BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003

Status
Not open for further replies.

novice

Who is the stooge now?
In rasputen's first post he wrote....
We could easily decimate Iraq, and its leader, and its people, and say we rid the world of that problem. However, we also kill thousands.
Does this sound like a comment someone would make if they wholeheartedly backed the war against Iraq as all three kids on the show claimed?

Isn't it true that BuckyKatt and rasputen are the same person?

And they also are the same person as yet another TOL long time poster?

Just my two cents! :)
 

Vitamin J

New member
I have to admit, either novice is right OR this young man sounded much smarter on the radio then he is sounding here. Did you read his comment,
- No. Everyone makes their own individual moal judgments, and said judgments are a part of the marketplace of ideas. Many of these judgments are adopted en masse due to their logical superiority. Those moral standards that generally do not benefit society as a whole are discarded, and those that do benefit society are adopted. But it is a decision made independently starting with the individual, and then advancing to an individual. But every society (with many different individuals) has a different moral standard than another, and there is no factor that makes one moral standard superior to another other than its practical application in that society. Note that a society is capable of being changed, and I emphasize that the moral standards not conducive to that society will not prevail in the end.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by novice
And they also are the same person as yet another TOL long time poster?
Who is this TOL long time poster you are referring to?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by rasputen
I must refute some of Jefferson's earlier points.
quote:
"Do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?"
- No.
Is it absolutely wrong for a man to violently rape a woman?

Everyone makes their own individual moal judgments,
And God condemns them for it: "You shall not do according to all that we do here today, each doing whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). We are not supposed to do what we think is right. Instead, we have an obligation to find out what is right and do that.

there is no factor that makes one moral standard superior to another
So, as a Christian you don't think the Bible is a superior standard?

No decision is necessarily more valid than another.
But one decision can be evil or foolish (hence worthy of ridicule), whereas another decision can be moral and wise (hence worthy of respect).

Apples and oranges. Harris and Klebold have nothing to do with abortion.
Harris and Klebold were murderers. Likewise, people who abort their own children are also murderers. How is that comparing apples to oranges?

Furthermore, that statement is highly inappropriate at the school where lives were ruined and altered forever.
That statment would probably prevent more abortions at Columbine than any other location in the world. Why would any student at Columbine want to be a murderer like Klebold or Harris?

To rekindle such memories intentionally is despicable at best, and the most morally reprehensible thing mentioned in the entire discussion.
I thought you said all opinions are worthy of respect. This doesn't sound like you are respecting my opinion. Doesn't this make you a hypocrite?

To intentionally rekindle such pain makes the protestors no better than Klebold and Harris for causing that pain.
So you think those protestors should be given a life sentence in prison or even the death penalty?

quote:

"Pictures don't lie."
- Are you joking? Ever heard of an airbrush? Adobe photoshop? Given technology of our day, a picture could EASILY lie.
So you're saying that you think those abortion photographs are fake? Are you joking? How pleasing to the eye do you think a real photograph of an aborted baby would be compared to the photographs that were displayed at Columbine?

our goal as humans is to diminish pain and evil. The best way to achieve that goal would be to eliminate existence.
Now you're going off into lala land. I'm beginning to agree with novice that you are not Greg Schreier.

Furthermore, one can maintain tranquillity and make his opinion known through open dialogue (something neither Bob nor anyone else seems able to comprehend).
Oh, we comprehend it, we just disagree with it. Since there were no protests about the Nazi holocaust on the Jews, what does that say about the citizens of Germany during that time? Now, what if our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests? Would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?

I and many others were forced to view these pictures without the option of voluntarily conversing with them. They presented no logical or persuasive arguments on their posters.
You were free to walk up to them and discuss the issue with them.

I see a graphic image of an aborted fetus. Great. Now I'm disgusted and hostile that I've been forced against my will to see that.
Yeah right. You're the only teenager in America who just hates watching those bloody horror movies. Yeah, I'll believe that when Hell freezes over.

Furthermore, they've presented no one with any logical evidence as to why they ought to be pro-life; no consequences of an abortion are shown. We see the end "product," but the implications are not discussed. An egregious violation of reason and rhetoric, methinks.
So you think our tactics are ineffective. Big deal. We disagree. We think they are effective.

