Cadmus

I have no doubt that tommorow will come. The time since the big bang until now is a ray segment, as you suggest. I do not think that this is a popular point of view. Time is infinite. Time moves in one direction, forward. Time did not begin with the big bang. Space-time began with the big bang.

I am not aware that this is the case. Furthermore, time is not considered in the form of a line, but rather in the form of a unidirectional ray. The difference is tremendous.

I disagree completely. What possible evidence could you have for this, other than speculation?

I contend that no scientist has determined aboslutely that this is the case. I contend that you misunderstand. Such a theory is not currently in the mainstream. However, it has never been determined that such an idea is completely beyond possibility. There is a big difference between out of the current mainstream, as this idea is, and completely impossible, as you have come to accept.

I think that time is infinite, but that space is finite. How is it that this could not work?

Counts for what?

A first. Perhaps we should memorialize this somehow. So you feel that people who take private actions should pass your morality test, or else you feel that you have the right to intervene. Perhaps someday someone will intervene in your actions and take legal control of your actions because they disapprove, and you will change your attitude. To me, the concept of morally wrong is so incredibly subjective as to have no objective meaning at all. Good for you. I am immoral because I do not attempt to take control of other people's lives. Meanthile, it is that very action that I consider makes you immoral. We are at an impass. I don't understand what logic has to do with this at all. Sorry, but it will never happen that I personally have an abortion, just as with all males on the planet, so that I will ever try to kill something that you consider a person (at least by means of abortion).

So basically you are saying that you are pro choice, as long as people admit their reasoning and are willing to accept the consequences of their actions? If this is a correct understanding of your meaning, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

1. How is this relevant? 2. The surface of a sphere is not an ideal example of a 2D surface.

Good for you. Not only can you feel free to reject the opinions of others as stupid as freely as you want, buy you can consider them stupid in the process. So, in refutation to my argument, you have presented two separate posts wherein you purposefully post a completely non-serious statement as though it were a serious opinion that a real person might hold, and you contend that any statement that you might imagine should not be consider to be equivalent in value to your "serious" opinion. I never suggested that any stupid (as you claim) statement that you might make constitutes a valid opinion. If a person comes to a decision that an abortion is the way to go, I don't care why the person opts for an abortion. I don't feel that the person's reason should have to pass my value judgment before being legal or moral. People should have the right to make their decision on abortion without worrying about my acceptance of their reasoning. That is what I said. Any reason that a person gives is valid, because it is not your position or mine to determine whether their reason is good enough. I am surprised that you are wasting so much time harping on my willingness to let people come to their own decision in this matter. I find it humerous that you accuse me of refusing to use my head just because I refuse to pass judgment on people for their personal decisions. If someone has an abortion and tells me that the reason is it was a Tuesday, I do not consider the abortion any more wrong than any other reason that the person might give. The topic of our controversy is about abortion, and you seem to be suggesting that I should be far more critical of abortion. If that is your contention, then make it. Don't hide behind dumb statements that hide the real topic. If you have a point, make it. I wonder if you even understand my original point, as you seem to be harping on a very minor ramification of my meaning.

A valid opinion, although I disagree. I think that what began in the big bang will end in a big crunch. The site of the big bang is the center of mass, such that the remaining mass will return to the center in the big crunch.

Good for you. Sometimes, particularly in the early evening, I agree with you.

I realize that in your mind when people give an opinion they must first pass it through you to get permission to have the right to such an opinion before it can be deemed valid. Some of us, however, grant that opinions are subjective, and each person has the right to one without requiring your approval.

I wonder what you mean by the word justifiable. The way that I understand the word, there are many conditions under which it is justifiable to take a life, such as in self defense. I wonder what you mean by moral consequences. The word moral is such a subjective word that I have no idea what you might mean by this. And why not. People can justify it in any way that they want, and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion. I wonder what you mean by the word necessary. Is it necessary if a person decides that a child would not be desirable? I wonder what you mean by the phrase face the consequences of our actions. What might this entail in your mind?

