It never ends: Jihadi attack on Danish cartoonist
How about kicking off the New Year with a stark reminder that jihadists don’t just hate us because of Iraq and Afghanistan? The Religion of Perpetual Outrage hates all infidels. The targeting of the Danish Mohammed cartoonists is a lingering pretext to demonstrate that centuries-old, Koran-inspired hatred. If it isn’t cartoons, it’s always something else. From fresco rage to book rage to film rage to beauty pageant rage to Koran-dropping rage to cartoon rage to Pope rage, to ceramic Mohammed bobbleheads, it never ends.
Keep all that in mind as you read the latest on the attack against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard:
A man has been shot and arrested by Danish authorities for allegedly attempting to break into the home of an infamous editorial cartoonist.
A 27-year-old Somali national was shot in the arm and arrested after attempting to enter the home of Danish editorial cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, according to wire reports from Agence-France Presse.
AFP reports the man was armed with an axe and a knife at the time of his arrest.
Westergaard is a 74-year-old artist who drew international criticism in 2006 after depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a terrorist in an editorial cartoon. The cartoon, ran in several newspapers in Denmark and around the world, prompted death threats against Westergaard.
In 2008, three men were arrested by Danish security officials for allegedly plotting to murder Westergaard.
Remember what they told us:
***
Flashback October 2009: 2 Chicago Men Charged in Terror Plot Over Muhammad Cartoons
Flashback February 2008: Five Muslims Arrested in Mohammed Cartoon Murder Plot
Flashback October 2007: Terror Plot Targetted Dutch Mohammed Cartoon Publisher
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
The new forbidden cartoons: Muslim Minnie and Mickey Mouse
June 28, 2011 10:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 Comments
Bomb attack in Sweden: The Cartoon Jihad never ends; Updated
December 12, 2010 10:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
What else is new: Muslim initiates “Burn the Stars and Stripes Day”
September 9, 2010 10:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
163 Comments
Dhimmitude and Draw Mohammed Day
May 20, 2010 09:46 AM by Michelle Malkin
143 Comments“Kill these all KAFIR”
May 18, 2010 09:44 AM by Michelle Malkin
51 CommentsNot again: Another Mohammed Cartoon conflagration
February 12, 2010 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
67 Comments
Mohammed Cartoons redux: Make no apology for defending Western values; Update: Obama bows again
April 6, 2009 08:14 AM by Michelle Malkin
325 CommentsCar bombing at Danish embassy in Islamabad; Denmark responds: “We will not give them that victory”
June 2, 2008 07:57 AM by Michelle Malkin
47 Comments
Categories: Danish Cartoons
Nice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNewsBusters.org
» Reuters's Freeland: 'Anorexic' Americans Think Tax Bite Too Heavy When In Fact It's Dangerously Thin
MtsEdge:
Ummm, you HAVE come to the same conclusion we have (save the baby over 10 zygotes). We just want to know what is your reasoning for doing so!
Oh wow! chap and I posted at exactly the same time! Either we aren’t the same person or “we” are using two separate browsers and posting at the same time to maintain the illusion for the purpose of… ummm what I’m not sure exactly…
By “conclusion,” I meant that the zygotes weren’t worth saving. You’ve made yourself(ves) clear. Not worth saving. I say that they are. The obvious application of your scenario to the real world is for you to then conclude that abortion is OK, up to a certain point of development. We’ve covered this ground ad nauseum. I say abortion is NOT OK, and that it involves the deliberate taking of an innocent life, no matter the stage. Hence my reason for remorse. (How many times must I say this?)
My original post on this was brought about b/c Chappy seems to be willing to fight to the end (death?) on behalf of an accused murderer who has been convicted by a jury of their peers and who has exhausted the appeals process, yet is stubbornly unwilling to grant this same “due process” to the life inside the womb. That is what is inconsistent to me, the outsider.
BTW, I agree with Chap’s statement about not withholding DNA evidence. If that proves guilt or innocence, I’m all for it.
But not the same as shooting a baby in the head. Why?
MtsEdge:
Oh for god’s sake.
Firstly, we never said zygotes are worth nothing. Indeed, they could be slated for IVF, and worth something.
…but since you think one baby is worth saving more than 10 zygotes, obviously you think some innocent lives are worth less than others.
You have made yourself clear that a zygote is at least worth less than 1/10th of a baby.
We want to know why. That’s it.
So say you. Both involve acts of violence, and taking of an innocent life.
Your presumption and definition of life is exactly what we are discussing.
Why should I take your comparison of the death penalty to abortion seriously if you cannot even define what life is, or why one life is more valuable than another?
Zero, what would prompt you to save any child? Maybe that will help you to find the answer you seek.
MtsEdge:
The fact that it’s life has value! Obviously! I am not the one saying that a zygote is equal to a human life, but then, at the same time, says they would save one baby over ten zygotes!
WHY?
So you think a woman that has an abortion in the first trimester should be tried for murder?
Not IF we could practically do it in our society, but whether or not she SHOULD.
MtsEdge:
If a zygote is a life why are you letting 10 lives be lost in favor of one?
What is your reasoning?
Duh, zero. As she has said many times her rationale for not saving them is that she feels bad for it afterward. What part of that is not clear?
You keep having to say it because they keep ignoring it because it has no relevance to the point under discussion.
You are arguing from the result you wish to achieve (anti-abortion), not by utilizing reason to address the question at hand: Is a zygote the moral equivalent of a toddler?
You don’t want to admit it is not because you think that admission loses the prolifer argument.
You are wrong. It is precisely the failure of prolifers to admit what is grossly obvious that keeps them on the defense and out of power.
People don’t want to vote for people they can see are obviously irrational.
It seems as though you have determined that “guilt” and “innocence”, and perhaps “life” and “death”, are forever negotiable.
