General Music Chat

Handicaps are a burden to society if they inhibit physical and mental capabilities to the point of that particular human being completely useless to society. I'm not paying money so a vegetable or some kid with incredibly fragile bones that will live for 5 years can live while I bust my ass doing something productive.

Seriously...you're a f******** a**-hole!

I resign from this forum and quit this site.

.

Handicaps are a burden to society if they inhibit physical and mental capabilities to the point of that particular human being completely useless to society. I'm not paying money so a vegetable or some kid with incredibly fragile bones that will live for 5 years can live while I bust my ass doing something productive.

Seriously...you're a f******** a**-hole!

I resign from this forum and quit this site.

.

If it makes you feel better, I am an amputee. I meant nonfunctioning handicaps. If you're cripple, you can still be useful to society by focusing on fields related to intellect.

If you're mentally handicap, but functioning, you can still contribute to society by doing manual labor. Hell, some mentally handicapped individuals have been able to achieve PhD's. I think one of my surgeons growing up had some sort of mental handicap.

Please learn to read within context, rather than taking things out of context and making assumptions and arguments based on emotion.

For that matter, it is RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS that were the basis of "LAW" itself. Do you think that the "Rule of law" has any place in civilized society? Thank religion for that concept.

Religious teachings were also the basis of scientific thought for many years. Religion is out dated.

Religion is "outdated"

THIS, we pretty much agree on, accept that A GOOD DEAL OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF is TIMELESS, and will never be outdated. The commonality in religions, of what we now call "The Golden Rule" for example.

But yes, MUCH of religious belief "IS" outdated.

Jimmy, once stated that the great thing about science is that when, previous scientific thought, is found to be wrong, by new evidence, it alters itself accordingly, updates itself if you will, accepting the new findings.

Many religions do this too, only far too slowly. It takes far too many decades, and official commissions, to change previous positions. But it DOES happen.

It is my hope, that many of the things I have discovered in my own search for truth, will help others to make UPDATES, and REFORM inferior understandings of the Bible, God and our relationship in and to, the Creation. It is as if, hundreds of pieces, of an enormous puzzle, have been revealed to me, over decades of seeking, and it feels like.... if I just had those few extra pieces, it would create a cohesive, potentially revolutionary, new whole!

I feel drawn, almost, to write a book about it, but I just don't know that I have enough of the puzzle solved yet.

In any event...

Most religions need various degrees of reforming, and modernizing.

But there are those out there, that understand this, and are TRYING to help it evolve.

Unlike you however (if I understand you, that is) I don't find religion USELESS, because many of it's beliefs are behind the times. Rather, I see much of it, as building blocks, the way basic math is to calculus. The New Testament built upon the Old Testament (for Christianity) and revelation was clearer in the New Testament, as to the nature of God, and particularly, His love for us.

And while I don't see further parts to the Bible as necessary, I think books bringing a better interpretation of WHAT IS THERE certainly are.

Much of the "WRONG" in Christianity is based upon interpretations handed down by respected early church fathers, who certainly did their very best to further illuminate scripture, as they saw it.... but I have found that they erred in far too many places, and the church has had to deal with THOSE ERRORS being "what scripture is REALLY saying" for hundreds of years now.

For that matter, it is RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS that were the basis of "LAW" itself. Do you think that the "Rule of law" has any place in civilized society? Thank religion for that concept.

Religious teachings were also the basis of scientific thought for many years. Religion is out dated.

Religion is "outdated"

THIS, we pretty much agree on, accept that A GOOD DEAL OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF is TIMELESS, and will never be outdated. The commonality in religions, of what we now call "The Golden Rule" for example.

But yes, MUCH of religious belief "IS" outdated.

Jimmy, once stated that the great thing about science is that when, previous scientific thought, is found to be wrong, by new evidence, it alters itself accordingly, updates itself if you will, accepting the new findings.

Many religions do this too, only far too slowly. It takes far too many decades, and official commissions, to change previous positions. But it DOES happen.

It is my hope, that many of the things I have discovered in my own search for truth, will help others to make UPDATES, and REFORM inferior understandings of the Bible, God and our relationship in and to, the Creation. It is as if, hundreds of pieces, of an enormous puzzle, have been revealed to me, over decades of seeking, and it feels like.... if I just had those few extra pieces, it would create a cohesive, potentially revolutionary, new whole!

I feel drawn, almost, to write a book about it, but I just don't know that I have enough of the puzzle solved yet.

In any event...

Most religions need various degrees of reforming, and modernizing.

But there are those out there, that understand this, and are TRYING to help it evolve.

