The Politcal value of live

26 posts

Flag Post

in recent politics I have noticed how contradictive politicians have been. Obama said “if we save ONE life this is a success” ok… if we ban abortion MILLIONS of lives can be saved. im just seeing a trend recently. ALOT of politicans are doing this for the glam. also, always watch different POVs don’t let Fox spoon feed you crap.

-1gang

 
Flag Post

I guess he meant the life of a person.

 
Flag Post

Maybe Obama is not just trolling?

 
Flag Post

Also, if we ban condoms we’ll save even more lives! Oh, and if we ban recreational sex and only allow heterosexual couples to have sex for the means of procreation, we’ll be saving even more lives.

 
Flag Post

Politicians have started lying and just saying things to please groups of people even if it contradicts logic or other things they say?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

Politicians have started lying and just saying things to please groups of people even if it contradicts logic or other things they say?

Yeah, it seems to be a new thing that happened right around the time when someone starts paying attention to the government and politics.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

Politicians have started lying and just saying things to please groups of people even if it contradicts logic or other things they say?

They haven’t just started lying dd790, they have been doing it for a very long time.

 
Flag Post

This is more of a question of how we define a life. How do we count non human lives? How do we count the lives of something that could become a human? How do we count something that is in the process of becoming human? And we can expand into what about AI?

And if you question the political value what is the life worth of someone who lives in a third world country? we can look at certain 3rd world countries and safe a life for as little as 70 dollar/ 100 euro. So is it worth it to pay for someone’s cancer treatment if it’s going to cost enough to help an entire village in the third world?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by dd790:

Politicians have started lying and just saying things to please groups of people even if it contradicts logic or other things they say?

They haven’t just started lying dd790, they have been doing it for a very long time.

That was his point.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 1gang:

in recent politics I have noticed how contradictive politicians have been. Obama said “if we save ONE life this is a success” ok… if we ban abortion MILLIONS of lives can be saved. im just seeing a trend recently. ALOT of politicans are doing this for the glam. also, always watch different POVs don’t let Fox spoon feed you crap.

-1gang

lives arent lives if they dont have a consciousness.

i dont think anyone in any high position cares about other peoples lives. if i was a ceo, i wouldnt care about polluting other countries and would cut down the amazon in a second as long as i profit from it.

thats just how life is

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:
Originally posted by 1gang:

in recent politics I have noticed how contradictive politicians have been. Obama said “if we save ONE life this is a success” ok… if we ban abortion MILLIONS of lives can be saved. im just seeing a trend recently. ALOT of politicans are doing this for the glam. also, always watch different POVs don’t let Fox spoon feed you crap.

-1gang

lives arent lives if they dont have a consciousness.

i dont think anyone in any high position cares about other peoples lives. if i was a ceo, i wouldnt care about polluting other countries and would cut down the amazon in a second as long as i profit from it.

thats just how life is

If you were a communist, fascist, or other dictator type, you wouldn’t care about murdering millions of people to keep the government in control.

That’s just how life is.

Industry is as much a part of communism as it is capitalism.

And lives don’t HAVE political value. A person is just a bunch of cells without morality.

If everybody is just a bunch of cells, now it’s okay to kill them all!

Hooray!

 
Flag Post

Well, one life an give some good anual tax money.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by dd790:

Politicians have started lying and just saying things to please groups of people even if it contradicts logic or other things they say?

They haven’t just started lying dd790, they have been doing it for a very long time.

That was his point.

LOL..
but, wasn’t it fun to watch jhco, once again, fail to grasp the obvious nuance?
Hell, for far too many of the politicians….lying to them is a prerequisite for the job.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

lives arent lives if they dont have a consciousness.

Headdesk

If you are going to contribute to a discussion Galdos, it would be nice if just once – even by accident – you got your basic facts right.

Life is still life, with or without a consciousness. Moss has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. Mould has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. A sponge has no consciousness, yet it is still alive, etc.

What you are trying to claim, I think, is that human life has no value if it does not possess a consciousness. However, your statements are so vague, it is impossible to determine what you are trying to say. Well, other than your usual bullshit of course.

That’s very easy to detect in most of your arguments to date.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Galdos:

lives arent lives if they dont have a consciousness.

Headdesk

If you are going to contribute to a discussion Galdos, it would be nice if just once – even by accident – you got your basic facts right.

Life is still life, with or without a consciousness. Moss has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. Mould has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. A sponge has no consciousness, yet it is still alive, etc.