Wow. That is both nothing close to what I have said or believed nor in anyway relevant or responsive to anything here.
What is irrational about defending life at its earliest stages? To me, it is far more irrational to try to assign a point after conception at which life begins. The answer to this question in society goes well beyond whether or not abortion is OK. I think you know this.
Chap:
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
…or something… I tried to think of the most irrelevant, nonsensical thing I could in effort to one-up MtsEdge.
How did I do?
And Roland, are we now going to get into the baby vs. toddler vs. pre-teen vs. adult debate?
MtsEdge:
Then why are you saving one life over ten lives?
Wow! Look at her go! Another dodge as she slips down some slope…
That is not relevant. You, on the one hand try to obscure the real issue by talking about “life” as if it were a singular concept, and then on the other hand belie that notion when you place less value on the life of a zygote.
Why do you value the zygote’s life less?
You have demonstrated this in your persistence on behalf of the murderer vs. the life in the womb. It’s OK, I’d expect you to be breathtakingly surprised by the mirror being held up.
Nothing. What is irrational was you saying that as a response to what I wrote.
I did not say anything about not defending life at its earliest stages.
You keep insisting on confusing the argument about the moral equivalence of the toddler and the zygotes with the argument about there being any value at all to the zygotes.
That is plainly irrational. Those are two entirely separate arguments.
You say this, and yet I have expressed remorse. Whether it was a toddler or a zygote (or 10 zygotes) who was left behind, I would feel remorse.
MtsEdge:
Yes, but apparently, you wouldn’t feel as much remorse if you left behind 10 toddlers compared to 10 zygotes based on the simple fact that you choose to save one toddler over 10 zygotes.
chap, ol’d buddy, ol’ pal. I’ve answered several of your posts, and in return, have repeatedly asked only one simple question.
Yet you won’t answer. I knew you lacked integrity, but I didn’t know you were this much of a coward.
Oh well, if you ever answer my simple question, maybe I’ll get back to you.
Trollman:
Oh? What question didn’t Chap answer?
BTW, where do you stand on the 10 zygotes vs. one toddler in a burning building thing? Which do you save?
All we need now is William to make some long, drawn-out post describing some pretty basic biology and then just outright asserting his position is supported by science.
zeroangel said:
Now see, one thing we do agree on is that life is a continuum, and determining the precise moment a person/individual comes to exist (and sometimes the moment of the death of an individual, as in the case of severe brain injury, yet the body lives on) isn’t always possible. Thus we must refer to a “continuum of life.”
zeroangel said:
zero, I’ll be more than happy to answer your attempt at a counterexample, but on one condition. I will give you a substantive answer only if you will then answer one of my questions. I don’t want to waste my time if you are going to wimp out like chap. Are you game?
zeroangel said:
I think abortion (in most but not all circumstances) should be made illegal. Once made illegal, I think it is only fair that it carries a sentence comparable to other murders.
zeroangel said:
Hahaha! It is like the know-it-all atheist who foolishly thinks he has stumbled upon some great unanswerable question, like “Where did Cain get his wife from?”
Trollman:
…and yet, pro-lifers claim it happens at the moment of conception.
Yes.
So, a woman that takes a morning after pill should either be given life in prison or the death penalty? (Depending on the state).
You haven’t answered it yet.
I’ll stick to things like, “why didn’t the Bible condemn slavery?” or “on what planet is it moral to kill people to death for being gay?”
What? You mean this question?
My query about whether or not you believe in evolution is directly related to me answering that question. I promise you. So step up. Do you believe in evolution?
Well, now we agree on that and is a fine starting point.
That said, I never said it is WRONG for someone to abort after the first trimester. I think it would be wrong to abort after the fetus could be considered a human life. The trimester thing is simply an artifice that we have created. On one side of 90 days, I do not see how any rational person could call that fetus a human life. If you ask me the same question on day 90 plus one, you’d get the same answer 90 plus 2, same thing. As you recognize, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when a fetus becomes a human life because it is a continuum.
I do think that making abortion after the first trimester, even 90 plus one, ILLEGAL is okay because 1) we have to pick SOME cut off and 2) this particular cutoff is far on the side of where I am comfortable. Does it mean that some women can’t abort fetuses that I do not think are yet human lives? Absolutely. Tough for them. They had probably 2 months to decide.
chapoutier said:
chap, you don’t need to know what I believe about evolution in order to explain why you believe what you do about abortion. This is basic logic.
Either answer the question, or, well, I don’t really care at this point.
Chap:
Trollman absolutely does accept evolution:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=malkin+trollman+evolution+right4life
No, not necessary. I just thought it would provide a useful analogy. But my query was obviated by your admission that human life is a continuum.
Chap:
OK, well, he kinda accepts evolution:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/25/virginia-troopers-resign-over-no-jesus-prayer-policy/comment-page-3/#comment-472598
And is anti-miscegenation, apparently.
zeroangel said:
Some do, but not all. Not this one, at least. Whether a person/individual begins at conception, or later in develop, when a fetus nears viability, I can’t say. Furthermore, I’m not even sure if it matters in regards to determining whether abortion on demand is immoral or not.
zeroangel said:
Whatever the penalty is for similar forms of murder. I’m not a legal expert, so I can’t give you an ultra specific answer.
zeroangel said:
Patience. Next post, I promise.
zeroangel said:
A few things:
1. We’ve already been over some of this ad nauseum, so no need to go over that again.
2. “kill people to death.” What else would you kill them towards?
3. Nowhere does the Bible state you should kill people for being gay. The commandment, under the Law of Moses, was to kill those who engaged in homosexual sex. An important distinction.
<blockquote
Um…did you miss MY ANSWER, right above your post? Perhaps you are too dull to actually understand the answer, but at the very least it should be clear I have provided one.
Trollman:
Then, you get into grey areas about what is a pro-lifer or a pro-choice person. It’s also a continuum.