Unlike you however (if I understand you, that is) I don't find religion USELESS, because many of it's beliefs are behind the times. Rather, I see much of it, as building blocks, the way basic math is to calculus. The New Testament built upon the Old Testament (for Christianity) and revelation was clearer in the New Testament, as to the nature of God, and particularly, His love for us.

And while I don't see further parts to the Bible as necessary, I think books bringing a better interpretation of WHAT IS THERE certainly are.

Much of the "WRONG" in Christianity is based upon interpretations handed down by respected early church fathers, who certainly did their very best to further illuminate scripture, as they saw it.... but I have found that they erred in far too many places, and the church has had to deal with THOSE ERRORS being "what scripture is REALLY saying" for hundreds of years now.

You're trying too hard. The bible is a compilation of stories, most of them violent or ripped from other stories written long before them. If you're going to read The Bible as a holy book, you should be reading the Qu'ran, The Torah, and every other religion's holy book to full understand what you consider a personal God. You should also be studying the occult, LaVeyan Satanism, and other holy texts. You cannot claim that one single book full of poorly written prose and old european propaganda is the source of all "divine" knowledge if you intend to place your faith in a personified deity because all holy books claim to be it's word.

I may have the window of months wrong, but it is something close to that. He is LITERALLY advocating the option to euthanize children ALREADY BORN!

Nice strawman. It's irrelevant to my initial argument.

It is not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is where someone substitutes a similar, but superficial or irrelevant position, for the true position, and then defeats the straw man he has set up.

That was not my intention in the least.

Perhaps the conflict arises from our differences in understanding the term "morality" or rather "morals"? That appears to be the case to me, now that you have made clearer, your definition (or understanding) of the term, as you see it.

When I speak of MORALS, I am speaking of ABSOLUTE and IMMUTABLE "virtues" or "rightness of conduct" that are UNCHANGEABLE, as surely as properties of physics in the known cosmos are unchangeable and consistent.

Whereas you, use the "descriptive" sense of the term, where MORALITY is based only upon what people "think" or "decide" that it is.

I find that use of the term potentially destructive, and even dangerous.

An example would be slavery in America. For hundreds of years, our society accepted it, even to the point of our laws, declaring that a "slave" was equal to 3/5th's of a white person. Because the MAJORITY of people accepted it (Previous to the Civil War) by your understanding of morality, this would NOT be a moral issue. Slavery could not be IMMORAL because it is what society accepted.

But morality, used in the "normative" sense of the term, as I use it, means that "right" and "wrong" are ABSOLUTE, and ABOVE universal public acceptance or lack thereof. In other words, my use of the term, would mean that "right behavior" is MORAL... REGARDLESS of what "people" think or decide for themselves.

And so, even in our DIFFERENCE in definitions, my argument is NOT a straw man argument, but a REAL argument, against the dangers of having public opinion, be the ultimate arbiter of WHAT "right" and "wrong" are.

Morality for me, is absolute. Whereas, morality to you, is based upon whatever mood the general public is in, in any given era.

You're trying too hard.

Honestly brother, I am not breaking a sweat in the least. We're just having a discussion... one among thousands I have participated in. I enjoy discussions like this, and I maintain a CONSTANT state of openness to being proven wrong. When this occurs, I readily accept the stronger position, and through the process, hopefully, gain a grasp on the fullest amount of truth, as is possible for a limited mortal to obtain.

The bible is a compilation of stories, most of them violent or ripped from other stories written long before them.

Not accurate.

The Bible is far more than a collection of "stories". As mentioned previously, it also contains poetry, philosophy, song lyrics, prophecy and history. And while some of the Bible contains "myth", much of it contains actual history. And while objective historians or archaeologists would dismiss what they would consider "embellishments" such as records of miracles, even still, they find much of the Bible's historical record to be highly useful and often accurate. For example, many Archaeologists will seek out clues from the Bible, when searching for high value targets in biblical lands, and this has, on many occasions, helped them find artifacts and ruins, known primarily through the biblical record.

Conversely, many archaeological finds, have helped validate the accuracy of much of the Bible, regarding dates, places, etc...

Some examples of this include...

Discovery of the water tunnel beneath Jerusalem dug by King Hezekiah, which the Bible details.

Jacob's well where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman.

The Pool of Bethesda where Jesus healed a crippled man

Discovery of a stone in the Roman theater at Caesarea which was inscribed with the name of Pilate (I believe even the existence of Pilate was previously doubted, as no records were known, other than the Bible's)

The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried.

The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred.

The collapsed, sunken walls of Jericho.

