Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 268
  1. #81
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It cites your definition with the Collins Dictionary. However, if we follow the Collins dictionary we find that the third definition for child is: "an unborn baby" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...kiePolicy=true
    And that's because there is more than one definition so I am not wrong in defining a word a certain way as long as it corresponds to ONE dictionary definition. And besides that, a semantic debate gets us nowhere.

    It's my moral position that a viable fetus has the right to life and a non-viable fetus does not have the right to life. Regardless of what we call either of those states, if my position is flawed then it is flawed to differentiate in that fashion regardless of the names we apply to the individual states.

    So if it is your position that my dividing line between those who should be granted legal rights and those who should not be granted legal rights is flawed, then show me where the flaw is in the moral position itself. Whether I'm using certain words incorrectly or not is a different issue entirely.
    Last edited by mican333; March 22nd, 2013 at 12:41 PM.

  2. #82
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if it is your position that my dividing line between those who should be granted legal rights and those who should not be granted legal rights is flawed, then show me where the flaw is in the moral position itself. Whether I'm using certain words incorrectly or not is a different issue entirely.
    Because it is arbitrary. So far the moral position you have expressed appears to be a opinion, there appears to be no reasoning behind the distinction to critique. What is the reason that viability, outside of the womb, makes a fetus a human being?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #83
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Can I reup my question here?

    If the mere act of majority opinion makes something moral, then was the holocaust moral? Slavery? If not, why not?[COLOR="Silver"]
    "Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?"

    That was the question. And my answer was:

    "1) When it comes to legality... it should be whatever the majority feel it should be. IMO this is especially true when you are talking about moral issues. To do anything else would be a dictatorship."

    As I pointed out, I should have elaborated more on it... it just wasn't my focus at the time. However, it is still sound.

    Let me toss this back at you... if a majority of people wanted something legal or illegal and if our lawmakers (who those people voted into office) want to make it legal/illegal. Should any one person have the power to override all of them? I get that the President has veto powers, but that veto also can be overridden by a majority vote in Congress.

    Simply put, all I was saying is that with an issue like abortion we should uphold our legal system. We aren't talking about slavery here or killing toddlers. We are talking about abortion. Something we have heard LOTS of medical and other debates on. Trying to incorporate something into the discussion that would never happen at this point and time in our history just clouds the issue.

    But if you insist on clouding the issue... then let's address your question...

    I keep hearing stuff like... what if slavery... what if killing toddlers... etc. Do you REALLY think at this point and time that those things would EVER be acceptable by a majority?

    Okay, let's pretend that a majority WOULD find those things acceptable. If a majority approved of those kinds of actions then in that universe or time wouldn't morals be different than here?

    You talk like morals are set in stone... they aren't. If they were then slavery WOULD be morally acceptable. That's because at one point it WAS morally acceptable... and I'm not talking about just a few hundred years ago. Just go read the Bible. Heck, slavery goes back a LOT further than that even.

    Can I phantom myself ever thinking slavery is okay or even bad but not worth fighting over? No, of course I wouldn't ever feel that way. But that is because that is NOW part of my moral system. That is a moral I was taught growing up and thus it is hardwired into my brain as being very wrong. A few hundred years ago it might or might not have been hardwired in my brain. About 2,000 years ago it would have been even less likely to be part of my moral system.

    I'm not claiming I can sit here and make an argument for why such a thing could EVER be morally acceptable. I can't. Of course slavery is wrong... of course everyone should be treated equally. Believing otherwise is beyond most people's ability... including me. Just like the opposite notion was no doubt beyond most people's ability 2,000+ years ago.

    However, it IS part of our moral system now. And that includes a vast majority of people in the US. THUS, any answer I give to your question just doesn't fit with this current day discussion. This is a discussion taking place today, not 2,000 years ago or even 200.

    Bottom line, many morals are NOT set in stone. You and I may FEEL they are... but they aren't.

    Now, do you see why I've been avoiding answering these questions? You are asking a question that has no simple answer. One that delves into topics that people could write books about and still not fully explain. And going down this road just distracts from the real topic of the thread. This thread is about abortion, not philosophy of how we got to the point we feel the way we do about slavery or killing toddlers. That would make for an interesting thread of it's own... but I just don't think it should sidetrack this one.

  4. #84
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because it is arbitrary. So far the moral position you have expressed appears to be a opinion, there appears to be no reasoning behind the distinction to critique.
    So the flaw in my moral opinion is that it's an opinion?

    Is it not likewise an opinion that at conception the fetus deserves the right to life? Or that the right to life is deserved upon birth?

  5. #85
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the flaw in my moral opinion is that it's an opinion?