We got a legal expert right here! Chap, what is the penalty for premeditated murder in, ummm, what state did you say you are from Trollman?
Yes, I was about to correct myself, but I figured, “why waste another post? Trollman won’t bother with something so pithy.” I guess I was wrong.
Oh right, mah bad, killing people for committing a homosexual act sounds absolutely like something a moral, kind, benevolent, all-powerful deity would want done in his/her name.
Well, see…he backtracks and weasels out of it by leaving open the definition of “similar forms of murder.”
I need to know what he thinks are the defining characteristics of an abortion murder that should be relevant.
I got errands to run. I’ll see you all later.
zeroangel said:
What would I do if faced with this hypothetical decision?
#1. I would slap you for coming up with what is probably the lamest attempt at a counterexample I have ever heard!
#2. I don’t know that such situations present a right or wrong answer.
Consider another hypothetical: A train is coming and cannot be stopped. It is approaching a Y intersection. On track A are 3 people in their 70s, who are relatively healthy for their age. On track B, there is an 8 year old who has just been diagnosed with cancer (odds of survival are good, unless he gets hit by the train!). The track is currently stuck between track A & B. If you refuse to move the tracks, leading to the death of the 3 older people or the 1 younger person, the train will slip off the tracks killing all 4, plus many aboard the train.
Now obviously, you ought to choose one or the other (although I don’t think we should prosecute someone who refuses to choose, it is a tough predicament, and in the heat of the moment). But which one? 3 vs. 1, but there are other complicating factors. In fact, I could add even more complicating factors, but I think this is sufficient.
#3. I don’t know that there is a right or wrong answer to the dilemma you have presented. But so you don’t think I am trying to dodge your question, I’ll explain what I would choose, and why.
I would choose to save the newborn over the 10 single-celled zygotes in the petri dish.
Why?
In matters of choosing who lives and who dies, there are far more factors to consider than just the raw number of lives. Would you save 10 people that you knew were all about to die within the next 24 hours of heart attacks, or 1 lone healthy person who would live for decades to come? I, at least, would easily choose the one healthy person.
Now back to the newborn and the zygotes. The newborn presumably has a long life expectancy. The zygotes in the dish probably do not. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d think that most zygotes in a petri dish probably do not go on to develop much further before dying.
Even if we were to say these zygotes were to be destined for in vitro fertilisation, it is my understanding that the chances are small for any given zygote (although I would guess they let the cells multiply some before introducing them into the uterus?) that it will successfully implant and develop towards maturity.
Parents will probably experience far more grief over the loss of a newborn, someone they have seen, and have memories with, than the loss of their children as single-celled zygotes.
Bah, I had 1-2 more reasons, but they’ve slipped my mind. Ah well, this should be a sufficient answer.
And now for my question to you: If someone has a severe brain injury, so that they are in a vegetative state and he has no brain activity whatsoever. However, the doctors believe there is a high probability that, if you keep him on life support for a few weeks/months, he will make a full recovery. Is it OK to pull the plug on him anyway?
This distinction seems mighty convenient.
Now, I’m no expert on homosexuality (inasmuch as I hold no PhD on the matter), but I’m pretty confident that being gay pretty much mandates acting on it too.
Because, if it does not, as your distinction claims, then I am not heterosexual then? I mean, I do not act on said [non-existent] heterosexual impulses. Thus, per your distinction, I could be acccused of being straight despite never having acted upon it (and don’t intend to).
Ho ho ho ho ho.
Ooh, Ooh, I want to answer this Terry Schiavo scenario.
Under your scenario, a question must be asked: how long has said person been in said vegetative state? This is relevant because the answer hinges on it.
If said person (I’ll internalize it by referring to said person as “my mother”) slipped into a coma and entered a highly-deteriorated vegetative state two weeks ago and the doctors predict that she would make a noticeable (if not full) recovery in six months, I would probably opt to keep her on life support. However, the “probably” hinges on whether or not my mother included a “Do Not Resuscitate” request in her will. If there is no “DNR” clause, then yes, I am very likely going to keep my mother on life support in hopes that the doctors are correct. However, if there is a “DNR” clause, then whether or not said request is immediately honored would be debated by the next of kin based on the doctors prognosis.
HOWEVER
If my mother had been in a vegetative state for 20 years, and just now, January 4th, 2010, I been advised that there was a reasonable expectation that she would recover in six months, then yes, I suppose, brashly, “What’s another six months, eh?”. Of course, that would necessarily require me to have given “recent” thought to removing my mother from life support after having been on life support for two decades already.
So you can see why we need the length of time said person has been in a vegetative state prior to making a decision in your hypothetical scenario?
Trollman:
1) Actually, we have refined it to a burning building, but you ignored that.
2) You do know we can just further refine the hypothetical?
3) Like I said, let’s refine the question. Let’s assume all zygotes are prime candidates for IVF and have a very high likelihood of surviving. Hell, let’s assume its some future world where they can easily discern which zygotes will survive and that they can grow them and care for them outside the womb with damn near 100% success rate. What then? Leave the newborn to die in that scenario? You know what, ignore all that, let’s just say it’s 100 zygotes. Now what?
Putting aside the fact that that is currently an impossible scenario, (no doctor has ever asserted a brain dead person could make a full recovery) of course it’s not OK to pull the plug in that situation. However, you might as well say, let’s assume that a person was blown into little pieces by an explosion, and then let’s assume the doctors say he can make a full recovery…
Trollman:
Oh and before you go taking issue with this statement:
…you said:
…and what Jeddite said. BBL.
…oh one more thing. Trollman, assume now we are talking about 100 zygotes and the success rate is a steady 3%. Now what? 3 more or less guaranteed lives vs. one?
chapoutier said:
It is a simple matter of science. At the point of conception, you have a new human being. It sure ain’t an apple tree or a kitty cat.
