₦airaland Forum

bemeruca:
Lol, ye shall know them.

Educate yourself. https://www.gotquestions.org/you-will-know-them-by-their-fruit.html

The below is from what you posted and seem to not understand.

In our lives, every word and every action is fruit from our hearts. Sinners sin because that’s what is in their hearts. Thieves steal, rapists attack, and adulterers cheat because those sins are the fruit being produced from an evil heart.

What is in your heart is intrinsic in you!

If evil is intrinsic in you, evil is what you will do and produce as fruit!

basilico:
A foetus right to live is determined by the carrier of the inborn. If she doesn't want the child to be born at any time of the pregnancy,then she gets an abortion.
If the govt can fund every abortion the better,. If the govt can force doctors to mail abortion pills without physical examination the better.

That's the gospel according to budaatum

You must show where buda said government must fund the abortion of basilico please, because, personally, I'm very willing to pay to abort you myself!

Xavier5:
If the fetus is a human life.....

If! Except that I have not agreed with you that"the foetus is a human life" now, have I?

Fuq, Xavier5. Your signature says "Philosophy Enthusiast", so I do expect simple logic to prevail and be an intrinsic value you'd want to display here, unless you are sharing Bem's position of his behaviour not reflecting his displayed moral values, which I'm not buying as you can clearly see.

bemeruca:
we are talking about the morality of our actions.

Would you like to argue that the action of lying is now morally right and proper or what?

Go ahead please. Knock me out.

bemeruca:
this verse proves my point.

A good tree and a bad tree. who is to decide what is good? A person who does a bad thing and says what he did is good?

"Ye shall know them", bem, and not "they shall know themself and tell blind stupid you what they are"!

Fuqing hell! Did you pay so little schoolfees that they didn't bother educating you at all or what!?

bemeruca:
It sounds like? that is what you understand. i cannot help you with that with that. all I can say is, with your view of morality, One can kill a person because that is his truth and you cannot fault him for his truth.

Bem, this is the nonsense you've been saying here all along! And you are now claiming its what someone else is saying?

Lying is definitely a value that is intrinsic in you!

bemeruca:
it is not my fault you confuse actions with moral values.
some women know prostitution is wrong and hates it yet they do it just so they can eat. your issue is that you believe behavior directly reflects values ....

Your behaviour reflects your moral values!

If you value honesty you wouldn't lie so much to the point where we say lying is intrinsic in you!

If you value money, you wouldn't wipe your ass with a hundred dollar note!

EFULEFU1:
Send me your number

Email it to me. Contact is on my profile.

bemeruca:
Confusion between actions and moral values.

I know a man who will disagree with you.

For most sane people, it it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck.

LordReed:
It sounds like you think morality is a substance divorced from your actions.

He will murder people but he is not a murderer.

bemeruca:
he did not create the story. before he becomes Trump's running mate, the residents of Ohio have been reporting those things. so you are lying he created the story

He does not need to have created it. He knew it was a lie and he repeated it, and that makes him a liar!

It's the same way basilico did not create the lie that dump won the last election dump lost. Repeating the lie makes basilico a liar.

bemeruca:
Lying is an action that someone can repeatedly perform, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the values they hold.

You wouldn't repeatedly lie if lying was not an essential part of your values, and lying about it would not make anyone but a fool think it is not intrinsically reflected in you to lie.

bemeruca:
IF is the keyword there. you are your lies.

If, except he did create a story that was a blatant lie!

bemeruca:
Vance believes lying is wrong even if he has told lies multiple times. so are the people who commit murder. They don't do it because they think it is good. If they think it is good, then they will murder everyone they see but that is not the case.

I really can not understand how you can not see that not lying is not a value that is intrinsic to a multiple times liar, but then, 'maths is racist' is intrinsic to you, so I'm not in the least surprised.

Murder is intrinsic to a murderer, Bem, and that's the only reason we call that person a murderer, instead of, say, a lover.

EreluRoz:
Are you my fan?

Am I your fan?

Who are you?

bemeruca:
what does Vance have to do with this? also, he never justified lying. just like the fine people lie or the bloodbath lie the media is gaslighting you.

Vance believes lying is wrong even if he has told lies multiple times. so are the people who commit murder. They don't do it because they think it is good. If they think it is good, then they will murder everyone they see but that is not the case.

So, vance has values that must be intrinsic to everyone else but himself?

That sounds like typical maga logic to me.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,”
- Vance

bemeruca:
you seem to assert that; values are subjective and differ between individuals, therefore there are no universal human values. this is wrong.
no one is arguing that values do not vary across cultures and individuals, that doesn't mean there aren't any universal values. Some values, such as valuing life, fairness, and seeking truth, are widely observed across our societies, even though our expressions might differ.

Is this some sort of joke? Did you not hear Vance justify lying that they are eating his pets?

He doesn't seem to have any value that is universal where lying is concerned, and I doubt the Haitians he lied about would say he's been fair or even values their life.

LordReed:
They always think they are mind readers. He knows your mind more than you.

Or he wants to impose what's in his own mind on the rest of us. That's why he insists on some imaginary "intrinsic value", which is really just a backdoor for an imaginary god.

He fails to notice that even God has a hard task imposing thou shalt not kill nor covet etc on anyone, but he thinks he can do better, perhaps.

