Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#21,552
#21,552
scvolfan7 said:
Their souls will move on to another place. It’s not like they’ll disappear. It’s murder, and the parents will have to answer that, but it’s a far worse sin to bring a child into this world that will be unloved and neglected.

Intent matters. No one gets an abortion because they want to. Also it’s unrealistic to expect poor, uneducated people to practice abstinence
Click to expand...
Might want to re-read the last part of your first paragraph over. Sin is sin in the eyes of God. He does not rank it. We see it through our eyes as one sin being worse than the other, but that is not the case with The One who matters. I can’t comprehend that it is far worse to bring a child into this world and give him or her a chance at living a life that is productive and pleasing to God versus murdering them with no choice. That statement baffles me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudOrange, JacketVol, Brillovol and 1 other person
#21,553
#21,553
Pepe said:
The problem is that this is a highly political subject that will garner more pointless arguments that have no more chance of being solved on a message board than the LeBron versus Jordan "debate"
Click to expand...

That one's solved though. Lebron's better. Right Bass?

source.gif
 
#21,554
#21,554
BaldBiker said:
So, you voted against Lynda, not for Gal?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82, GojiraVol17, Rishvol and 3 others
#21,557
#21,557
SSVol said:
The real problem is a broken culture that allowed these situations to exist to start with. Everything else is a secondary or tertiary fix. You will never win the war until you deal with the broken culture.
Click to expand...
Case in point: our football program.
 
#21,560
#21,560
GoBigOrange86 said:
I think it's the kind of problem that really really really doesn't have an easy answer.

If you could wave a magic wand and make the guns disappear you could have a discussion. But bans are not going to work with so many in circulation. There are countries with more guns per capita than the US that have far fewer mass shootings than we do, so clearly something else is going on.
Click to expand...
Just like our poor education, poor health, and high drug use. It is because of us and our culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82 and GoBigOrange86
#21,561
#21,561
GoBigOrange86 said:
But that's always been there on some level and we didn't have these levels of problems. InVOL talked about taking a gun in the back of his pickup truck to school and no one thought twice of it. My uncles did the same when they were young.

I truly don't know why other than that I think it's enormously complicated.
Click to expand...
Not sure how much info there is from the past, but it has been a disproportionately American problem since at least the 70s. Maybe earlier if there was more data internationally.

It definitely got worse around the 70s...no surprise when drug usage also increased and the War on Drugs began. Increased gang violence and now lots of breakins by methheads these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2 have a correlation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoBigOrange86
#21,562
#21,562
Devo182 said:
It's the culture. The "Annie grab your gun", shoot first, ask questions later culture, that glorifies guns.
Click to expand...

If that were true every day would be a bloodbath among law-abiding citizens every time a couple of gunowners had cross words. But it's not. Responsible gunowners aren't going to 'grab their gun' and 'shoot first' unless they believe their life, or the life of a loved one, is in danger. As a citizen, I have only drawn a weapon on another individual one time in my life, but did not shoot first, merely forced them to the ground where I kept them until the police arrived. I had no desire whatsoever to shoot either of them.

Also, anyone with a CCW knows that if you use your firearm to defend yourself, that even though it is determined to be justified and you won't face a criminal charge, you will most likely still face civil charges, either from the would-be attacker, assuming they survived, or their family. And even though you might beat that charge, you still have to deal with the hassle and costs of being sued. I personally don't believe there is a shoot first culture, but will certainly cede there is a problem with guns in gangs, who more often than not likely get firearms illegally, have no training whatsoever, and actually are likely to shoot first because that is the culture of he gang world. However, way more often than not, responsible gunowners as parents will train their children how to use a weapon and to respect the rules of gun ownership. I will also cede there is the occasional person that 'snaps' and either wants to exact some sort of revenge or have their 15 minutes of fame on the news. Those are the problems we have to figure out answers to, but passing laws that hurt responsible gunowners but do nothing to address gang problems or keep weapons away from someone with mental health issues, is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols4us and GiggerVol
#21,565
#21,565
Crazy Ivan said:
If that were true every day would be a bloodbath among law-abiding citizens every time a couple of gunowners had cross words. But it's not.
Click to expand...
Holy appeal to extreme. Just...why? Lol. Why couldn't it be true and we merely have the worst gun violence in the 1st world? Is that not enough? Nah...it must mean total bloodbath all day, every day. What? Straight up fallacious.