But perhaps you are referring to something more abstract, such as “personhood,” or for those who believe in such, having a “spirit.” But since it is abstract, and largely a judgment call, who can say with any precision? And when in doubt, you err on the side of life.
If you are out hunting, and you see something move… if you’re not sure if it is a human or an animal, then you don’t shoot. You err of the side of caution, on the side of life. You don’t say, “Well, I can’t really be sure, so it’s OK to shoot.”
chapoutier said:
Sometimes, a certain level of arbitrariness is unavoidable. But surely you’d agree that we ought to minimize as much as possible how arbitrary our laws are.
Since we can never determine with any degree of certainty when a new person/spirit exists, we ought to err on the side of caution. And that would be at the point of conception – when a new human being begins to exist vs. the very arbitrary time table that makes chap feel warm and fuzzy.
Your position would be more defensible if you had gone with something that was less arbitrary – brain activity and a heartbeat, which is how we sometimes determine life/death. As far as I know, we can’t really monitor the brain activity of fetuses in utero, but the heartbeat can be detected around 4 weeks before the end of the first trimester.
chapoutier said:
Lol no.
chapoutier said:
Well, once again, I find myself having to explain to chap the obvious.
I don’t sit around clicking refresh, breathlessly awaiting the next post by chap.
chapoutier said:
I haven’t yet elaborated on that because I assumed it was obvious. Since you are the lawyer, aren’t there different kinds and sentences of/for murder? I’ve heard of people getting months, years, or even death for murder, depending on various things.
I do believe a woman seeking a “frivolous” abortion to be performed by a doctor is akin to someone hiring a hitman to kill a relative, and (if outlawed) should be sentenced similarly.
I do believe there is a difference between an early term abortion vs. hiring a doctor to perform a late term abortion, where the fetus tries to get away from the abortionist’s tools, before crumpling dead. I think we’d all agree, one is more heinous than the other.
With the morning after pill, it would be a very tricky matter, since probably the vast majority of the time, there was no aborted fetus.
And I would have some pity for the (partial) victimhood of those who have been lied to by pro-choice propagandists. Suppose we made abortion illegal next month. And then, 4 months later, a woman gets an abortion. Sure, she knows it is against the law, but having had the liberal propaganda beat into her for years – it is not a baby, not a child, it is not alive, or if it is alive, it is definitely not a live human, it is just a lump of flesh, a clump of cells and nothing more.
Being in a desperate situation, she believes the lies she’s always been told. It might now be against the law, but surely such a law is absurd since it is just a clump of cells and nothing more. But when she sees the results of the butchered fetus, she realizes she was lied to. She realizes she just murdered her baby and turns herself in. I have a lot of compassion for her. In fact, (putting aside the legal factors) I heard a story very similar to that just yesterday. It is a very sad thing.
How can you keep so many contradictory statements swimming around your head all at once? Does it give you headaches?
zeroangel said:
Aw come on, if I’m gonna take the time to lay the smack down on ya, I might as well have a little fun while doing it!
zeroangel said:
That is because you regularly make the mistake of judging things out of context.
Not for zero, cuz he will never show the Bible the benefit of the doubt, but for those reading who are curious, it isn’t as “mean” as it sounds. The Bible doesn’t just make homosexual behavior punishable by death, but many, many other forms of sexual perversion that have nothing to do with homosexuality are treated this way as well.
But doesn’t that sound like overkill, just a little? Well sure, it sounds overkill now. Just like to us, it sounds overkill to shoot people dead who are out on the streets past 6pm. But when circumstances are bad, you have to call for martial law.
While the Bible doesn’t explain why the penalties for these kinds, knowing the context of the people, time, and place, I think I know why there were these laws with the harsh sentences. All kinds of sexual perversion were associated with idolatry and the various pagan religions of that time and place. They often involved various forms of sexual perversion, as well as human sacrifice and butchering, torture, cruelty, and so forth.
The ancient Jewish nation was surrounded by this stuff, and was continually throughout its history being led into such forms of diabolical “worship practices.” So these harsh laws were probably there to “nip far worse things in the bud.”
So yeah, it sounds extreme now, but I think it would make a lot more sense back in that time and place.
And one not need move to the extremities of any continuum to safely conclude that one is still on the right side.
Have you ever looked at a color wheel? Start out from pure blue (8 o’clock) and move counterclockwise toward yellow. I feel absolutely confident in my assessment that at the 7 o’clock position, the color is still a shade of blue, even though it has gained some yellow and therefore made progress toward green.
Jeddite said:
People assume (probably because the media beats it like a drum) that gay people are always born gay, and there is nothing they can ever do about it. This is demonstrably false.
There was a study done of identical twins separated at birth. So you have two people with the same/nearly the same genetics, but with different environmental influences. They studied these twins where at least one twin was gay.
If being gay was purely determined by one’s genetics, then we would expect if one twin was gay, the other twin would be gay 90-100% of the time. But that wasn’t the case. In fact, not even close. I forget the exact statistic, but I think it came out that, if one was gay, the other twin was around 50% more likely than the general population to be gay, too.
So we know, let me repeat, know that at least some gay people aren’t “forced” to be gay by their genetics. The only question is, are any gay people forced to be gay by virtue of their genetics? That I don’t know how we could ever demonstrate or prove, which leaves the prospect of some people being born gay doubtful.
And we know that people’s sexual tastes can be molded significantly by environmental factors. I think the most likely scenario is that it is a combination of genetics and environment. That no one is “forced” to be gay, but some people are, due to genetics and/or environmental factors, are more “prone” to becoming gay. And I suppose that, one can reach a point where their sexual identity becomes set and unmovable.
Jeddite said:
That is false. One can be attracted to the same gender, but that does not force you to act it out. Suppose a man cheats on his wife. When she confronts him, he shrugs and says, “Hey, don’t blame me, I can’t help it that I was born attracted to lots of women.” Yeah, that don’t fly.
