Rick Santorum

What the hell are you going on about? Advancing proposals?

You

don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Reading

comprehension clearly is not one of your strong suits. It is fact that

much of our math, science, and philosophy is taken from the classical

thinkers. In law schools the Socratic method is still widely used and

taught, I guess you should go "laugh them off the killing floor" you

fool. Obviously advances in science, math, and philosophy are the result

of centuries of study. No one is debating that. However, the principle

innovators of all three were the classical thinkers. Their exact

theories are still used in various branches of math to this day.

Also,

you are even more of a moron if you think the Bible has not also been a

topic of close study throughout the centuries. From Thomas Aquinas, to

the renaissance, the reformation, to the thinkers of the enlightenment,

the church and the way Christians interpret the bible has been changing

consistently over time. The U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

Lastly,

I don't see how my argument is "mathematically naive". If anything

you've just proven that you're reading comprehension skills aren't worth

shit. I don't recall calculating any math problems. Nor do I recall

espousing the idea that their should be a flat tax, proving yet again

that you can't read for shit. While you may think that the government knows best, I would argue that

the government often knows worst. I would rather our "greedy people, and

miserly capitalists" keep the fruits of their own labor and risk.

 
Law school is neither Philosophy proper, nor a scientific or mathematical pursuit, and i already addressed the Math and Science portion in my post, had you read it. I also addressed your second paragraph in my post. I really shouldn't be replying to someone that throws insults around like you, and you clearly had no intention of debate.
 
Although I should probably clarify what I mean by 'addressed this in my post'.

Aquinas and the enlightened monks are NOT to be considered on the side of the dogmatic church, and served their days founding philosophical theories to justify the existence of God and its morals, not espousing the morals themselves. When you speak to the Ontological or Teleological arguments put forth by Aquinas, you are speaking to what I was saying before - that our philosophies are built upon centuries and centuries of debate and work. HOWEVER the Bible has not changed in this time. The interpretations may, but the core morality, is still implied and employed in society's religious folks, which is intellectually retarded (in the def. sense).

Be honest. To THIS DAY we are debating Leviticus, Timothy I, and Corinthians in our government. Don't tell me the Bible has been reinterpreted when there is clear evidence that the same morality espoused in the Bible is being debated and employed to this day.
 
Those consequences effect everyone, if some one is to poor to have a child and aren't able to get an abortion they go for federal funding help such as medicare to help make ends meet and that money comes from the tax payers. people should be able to make their own choices about these things americas supposed to be a free country.
 
well there is a certain point to where i believe that its to late to abort. how ever our economy is about to be railed up the ass because of medicare and iresponsible spending. plus the earth has a major poupulation issue our generation is bigger than the baby boomers and is growing. killing something isn't good, but you have to realize that these decisions are made for the greater good of the family, and the community. if you abort early the fetus does not have an idea what is happening. abortion should be used as a last resort if contraception has failed. families to poor should not be forced to have a child that they can not afford.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top