    Is it not likewise an opinion that at conception the fetus deserves the right to life? Or that the right to life is deserved upon birth?
    Lol... good post. However, this is exactly the opposite of what you were claiming earlier when debating with me. You were saying then that the opinion of the majority shouldn't dictate the laws. That laws should be based on accepted morals... aka we shouldn't pass a law allowing toddlers to be killed. YET, now you point out that accepted morals are nothing more than current popular opinion. Or at least I think that is what you are saying.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that you are basically saying the EXACT same thing I said in my original post... only in a roundabout way. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here... just warning you that if you aren't careful you will end up having to argue with yourself...lol.

  6. #86
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Lol... good post. However, this is exactly the opposite of what you were claiming earlier when debating with me. You were saying then that the opinion of the majority shouldn't dictate the laws. That laws should be based on accepted morals... aka we shouldn't pass a law allowing toddlers to be killed. YET, now you point out that accepted morals are nothing more than current popular opinion.
    Nope. I never claimed that the laws are, or should be, what 51+% of the population wants the laws to be.

    My current defense of abortion laws is pretty much in line with the current legal interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

  7. #87
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Nope. I never claimed that the laws are, or should be, what 51+% of the population wants the laws to be.

    My current defense of abortion laws is pretty much in line with the current legal interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
    You might want to go back and read this thread. It was YOU that brought the 51% into the discussion. And if you look you will see that I made it clear that it was you that brought it in and not me. As in, I didn't necessarily mean 51% when I said majority. It was you that was trying to invoke the strictest sense of the word. I get that I left that door wide open in my original post... but I think I've WAY more than clarified it by now.

    I am understanding you correctly though, right? You feel our laws should reflect our current morals? And you feel morals are often just current popular opinion. That's how I read your comments. Is that not correct?

    If that is correct then how is that different from saying laws should be based on popular opinion... aka, what the majority feel? I get that these might not be as well defined, but they are still the same thing imo. It would be kind of like me saying someone is religious and you claiming I'm wrong, they are Catholic. Yet later arguing that Catholics are definitely religious. We are saying the same thing, I just wasn't as specific in my statement.

  8. #88
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    You might want to go back and read this thread. It was YOU that brought the 51% into the discussion. And if you look you will see that I made it clear that it was you that brought it in and not me. As in, I didn't necessarily mean 51% when I said majority. It was you that was trying to invoke the strictest sense of the word. I get that I left that door wide open in my original post... but I think I've WAY more than clarified it by now.
    I was responding to your last post to me, not your posts from before that. And in your last post to me you said "popular opinion". If a majority of people like something, then it's popular. And a majority is 51% or more.

    Did you mean something other than the opinion that most people hold when you said "popular opinion"?

    I can't read your mind, just your words.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    I am understanding you correctly though, right? You feel our laws should reflect our current morals? And you feel morals are often just current popular opinion. That's how I read your comments. Is that not correct?
    No. I said in my last post:

    "My current defense of abortion laws is pretty much in line with the current legal interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court."

    The Supreme Court are not basing their decisions on current popular opinion and by extension neither am I.
    Last edited by mican333; March 24th, 2013 at 08:27 AM.

  9. #89
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Let me toss this back at you... if a majority of people wanted something legal or illegal and if our lawmakers (who those people voted into office) want to make it legal/illegal. Should any one person have the power to override all of them? I get that the President has veto powers, but that veto also can be overridden by a majority vote in Congress.
    If that act would infringe upon that person's right I would say yes. For example, if the majority of people in America wanted to violent rape and kill person X, should they be legally allowed to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    We aren't talking about slavery here or killing toddlers. We are talking about abortion.
    That is a distinction you are arbitrarily drawing. There is no fundamental underpinning of it beyond the personal emotional response you have towards abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    I keep hearing stuff like... what if slavery... what if killing toddlers... etc. Do you REALLY think at this point and time that those things would EVER be acceptable by a majority?
    That doesn't really answer the objection. You are ignoring that I am questioning the fundamental logic you are using in your premise. You are assuming that the majority will of the people is sufficient to decide morality. That is a fallacy, which is what I've been pointing out. The fact that it doesn't excuse slavery is a reductio ad absurdum, reducing your logical to an absurdity to show the error in its structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    Okay, let's pretend that a majority WOULD find those things acceptable. If a majority approved of those kinds of actions then in that universe or time wouldn't morals be different than here?
    You are confusing moral decision making with popular opinion. This is a flavor of moral relativism. If that is true, then was the holocaust acceptable? Are you able to justifiably condemn it? Because if you are arguing that the moral uprightness of the act is determined by the contemporary popular will you would be forced to answer, "No the holocaust was morally acceptable for 1940s Germany."