And just recently, Eilat Mazar, an archaeologist in Jerusalem, uncovered ruins of a heavily fortified area, including a massive gatehouse, and long fortified walls, which Eilat says is proof of the existence of a strong central government operating from the area, in the 10th century, about 3000 years ago. She has dated the walls to that time period, which comports with the Bible's record that King David and then Solomon reigned over a sizable kingdom during that time period. It is a fascinating find, because until now, archaeologists have believed that the existence of such a kingdom by David and Solomon, were largely mythological. This find goes a long way in disputing that view.

There are many other such examples.

If you're going to read The Bible as a holy book, you should be reading the Qu'ran

I haven't read ALL of the Qur'an, but I have read a good deal of it. I used to own two different English translations of the Qur'an.

The Torah

The Torah, also called "The Five Books of Moses" is a part of the Tanakh, or Jewish canon of scriptures. The Tanakh is included in the Christian bible as... "The Old Testament" , with the main difference being the order of arrangement of the books.

So yes, I have read the Torah many times.

and every other religion's holy book to full understand what you consider a personal God.

Well, I haven't read EVERY OTHER RELIGION'S holy books, as that would be impossible. But I have read and studied MANY of them. I read alot of the Book of Mormon, some of the Bhagavad Gita, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Tao Te Ching, various Buddhist and Confucian texts, even read a little of Dianetics though it is clearly a pseudo-religion, with no real divine inspiration, other than to make it's author, a former science fiction writer.... wealthy!

You should also be studying the occult, LaVeyan Satanism

I've read alot on the occult. And I have actually read some of Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible, but only various parts I found online. I think it is long ago out of print, and I wouldn't waste my money on it anyway.

You cannot claim that one single book full of poorly written prose and old european propaganda is the source of all "divine" knowledge

Well, first of all, the Bible is not "poorly written" and secondly, as I have stated on this very forum several times... A single book can no more contain all of the truth of God, any more than a shot-glass could contain all the world's oceans.

And speaking of various religious texts worldwide, it is my belief, that most "holy books" are inspired by God. It is simply my belief though, that Christianity embodies the highest truth available about God and our relationship to Him, and is more central to God's ultimate purpose as revealed through history. I still believe it can be beneficial to read and study OTHER divinely inspired texts as well.

Ultimately "ALL GOODNESS" is inspired by God, so that if you were to read any holy book, that contained moral lessons, such as the Golden Rule, or directed the heart from selfishness, to unselfishness... this to me, is evidence of God's inspiration.

From the perspective of a believer in the divine... Where else does LOVE and GOODNESS come from, if not the SOURCE of all LOVE and all GOODNESS? I do not believe it is even POSSIBLE to invent an aspect of goodness, which does not first emanate from the heart of God.

So finding moral teachings and truths in the world's various scriptures, to me, is like finding "pieces" of God's heart.

Handicaps are a burden to society if they inhibit physical and mental capabilities to the point of that particular human being completely useless to society. I'm not paying money so a vegetable or some kid with incredibly fragile bones that will live for 5 years can live while I bust my ass doing something productive.

If this reflects your honest opinion.

I rest my case.

I may have the window of months wrong, but it is something close to that. He is LITERALLY advocating the option to euthanize children ALREADY BORN!

Nice strawman. It's irrelevant to my initial argument.

It is not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is where someone substitutes a similar, but superficial or irrelevant position, for the true position, and then defeats the straw man he has set up.

That was not my intention in the least.

Perhaps the conflict arises from our differences in understanding the term "morality" or rather "morals"? That appears to be the case to me, now that you have made clearer, your definition (or understanding) of the term, as you see it.

When I speak of MORALS, I am speaking of ABSOLUTE and IMMUTABLE "virtues" or "rightness of conduct" that are UNCHANGEABLE, as surely as properties of physics in the known cosmos are unchangeable and consistent.

Whereas you, use the "descriptive" sense of the term, where MORALITY is based only upon what people "think" or "decide" that it is.

I find that use of the term potentially destructive, and even dangerous.

An example would be slavery in America. For hundreds of years, our society accepted it, even to the point of our laws, declaring that a "slave" was equal to 3/5th's of a white person. Because the MAJORITY of people accepted it (Previous to the Civil War) by your understanding of morality, this would NOT be a moral issue. Slavery could not be IMMORAL because it is what society accepted.

But morality, used in the "normative" sense of the term, as I use it, means that "right" and "wrong" are ABSOLUTE, and ABOVE universal public acceptance or lack thereof. In other words, my use of the term, would mean that "right behavior" is MORAL... REGARDLESS of what "people" think or decide for themselves.