What you are trying to claim, I think, is that human life has no value if it does not possess a consciousness. However, your statements are so vague, it is impossible to determine what you are trying to say. Well, other than your usual bullshit of course.

That’s very easy to detect in most of your arguments to date.

I agree with him, if you are not a human and not my friend, your life has no value for me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Galdos:

lives arent lives if they dont have a consciousness.

Headdesk

If you are going to contribute to a discussion Galdos, it would be nice if just once – even by accident – you got your basic facts right.

Life is still life, with or without a consciousness. Moss has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. Mould has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. A sponge has no consciousness, yet it is still alive, etc.

What you are trying to claim, I think, is that human life has no value if it does not possess a consciousness. However, your statements are so vague, it is impossible to determine what you are trying to say. Well, other than your usual bullshit of course.

That’s very easy to detect in most of your arguments to date.

I agree with him, if you are not a human and not my friend, your life has no value for me.

Yeah, therefore it’s OK to murder as many people as you can as long as they are not human and/or your friend.

Gen’us.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Galdos:

lives arent lives if they dont have a consciousness.

Headdesk

If you are going to contribute to a discussion Galdos, it would be nice if just once – even by accident – you got your basic facts right.

Life is still life, with or without a consciousness. Moss has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. Mould has no consciousness, yet it is still alive. A sponge has no consciousness, yet it is still alive, etc.

What you are trying to claim, I think, is that human life has no value if it does not possess a consciousness. However, your statements are so vague, it is impossible to determine what you are trying to say. Well, other than your usual bullshit of course.

That’s very easy to detect in most of your arguments to date.

I agree with him, if you are not a human and not my friend, your life has no value for me.

Yeah, therefore it’s OK to murder as many people as you can as long as they are not human and/or your friend.

Gen’us.

If you are not a human, you are not people.
If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

If you are not a human, you are not people.

Redundancy.
I guess you are using people the express persons here.
You don’t have to be human to be a person.

If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

So I am your foe then?

 
Flag Post

I dont normaly post quickly, but I just wanted to say that this perticular topic Is rather important, and has branches into almost all aspects of modern gouvernements. It deserves a better discussion. If someone post a vague, stupid post then be the better [wo]man and get the flubber over it and dont waste your time when a proper discussion could be taking place.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

If you are not a human, you are not people.

Redundancy.
I guess you are using people the express persons here.
You don’t have to be human to be a person.

If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

So I am your foe then?

Rival will be a more appropriate term.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

If you are not a human, you are not people.

Redundancy.
I guess you are using people the express persons here.
You don’t have to be human to be a person.

If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

So I am your foe then?


Rival will be a more appropriate term.

So everyone you don’t know and consider a friend is a rival…
That doesn’t seem like a very useful position to me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

If you are not a human, you are not people.

Redundancy.
I guess you are using people the express persons here.
You don’t have to be human to be a person.

If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

So I am your foe then?


Rival will be a more appropriate term.


So everyone you don’t know and consider a friend is a rival…
That doesn’t seem like a very useful position to me.

Believe me, it is.
You don’t feel guilty when you turn on them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

If you are not a human, you are not people.

Redundancy.
I guess you are using people the express persons here.
You don’t have to be human to be a person.

If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

So I am your foe then?


Rival will be a more appropriate term.


So everyone you don’t know and consider a friend is a rival…
That doesn’t seem like a very useful position to me.


Believe me, it is.
You don’t feel guilty when you turn on them.

I disagree. You don’t need to know someone or even consider him a friend to emphasize with him.
And why would you even turn on a random person in the first place?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

And lives don’t HAVE political value. A person is just a bunch of cells without morality.

Are you seriously saying that lives have no political value? If you don’t have people to persuade or influence, then there IS no politics. And, you know, if some member of Congress went on a shooting spree, he’d kinda lose his political power.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

If you are not a human, you are not people.

Redundancy.
I guess you are using people the express persons here.
You don’t have to be human to be a person.

If you are not my friend, then you are my foe.
Simple.

So I am your foe then?


Rival will be a more appropriate term.


So everyone you don’t know and consider a friend is a rival…
That doesn’t seem like a very useful position to me.


Believe me, it is.
You don’t feel guilty when you turn on them.


I disagree. You don’t need to know someone or even consider him a friend to emphasize with him.
And why would you even turn on a random person in the first place?


Not random persons.
Co-workers, class fellows etc.
Keep a tight circle of friends and consider every one else a rival.