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the flaw in my moral opinion is that it's an opinion?
    Opinion is an insufficient ground for moral reasoning for obvious reasons. If we simply relegate the moral correctness of an action to reason we end up in a world of complete moral relativism where it is impossible for one person to fundamentally say that another's action was incorrect.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #90
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Opinion is an insufficient ground for moral reasoning for obvious reasons. If we simply relegate the moral correctness of an action to reason we end up in a world of complete moral relativism where it is impossible for one person to fundamentally say that another's action was incorrect.
    Well, now we are getting into a subjective vs. objective morality debate and I've never seen it proven that those who forward subjective morality are in the wrong so I don't find that argument convincing. But I don't want to get into that debate right now (I might engage in it later or if you really want to go there, I will on that basis) so I will not challenge that assertion and instead say:

    Can you support that my moral position is not based on something "fundamental"?

  11. #91
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Can you support that my moral position is not based on something "fundamental"?
    Well a moral opinion cannot be fundamental since it is not tied to the subject itself (ie objective), but is rather subjective. The moral opinion is based upon your view of the subject and is therefore not fundamental to the subject itself in the sense that it isn't wholly dependent on the nature of the topic discussed.

    It would be like saying "I dislike oranges" is inherent to the nature of oranges or clear from the properties of oranges. Compare this to "oranges are part of the citrus family." This is a statement that relies solely on the nature of the orange and what it is compared to. IE if I put someone else in front of that evidence the answer doesn't change because it isn't subjectively dependent upon that person.

    Really this subject comes down to the argument of why you distinguish between a fetus and a human being. The "I prefer it" argument is unsatisfying because it holds no explanatory weight. By using the same rule we could well end up with this:

    Duck


    Not Duck:
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #92
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well a moral opinion cannot be fundamental since it is not tied to the subject itself (ie objective), but is rather subjective. The moral opinion is based upon your view of the subject and is therefore not fundamental to the subject itself in the sense that it isn't wholly dependent on the nature of the topic discussed.
    Right. But it has not been established that my moral position is opinion and nothing more. I'm pretty sure I never actually said it was. About the only thing I see that could lead to such a conclusion was that I didn't challenge your earlier claim that my position was just opinion so I admit a mistake in that response and instead challenge that assertion.

    So I ask that you support that my position, and really the position of all pro-choicers (since my position was really just forwarded as an example of pro-choice ideology), is nothing other than opinion.

  13. #93
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right. But it has not been established that my moral position is opinion and nothing more. I'm pretty sure I never actually said it was. About the only thing I see that could lead to such a conclusion was that I didn't challenge your earlier claim that my position was just opinion so I admit a mistake in that response and instead challenge that assertion.

    So I ask that you support that my position, and really the position of all pro-choicers (since my position was really just forwarded as an example of pro-choice ideology), is nothing other than opinion.
    Perhaps I misunderstood you in post 84. I was assuming you were arguing that it was your opinion, but re-reading it that doesn't appear to be the case.

    What, then, is the underpinning of dividing the line for when a human being is a human being? Why does that particular criteria override what appears to the be the definition of the term?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #94
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What, then, is the underpinning of dividing the line for when a human being is a human being? Why does that particular criteria override what appears to the be the definition of the term?
    There are multiple definitions. The one I forwarded sets the bar at birth.

    And again, the definition means nothing in and of itself. Definitions are just words that people happen to use so using the term "human being", however it is used, bestows nothing on the subject.

    The issue is when the life form deserves the legal protections of a citizen of that society (regardless of the term we use for the being who we believe deserves protection). I think viability is the most morally correct option. And my personal position is just an example of a larger group of people who hold the same position so any flaws in my personal reasoning (if there are any) does not necessarily indicate a flaw in others who hold the same position and therefore a flaw in the position itself. So if there is a flaw in that reasoning it has to be inherent in the position itself as opposed to the beliefs of any particular individual.
    Last edited by mican333; March 25th, 2013 at 02:14 PM.

  15. #95
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    It should be pretty clear that there is no universal resolution to this issue. There will always be people who consider that the mother's right to choose abortion outweighs an unborn child's right to live or a fetus' right to become a child. I am not making any moral judgement here. So, if I worded that in a way that implies some sort of immorality, I apologize in advance. On the other hand, there will always be those who hold the moral opinion that life starts somewhere between conception and birth and those people aren't likely to drop their entire moral argument either. We certainly shouldn't expect people who truly believe murder is occurring to simply throw up their hands and walk away, would we? We certainly don't expect that the feminist movement will just drop the issue of abortion which they have made a centerpiece of woman's rights for nearly 50 years, right? This is the immovable wall vs. the unstoppable object. There is no win-win here. It has become one of the more pointless debates in American society. No one is willing to conceded any ground. No one sees room to compromise here.

