This School Bus driver should start smoking Cannabis.
- Thread starter Ernst
- Start date
Dominathan
Well-Known Member
Jesus! People will kill anyone to save the unborn!
Jesus people will kill anyone to save the unborn!
Jesus people will kill anyone to save the unborn!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't think Jesus was the problem, his message was pure. Plus he healed with annointing oils made from Kaneh-bosm...Cannabis.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1090.html
It's what people did to his message and how it got corrupted that fucked things up. There are obviously alot of bullshit fairy tales within religions and they have certainly been used to control people. Jesus didn't write the bible or foresee all the hocus pocus bullshit that religion has become. When any religion becomes corrupted enough to be used as justification for killing people it's time to re-examine it.
.
...and no I'm not a "Jesus freak" , I just respect the person that he was.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1090.html
It's what people did to his message and how it got corrupted that fucked things up. There are obviously alot of bullshit fairy tales within religions and they have certainly been used to control people. Jesus didn't write the bible or foresee all the hocus pocus bullshit that religion has become. When any religion becomes corrupted enough to be used as justification for killing people it's time to re-examine it.
.
...and no I'm not a "Jesus freak" , I just respect the person that he was.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Actually it's a good bet Jesus never existed as a real person.
The Jesus profile fits the Egyptian Sun God Mythology as do many many many more religions and there are no direct records of A Jesus ever existing from the records that survived.
Zeitgeist I movie first part http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
The Jesus profile fits the Egyptian Sun God Mythology as do many many many more religions and there are no direct records of A Jesus ever existing from the records that survived.
Zeitgeist I movie first part http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Swag
Well-Known Member
Good god my friend, I remember someone in the Hallucinatory Substance section posting this I believe it may have been Puffer Fish. Either way I never took the time to watch it but now that I am how I almost missed such a eye opening and philosophically deep documentary makes me mad at myself 
Thank you for the post and +Rep to ya.
Thank you for the post and +Rep to ya.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Nope it is logical and consisent. Based on the following;
Nobody has a right to initiate aggression on another person.
Some people feel that ending a viable fetus "life" is initiating aggression.
As well they feel that making somebody else provide for another against their will
and under the threat of force is also initiating aggression.
The jobs thing is not a function of anybody to be made to provide another with, it is a function
of supply and demand and works best in a consensual society that embraces free trade.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Nobody has a right to initiate aggression on another person.
But forcing a law on them as to what they can do with their bodies is not " a right to initiate aggression on another person"
Right.. What are you smoking.
If your daughter is raped at 14 but she was stupid and was drinking alcohol with older men and contributed to her rape by bad behaviour so it is classified as a "good rape" under the new laws the Republicans are pushing.. You are going to make her birth that child?
If so what is you daughters address..
I'm sure we can find a few who would love to knock her up and mess up her life.
Do you see my point?
The only criminal here is the female sex by your standards.
But forcing a law on them as to what they can do with their bodies is not " a right to initiate aggression on another person"
Right.. What are you smoking.
If your daughter is raped at 14 but she was stupid and was drinking alcohol with older men and contributed to her rape by bad behaviour so it is classified as a "good rape" under the new laws the Republicans are pushing.. You are going to make her birth that child?
If so what is you daughters address..
I'm sure we can find a few who would love to knock her up and mess up her life.
Do you see my point?
The only criminal here is the female sex by your standards.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
^^^ Note I said "some people believe" when I referred to abortion in my previous post and did not say "I believe". I should clarify my position on abortion though as I can easily see where you might asume I was offering my opinion on abortion.
The fetus that gets snuffed doesn't care if his daddy loved the mommy or raped her does he / she ? "It" just wants to survive and be born. Killing the fetus will not avenge the rape.
The question becomes does the right of a woman to control her body supersede the right of another living (but unborn) "person" ? I have trouble answering that one...but lean toward the right of the unborn to be born.
Your example of the raped daughter is an emotional one and while unfortunate, does not solve the problem of assuring the right of an unborn anymore than if that unborn "person" was the product of a married 30 year old couple that wanted to get a baby boy but thought they'd nix the fetus because it was a girl or they "changed their mind for any other reason.
You state as if it is my opinion, "the only criminal here is female sex by your standards." Not even close Ernst. What females do with their body is their business, not mine, unless they invite me. Abortion as willful "birth control" is not something I can readily endorse, but female sex is not hard to endorse.
The fetus that gets snuffed doesn't care if his daddy loved the mommy or raped her does he / she ? "It" just wants to survive and be born. Killing the fetus will not avenge the rape.
The question becomes does the right of a woman to control her body supersede the right of another living (but unborn) "person" ? I have trouble answering that one...but lean toward the right of the unborn to be born.
Your example of the raped daughter is an emotional one and while unfortunate, does not solve the problem of assuring the right of an unborn anymore than if that unborn "person" was the product of a married 30 year old couple that wanted to get a baby boy but thought they'd nix the fetus because it was a girl or they "changed their mind for any other reason.
You state as if it is my opinion, "the only criminal here is female sex by your standards." Not even close Ernst. What females do with their body is their business, not mine, unless they invite me. Abortion as willful "birth control" is not something I can readily endorse, but female sex is not hard to endorse.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Well I have to admit my focus is taxed so I am quite able to get singular as I get tired..
The short of my next effort would point to separation of Church and State.
Under that it seems to me that any moral law made State law is not enforcible.
One example would be the genetically defective.
We once championed freeing our society of these people but we realized that no mater how passionate a "belief group" is about their reasons, Good people of conscience must moderate.
Here is the thing.. How often do we men have to put our testicles at risk for the law?
