legalize "computer crime"
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:46 pm
Ummm I'd like to point out, for the record, that to most people (maybe not you, Red), but to most people there is a difference between "Rejecting God" and "Rejecting an argument because it uses God as it's first and only premise."Red Squirrel wrote: Ummm because God is the main reason, but you just reject Him so what can I do.
P1: God says X is wrong.
C: Therefore, X is wrong.
No Red, the only thing good arguments require in my book is sound reasoning. For example, a good justification for the belief that murder is wrong, is that the act of murder infringes upon another person's right to live. Are you following me? A convincing answer to the question "Why is stealing wrong?" would be "Becuase that property does not belong to me, it belongs to the owner. Therefore, taking that property would be wrong because it would be infringing upon the owners rightful claim to that property." It's tough to comprehend, I know, but here's one more. A good argument to justify our modern laws against kidnapping would be because it infringes upon the kidnapped person's right to freedom and happiness. The kidnapper is violating the kidnapped person's undeniable right to have free will, therefore this act is consequently deemed to be wrong. Are you still with me Red?Red Squirrel wrote: The onther reason, the one I still hold since before I was christian is because it simply is wrong. You don't need no scientific reason for something to be wrong, sometimes common sense is all it takes, but you don't have any of that so every single thing has to be backed up by years of research and I don't have the computing power to prove every single thing wrong against you.
So where's the damage Red? Besides within the souls of the damned? You give me one good argument against homosexuality or smoking pot like one of these above, and I'm with ya all the way! But again, your argument can't mention God or sin or the Bible, and you must give reason other than it is wrong.
Again, in the case of pot, the long term physical effects are apparent, but isn't it the case that in today's society we are given the freedom and the liberty to inflict some amount of damage to ourselves (i.e. cigarettes, alcohol, fast food) and we're not thrown in jail for that? Do we really want to start legislating health? If so, you can leave pot out of your argument.
Is intimidation really that appropriate in an inernet forum?Red Squirrel wrote: But it's ok, since judgement day is coming anyway, so how about we wait till then to see who's right.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1377, old post ID:17873