13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDead child. Defenders of the parents letting it die could perhaps argue it was about the parents' "self determination" in doing what their God wants. Dead black man. Defenders of the lynchings could perhaps argue that the lynch mob were exercising their "self determination" in doing what their God wants, if indeed that was what they were doing.
Yes how can that be, i find nothing immoral about exercising the right of self determination in matters relating to medical practice and yet i find lynching a man after a church service on Sunday to be almost incredulous. They appear to me to be so far removed as to be almost unrelated, infact the only thing linking them is that they may be religious ...[text shortened]... nd that you think that exercising the right of self determination is the same as lynching a man?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFI already have, he made a comparison. . . .He appears to me to be bigoted and hateful and ignorant as well. In view of his or your inability to provide any evidence to the contrary (his love or compassion) i have the unfortunate task of pronouncing him bigoted, hateful and ignorant. To what extent remains a matter of conjecture.
The question is, how do link divegeester personally to the murder of those 4000 people? You are dodging. Copy paste where you answered this.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am saying that letting a child die for want of medical treatment because the parents want to please/not displease their God figure ~ a.k.a. religious child sacrifice ~ and lynching a man because he is black, are both morally reprehensible actions. If the latter is done because the perpetrators want to please/not displease their God figure, then the comparison is all the more interesting.
Are we to understand that you think that exercising the right of self determination is the same as lynching a man?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFI don't think you understand self determination, the clue is in the term self. So a parent refusing doctors permission to give a child a blood transfusion is the same as watching a man being lynched and inviting all your family and friends and sending out postcards as well. Is that what you are saying?
Dead child. Defenders of the parents letting it die could perhaps argue it was about the parents' "self determination" in doing what their God wants. Dead black man. Defenders of the lynchings could perhaps argue that the lynch mob were exercising their "self determination" in doing what their God wants, if indeed that was what they were doing.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am saying that they are both morally reprehensible actions ~ the JW child sacrifice certainly being rooted in religious conviction ~ and the lynchings apparently/possibly rooted in religious conviction. That they are both morally reprehensible actions is the commonality, not the details of the unnecessary death involved.
I don't think you understand self determination, the clue is in the term self. So a parent refusing doctors permission to give a child a blood transfusion is the same as watching a man being lynched and inviting all your family and friends and sending out postcards as well. Is that what you are saying?