Last I checked my final judgment was coming from the Lord himself.
Wrong:
  • I Corinthians 6:2-5 - Don't you know the saints will judge the world?
  • Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the Judgment with this generation and shall condemn it.
  • Daniel 7:21,22 I watched, and that horn made war with the saints and overcame then until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.
  • Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.

My AP US history book contains no such disgusting images (thank goodness... the writer is logical).
They were in my text books. And I guarantee you, they are in the Columbine library.

Second, I have indeed seen these pictures willingly, by CHOOSING to watch the history channel, or by choosing to do research in the library. If I so choose, I may change the channel or skip the page.
And you are free to look away from our pictures. What's the difference?

The media is available to me if I'd like to see it. I'm not forced to stare at it while I am pulling out of the parking lot.
Oh please. Stop being so melodramatic. No one put a gun to your head and "forced" you to "stare" at the photographs like in the movie "A Clockwork Orange." All you had to do was turn your head and look the other way. It's simple.

Plus, have you ever had one of those posters blocking your view while trying to make a left turn on a busy street?
I wasn't there. But I doubt they blocked anyone's view of oncoming traffic. But if they did, you could have simply informed them that they were a traffic hazard. All they needed to do was to simply move a mere 5 feet down the side of the road. Another simple solution.

That alone is justification for burning the posters.
"Burning?" So you're a book burner? You're in favor of censorship?

I must say, you do sound very different than the Greg Schreier on Bob's show the other night. Let me ask you novice's question: The Greg Schreier on Bob's show was in favor of the war. You seem to be against it. Which is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thief0Night

New member
Let me start by saying my name is Andre Devot. I am one of the Columbine students that was on the show. I have been readying the forum and I think that some of you need to learn when something does not need to be taken literal. Jefferson you keep talking about that someone in Germany is not going to hold signs of the Jews being killed or anything like that. Well you are right, but the difference is I am not going to shot the person holding the sign because I don’t want to see it. In the Germany case the person holding the sign might have died. So I say that if I am going to hold the respect not to shot someone for holding a sign then why the need to hold it in my face? Now if I could talk about the atrocious Harris and Klebold sign. I totally agree with Greg on this one. If I am going to show the respect to someone who is going protest outside my school and passively allow them to show they’re point. THEN WHAT IN THE HELL GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DISRESPCT ME LIKE THAT!?! Along with being able to use this idea of free speech it also comes with responsibility to respect others. You would not go up to someone who was in a concentration camp and say that the Nazis killed people too would you??? No you would not, why because you have respect for what they have gone though. So for some reason because Columbine is a high school we don’t deserve any of your respect, or the respect of the protesters?? Well it is late and I don’t want to write anymore, but don’t worry I will be back and write everything else I got to say. I have got a lot of catching up to do.
 

Argento

New member
Well, I should start with a small introduction seeing as I have not posted here ever before. I am a drop out of Columbine high school however we will leave that a subject for other times if it becomes any issue. I am also a friend of not only Andy Ground but Andre Devot and have known them both for quite some time. I agree with Greg on most of his points and think that some of you decide to take the literal meanings of his words to defend your point instead of listening to his ideas and his point. I think that is a rather popular way of debating and in this case I feel that it is rather childish and useless to help end this “debate” with any real conclusion. I think that many of you choose to take the not only ridiculous direction of insults but endless battle that is the norm of debates of this caliber. I would like to make a few points with the understanding and thought of all who care to listen. I am pro choice. However I would not vote against a resolution in favor of a pro life stand. The main reason I am pro choice however this is NOT the topic of this debate so much and would appreciate it if we stick to the meaning of the debate. Anyway I am pro choice because of all the kids’ lives that might grow into a family of hate and neglect. These grown children who have had hard lives and little direction are likely to grow into criminals themselves and raise yet more children whom have just as little of a chance to be a “good” person as they did. It’s a chain and whatever the cure is so be it. If a pro life law were to be passed and no resolution made for all the unwanted kids that are forced to grow in foster care of even the care of careless parents then I would be very very VERY opposed! One side topic that I have noticed is the credibility that Greg may or may not be blah blah! Well let’s make an end to this stupid, ridiculous, annoying and useless debate. I know for a fact that rasputen is who he says he is! Anyway I would also like to touch slightly on the Bible however limited it is to this debate in my opinion. The Bible is quoted quite a lot in this debate and likely in this forum and that is all well and good but there is a separation of church and state in this country and however relevant you feel the bible may or may not be its use in a debate over a law being written is not legal. I think that it may be relevant to use it to describe wrong from right and so on but it’s use to support the Pro life side is of no use to the “Real” debate that will I am sure take place many many times. Also my last point is that these ARE high school kids the fact that they weren’t forced to see this pictures is not entirely sure, the signs blocked drivers from seeing properly around corners and made it hard for many students to ignore them. So in literal sense no they were not FORCED to see them but they had so little choice, that the words chosen to describe the likelihood that they would see, not just one but many, posters validated the use of the word forced.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
The goal of many Web boards (even this one) is allegedly communication. Stream of consciousness typing makes that difficult to achieve.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Zakath
C'mon folks. Don't they teach the use of paragraphs in high school anymore? ;)
ROTFL..... I was just going type the same thing! Zakath were starting to think alike!