Crazy Ivan said:
Responsible gunowners aren't going to 'grab their gun' and 'shoot first' unless they believe their life, or the life of a loved one, is in danger. As a citizen, I have only drawn a weapon on another individual one time in my life, but did not shoot first, merely forced them to the ground where I kept them until the police arrived. I had no desire whatsoever to shoot either of them.
Click to expand...
That's good. Responsible people aren't usually the problem of much of anything. But...you've lived in this world...responsible people are hard to find in some places. It's the other people this type of culture really affects first.

Crazy Ivan said:
Also, anyone with a CCW knows that if you use your firearm to defend yourself, that even though it is determined to be justified and you won't face a criminal charge, you will most likely still face civil charges, either from the would-be attacker, assuming they survived, or their family. And even though you might beat that charge, you still have to deal with the hassle and costs of being sued. I personally don't believe there is a shoot first culture, but will certainly cede there is a problem with guns in gangs, who more often than not likely get firearms illegally, have no training whatsoever, and actually are likely to shoot first because that is the culture of he gang world. However, way more often than not, responsible gunowners as parents will train their children how to use a weapon and to respect the rules of gun ownership. I will also cede there is the occasional person that 'snaps' and either wants to exact some sort of revenge or have their 15 minutes of fame on the news. Those are the problems we have to figure out answers to, but passing laws that hurt responsible gunowners but do nothing to address gang problems or keep weapons away from someone with mental health issues, is wrong.
Click to expand...
Gang violence is undoubtedly a big part of the equation and a part of that culture and glorification. The war on drugs and black market has certainly spurred this and now we have cartels everywhere. Also, many gun homicides, especially in the Southeast, are between 2 people that know each other. Not just random violence...it is neighbors, spouses, family, friends. It is reacting with a gun first that seems to be uniquely American and we have to be willing to ask why.

I don't think we are crazier, have more mental problems, or more violent than others. But there is something in our environment and culture that is killing us.
 
#21,566
#21,566
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Literally no one has said that Christians only have ethics. Nice strawman
Click to expand...
Agreed, did I say only Christians? Goodness man. I was questioning the guy you quoted. Read again:

"Except it's all nonsense. Only creationists have ethics? And which is that? The Christian creationist ethics or the Muslim one? Lolol. Nice troll"

At least read before responding. Fail
 
#21,567
#21,567
Devo182 said:
Agreed, did I say only Christians? Goodness man. I was questioning the guy you quoted. Read again:

"Except it's all nonsense. Only creationists have ethics? And which is that? The Christian creationist ethics or the Muslim one? Lolol. Nice troll"
Click to expand...
The point is, an evolutionary worldview cannot provide the foundation for morality. They have ethics, but they can’t explain why. Which is why Dawkins says he is anti-Darwinian when it comes to ethics.

This is not some unsubstantiated argument. Atheistic evolutionists regular admit this which is why the say morality is relative. There is no grounds to call anything evil in an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. Which is why the president of the American Atheists, in a debate with Dr. James White (highly recommend that debate btw) said that he could not say that Auschwitz was evil. It is his opinion that it is evil, but he has no grounds upon which to call it evil.

That is where the evolutionary worldview leads, and people like Newt don’t like it, so they ignore it rather than deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols4us and VOLSONLY
#21,568
#21,568
Crazy Ivan said:
If that were true every day would be a bloodbath among law-abiding citizens every time a couple of gunowners had cross words. But it's not.

[I]Devo182[/I] said:
Holy appeal to extreme. Just...why? Lol. Why couldn't it be true and we merely have the worst gun violence in the 1st world? Is that not enough? Nah...it must mean total bloodbath all day, every day. What? Straight up fallacious.

Then you probably need to explain exactly what you meant by "it's a shoot first, ask questions later" culture, because that phrase suggests you think the first impulse of a gun-owning American is to grab their gun, shoot, and worry about the consequences later.

If that is not what you meant then the floor is yours to explain what else "shoot first and ask questions later" culture might actually mean.
 
#21,569
#21,569
Bassmaster_Vol said:
The point is, an evolutionary worldview cannot provide the foundation for morality. They have ethics, but they can’t explain why. Which is why Dawkins says he is anti-Darwinian when it comes to ethics.

