According to natural law abortion is an act of violence that takes the right to life of an innocent child. It is called natural law murder. Taking the life of another in order to protect the innocent is considered justified homicide according to natural law. The government's duty is to ensure the natural rights of its peope. The violation of the natural law rights of the people were the justification for the United States to declare and fight for their Independence against Britian. Why can you libertine atheist and your allies not renounce murdering the children of the people of the United States.
[After being advised that the courts might not find it as "justifiable homicide" and that he is basically nuts he responds]
I am for riot and rebellion where we hang the judges. I am sure we will have quite the cheering section. War against the tyrannical oppressor and his dogs is the answer to genocide not vigilantism. The Declaration of Independence provides the blue print. It is too bad the you have chosen to side against the ideals of freedom which our founders fought and died for. [...]
You must regard the founders of the United States as being equivalent to Muslim fanatics as I paraphrased the Declaration of Independence. Eric Rudolph and Hill were vigilantes and chose to take the law into their own hands. They were not even strategically skilled about it. They should have bombed federal court houses and killed federal judges who are the real tyrants. If you are going to rebel against the government doesn't it make sense to actually fight the government. [...]
The government is destructive of the natural rights of the people and to remedy this I advise war and riots. This is provided that diplomacy does not work. I was criticizing Eric Rudolph and Hill on their choice of targets as federal judges and federal courthouses made so much more sense since they are the originators of the legislation Rudolph and Hill objected to. [...]
War for a just cause has been a tenet of mainstream Christianity for a very long time. The genocide that has been going on in the United States for over three decades is more than a just cause for war. There is a simple solution. Stop the genocide or face war.
43 comments
"According to natural law abortion is an act of violence that takes the right to life of an innocent child."
According to the bible, causing a woman to miscary, even without her consent, is much less of a crime than murder. Another instance of "read your fucking bible, fundie."
"According to natural law abortion is an act of violence that takes the right to life of an innocent child. It is called natural law murder."
No, it's called Kerwin doesn't like it so he's going to make an assaholic rant.
"It is too bad the you have chosen to side against the ideals of freedom which our founders fought and died for."
Curious. I was unaware that the freedom our founding fathers fought and died for was the freedom to hang judges and bomb government buildings.
"There is a simple solution. Stop the genocide or face war."
Abortion is not genocide. Do you know what the word genocide means?
The simple solution to this problem is for you to shut up and get lost.
We had a "Natural Law" party in Canada, led by the famous Doug Henning. I liked his idea better, Yogic Flyers, simultaneously meditating to spiritually and literally elevate politics.
To Kerwin -
FUCKOFFASSHOLE!
War for just causes is something the Christians have attempted many times, although history rarely finds it just, and it always ends with something awful, like the christians eating Muslims or burning young women in a bonfire...
The world has seen your just wars, and it doesn't need anymore.
According to natural law How is this natural law derived? You need evidence that there is such a thing before you state its tenets. abortion is an act of violence that takes the right to life of an innocent child. It is called natural law murder. Even if we were to assume the existence of some sort of natural law, it would be necessary to explain why any particular act is forbidden by it. Taking the life of another in order to protect the innocent is considered justified homicide according to natural law. Again, you need evidence. A statement without evidence is useless. The government's duty is to ensure the natural rights of its peope. The violation of the natural law rights of the people were the justification for the United States to declare and fight for their Independence against Britian. You have not made any connection between the "natural law" you speak of and the inalienable rights the Founding Fathers claimed. Why can you libertine atheist and your allies not renounce murdering the children of the people of the United States. You have yet to justify the claim that abortion is murder, nor the claim that "libertine" atheists are the ones who do so. And questions are generally supposed to end with question marks.
[After being advised that the courts might not find it as "justifiable homicide" and that he is basically nuts he responds]
I am for riot and rebellion where we hang the judges. I am sure we will have quite the cheering section. You are entitled to your opinion, but when used to persuade it should be backed up with facts. You offer nothing to justify your certainty of your "cheering section". War against the tyrannical oppressor and his dogs is the answer to genocide not vigilantism. Aside from the implied, unsupported assertion that abortion is genocide, you commit the fallacy of the False Dilemma in assuming that the only answers are war and vigilantism. The Declaration of Independence provides the blue print. It is too bad the you have chosen to side against the ideals of freedom which our founders fought and died for. Given that the Founding Fathers did not proclaim their intent to break away from Britain because of British attitudes toward abortion, you must provide evidence that banning abortion is "against the ideals of freedom".
You must regard the founders of the United States as being equivalent to Muslim fanatics as I paraphrased the Declaration of Independence. Do not put words in your audience's mouth. If you are wrong - and you are very likely to be any time you do so, particularly with such a ludicrous assertion - your reader will be turned off enough to ignore any valid points you may make. Eric Rudolph and Hill were vigilantes and chose to take the law into their own hands. It is not advisable to bring up such a sensational example; it is a tactic that lends itself to emotional appeals not based in fact or logic. They were not even strategically skilled about it. They should have bombed federal court houses and killed federal judges who are the real tyrants. If you are going to rebel against the government doesn't it make sense to actually fight the government. Again, questions should end with question marks.
The government is destructive of the natural rights of the people and to remedy this I advise war and riots. You have not adequately demonstrated the existence of such natural rights, what those rights are, or that the government destroys them. You need more evidence and explanations. This is provided that diplomacy does not work. This exception should be better developed. Nothing in your prior statements hints at it, but it is stated here as though it is obvious. I was criticizing Eric Rudolph and Hill on their choice of targets as federal judges and federal courthouses made so much more sense since they are the originators of the legislation Rudolph and Hill objected to.
War for a just cause has been a tenet of mainstream Christianity for a very long time. Provide examples or quotations to demonstrate this. The genocide that has been going on in the United States for over three decades is more than a just cause for war. Without explanations for the Christian view of a "just war" and what causes are legitimate, this is yet another unsupported assertion. There is a simple solution. Stop the genocide or face war. Another false dilemma fallacy.
Final comments: Persuasive writing requires more than just your opinions - you must back them up with evidence and facts. There are numerous leaps of logic and unsupported assertions in your paper. No one will be swayed by your writing. F
Professor Crosis.
You forgot the law of greater fools. It's mainly used to justify the purpose of vastly inflated stock, because you can sell it to a bigger fool for a higher price and short term profit.
Persuasive writing only requires facts if it is not being presented to a greater fool! Mr Dino being a point in case!
Not even going to touch on the lure of magic, side shows, mirages, miracles and illusions, or in other words, peoples innate desire to be fooled.
But yes, F , maybe even an unprecedented F- .
I this colour scheme some kind of hack? or done on purpose?
I'm hoping it wasnt done on purpose...
What, you don't celebrate 06/06/06? For shame.
I this colour scheme some kind of hack? or done on purpose?
I'm hoping it wasnt done on purpose...
What, you don't celebrate 06/06/06? For shame."
Now if you could just do the same to the boards, everything will be exxxxcellent.
Ah, back to normal. The red-on-black distorted the color scheme in use by Professor Crosis, so I waited until now to read said post. The decorations were pretty nice, although the twirly pentagrams were a little dizzying; I actually wrote to Yahweh, asking to have them stopped.
Another post-partem abortion candidate. I think he is guilty of "conspiracy to commit murder and acts of terrorism" at the very least.
Good thing we live in a country with "the rule of law" and not "the rule of justice", or someone might drop him in a tiger cage for an object lesson in "natural law".
Thanks Professor Crosis, I would have liked to have done similar but lack the free time. "F" indeed!
Heh ... best use of a Jesus costume I've ever seen. (Of course, the only other one I've seen was a fellow student at MSU who dressed up as Touchdown Jesus for the trip to Notre Dame last year. I think the Corner Blitz website still has a picture of him standing in front of the scoreboard after the game, with the caption: "And Jesus saw that it was good.")
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.