What if we had men to submit to invasive teasing of the sperm we carry so that anyone whose genetic content that falls below a Legal threshold has to have a castration.
Does that qualify as
So that those who manage to get a chance to have sex don't create unwanted genetics.
That would make Men Stud-Stock and the Woman Breed-Stalk.
Maybe we could trade Futures and Stock on them in the Stock Market since I assume Capitalism would survive.
---------------
That's almost a SiFi movie...
Smoked one can you tell?
The short of my next effort would point to separation of Church and State.
Under that it seems to me that any moral law made State law is not enforcible.
One example would be the genetically defective.
We once championed freeing our society of these people but we realized that no mater how passionate a "belief group" is about their reasons, Good people of conscience must moderate.
Here is the thing.. How often do we men have to put our testicles at risk for the law?
What if we had men to submit to invasive teasing of the sperm we carry so that anyone whose genetic content that falls below a Legal threshold has to have a castration.
Does that qualify as
But in this theoretical situation a Sect of society has made religious view the law along with anti-abortion law.
So that those who manage to get a chance to have sex don't create unwanted genetics.
That would make Men Stud-Stock and the Woman Breed-Stalk.
Maybe we could trade Futures and Stock on them in the Stock Market since I assume Capitalism would survive.
---------------
That's almost a SiFi movie...
Smoked one can you tell?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Ernst, you asked about what quaifies as "initiating aggression" ?
Just about everything a government does. Think about it. You can test this theory by answering this... Are their interactions with you based on your terms, their terms or mutual terms ?
Government's business model is not to transact/interact in a mutual way, your voluntary compliance is nice, but not a requirement. In a sense when they say "voluntary compliance" it's really a benign sounding euphemism for "or else" .
Concerning capitalism...I think you are mistaking capitalism as taking away freedom, when true capitalism does the opposite, it enables free interactions. Unscathed by government intervention, the parties to the transaction have the ability to transact to their mutual benefit or can elect to freely pursue other alternatives. Who doesn't like that?
Also thanks again for your volunteer efforts. It's good that you do those things without your testicles being put in a vise to force you to fund that which you disagree with. That is an example of a free market effort....you capitalist you !
Just about everything a government does. Think about it. You can test this theory by answering this... Are their interactions with you based on your terms, their terms or mutual terms ?
Government's business model is not to transact/interact in a mutual way, your voluntary compliance is nice, but not a requirement. In a sense when they say "voluntary compliance" it's really a benign sounding euphemism for "or else" .
Concerning capitalism...I think you are mistaking capitalism as taking away freedom, when true capitalism does the opposite, it enables free interactions. Unscathed by government intervention, the parties to the transaction have the ability to transact to their mutual benefit or can elect to freely pursue other alternatives. Who doesn't like that?
Also thanks again for your volunteer efforts. It's good that you do those things without your testicles being put in a vise to force you to fund that which you disagree with. That is an example of a free market effort....you capitalist you !
Ernst
Well-Known Member
I got really tired yesterday and didn't quit..
Oh well.. Get up dust off and get back to it.
The idea that people say they want no interference from government but want government to stop abortion, what is that? Am I understanding that right?
I'm getting a slow start today..
initiating aggression.
Are you saying if Government does it it's bad but if private citizens do it it's okay?
Oh well.. Get up dust off and get back to it.
The idea that people say they want no interference from government but want government to stop abortion, what is that? Am I understanding that right?
I'm getting a slow start today..
initiating aggression.
Are you saying if Government does it it's bad but if private citizens do it it's okay?
Ernst
Well-Known Member
I point out that there may be an Adam and Eve thing going on.
Since Eve was supposed to have Tricked Adam in the garden that men have used this against woman through the ages as a means of control.
So making what a person with a Uterus can or cannot do part of the law it's the same religious propaganda that many of us do not believe in.
I thought about this yesterday and what I came up with was this.
In America we want to have every baby born and then we will sort through these people for the best of the best for exploitation. Sort of pick the best Cattle and send the rest out to Hamburger.
Anyway if you are male and thinking you have a right to decide for the woman what she can or cannot do ask yourself what happens if your testicles come under rule of law?
What if your genetic code was not good enough for breeding and by law you had to have a castration? Would you think that because the race was being purified that castration is fair and righteous?
That's why it's not the place of the law to decide what a woman does with her reproductive parts.
Treating people like Stock-Animals is the reason for laws against a woman's right to choose. You can't pick the best Human-Cattle if you don't have a good selection.
So are you Cattle?
Since Eve was supposed to have Tricked Adam in the garden that men have used this against woman through the ages as a means of control.
So making what a person with a Uterus can or cannot do part of the law it's the same religious propaganda that many of us do not believe in.
I thought about this yesterday and what I came up with was this.
In America we want to have every baby born and then we will sort through these people for the best of the best for exploitation. Sort of pick the best Cattle and send the rest out to Hamburger.
Anyway if you are male and thinking you have a right to decide for the woman what she can or cannot do ask yourself what happens if your testicles come under rule of law?
What if your genetic code was not good enough for breeding and by law you had to have a castration? Would you think that because the race was being purified that castration is fair and righteous?
That's why it's not the place of the law to decide what a woman does with her reproductive parts.
Treating people like Stock-Animals is the reason for laws against a woman's right to choose. You can't pick the best Human-Cattle if you don't have a good selection.
So are you Cattle?
Swag
Well-Known Member
Sort of like... Communism! View attachment 1505708
The patriot act already allows all the DNA of the babies born after its passing to be collected and stored in a government database without the consent of the parents, child, or hospital... its already begun.