This is not some unsubstantiated argument. Atheistic evolutionists regular admit this which is why the say morality is relative. There is no grounds to call anything evil in an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. Which is why the president of the American Atheists, in a debate with Dr. James White (highly recommend that debate btw) said that he could not say that Auschwitz was evil. It is his opinion that it is evil, but he has no grounds upon which to call it evil.

That is where the evolutionary worldview leads, and people like Newt don’t like it, so they ignore it rather than deal with it.
Click to expand...
Silliness. One can believe in evolution and god (since you brought up atheists).

Is your argument for only creationists can have ethics or only believers in god? They are not one in the same.
 
#21,570
#21,570
Devo182 said:
Silliness. One can believe in evolution and god (since you brought up atheists).

Is your argument for only creationists can have ethics or only believers in god? They are not one in the same.
Click to expand...
I think his larger point is that a strictly evolutionary mindset is amoral in that it promotes survival of the fittest and a sort of Darwinian existence that we find unacceptable for reasons evolution is insufficient to explain. Of course one could believe in evolution and God simultaneously, but I think Bass is saying the basis of morality cannot be founded in a sort of rote scientific way.
 
#21,571
#21,571
Devo182 said:
Silliness. One can believe in evolution and god (since you brought up atheists).

Is your argument for only creationists can have ethics or only believers in god? They are not one in the same.
Click to expand...
Without God, there is no foundation for morality. Period. If you don’t like that, argue with Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and any other atheistic evolutionist. If naturalism is all there is, they rightfully said, morality can not be objective. There is no foundation for morality and ethics. These are their words. And they are correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY
#21,572
#21,572
Crazy Ivan said:
Crazy Ivan said:
If that were true every day would be a bloodbath among law-abiding citizens every time a couple of gunowners had cross words. But it's not.

[I]Devo182[/I] said:
Holy appeal to extreme. Just...why? Lol. Why couldn't it be true and we merely have the worst gun violence in the 1st world? Is that not enough? Nah...it must mean total bloodbath all day, every day. What? Straight up fallacious.

Then you probably need to explain exactly what you meant by "it's a shoot first, ask questions later" culture, because that phrase suggests you think the first impulse of a gun-owning American is to grab their gun, shoot, and worry about the consequences later.

If that is not what you meant then the floor is yours to explain what else "shoot first and ask questions later" culture might actually mean.
Click to expand...

Except you took it to the most extreme possible conclusion. That is the fallacy.

It is as if I said consumers, when waiting in line to checkout, tend to become impulsive (aka they tend to buy magazines, candies, gum they did not intend to buy) and you said, "if that's true, they'd buy up the whole store!".

Shoot first culture means we tend to resolve with guns more than elsewhere. Not saying 100.00% of the time every single person turns into a raging bloodhungry maniac at the first inclination of an incidence. That would seem obvious. This would be a really over the top interpretation...don't you think?
 
#21,573
#21,573
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Without God, there is no foundation for morality. Period. If you don’t like that, argue with Hutchins, Dawkins, Harris, and any other atheistic evolutionist. If naturalism is all there is, they rightfully said, morality can not be objective. There is no foundation for morality and ethics. These are their words. And they are correct.
Click to expand...
Then your argument is about atheism vs theism, not creationism vs evolution.
 
#21,574
#21,574
Devo182 said:
Silliness. One can believe in evolution and god (since you brought up atheists).

Is your argument for only creationists can have ethics or only believers in god? They are not one in the same.
Click to expand...

Creationism believes we are created by God in the image of God. The system of ethics is defined by God and inherent in the value ascribed as being created in His image. God said "Before you were in the womb, I knew you". So killing babies is probably not so good, and since God's standard isn't changing, the ethic never changes.

True Evolutionism, not a Darwinian Creationism where God created through an evolutionary process, says we are simply high evolved animals, that happened without purpose. Animals don't really have ethics, so any form of ethics is simply a function of agreed upon norms, and not something unchanging and intrinsic. In the past it was OK to sacrifice children because we all decided it was OK. Then we decided it wasn't. And now we decided it was again...only we do it before they are born now. Ethics is relative.

I'm certain that you can be an Atheist and have ethics, but I wouldn't say we're talking about the same ethics.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top