"The groups have been very vocal about their opinions on other matter... how is that not "making it public"?"
So the "Anti-Abortion" groups are also known as the "Death Penalty" group? Please show me that evidence. "Do you really think is an accurate analogy?" Yes, I think it's an accurate analogy. I would say it's more accurate to call the hardened criminal trash than the unborn baby. "They respond "God says no burning garbage."" And again, does it matter where the morals come from? The opinion that you seem to have doesn't appear to come from anywhere, so should I give yours more standing than theirs? They have a belief that the human fetus is life. Your opinion appears to be that it is not. So therefore, based on the belief that it is life and it is innocent, it's wrong to kill it. I know that there are people who don't support choice and don't consider themselves Christian, how about those people? "I respond that while I respect their decision to follow "God" I remind them that not everybody believes as they do." And so what? When an act is wrong, it's wrong whether or not you believe in God. Does it matter whether or not you believe in God to feel that theft is wrong? How about murder? Let's take this another step further - would it be ok to kill a child up to 3 years old if you didn't want it anymore? I think your answer would be "No". This is an extreme case, but it differs only by degree from abortion. Matthew Small -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:37 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Science, for dummies > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:45 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Science, for dummies > > I wonder... why do you even care what else they care for, when they > haven't > even made it public? "public" in what way? The groups have been very vocal about their opinions on other matter... how is that not "making it public"? > Let's put it in different terms: > > You support the right to set your house on fire when it's inconvenient for > you to keep it. Some other people say setting your house on fire is > wrong, > but they support burning garbage. Now you call them hypocrites because > they > support burning trash but not your house? What does one even really have > to > do with the other? What in the hell are you talking about? Do you really think is an accurate analogy? Let's try to fix it so that it's more appropriate, shall we? I support a homeowners right to burn garbage if they wish to. They do not. I suggest that it's the owners home, so they should be able to choose how to deal with their refuse. They respond "God says no burning garbage." I respond that while I respect their decision to follow "God" I remind them that not everybody believes as they do. They respond "Doesn't matter, God's will be done." I suggest that they may have a point in some instances... some people, for example may burn their garbage in an unsafe way, endangering themselves or others. I suggest a series of restrictions: people will have to get a permit to burn garbage, they'll have to inform their neighbors before they do and so forth. They respond "No, God says no burning garbage." I ask them to consider educational campaigns informing people about public trash pick-up, the dangers of home fires and the toxic chemicals that can result from burning garbage. The educational campaigns will offer people an informed, non-destructive alternative to burning garbage and, if they do choose to burn it, will help them to do it safely. Hopefully this will reduce the number of people burning garbage and make those that continue safer. They respond "God doesn't like touching garbage either, not until you're a homeowner. Such campaigns would encourage our children to touch garbage before they own homes - we won't support them and, in fact will actively fight them." I retort that children are already touching garbage at an alarming rate: many children are touching garbage even in Junior High school! The educational campaigns would help to ensure that those children wouldn't turn to burning garbage and if they continued to touch it would understand the dangers. I even suggest that we might, enhance their safety by making rubber gloves and anti-bacterial soap available in the high-schools. "NO!", they respond, "Such things would promote the touching of garbage and invite children to it!" "But," I answer, "most of them already are touching it. Isn't it better to ensure that those that already are don't resort to burning it later?" "No," they say, "touching garbage is a sin. The only way to prevent burning garbage it is to teach them nothing about garbage in the first place. Period." "I don't think so. Our information shows that such programs don't work at all: kids still touch garbage all the same regardless." "Your lying. Touching garbage is a sin and children should be taught nothing about garbage so that they won't eventually burn it." Exasperated I take another tact. "Okay, leave that aside for a moment. What about homeowners? Since it's not a sin to touch garbage for them could we perhaps aim the educational campaigns only at home owners? So that they could handle the garbage safely and happily?" "While it's not a sin for homeowners to touch garbage, neither should they encouraged to do it often. Besides, such materials might fall into the hands of children and we can't allow that. Also, it doesn't matter if the places that provide the information also provide information about burning garbage." "But they have to provide information about burning garbage: some people may still choose to burn garbage. I assure you that they will be encouraged to find alternatives to burning garbage and that burning garbage will only be suggested as a last resort, but burning garbage is legal and we must support that law." "Then make it illegal to burn garbage." "No - that would go against all the freedoms we stand for. I personally don't like burning garbage and will never do it myself, but I will defend other's right to do it if they choose." "No, make it illegal: God says it's wrong." "But that doesn't matter... our laws aren't religiously based." "They should be. Make it illegal." "This is getting us nowhere." I try another tact. "In some, very rare, cases burning garbage is necessary." "No it isn't. It's wrong. God says so." "Bear with me. We've had some cases were the homeowner was very poor and couldn't afford to take care of their garbage any other way." "That doesn't matter. Burning garbage is wrong. GOD SAYS SO." "Perhaps then you could offer to take care of some of the garbage in the poorer areas?" "No. That's their problem. If they followed God in the first place they wouldn't be poor." "We've had other cases where relatives of the homeowner have begun dumping their garbage on the homeowner's lawn or even a few cases where criminals have dumped garbage on a homeowner's lawn! It's not right that the homeowner should be expected to take care of that garbage - they should be allowed to burn it." "No. Burning garbage is always wrong. No matter what." ..... and so forth. The situation can't be solved because although one side is willing to compromise they are not willing to eliminate the choice completely. The other side is unwilling to compromise to reduce the occurrence of the thing: they will only consider complete elimination of the thing. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:174523 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54