Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
......Things are getting dangerously regressive in the US.
......
And as much of a shit show as things are over here, it does seem like things are even worse in the US. So...well done, I guess?
Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.
If Rushy is coming at it from the Christian angle, which I suspect he is, then I think he would argue (as would I) that the morality which comes from "muh holy book" is absolute.
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.
You think folks like Rushy care about society? Their morality is right. If they say it's murder, it's murder. No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.
What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion. All morality is. Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.
I’m not the biggest Rushy fan, but I don’t doubt he cares about society. That’s a silly thing to say.
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.
Your idea of who gets to define murder is simply wrong.
Let's say, for example, that suddenly I am the most powerful person on the planet (woe to many, I know). In this magical universe where I am in charge, I am now effectively the government, able to impose my will on anyone anywhere at any time. Therefore, I define the legal system. In this universe, is my opinion of what constitutes murder now the "objectively correct" definition of murder to you? If the answer is yes, then why bother pretending to have any opinions at all? You don't happen to the universe, the universe happens to you. Your life and its opinions are based entirely of whatever the most powerful force in your vicinity happens to be. Your concept of what is and isn't murder entirely depends on mine in that universe.
Instead, if you answer "no", (which would be mine, should the positions reverse), then obviously the government's opinion of what is or isn't murder is irrelevant. I do not think just because some large group can inflict violence on me that suddenly their definition of murder outweighs my own.
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine. I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.
The other stuff? Yeah, totally a target for criticism.
Come on. Even if he was correct that no technologies existed at the time which could make the film run in slow motion (which I have some doubts), even in the Moon Hoax scenario NASA clearly employed engineers and rocket scientists who are making things. Apparently according to this narrative Moon Hoax NASA would have sooner ended the project and admit that they couldn't get to the moon than to use their engineers to make a video run in slow motion.
Because belief in the space agency claims doesn't come with belief in unattainable technologies you can never know, right.
Maybe just let women decide on it.
That animation on the Wikipedia page with the Moon sliding from right to left into the shadow is incorrect:
It tries to explain why the shadow is coming in from the top-down. But we can see that the face of the moon is actually tilted in the eclipse:
If we compare that to the Lunar coordinate system means that the shadow is actually coming in from a Western direction to the lunar face, and is not coming in from the North of the Moon:
Yes, the shadow does rotate with the moon's face. It also affects the phases.
In your previous embedded image consider how the shadow could be coming from the top if the observer is in Europe.
