 |
|
re: 'what "aversion to truth" do you reference?'...
Posted on: September 23, 2016 at 10:00:29 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72858
Member For:
21.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
I am referring to your own frequent misstatement of fact and your repetition of such misstatements even when the facts are clearly and definitively pointed out to you, sometimes repeatedly pointed out to you.
I'm also referring to your defense of and promotion of candidates & public figures even when they are caught in blatant, egregious lies... and just blowing off their lying ways as though it is a non-issue.
One glaring example of your aversion to truth is evidenced in the very post I'm referring to, and it is a truth that is of extreme importance... a matter of life and death, quite literally for hundreds of millions of innocent human beings who have been deliberately executed under government auspices for decades now and who will continued to be deliberately executed into the foreseeable future... and you support the candidates who want to promote it, continue it and even force the most vehement opponents to pay for it via government funding.
Now an issue of alleged government funded and protected ongoing execution of hundreds of millions of innocent human beings is clearly a very important issue, no? Searching for the truth in such an alleged case should be of paramount importance to any person who wants to seek and to live in conformity with truth, don't you think?
I have pointed out on here multiple times, including in discussions with you, that there is no question as to the scientific truth that a fetus is in fact a human being. It is not a philosophical question. It is not a religious question. It is a scientific one and the scientific facts are indisputable and there has indeed been a clear and consistent scientific consensus on this for going on a century now.
But despite the clear and consistent scientific consensus that has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to put your fingers in your ears and proclaim the opposite, using Newspeak to try and muddy the waters.
For instance:
"Abortions are the terminations of pregnancies."
Um, yeah, but what does that mean? It means that an abortionist deliberately kills at least one innocent human being, more if the mother is pregnant with twins or triplets or more. Your description of it does not change the facts any more than the Nazi's description of killing the handicapped or the Jews or whomever they wanted to exterminate changed the underlying crimes against humanity that they were undertaking.
"Terminating lives unworthy of living." is still murder regardless of what terminology one wants to use to try and obscure the evil crimes being committed, your disbelief in "evil" to the contrary notwithstanding.
"and a fetus, not a human being" You continue to repeat this lie no matter how many times the falsity of your premise is pointed out to you. That is a clear example of "aversion to the truth".
"It is settled law."
There are a couple of fatal flaws in this type of logic.
1. It was "settled law" before 7 men on the Supreme Court pulled a "Constitutional Right" out of their rear ends and overturned the laws of the land, ramming their lie down the throats of numerous states throughout the land, and resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings.
If 7 men can overturn previously "settled law", a majority of the court can overturn their opinions which clearly fly in the face of scientific fact.
2. "The law" is not an objective measure of either truth or morality. Not so long ago ownership of human beings as though they were property was "the law of the land" and was upheld by the Supreme Court as such.
Hitler's holocaust was "settled law" in Nazi Germany and the lands they conquered.
Stalin's deliberate starving of tens of millions of his own citizens was "settled law" in Russia at the time.
The legitimacy of using poison gas on their own citizens was "settled law" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
There are numerous other examples, of course, but the bottom line is that hiding behind clearly immoral "settled law" does not absolve you of the guilt for your role in the ongoing slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings.
Your repeated lies and obfuscations will not protect you either when you meet your maker some day, whether you believe in Him or not, or whether your fuzzy ideas of Him are misguided or not. We are all created with the innate desire and need for seeking out the truth and of living in conformity with it. I am calling on you to reexamine your priorities and to meditate upon what ways, what actions you can take that would help you to do that.
I'm also referring to your defense of and promotion of candidates & public figures even when they are caught in blatant, egregious lies... and just blowing off their lying ways as though it is a non-issue.
One glaring example of your aversion to truth is evidenced in the very post I'm referring to, and it is a truth that is of extreme importance... a matter of life and death, quite literally for hundreds of millions of innocent human beings who have been deliberately executed under government auspices for decades now and who will continued to be deliberately executed into the foreseeable future... and you support the candidates who want to promote it, continue it and even force the most vehement opponents to pay for it via government funding.
Now an issue of alleged government funded and protected ongoing execution of hundreds of millions of innocent human beings is clearly a very important issue, no? Searching for the truth in such an alleged case should be of paramount importance to any person who wants to seek and to live in conformity with truth, don't you think?
I have pointed out on here multiple times, including in discussions with you, that there is no question as to the scientific truth that a fetus is in fact a human being. It is not a philosophical question. It is not a religious question. It is a scientific one and the scientific facts are indisputable and there has indeed been a clear and consistent scientific consensus on this for going on a century now.
But despite the clear and consistent scientific consensus that has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to put your fingers in your ears and proclaim the opposite, using Newspeak to try and muddy the waters.
For instance:
"Abortions are the terminations of pregnancies."
Um, yeah, but what does that mean? It means that an abortionist deliberately kills at least one innocent human being, more if the mother is pregnant with twins or triplets or more. Your description of it does not change the facts any more than the Nazi's description of killing the handicapped or the Jews or whomever they wanted to exterminate changed the underlying crimes against humanity that they were undertaking.
"Terminating lives unworthy of living." is still murder regardless of what terminology one wants to use to try and obscure the evil crimes being committed, your disbelief in "evil" to the contrary notwithstanding.
"and a fetus, not a human being" You continue to repeat this lie no matter how many times the falsity of your premise is pointed out to you. That is a clear example of "aversion to the truth".
"It is settled law."
There are a couple of fatal flaws in this type of logic.
1. It was "settled law" before 7 men on the Supreme Court pulled a "Constitutional Right" out of their rear ends and overturned the laws of the land, ramming their lie down the throats of numerous states throughout the land, and resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings.
If 7 men can overturn previously "settled law", a majority of the court can overturn their opinions which clearly fly in the face of scientific fact.
2. "The law" is not an objective measure of either truth or morality. Not so long ago ownership of human beings as though they were property was "the law of the land" and was upheld by the Supreme Court as such.
Hitler's holocaust was "settled law" in Nazi Germany and the lands they conquered.
Stalin's deliberate starving of tens of millions of his own citizens was "settled law" in Russia at the time.
The legitimacy of using poison gas on their own citizens was "settled law" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
There are numerous other examples, of course, but the bottom line is that hiding behind clearly immoral "settled law" does not absolve you of the guilt for your role in the ongoing slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings.
Your repeated lies and obfuscations will not protect you either when you meet your maker some day, whether you believe in Him or not, or whether your fuzzy ideas of Him are misguided or not. We are all created with the innate desire and need for seeking out the truth and of living in conformity with it. I am calling on you to reexamine your priorities and to meditate upon what ways, what actions you can take that would help you to do that.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
re: 'what "aversion to truth" do you reference?'... - JeffB MU - 9/23 10:00:29