And so, even in our DIFFERENCE in definitions, my argument is NOT a straw man argument, but a REAL argument, against the dangers of having public opinion, be the ultimate arbiter of WHAT "right" and "wrong" are.

Morality for me, is absolute. Whereas, morality to you, is based upon whatever mood the general public is in, in any given era.

A strawman argument is an argument based off your misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation of the opposing argument. I was referring to your extremely hilarious conclusions and interpretations on Obama's ideas.

My definition of morality is that there really is none. I do things that benefit me because I am selfish. Everyone is selfish. Even people who give to charity are selfish because in the end, they're doing it to make themselves feel good. Even if they're not benefiting materially, they are benefiting emotionally. Their self image is boosted because they did something that society would approve of, and in the end it's really done to fulfill yourself.

As for your definition of Morals, it is false. Right and wrong are man made ideas. There is no divine law with anything, and it would make no sense that, if these laws were to exist, that they would only apply to human beings. What use does a God have for such law.

The act of murder is considered one of the biggest sins, so let's analyze what murder (and death) is in it's most simple terms.

Murder is when one man puts an end to another man's life. When you murder someone, you are likely interrupting a process in their body necessary to continue living. What happens when a vital process in the body is halted? Well, it interrupts the other processes in the body, creating a chain reaction that eventually shuts down the brain, which contains that particular individual's consciousness. Now, what is consciousness? It's a series of interactions that occur within the brain, specifically the transference of energy. When you kill someone, that energy does not cease to exist. It ceases to interact, and thus the person "dies". The Law of conservation of mass states that matter is neither created, nor destroyed. When applied to the concept of death, one can conclude that death is not an end, but merely the body changing it's state. All the particles and energy in the body are separated by decomposers, which are eaten by larger organisms, and so on. So the "sin" of murder is essentially the "sin" of forcing someone to change state. Could we also conclude that the act of freezing water is a sin? Everything is systematic. Humans are self aware machines run by a series of interactions. Death is merely a critical interruption of those interactions, and thus murder is a series of interactions forcing another series of interactions to cease. What makes the interactions that allow a human being to exist more important than the interactions that allow rain to occur? The easy answer is God, but such an all knowing God would understand the true nature of his creations, and would not impose it's work to such limitations as morals. If God is an intelligent being, it is not a moral one, because traditional morals betray intelligence. Selfishness is the true motivation behind morality. Murder is condemned because you are afraid of dying. You are afraid to change state because you do not understand what it entails. You are selfish for wanting to stay in your human state, and thus you support the idea that Murder is a sin so that other will not want to hurt you for fear of damnation.

Why don't I kill anyone? Because I am selfish. There are other people in the world besides myself that do not have the same beliefs as me, and in our world one that murders will lose their freedom. As a human being, I value my freedom above all else. Your death does not benefit me in any way, and even if it did, it would only be a short term benefit, which is ultimately not worth losing my freedom over because I am the most important person in the universe. I am programmed to preserve my life, to preserve my freedom, and to preserve my happiness. Those are the only things I care about. Those are the only things you care about as well. The only reason you have friends is because they make you happy. You make them happy, and they make you happy. You are both selfish.

If it makes you feel better, I am an amputee. I meant nonfunctioning handicaps. If you're cripple, you can still be useful to society by focusing on fields related to intellect.

If you're mentally handicap, but functioning, you can still contribute to society by doing manual labor.

This is PRECISELY why supposed "logic" fails misreably, as a primary moral compass.

Doctors and researchers, are even now, re-evalutating what being "brain dead" or in a vegetative state, really means. There was a recent case, where someone on life-support, who showed no measurable signs of RESPONSE to stimuli in his brain patterns, and was in a vegetative state, just WOKE UP. Over MANY YEARS of time, somehow his brain had learned to re-organize itself, so that he could communicate once again. He shared that he was AWARE of people and voices around him, but he could not talk, blink his eyes... he had no way of letting them know, he was STILL in there.

It's opened brand new questions about the brain, and whether people in vegetative states, with diminished brain activity, are truly.... dead.

If it makes you feel better, I am an amputee. I meant nonfunctioning handicaps. If you're cripple, you can still be useful to society by focusing on fields related to intellect.

If you're mentally handicap, but functioning, you can still contribute to society by doing manual labor.

This is PRECISELY why supposed "logic" fails misreably, as a primary moral compass.