Xavier5:
Yeah... same way the right of the drug addict parent triumphs that of a child to live and be cared for... indeed.

The rights of a born child do very easily trump those of its drug parent addict, and that's why we will take the child from the addicted parent to protect the child.

Now, if you want to protect the rights of an unborn foetus, I have no objection whatsoever and you are very welcome. Just take it out of me and do whatever you want with it, but don't you dare impinge on my rights and expect me to go along with you!

Xavier5:
It's her right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, but when a human life is being threatened, then protection of human life have to be enforced.

We have not yet agreed that a foetus is a human life!

Seriously, you need to stop imposing your own subjective intrinsic value on the rest of us who have not got your intrinsic value.

Your intrinsic value is not intrinsic to me!

Xavier5:
Then she should use birth control. End of discussion.

She did. It failed. She even told the man to use condom, and it burst or the man took it off without her knowing.

EreluRoz:
Sincerely speaking why do you all have problems with my comments even though I state facts and say things the way they are?

It must be because we are not aware that you are the only one with a brain and the rest of us are all brainless and should just accept your facts as gospel.

Don't mind stubborn us jare.

Xavier5:
... Because she doesn't want to exercise responsibility over that child.

Actually, its because she doesn't want to be pregnant at all.

Xavier5:
The question is, are the opposers in the majority? That's all I'm asking.

Regarding the child support and orphanage, I've made it clear countless times that this isn't only the responsibility of the government, but also that of the society... that is willing individuals and organizations. And I've dedicated myself to be part of the willing individuals.

How many individuals and organizations will be willing to be part of it? Only one way to find out.

The drug addict will oppose it, and it would be unconstitutional to deprive the woman of her rights just because of the foetus inside her.

We have not agreed that the rights of a foetus trumps that of the pregnant woman yet you see, so you'd have a hard job forcing the addicted pregnant woman to accept what you are proposing.

You can't even stop her drinking and smoking as it is, so what makes you think you can deprive her of her fix? Would you lock her up so she can't fix herself?

Omar bin Laden can not be ordered to leave where he is not!

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3281615/osama-bin-ladens-son-omar-banned-returning-france

Maeve7:
Xavier5 probably thinks that the government has an unlimited amount of money and resources to go around.

And he seems to think government can act irrespective of those who elect the government and pay tax so government has money to spend.

Are you trying to tell us there is fire without smoke?

If you are not chopping your student's mother and sister, I suggest you report your student to its parents.

Meanwhile, please send me your student's contact so I can advise her to report you to police.

Xavier5:
And that's why I'm saying those opposers are always in the minority. The majority do support. I'm yet to see a democratic nation where majority oppose children and infant welfare. So the concern you're trying to raise is highly unlikely.

"Highly unlikely", except that it already happens that some oppose feeding school children! Or are born school children not of greater value and more needing of care than a foetus?

Even in socialist UK, there's a Two Child limit to benefit payments, how much less in uber capitalist USA.

Xavier5:
I have explain what the government can do to address the issue to Maeve7 above.

You see it as taking the right from an drug addictive pregnant woman, I see it as taking measures to protect a human life.

Further explanation on how the government can handle the issue to ensure the woman isn't forced to be a mother against her will while simultaneously protecting the life of the baby has been addressed in my response to Maeve7 above.

And I'm trying to make you understand that government is not some institution that operates "irrespective" of the people who vote for governments, and in a society that hails personal responsibility and abhors socialism, you'd have a tough job selling such an idea just as there's opposition for feeding already born children, and that's besides the fact that you would be impinging on the freedom and rights of the pregnant woman whom the foetus is inside.

Xavier5:
Such line of reasoning is BS. Should a poor child suffer of hunger if a meal can help? No. It will be very disheartening if pro-lifers hold this view.

The government on the other hand should do the right thing irrespective of what some people might think or feel.

That was the reasoning of some. The child suffering was not their concern.

And the government is not, "on the other hand", because it is the people who elect the government that serves at the pleasure of what the people think or feel. And if the government irrespectives of them, they'd elect a new government that respectives of them at the next election.

Xavier5:
@bolded

You're right and I think we should have this discussion, but unfortunately it can't be now, I currently have my hands full. Later down the week or next week will be free for me. There are lot of things I need to explain. How about that?

You have earned respect from me. And I repeat, this is why you were asked to create a thread.

Xavier5:
Grasp what I'm saying first before you make statements like this. I never said such system exist, I'm saying such system should be created as regards policies and healthcare if the drug addict is pregnant in other to prevent harming the child in her womb. And this system should only apply to the case of a drug addicts being pregnant. If she isn't pregnant, the system doesn't or shouldn't not apply to her. The aim is to protect the human life in her womb. Get what I'm saying first before quoting me.

The system you say should exist sounds like government control of a pregnant drug addict, which sounds pretty much like taking any rights a woman has from her just because she's pregnant and a drug addict.

Which makes me ask, have you read or seen Handmade's Tale? No drug addict pregnancy there, but you might understand why I oppose your system.

Xavier5:
A government that cares will be willing to spend to keep those children safe and cared for.

A few weeks ago we were discussing school meals, and some here who pay tax so the government has money to care said, "hell no"!

Their argument was, "If you can't feed your children, don't have any. Society should not be bearing your responsibility for you!"

What you think?