

Ignoring extreme hatred will not make it go away. It will only allow that hatred to fester and spread like a cancer.

We are not abandoning the concept of equality before the law. The fact is we maintain equality under the law.

The problem is that you don't understand the concept. You seem to think that a standard penalty is given for each crime. It doesn't work that way.

Hemopheliacs (one of the disbalities that Singer Says could warrant killing) do not necessarly live in constant pain. Of course my point with Hawking which you and Boris miss is that great minds can be lost to humanity because of the "morality" of Singer. I didn't know that Hawking became ill later in life so thanks for correcting me but why do you and Boris jump on this gnat and swallow the camel of the obvious fact that the morality of Singer would destroy the potential of a person similar to Hawking who Singer would kill because he is "not normal"?

You, like Boris mention the Nazis which is fine if it fits but why do neither you nor him mention them in relation to Singer? In Germany they certainly understand the correlation.

My philosophy is not to keep people alive as long as possible even if they are in extreme pain and I never said that. My philosophy is however to save the lives of handicapped children from the paws of people like Singer.

Finally, you, like Boris would punish one person who has sincerly held beliefs but not the other. Is there a reason why you give Singer a free pass? He directly advocates the killing of children. Is that a hate crime in Canada?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


...he [Peter Singer] shows that the value of a life of severely disabled infant shouldn't be more than that of a healthy chimpanzee. Of course, folks like you love to ignore that context and accuse Singer of calling for baby-killing, which isn't the case.

If Singer ran an ad in a paper calling for killing the disabled, with a picture of a disabled child with a slash through it, he'd be up for the same punishment as this guy, yes. That's because he'd be inciting hatred of the disabled. Does that answer your question?

First of all Boris I apologize for the heated debate last night. I had a bad night and I should have been more civil. Let's try to be friends here. We are obviously on different ends of the spectrum but that can be colorful too.

Thanks for answering my question. Of course I don't agree that it is a trivial thing that Singer compares handicapped infants to Chimpanzees but you being an atheist and me being a Christian the problem will not be resolved between us anytime soon. To give Singer his due I must say that I believe his views are generally consistant with a meaningless universe that "self organized" without the aid or direction of a supreme moral being. If we are all just animals then we may as well act like them.

[Tingkai]

Lincoln: Your gnat is the size of a 747.

You say:
1) Singer argues that killing disabled children is okay;
2) Hawkings is a disabled adult;
3) Singer advocates killing Hawkings

The obvious flaw is that Hawkings was a healthy child. Therefore, Singer's philosophy would not have applied to him.

Is Singer guilty of hate speech. I don't know because I don't know much about his work. From what I have briefly seen on the Internet, I would say no for reasons stated previously.