Doctors and researchers, are even now, re-evalutating what being "brain dead" or in a vegetative state, really means. There was a recent case, where someone on life-support, who showed no measurable signs of RESPONSE to stimuli in his brain patterns, and was in a vegetative state, just WOKE UP. Over MANY YEARS of time, somehow his brain had learned to re-organize itself, so that he could communicate once again. He shared that he was AWARE of people and voices around him, but he could not talk, blink his eyes... he had no way of letting them know, he was STILL in there.

It's opened brand new questions about the brain, and whether people in vegetative states, with diminished brain activity, are truly.... dead.

But is it beneficial to spend money to keep someone alive with the HOPE that some day they will suddenly be functioning again? No, it is not worth all the tax dollars in the world.

Cretindilettante

I know I shouldn't say this, and I know it's no way to have a debate...but I can't help it...

You are the dumbest f*cking person I have ever come across in my life. You're full of sh*t, and I haven't seen you speak even ONE WORD that had any true meaning to it.

The way you view life is just outrageous. To you, there is no value, and no purpose. You do whatever you want, just because you can.

You are not a "free-thinker", as anybody who has actually THOUGHT about ANYTHING would never view the world in the sick twisted way that you do.

I really hope you never have children, if you don't already. The last thing this world needs is one more person like you.

If you don't have your child aborted for not being pretty enough for you, he/she may just wish he/she WAS aborted than to have been raised by such a heartless, soulless piece of sh*t like you.

I mean, even JimmyDanger seems sane compared to you.

That is all I have to say on this Bandmix forum.

But is it beneficial to spend money to keep someone alive with the HOPE that some day they will suddenly be functioning again? No, it is not worth all the tax dollars in the world.

On the contrary, if these people truly are COGNITIVE on some level, it very well, may be wrong, to sentence them to a death, that they may not desire, merely because they cannot "currently" communicate that desire to others yet. Additionally, it may be, that because doctors are finding this a much more grey area than they previously imagined, that research could increase into this field, and who knows... potentially find a solution that could RESTORE many, if not MOST, of such individuals, who otherwise, are perfectly healthy people, aside from brain function, back to a vital and useful existence.

This "IS" within the realm of possibility.

Cretindilettante

I know I shouldn't say this, and I know it's no way to have a debate...but I can't help it...

You are the dumbest f*cking person I have ever come across in my life. You're full of sh*t, and I haven't seen you speak even ONE WORD that had any true meaning to it.

The way you view life is just outrageous. To you, there is no value, and no purpose. You do whatever you want, just because you can.

You are not a "free-thinker", as anybody who has actually THOUGHT about ANYTHING would never view the world in the sick twisted way that you do.

I really hope you never have children, if you don't already. If you don't have your child aborted for not being pretty enough for you, he/she may just wish he/she WAS aborted than to have been raised by such a heartless, soulless piece of sh*t like you.

I mean, even JimmyDanger seems sane compared to you.

That is all I have to say on this Bandmix forum.

I laughed out loud.

It's ironic, that if you ever met me in real life you would probably like me. I'm a nice guy, really.

I'm not having kids though, there are too many humans on the planet at the moment and I would not burden us financially by bringing another one to life. If anything, I would adopt a younger child and teach them to value knowledge, art, music, etc. He, or she would be more useful to society than most other people that are allowed to breath.

But is it beneficial to spend money to keep someone alive with the HOPE that some day they will suddenly be functioning again? No, it is not worth all the tax dollars in the world.

On the contrary, if these people truly are COGNITIVE on some level, it may very well be wrong, to sentence them to a death, they may not desire, merely because they cannot "currently" communicate that desire yet. Additionally, it may very well be that, because doctors are finding this a much more grey area than they previously imagined, that research could increase into this field, and who knows... potentially a solution could be found to RESTORE many, if not MOST, of such individuals, who otherwise, are perfectly healthy people, aside from brain function, back to a vital and useful existence.

This "IS" within the realm of possibility.

Until we can perform such procedures to "fix" critically damaged individuals it is not worth the money to keep all of them alive unless they are all being studied and researched.

A strawman argument is an argument based off your misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation of the opposing argument. I was referring to your extremely hilarious conclusions and interpretations on Obama's ideas.

I said that it was a statement made by one of Obama's czars, not Obama himself. The statement was made IN THE PAST, well before this individual became a czar. It was a useful example of how otherwise intelligent people, come to MORALLY WRONG conclusions, beliving they are being LOGICAL.

My definition of morality is that there really is none.

Which means you are a sociopath.

I do things that benefit me because I am selfish.

Which means you are a narcissist.



You really won't benefit from debating me, it appears.

What you need is serious mental health counseling.