Why does it not surprise me one bit that Jeddite’s point flew right over your head?
Jeddite said:
The question is irrelevant, because in the scenario presented, the medical experts conclude that there is a high probability of a full recovery in a short time period.
It is/should be inferred in the scenario that the accident just happened. And there is no point to a “DNR,” since that tends to be agreed upon with the view that to keep one alive means likely keeping that person alive in some “substandard” state. Which is not the case here.
And Jeddite’s clarifying question was meant to get at the basis for that medical expert’s opinion. If someone loans you ten dollars and says they’ll pay you back next week. Next week rolls around and they say not yet, but next week for certain, and so on and so on…how many weeks do you play the fool before you decide to hire Vinny to take a lead pipe to your friend’s knee caps?
And again…
How can anyone be expected to answer any of your hypotheticals when you can’t even keep the premises straight in your own mind? Or are you going to somehow argue that “vegetative” with “no brain activity whatsoever” is not “substandard”?
zeroangel said:
Sorry, there was a large number of posts made in my absence, and since I don’t have all the time in the world, I quickly skimmed them.
zeroangel said:
That is fine, but I don’t think refining it will help you.
zeroangel said:
You’d need to refine it another step, that in this future world, not only could they, but they most definitely would “grow” these
10,100,10,000, do I hear a million? YES! 1 miiiiilllion zygotes into mature human beings.So this alternate universe is very different from our own. Here, a zygote in a petri dish has very little chance of developing into a mature person. But in this alternate universe, the zygote, like a newborn, is (virtually) guaranteed to become a mature person.
That, then, would be a very different dilemma than the original you presented. The answer might be different, too. But then, given how you judge the Bible out of context, I suspect you’d then judge the zygote answer out of context. “Well, that’d be ridiculous, choosing those zygotes over the newborn,” when in this hypothetical universe, it wouldn’t be anywhere near so ridiculous.
zeroangel said:
Is it impossible? Maybe, but this is a hypothetical. The sky is the limit. Perhaps human beings mutate slightly in regards to their brains, where such a thing does happen.
In any case, it is directly analogous to what happens with a new life – where there is no brain activity whatsoever, in a few weeks/months, the odds are good that it will develop into a fully-functioning human brain. Hence, you leave it alone. You don’t pull the plug.
So even if we could somehow prove that a human being doesn’t become a “person/spirit” until the 1st trimester, or the 2nd, or whatever, you shouldn’t kill a fetus that has successfully implanted itself into the womb, since all it needs is a little time to make a “full recovery.”
You’re trying to equate homosexuality with infidelity. I just want to be clear so I can laugh appropriately.
Jeddite said:
If I can interrupt your laughter for a moment, I should point out I was not equating homosexuality with infidelity. It was an analogy.
You see, just because someone is attracted to someone else, you still can still choose whether or not to act upon that attraction, whichever sex you are attracted to.
Yeah, thanks. It’s always refreshing to be told by people, particularly those who are not gay, what it is and is not to be homosexual. =]
At least you seem to be acknowledging more than WarEagle82 is willing/able to do: namely that physical attraction isn’t a conscious decision.
Trollman:
Ummm what? You think this makes your case for a benevolent, loving deity better? So god had to be cruel back then because it was the times? Riiight… it’s just inconceivable that the Bible was written by men and men alone (from a violent era). Why didn’t god just show himself personally to the Israelites and say in a big voice with thunder, “Stop treating women like cattle and quit murdering one another!” Oh, yes, god works in mysterious ways; like revealing himself to a singular person who everyone just has to take at his word.
Didn’t I just say forget the future universe scenario? Take our current world, consider some 100 zygotes with a 5% success rate (for the sake of argument, I’m not sure exactly what it is). So will you choose the zygotes?
Yes, it would be ridiculous, and that is where your ridiculous logic leads: to a situation where you come running out of a burning building carrying a Petri dish while a toddler dies an agonizing death, and you think this is the morally correct decision.
No, it is not, because in the one case there is already a person there with memories, a life, a family, etc. In the other case it’s a single cell with none of those things.
chapoutier said:
They aren’t contradictory. You can understand legalese, but you can’t understand my simple posts?
There is no contradiction; there is a distinction that we must keep in mind. I was talking about 2 things:
#1. A human being. That is, being a homo sapien. What determines if something is human? Their DNA. So a zygote from human parents, and a person in a vegetative state are undeniably human. That is science, not faith. They aren’t cats or dogs or lima beans.
#2. A person. And/or, for those who believe in spirits, having a spirit. This is what you probably meant when you spoke of a “human life.” Obviously a healthy, fully-functioning human in the prime of life is a person. But is a zygote a person? Is someone in a vegetative state still a person? For those who believe in spirits, has the zygote received a spirit yet? Has the spirit left the person that is in a vegetative state?
These things aren’t a matter of science, but are up for debate. And I don’t know how you could prove them with any kind of certainty. Thus the need to err on the side of caution.
chapoutier said:
But one does need to move to extremities in order to err on the side of caution, the side of life. Because once a life is lost, we can’t bring it back.
chapoutier said:
Lay off the drugs, man, lay off the drugs.
zeroangel said:
If you read the Bible, you’ll know that God did that, too. But it is like me telling my kids not to do something. They know I’m real, they know I’m there, and they know I will punish them if they misbehave. And they do it anyway, right there in front of me! Again, and again, and again… but you have a baby right? You’ll see…
zeroangel said:
You’re thinking of Islam, not Christianity. Many of the miracles and direct revelations from God were public events.