This is a very important point. It pertains not only to this one thread. I personally have no interest in the question of when life begins, for the very reason that you say. The question of when life begins can only be addressed within a specific context. I think that the most common context on a forum such as this is when life begins in the context of when can abortion be condoned. I don't care when life begins in the context of abortion, because I have nothing at all against abortion, in the sense that I have no interest in legislating when someone that I do not know has the legal right to have an abortion.

You did not want to discuss with me. That is the problem. You have a viewpoint, and anything else is moronic. You made statements that are beyond challenge. How do you consider tis discussing?

I am sorry if you think that it would be a bother to defend anything that you say. Please join in your mutual admiration society with those who seem to share your views. It is much easier, as you have said here. It is much easier to call someone's statements inaccurate in this offhand manner as you do without saying it to my face, because then you would have to put some substance behind your words. Sorry for asking you to do such a difficult thing. Please don't let me interrupt, but get back to your mutual admiration society.

Not at all. I believe that statements such as the following say that: I think that governments tend to act for reasons of political expediency. That is why the U.S. is in Iraq and not in Sudan. After the first gulf war, the press was talking about how we had liberated the Kuwaitis. How many Americans know that there is a country called Kuwait, or cares at all about the Kuwaitis. In my opinion, it is obvious that this pretty and moralistic excuse was given for executing what was perceived to be in the best interests of the U.S. Our actions in Iraq are being done for what are perceived to be in the best interests of the U.S. We are not doing this for the Iraqis. The benefit to the Iraqis is a valuable secondary benefit, but it is not primary. All this idealism about liberating the world is nice idealism, but it is idealism nevertheless. Governments give charity, but they give it where they give the bulk of it where they get the most brownie points. Considering all of the repression in the world that is and has been continued for our entire lives, it seems that this statement accuses every modern government and most people alive today as being "morally complicit". Being idealistic is one thing, and I have nothing against it, but making ridiculous accsations against everyone in the entire world in this way goes far beyond what I can condone.

Perhaps so. He came out with the pharse moral bankruptcy, demonstrating extremel distaste for the government in China 50 years ago. I find such terms to be non-conducive to a conversation. I think that I did challenge his views. Perhaps he felt that I was not challenging his views, but him. He continued with words like moronic and irrelevant, which are signs of a lack of desire to discuss. It is a very interesting topic, and it is clear just from the demonstration here that there is more than one side to it.

My purpose was not to suggest that there is anything wrong with being an idealist. I certainly have nothing against it.

Noted What do you think is the reason behind the compassion that has caused constant warfare throughout history?

All of the examples that you cited are not valid, in my opinion. Each of these actions was a limited action done for immediate polictical expediency, and not part of any plan to make the world a better place morally. I disagree with your interpretation, but your idealism is refreshing. When governments act for political expediency, there certainly may be benefits to other countries. This example hardly shows a motivation to work for liberation of the entire world. I do not mind your idealism at all. However, your ideas are completely unrealistic in my opinion, and no government in the entire world shares them. I think that your usage of condescending words toward those who do not share your idealistic thoughts is quite unbecoming. That you would call those who don't fall in line with your romantic idealism cowards and cop outs tells more about you than about them. While you wish to spread "liberty" to every corner of the world, you would castigate everyone who exercises it in a manner that you personally don't like. I think that you are evidence against your own ideal.

I thought that we might hold a conversation. I guess that I was wrong. You post your ridiculous opinion, and defend it using childish words such as moronic and other foolish dribble. The citing above is an example of your bull. You provide 2 examples of ethnic peoples who have suffered. I mentioned Vietnam, considering how much damage Chiang Kai Shek did to Vietnam for whatever benevolvent reason you think he might have had for being so cruel. You say with righteous indignation that your not mentioning Vietnam has no relevance, but my not mentioning Mao is the at the opposite end of the spectrum. Your arguments are so loaded with emotional crap that it seems that you can't think straight. When challenged, you spit out childish defenses, rather than attempting to defend your point of view. A few childish cliches don't spice up your lack of ability to make a point. I guess that that makes sense, considering how emotional your argument is in the first place. There is no point in continuing this conversation, as you have nothing to say, but can only attempt to bully me into conceding that your argument is obviously morally right. What a joker you are.