Dek Rollins

Hayden’s face looks strangely like that of Topher Grace in that poster image. That was his humor-joke

moviefreakedmind said:

That sounds almost relaxing.

You find mowing relaxing?

TV’s Frink said:

Hell is just an endless lawn to mow.

Sounds pretty accurate.

Possessed said:

The entire post is one big sentence.

Was this intentional? (sorry if I’m ruining it 😛)

EDIT: ugh, didn’t even see this conversation is two days old…

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:
I’ve got to say that it does sound a bit harsh to deny the opportunity of life to someone who might grow up in hard conditions. Is it better that they never lived or to give them a shot despite the chances of being miserable?

One could use that sort of logic to conclude that using birth control is immoral. After all, what if your parents had used birth control? Then you wouldn’t have had a chance at life.

Good point.

I guess it really all comes back to the issue of when does a life truly begin. And to that, I do not know. Any time I define a point along the development of a human, I always feel unsure.

Right. This is why I prefer that laws on this follow scientific opinion rather than religious opinion.

And by science, doesn’t life begin at conception? That’s when the child starts growing anyway, which sounds pretty scientific to me. Note that I am not against abortion for religious purposes, but for moral reasons.

EDIT: Also note that I realize my opinions on morality are undoubtedly influenced by my religious beliefs.

And those people should still get a shot at life. There are buttloads of actual successful people who started from literal crap.

Possessed said:

Dek Rollins said:

Possessed said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, I think keeping a comatose person alive for years with no hope of a solution is inhumane.

I mean a comatose person who will definitely wake up. Someone who is completely unconscious but will eventually recover. According to your own words, killing that person (not ‘pulling the plug’) while they sleep is not actually murder.

If you think somebody who is knocked out is the same as a mass of cells that don’t even resemble a person are the same then you are a pure and unabashed idiot.

How? That mass of cells will resemble a person in six months. What’s the difference?

Because we aren’t talking about in six months?

By this line of thinking masturbation is murder because that sperm COULD have fertilized an egg down the line.

I’ve already discussed wasted sperm. Sperm, and likewise, an egg, is not a person. It is a selective piece that creates the person, but it is not a growing human child. Sperm and eggs are wasted all the time, whether masturbation or unused items when a pregnancy occurs. That’s not killing a growing human being after conception of the child has occurred. The sperm is not a single human being that has begun growing to maturity. A conceived fetus at 6-weeks is.

I understand why female breasts are considered nudity, but I think it’s stupid that it’s literally just the nipple. Breasts can be completely exposed with just the nipples covered and suddenly it ain’t nudity! Nipples are things we all have. Just because men are sometimes sexually attracted to women’s breasts and nipples doesn’t mean women are never sexually attracted to men’s chests/nipples.

moviefreakedmind said:

there is no definitive answer.

That’s pretty much the point. For everyone who doesn’t see a definitive answer, isn’t it better to be safe than sorry? Generally speaking.

Possessed said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, I think keeping a comatose person alive for years with no hope of a solution is inhumane.

I mean a comatose person who will definitely wake up. Someone who is completely unconscious but will eventually recover. According to your own words, killing that person (not ‘pulling the plug’) while they sleep is not actually murder.

If you think somebody who is knocked out is the same as a mass of cells that don’t even resemble a person are the same then you are a pure and unabashed idiot.

How? That mass of cells will resemble a person in six months. What’s the difference? An infant doesn’t look like an adult. Does that make it not human?

Also, what about people who are just vegetables? Should they be euthanized?

What about people with developmental disabilities? They’ll never be able to develop fully, so maybe we should just kill them.

EDIT: I’m not trying to compare disabled people to an unborn fetus, I’m just trying to make heads and tails of this hypocritical stance on what counts as a person.

But they aren’t conscious, and only conscious individuals are worth anything, right? It doesn’t matter if that person will be conscious and part of society in due time, they aren’t conscious right now, so you can just get rid of them if you want.

I don’t see the problem here. Where is the weird discussion happening? All I see is people talking about how they react to nudity in movies.

Mrebo said:

Setting aside poor phrasing that seems to run counter to what Dek is saying, Dek’s point makes plenty sense when understood that he is speaking about the moral value of a life.

To illustrate, miscarriage is common in pregnancy and usually occurs fairly early on. Losing a child at 6 weeks is painful. I think losing at several months would feel worse. I don’t know that either of those compares to losing a child at 14 years old. That’s not to say that each life has a different moral weight, but the sense of loss seems greater for different situations. In the “[fill in the blank] Just Died!” thread there was discussion of it being basically ‘worse’ when a young person dies. I think that’s the thinking that caused Dek to fall into that poor phrasing while trying to talk about moral value of life. He tried to recognize the reality of those feelings while trying to stick to his point.

Yeah, that seems about right.

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, I think keeping a comatose person alive for years with no hope of a solution is inhumane.

I mean a comatose person who will definitely wake up. Someone who is completely unconscious but will eventually recover. According to your own words, killing that person (not ‘pulling the plug’) while they sleep is not actually murder.

So killing a surviving comatose man isn’t murder? Sounds reasonable.

Yeah I assumed you were talking about siblings of ‘pretty much’ my age.

All my siblings are older brothers. Not that he new that.

Silver’s Wooking

What on Earth is weird about it? He asked for clarification of which family members. I was already discussing that subject, why is me clarifying that I mean “not just with my parents” weird?

TV’s Frink said:

That strikes me as a weird question.

I don’t think it’s weird.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I agree with those saying nudity can be artistically important, and I think it shouldn’t be censored. I will also say that I have trouble watching movies with explicit nudity with family members, and the same goes for sex scenes (that may or may not contain nudity in frame). That sort of stuff just makes me immensely uncomfortable around others. It might be a subconscious desire for personal approval, but I really can’t tell.

Even just with your siblings?

Yeah.

Possessed said:

Dek Rollins said:

I shouldn’t have phrased it as less of a handwave.

No you definitely should have phrased it as less of a handwave!

ugh…sorry

Saying that both are murder makes one of them not matter? How?

If I were to say, “killing a 24-year-old man is murder, but killing a 67-year-old woman isn’t because that life is worth less,” that would be ludicrous. Both are murder. It doesn’t matter which one was the more morally wrong when you’re deciding what defining term to attach to it. All are examples of murder, they just are under different circumstances and have different affects.