In Islam, however, it all hinges on the credibility of one man, Muhammad. In the earliest Islamic sources, there are no miracles. No one saw this angel that supposedly talked to Muhammad. No evidence of any kind, just Muhammad’s word. Well, Muslims claim one miracle, and that “miracle” is still there for us to see for ourselves – the supposedly miraculous beauty of the Koran in the original Arabic. It is simply too beautiful for a man to write, so it must be from God! (No, I’m not kidding, this is the supposed proof for believing in Islam).
zeroangel said:
Sorry, you keep changing the hypothetical situation. It’s hard to keep up. That is what, 4-5 different hypotheticals now? The fact that you are continually having to change your hypothetical situation means that you implicitly agree with me that they do not work.
zeroangel said:
Except that my logic doesn’t lead to that. My logic, in a world like our own, leads to the saving of the newborn, as I have already explained at length. It is only in a very different kind of world where the zygotes get saved instead.
But I see you did exactly what I said you were going to do:
Boy did I have you pegged! You import my zygote decision from an alternate universe, and port that answer into the present world! HA!
zeroangel said:
Well, a zygote do have families – a mom and a dad, grandparents, maybe some siblings, etc.
Furthermore, having memories cannot be a requirement for being human (since that is a simple matter of DNA), nor for being a person (since all persons begin to exist without any memories).
So if you don’t pull the plug on the guy in my example, then you shouldn’t pull the plug on the fetus, either. Glad we can finally agree on something.
Jeddite said:
Look, if you want to go on repeating the hollywood/lame-stream mantra that all gay people are born gay, then so be it. People can claim anything. But I’ll stick with the facts.
Including in the definition of “human being” a single celled entity is simply crazy.
As is claiming that “homo sapiens” is defined by our DNA, seeing as studies have shown it can vary by up to 12%.
I defy you to find any scientific definition that defines “homo sapien” in such a way.
I don’t believe he said all gay people are born gay. He said he was, as many many others claim.
You seriously need to be schooled on actual scientific studies concerning homosexuality. I just don’t know if I have the energy to do it.
This debate has become boring, since you are effectively in agreement. You and Chap and Zero just disagree on where to draw the line erring on the side of caution.
As to the debate on ‘gay at birth,’ you will never make any headway with Chap and Zero on that. They are believers. The gays tell them gays are born that way, and so they believe.
They can’t imagine a person could ever possibly rationalize the bad choices they made when they were 8 to 11 years old in terms of how they developed their view of themselves, their sexuality and their view of the world.
It is a religion for them, and they will cram it down your childrens’ throats, if you let them. “Indulge those feelings! It is good for you. Every fantasy should be explored. It will make you a better person. If it is who you are, then you are perfect just that way!”
After all, either the kid is born gay or not, so if he explores a little bit in fantasy, or maybe even more, but decides it’s not for him, where’s the harm?
All choices are equal. Aren’t they?
chapoutier said:
chap, show me where a human couple has ever given birth to anything that wasn’t a human*, and I’ll concede the point.
*National Enquirer stories don’t count.
chapoutier said:
Probably for the best, because I doubt I would have the energy to correct you.
Exactly, Roland. But these Internet debates can be fun in moderation, and sometimes people even learn from them.
For zero, he is stuck either agreeing with me, or finding some relevant difference from the guy in my example and a fetus. “It doesn’t look like us!” So if someone is disfigured to where they no longer look human, does that make them any less of a human or a person? “No memories!” So if someone has amnesia, does that make them any less of a human or a person? etc. He is stuck because his position is indefensible.
Of course, homosexuals are just the latest victim class created by liberals, but they still rank pretty far down on the “protected victim class list.”
I can’t imagine the hubris of someone who continues to base their opinion of the origins of homosexuality on their own limited personal experiences and observations, as a heterosexual, when it directly contradicts the experience of millions of ACTUAL homosexuals.
I also can’t imagine how one could try to explain this inherent flaw away by off-handedly, an unsubstantiatedly claiming, that homosexuals must be “making decisions without knowing they are making a decision” and expect to be taken seriously.
I know we agree on this issue of life at conception, but I would urge you to reread what you wrote here:
I take it this post means that you were unable to find a definition of “homo sapien” that relied on DNA.
Tell you what, since you haven’t found one, why don’t you go through and choose which genomes are essential to the definition of a human being and which are not. After all, you can’t simply say “a human being is that which has human DNA”. That would be defining a word with itself. You need specifics if your DNA based definition is to hold any water.
Trollman,
I agree with Zero about the zygotes. I am the one who came up with his burning building scenario earlier.
Having a particular DNA doesn’t distinguish its humanity at all …… unless you talk about its ‘social humanity,’ which is dependent upon the love of a parent and family.
Physical Humanity/DNA: Morally meaningless. I would still be human even if I lost all of my DNA, just as long as I still had my mind and memories and feelings intact.
Social Humanity: Dependent on the love of parents.
Legal Humanity: Point of society’s convenience.
Spiritual Humanity/Soul/Human Mind: A continuum that probably starts somewhere around where Chap wants to draw the line. In my opinion he is not cautious enough, but his line would sure beat the heck out of what we have now.
If he really thinks the line should be there at the end of the first trimester, it’s one more argument for him to become Republican.
So tell me your opinion on the studies that have:
1. found homosexual activity, often times exclusive, in every order of animals from bed bugs, up to great apes and everywhere in between (about 1500 species so far);
2. studies that have shown homosexuality plays an important evolutionary role by increasing the fecundity of females within that same grouping;
3. studies that have shown significant endocrinological differences and different gene clusters in homosexuals.
Chapoutier,
I observed what I observed. I experienced what I experienced. I know what I know from watching what I watched.
I cannot now say, “Aw, shucks, the gays all say something different from what I observed, so I guess I have to believe them.”
If you think my refusal to take their word for it is “hubris,” you do not understand the meaning of the word. What I have is healthy skepticism of the self serving claims of others plus some small faith in my own senses.
