(no subject)

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'm shocked, simply shocked that the cartoon community has such a low bar for truthfulness. Better to discuss that than the subject being raised.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, how about this? Marco Rubio Defends His Climate Denialism With Unscientific Rant On Abortion (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/15/3438179/marco-rubio-abortion-climate-science/)

“Let me give you a bit of settled science that they’ll never admit to. The science is settled, it’s not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life begins at conception,” Rubio said. “So I hope the next time someone wags their finger about science, they’ll ask one of these leaders on the left: ‘Do you agree with the consensus of science that human life begins at conception?’”

For lack of more polite verbage, is this a load of horseshit or what?

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

In fairness to badlydrawnjeff, it is good that someone takes some notice of which quotes posted are genuine. My own preference is for any misleading or falsely attributed quotes to be declared as such when posted.

[cindyanne1.livejournal.com]

Well, I always answer that life does indeed begin at conception, but independent personhood begins at birth.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

For me, personhood begins at separate viability but otherwise I take no issue with your position.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

At the risk of derailment, for curiosity's sake; what do you consider "separate viability"?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

24 to 28 weeks is what most medical sources cite for a fetus to survive outside the womb with biomedical intervention.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What part of it are you disagreeing with? Does "life begin at conception" somehow change your viewpoint on abortion? Does it especially matter?

If you want to talk about the subject being raised by someone who decidedly is not Jimmy Carter, it's probably good to wonder when Jesus talked about taxing the rich to ensure the government gave to the poor, but that's just me.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Uhhhhm, you heard of this guy called The Pope? He's got a few things to say about redistribution of wealth, and I'm pretty sure The Pope is familiar with Jesus and His Message.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the Pope isn't really much of a capitalist. He's also not saying "Jesus wants the government to do X, Y, and Z."

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Right. Jesus wasn't much of a capitalist either.

In so far as The Pope is the representative of God on Earth (according to the ideology that establishes a pope--yes, we are both atheists) when he says that Govt should redistribute wealth, he is kinda saying: If you follow the message of Jesus (and the RCC) then the Govt will redistribute wealth.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right. Jesus wasn't much of a capitalist either.

We don't know a lot about Jesus's economic views.

when he says that Govt should redistribute wealth

You'll first want to read his claims in context according to the official translation (http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-to-un-resist-the-economy-of-exclusion-serve-t).

he is kinda saying: If you follow the message of Jesus (and the RCC) then the Govt will redistribute wealth.

As long as we recognize that his position has nothing to do with the words of Jesus, however, that's the important key.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You are just wrong.

The words of Jesus, those are the things that inform the Pope's views, and the Pope's position DOES have something to do with the words of Jesus. You are entirely, 100%, WRONG, that his position has nothing to do with the words of Jesus.

It's almost like you don't know what a Pope is.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay, so tell me about Jesus's economic philosophy regarding governments and such using his words, please.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You're being deliberately difficult.

Ya know how the Constitution does not say anything about, oh, Tanks? Well, similarly, Jesus did not make any statements on credit default swaps, or CDO's or high-frequency trading.

SCOTUS, as appointed by the Constitution does for the US what the Pope does for Jesus.

Are you trying to be denser than usual?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Really???

It is almost always amusing when a self proclaimed atheist (even one with a degree in philosophy) attempts to tell Christians what they should believe and do. Even if the Pope was speaking "ex-cathedra" (which I don't believe he was) about wealth redistribution; how does this affect the non-Catholic Christians?

Seriously dude, there are so many things wrong with that quote, starting with the presuppositions that are implied, that the fact it was attributed to Carter is obvious for the reason given by Jeff*. (altho in fairness I accepted it as from him, due to some of (what I consider) outrageous statements he has made in the past based on different interpretations of what he considers a "true Christian"

*How many times have we heard his qualifications for being able to speak with such wisdom and authority on Christianity is because he is a Baptist and has taught Sunday School? Heck I have those credentials myself (altho I am no longer technically a Baptist) :D

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Not governments; banks. Jesus' attack on the money changers in the temple provided the rationale for the later prohibitions on collecting interest in Christianity and Islam. According to Steve Keen (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/10/22/commodities/myth-money-multiplier), without current banking practices being what they are—able to charge interest on credit extended—we technically wouldn't be practicing capitalism.

With this in mind, I'd say the interpretation of what Jesus had to say (or, in this case, what he did) is quite relevant to the discussion.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

He's also not saying "Jesus wants the government to do X, Y, and Z."

You haven't read Catholic doctrine then. Yes, the Catholic Church EXPLICITLY says that Jesus wants the government to do X, Y, and Z.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It matters because Rubio is attempting to co-op scientific language "settled science" and apply it to personhood, which as we all know, is a position of philosophy more than science. That you take no issue with the intellectual dishonesty here is disappointing but I know you find yourself in bed with such types so perhaps you make broader allowances than I would.

Evolution is settled science, definitions of personhood have next to nothing to do with biology. The only people on Rubio's "side" are the anti-choice zealots who still want to make abortion illegal.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That you take no issue with the intellectual dishonesty here is disappointing but I know you find yourself in bed with such types so perhaps you make broader allowances than I would.

I think you think I care about this a lot more than I do.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I know you more or less don't because issues like women's rights are non-Jeff problems, but even so, Rubio's muddled thinking on climate change should be worrisome to anyone with standards.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

know you more or less don't because issues like women's rights are non-Jeff problems

You're projecting onto me again.

but even so, Rubio's muddled thinking on climate change should be worrisome to anyone with standards.

It isn't perfect, no, but I'm also unlikely to hinge my vote for Rubio if the opportunity comes up on climate change.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's not projecting - you support the party of anti-woman legislation, it's one of those fact things.

I guess in regards to Rubio, it's more a question of you're a smart person so how can you possibly support someone who is either willfully ignorant or a liar on these subjects?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's not projecting - you support the party of anti-woman legislation, it's one of those fact things.

You call it anti-woman, but they'd disagree. As well as many women.

I guess in regards to Rubio, it's more a question of you're a smart person so how can you possibly support someone who is either willfully ignorant or a liar on these subjects?

Well, it would depend on what his opponent believed. Chances are they're both ignorant about certain things, so it's either abstain or go with who is the best option.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You call it anti-woman, but they'd disagree. As well as many women.

Ah, Stockholm Syndrome. ;-)