Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: How Kammie is Scamming Her Pro-Choice Supporters
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:27:24 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vfe3id$2o99m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vf0rlt$3vje6$3@dont-email.me> <vfbscf$29hs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfc5ib$2arlf$4@dont-email.me> <vfdqd3$2mc4l$3@dont-email.me>
 <vfdr54$2mdl6$5@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 20:27:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8496981729fa66881bc38740021671a0";
	logging-data="2893110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183UKJvOE7Gi3VUzWi2IQNVynyhID0OHGA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nr9ki6PMQ9VkcnLLNTUez1f3klQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfdr54$2mdl6$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4515

On 10/24/2024 12:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2024 at 8:50:59 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/23/2024 8:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   On Oct 23, 2024 at 3:12:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   On 10/23/2024 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>     On Oct 23, 2024 at 12:20:29 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>>     On 10/23/2024 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>       On Oct 23, 2024 at 11:15:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>       On 10/22/2024 10:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>         On Oct 22, 2024 at 3:56:09 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>>         On 10/22/2024 6:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>           On Oct 22, 2024 at 2:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>     wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>>>     Again, you're going to have to explain how prohibiting the killing of
>>>>>>>>>>>     adult people is secular but prohibiting the killing of pre-born people
>>>>>>>>>>>     is per se
>>>>>>>>>>>     religious.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         The former stems from a mutual protection pact between citizens and
>>>>>>>>>>         arises from logic, whereas the latter stems from someone's faith-based
>>>>>>>>>>         dogma about when fetuses receive "souls" and "deserve" protection.
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>     No, it doesn't. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any spooks or
>>>>>>>>> spirits or
>>>>>>>>>     souls. And I can't see any logic at all that says it's perfectly okay to
>>>>>>>>>     kill a baby that's moments from birth just because it hasn't transited the
>>>>>>>>>     three inches of the vaginal canal yet.
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>     And as has been stated many times, one need not believe in an omnipotent
>>>>>>>>>     invisible sky-tyrant to believe that killing a baby in the womb is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>     It's no more 'illogical' for society to protect that than it is to protect
>>>>>>>>>     adults
>>>>>>>>>     from being killed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       'Religion' needn't have an origin-story mythology, it needs only abiding
>>>>>>>>       belief in something that can't be seen or shown.
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>       Again, I don't have any such belief, yet I think it's wrong the
>>>>>>> same way I
>>>>>>>       think killing an adult human is wrong. Neither one requires me to be
>>>>>>>       religious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Okay, why do you believe killing your fellow man is wrong?
>>>>>     
>>>>>     Because it causes pain and suffering both to the victim and those they
>>>>> love.
>>>>>     
>>>>>>     And what does 'wrong' mean to you, outside the context of a factual
>>>>>>   question?
>>>>>     
>>>>>     Ibid.
>>>>
>>>>   Pain and suffering are 'wrong'?  But society traffics in them daily.
>>>   
>>>   You [say] some people's morals differ from others? Who knew?
>>
>> Indeed.  And "morals" (and the like) are exactly what we're dealing with
>> here, i.e., behavioral rules based on shared belief in a "higher power".
> 
> [Morality] does not require a belief in the supernatural.

Then, what's the source of the "good" that attends a moral act?