Oh and you are absolutely wrong about that study you cited. I have to luagh that you think it actually supports your position. A person with a monozygotic twin that was gay was not only 50% more likely than the general population to be gay (which would mean a 1.5% to a 15% chance, depending on who you believe).
THEY HAD A 50% CHANCE OF ACTUALLY BEING GAY! (Actually 52% 29 of 56) Do you know what sane people call that? “Statistically significant.” In fact, that goes in to the “Holy #@!& is that statistically significant!” range.
The most detailed study of homosexuality, using a Kinsey ratings rather than a simple “homo/hetero” dichotomy found 100% concordance of monozygotic twins, meaning they ALL scored within the 3-6 range.
It absolutely is hubris. And condescending.
“Awww…those millions of poor little gays choosing to be so and not even realizing it. Of course I see it, even though I have no personal experience with being gay, by choice or otherwise. But, no doubt, my second hand insight into the homosexual mind, gleaned from perhaps dozens of encounters over my life MUST outweigh the millions of first hand accounts from homosexuals because…well…they are MY observations.”
In case anybody still has any doubts, I totally brainwashed ZeroAngel and Chapoutier into believing the homosexual propaganda that I, as a loyal soldier of obscenity, must continue to propagate lest homosexuality not replicate itself and vanish from human civilization.
Still, if we are to believe Roland, then I have to wonder what said (see below) 8 to 11 year olds have in common in every culture on the planet (except Iran, as Ahmoujdidianeheajaiuhad said) that they would all make the requisite “bad choices” to be homosexual. That is, what environmental factors are 8 to 11 year olds in America, Britain, Brazil, South Africa, Ukraine, China, Japan, India susceptible to that causes them to “choose” homosexuality. Shouldn’t there be a dubious study on this? =]
Uh, no, Chap. That is what you do.
I suspect my disagreement with you is not so much about homosexuality as it is about sexuality in general.
The notion a person’s choice of sexual partners is based primarily on attraction rather than aversion is really rather bizarre. The choice process is obviously overwhelmingly one of deselecting, not of selecting.
Speaking just in terms of males, we were all born to develop desire to screw anything with a pulse. We all went through that. We developed aversions (many before maturing sexually). We all know it, unless we were woefully wilfully blind, or have blanked out our childhood memories.
Telling sensitive young males of 7 to 10 years of age that it would be ‘bigoted’ to develop any aversion to homosexuality is a poor idea unless you are eager for the society to have many more young bisexuals.
Are you serious?
Young males are more convenient and eager. It is easier to understand what they want. They don’t get pregnant.
If it wasn’t for all the hatin,’ it would be a nobrainer choice.
You think that the same thought process that drives whether we like big boobs and blond hair over redheads dictates whether we want to screw a dude?
Do gay bed bugs have the same decision making process? What about gay hyenas?
Pretty much, but you seem to have missed the point. Try thinking in terms of deselection rather than selection.
Small boobs look ‘male,’ and brunettes seem more frigid. Or big boobs look unhealthy, and blondes are dumb.
Don’t really know about those bed bugs of yours, but it could be with the hyenas, assuming your research is accurate.
However, primates are rather different than canines. Big brains lead to more choices.
Do you have any basis, besides your own observations to back up this theory of “deselection” and do you have any basis, besides your own observation to to back up your theory that one’s sexuality, as opposed to simply one’s sexual preferences, is dictated in such a way?
And yet, homosexual behavior is found in all types of animals, big brained to small. Curious, that.
So if I understand your position, 8 to 11 year olds make conscious choices to be attracted to and fornicate with other 8 to 11 year olds because 8 to 11 year olds are easier, more convenient and don’t get pregnant?
R U SIRIUS LUL.
BTW, there is an argument this would not be a bad thing at all.
Enjoyed the conversation, but I have to leave for the day.
No no no. They make the conscious choice (but then forget they made the choice) to NOT be attracted to anything else EXCEPT other 8 to 11 year old boys because 8 to 11 year olds are easier, more convenient and don’t get pregnant.
You missed the point completely, Jeddite. Try going back and understanding what I’ve actually written.
An 8 year old doesn’t say, “Golly, I want to screw Johnny.” It’s more like he gets warm feelings thinking about Johnny, and he decides he likes feeling that way, so he chooses to think about Johnny more, instead of thinking about Susie, who is a yucky girl, after all.
But, as I said, I have to go. So I will catch your clever reply later.
chapoutier said:
Lots of people claim they can’t change. Oftentimes, however, when we say “we can’t,” we really mean “we won’t.”
Do you, chap, have the hubris to claim that those who claim to have been homosexuals, but then changed, that they are wrong?
This is just chap doing the typical liberal moral indignation when a protected class is challenged on the facts. For liberals, feelings beats facts every time.
chapoutier said:
Which I take to mean you haven’t found a case where Ma and Pa gave birth to an apple tree.
This is a case of chap trying to argue some technicality because he knows he is losing – a distraction. Look, if you want to get highly technical, it is debatable what exactly fits into a species and what doesn’t. It isn’t always clear what should be considered part of one species, or when it should be classified as a separate species. It is more of a human construct we created to help us organize living creatures.
chapoutier said:
So when scientists compare the DNA of different species (as they do when trying to unravel the evolutionary tree), when they compare human DNA to chimp DNA, they are really just pulling stuff out of the air? After all, there is no such thing as “human DNA,” right?
If there are no differences among the DNA of different species, what is there to compare?! So either you allow for human DNA, or you are a creationist (and probably a young-earther at that!).
Roland said:
You (and others here) are not maintaining the distinction between being a human being (which is purely biological), and being a person/spirit/soul (which is philosophical).
If you lost all your DNA (whatever that would be like!), you would still be a person, but you wouldn’t be a human.
How the law defines a person is irrelevant to this discussion, because we are discussing what constitutes a human and a person in reality, not from a legal perspective. A “legal person” is whatever we decide to make it, but a person in actuality is a person, regardless if we pass a law or all agree.