    And so we force people to put themselves in a position where they either must concede their individual rights or where they must support murder. That is the choice you give people when you attempt to make abortion a national issue where one law rules the land. So, I ask, what the **** do you all expect?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  17. #96
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by StephTheStuden View Post
    Hello everyone, this is for a college project that I have to write on online deliberation - so please participate and help me out!

    As everyone knows abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, and it does not appear to be going away any time soon. Many people tend to be rather polarized on this issue, but there are also the gray areas where it becomes confusing - maybe abortion is acceptable in these circumstances, maybe it should be regulated like this, etc.


    • Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?
    • Or what are certain regulations or circumstances in which possible laws could/should have exceptions? Age restrictions, health reasons, rape cases, insurance policies, cost, etc?
    • Is making abortions illegal a violation of the woman's rights? Or is maybe allowing abortions a violation of the unborn child's life?
    • How could this debate be solved?
    If you wanted to solve this issue there are only three ways:

    1) Allow the passage of time to gradually change people's mind until we all agree. (might be a really long time)
    2) Create a mind control devise and force everyone to have it and simply force everyone to have the same opinion. (good luck with that)
    3) Kill everyone who holds a different opinion. (Conservatives easily win)
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  18. #97
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There are multiple definitions. The one I forwarded sets the bar at birth.
    No it doesn't though, the definition of child also recognizes the concept that an unborn child is also a child.

    The problem is that there is a generally acceptable definition that relates around the species. Clearly the fetus is of the same species as we are (regardless of what definition we use), it is a human being in that sense. Your argument assumes that it is not a human being in some other sense, but what that sense is, how it is measured and what moral authority that definition carries are largely undefined.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #98
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No it doesn't though, the definition of child also recognizes the concept that an unborn child is also a child.

    The problem is that there is a generally acceptable definition that relates around the species. Clearly the fetus is of the same species as we are (regardless of what definition we use), it is a human being in that sense.
    I've twice made the argument that semantic debates doesn't get us anywhere. Refer to either my previous arguments on the matter, including the one I made in my last post, if you want to keep forwarding a semantic debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your argument assumes that it is not a human being in some other sense, but what that sense is, how it is measured and what moral authority that definition carries are largely undefined.
    I don't have an argument per se. I'm just telling you what my position on the issue is (which is not to say that I concede that my position is not based on some fundamental moral principle and/or belief in a higher authority than man). Regardless of what term you want use for the pre-viable fetus and viable fetus, I think that when a fetus is viable it deserves the legal protections that society offers its citizens.

    And I am invoking no particular moral authority beyond myself (which again, doesn't mean that I don't believe in one). I am just forwarding what I think on the matter. Just like you, I have a voice and I have a vote.
    Last edited by mican333; March 26th, 2013 at 07:51 AM.

  20. #99
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't have an argument per se. I'm just telling you what my position on the issue is (which is not to say that I concede that my position is not based on some fundamental moral principle and/or belief in a higher authority than man). Regardless of what term you want use for the pre-viable fetus and viable fetus, I think that when a fetus is viable it deserves the legal protections that society offers its citizens.
    So this entire discussion has been one of personal taste rather than a fundamental principle? I think that gets us back to the same point I started with then. That position, since it relies on personal preference rather than something either a) objectively true or b) transcendent of personal opinion, really cannot hold that it is wrong for others to abort a toddler. The position can well hold that the individual who believes it is wrong shouldn't do it, but there is no reason to apply that personal opinion to any other individual here.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #100
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So this entire discussion has been one of personal taste rather than a fundamental principle?
    It's been primarily about neither. I have not revealed my reasoning for my position - I have only informed you of what my position is.

    We are discussing the position that viability is where legal protections should be afforded and if my reasoning was the only reasoning that could possibly exist for holding that position, then to show a flaw in my reasoning would be to show a flaw in the position itself. But since I could have flawed reasoning and yet someone else who believes in the viability argument could have valid reasoning, showing a flaw in my personal reasoning will not show that there is a flaw in the position itself.

    So if there is a flaw in the general reasoning that viability is where we should draw the line, it has to exist in the position itself, not in my personal reasoning for supporting it.

    So I choose to not reveal my reasoning on the belief that it is ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

 

 
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 05:11 AM
  2. Righteous Controversy
    By minorwork in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 19th, 2008, 10:55 AM
  3. Please solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 06:35 AM
  4. Solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 19th, 2006, 09:20 AM
  5. Which Branch Should Step In And Solve This Problem?
    By ophelia in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 8th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Members who have read this thread in the last 45 days : 1

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •