akuma587 said:
That's the worst logic I have ever heard in my life. There is a difference in believing something yourself and adopting it as a social policy. You can personally be against abortion but allow other people the freedom to make that choice for yourself. Many people, including myself, adopt that viewpoint. It isn't a black and white issue. You just pulled the relativistic rabbit out of the hat in your second comment. I am not even going to dignify it with a response because their is no coherent logic whatsoever to the statement.
|
Only, the government has. You know how the First Amendment allows the free right of religious practice, yes? But you'll notice that right isn't extended to human-sacrificing religions, no matter how sincere their adherents may be. Of course we force our values onto others. Again, that is what law does, does it not? Furthermore, it is his personal belief to put a stop to such things like that, to interfere, as it were, with other people's actions; he believes for himself that it should be stopped. Notice how both statements can be compatible.
Also, if you thought, for example, that your next door neighboor was about to back over a kid in the driveway, wouldn't you try to stop him in just about anyway, even if he believed there was no kid of which he might back over (poor example, but you get the idea). If so, then you must conclude that one can indeed force your beliefs onto someone else.
How is my first statement in anway illogical? This is the argument: A. To be a Christian, one must agree with all the Bible. B. Obama disagrees with the Bible. C. Therefore, Obama is not a Christian. That completely follows (I'm not saying the premises are necessarily true, though, just that it would follow).
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