There is a big difference in saying “DNA from a human” and having some platonic definition of “human DNA.”
FACTS??!!? Excuse me while my jaw drops from the floor. What “facts” regarding the origin of homosexuality have you provided here? You couldn’t even correctly interpret the findings of the one study you tried to cite in your defense!
Meanwhile I note that you have yet to “school” me on any of the three issues I brought up here:
This is what Roland said:
This is what Jeddite said:
This is what Roland said:
So basically, we’re saying the same thing but with different words.
I suppose you have some examples of this scenario being the case? I mean, there’s probably some evidence somewhere that a large section of the homosexual population are gay because they were spurned by Susie and her ilk at a young age? And then they never went back? Like, not in even ten years when Susie had grown into a nubile young adult female who suddenly has eyes for the boy who wanted to “mess around” with Johnny (we’ll call him “Frankie”)?
Is this one of those “facts” you purport support your side?
Please spare me the pop psychology.
Can you “change” from being heterosexual? Can you, if you try hard enough look at a dude and want to do naughty things to him?
I don’t claim to know a damn thing about the sincerity of their conversion. However, it seems that quite a few of these “cured” people fall off the wagon and/or have a vested financial/spiritual/societal interest in claiming that they are “cured” and/or have been told so many times by people they love that they are evil/going to hell/pedophiles that they will do anything to convince themselves that they are cured.
chapoutier said:
A couple of things:
1. There is something “backwards” (for lack of a better term) with homosexual behavior. Regardless if you believe in evolution, creation, whatever, a man (sexually speaking) is built for a woman, and a woman is built for a man. That is just a blunt fact.
2. Humans are different from all other (known) lifeforms in that we have a far greater capacity for logic, reasoning, self-awareness, etc.
What is natural for one animal is not necessarily natural for another. It is natural for a penguin to hang out in the buff amid freezing temperatures, but that is not true for humans!
Being more intelligent than other animals, we ought to realize the obvious truth about human sexuality. There is something backwards, broken, incorrect about men having sex with men, especially if they do it exclusively.
If we were all to be exclusively homosexual, none of us would be here. Nature itself imposes the “death penalty” on homosexuality.
Promoting people to avoid the obvious in reality can only inspire people to deny obvious reality in other respects, which is not a good thing.
I mean, my dog does all kinds of sick stuff; is that a defense for me to do likewise?
chapoutier said:
So we actually have a liberal saying having more kids is a good thing?!
chapoutier said:
So what? I have already said that I believe one’s genetics in all likelihood plays a major role in one’s propensity to becoming gay, at least, for some gay people.
So that is why you cited a study and claimed (incorrectly) it said just the opposite?
And at what point does “propensity to be gay” become “being gay”? Or does one have to act on it, you know, “seal the deal” so to speak?
chapoutier said:
You are right, I got it mixed up. It has been about 5 years since I did my research paper, and I mentally mixed up the comparison to the general public with the hard percentage of 50%. In fact, after I typed that, I paused for a second thinking that what I typed didn’t sound quite right, but now that you point it out, I am sure you are right and I was wrong. And that is a significant mistake on my part.
But before you celebrate too much, you are wrong about who’s position that supports. You’ve won the battle, but you’ve still lost the war. While I got the detail wrong, my point remains.
Again, if all gay people were born gay, with no choice, then we would expect 100%, or very close to 100%. You still have to explain why it is so (relatively) low. It isn’t 100%. It isn’t 90%. It isn’t 80%. It isn’t 70%. It isn’t 60%. 50% is a HUGE gap when you are expecting 100%. When you are expecting to get a 100 on an exam, and it comes back with a 50, you have to ask yourself why it went so terribly wrong. So get to explaining, chap.
That the long lost identical twin of a gay person has a much higher (though not even close to a 1-to-1 ratio) makes perfect sense in my understanding of homosexuality. After all, have I not said there is likely a genetic (along with environmental factors, and the individual) that determine the propensity of people becoming gay?
chapoutier said:
And for those who don’t understand what a Kinsey rating is, that does NOT mean that all twin pairs were gay. Fitting right into my beliefs about homosexuality (but not chap’s), all it means that if one twin was gay, then the other twin wasn’t a “hardcore heterosexual” (get your mind out of the gutter, that was the only phrase I could come up with). So whereas one twin was a “hardcore homosexual” (will this get past the filters?!), the other twin was sometimes gay, but sometimes somewhere in between – heterosexual “enough” to self-identify as heterosexual over gay.
But if chap is right, if one is hard-wired to be gay, why isn’t the other one always, too? Could it be that genetics is only one piece of the puzzle? Like what I have been saying all along?
chapoutier said:
Like I said, nitpicking a technicality in order to avoid the point. Would you prefer I use “fits a human DNA profile/range?”
chapoutier said:
Actually, I remembered one detail incorrectly. My interpretation of the findings, however, remained correct, and yours, incorrect. At least I will freely admit when I make a mistake.
chapoutier said:
I was responding to a lot of posts. I did get there eventually. How long did it take you to answer that simple question I asked you? And then when I refuted it, you dropped it like a hot potato?
chapoutier said:
I’ve never tried to be attracted to the same gender. I do note that, over the span of my life, the things I find sexually attractive/repulsive has changed over time, with an obvious influence from my surroundings.
At this point in my life, I’d think I was pretty set in my ways, but at a younger age, perhaps. I think we all start out with a certain amount of “openess” to different things. Some of us probably have a wider range than others. But there can be no doubt that environmental factors plays a huge role in sexual attraction. Many American men are repulsed by women with hairy armpits and legs, but that is not true in other cultures, for example.
chapoutier said:
And yet you immediately go on to say:
And as Roland has pointed out, many gay people have a vested interest in claiming that they were born that way and can’t help it.