:shocked: :D
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Knight
ROTFL..... I was just going type the same thing! Zakath were starting to think alike!

:shocked: :D

I knew you'd eventually come around, Knight! :D
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Argento
The Bible is quoted quite a lot in this debate and likely in this forum and that is all well and good but there is a separation of church and state in this country and however relevant you feel the bible may or may not be its use in a debate over a law being written is not legal.
Please expand on the point you are trying to make with your above comment.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the man himself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the man himself.

Originally posted by Zakath
Jefferson,

I was not addressing the morality of using the pictures, merely the efficacy. Besides, weren't we discussing a "protest" against some activity or other, not the display of pictures?
No. The purpose of the show was the discussion of the morality of displaying graphic abortion photos.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by BuckyKatt
First, I'll address the issure of pictures. A picture is not a fact. A picture is an opinion. In this case, those pictures represent an opinion on abortion. They show abortion in a cruel, harsh, and rather repulsive light. This leads someone to belive that aborition is synonomous with a severed baby head. This is the only facet of abortion of represented by that picture. Thus, it is uncomprehensive and one cannot make a fair judgement based soley on that representation of it. Therefore, a picture is not a fact. Or, if it IS (which it argueably COULD be concieved as in this instance) it is not a fair and equal representation of a situation.
So you think books that have pictures of the holocaust or blacks being lynched should be censored because those pictures aren't "facts" but only opinions which are not a fair and equal representation of those situations?

The other issue I found interesting was Jefferson's response to passing judgement. He quoted scriptual referance after scriptual referance, but he left out, in my mind, the most famous scripture on judgement: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
You are referring to Matthew 7:1. It is one of my favorite verse proving that we should judge. Here is the passage in context: "Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
Mat 7:2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.
"

Notice that Jesus is not directing is command to everyone. He is only directing it to hypocrites. In fact, Christ even commands the hypocrite to judge after he is no longer a hypocrite. After the (now former) hypocrite has "cast the beam out of" his own eye Christ tells him that he should then go ahead and judge (ie. "you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.")

Also, I found numerous flaws in the scriptual referances quoted by Jefferson. They don't partain to judging an individual. They apply to judging actions, or situations, which one ought to judge, simply to define their reality, and to be able to better determine their morals and standards. If any of you would like, I could go through each of the referances, and find some flaw within them, but with the number of scriptures quoted, I won't do that except at specific request.
Be my guest.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Thief0Night
Jefferson you keep talking about that someone in Germany is not going to hold signs of the Jews being killed or anything like that.
No, I asked a question to which no one has yet been able to answer. Here is the question: If our history books had stories of German protestors with graphic pictures of the holocaust causing all kinds of consternation and even riots and arrests, would our history books be praising those protestors or condemning them? Which one?

If I am going to hold the respect not to shot someone for holding a sign then why the need to hold it in my face?
For at least 3 good reasons:

1.) Because those pictures prove our point that abortion is not just another issue to be debated like taxes. Abortion is the issue of our generation. Those pictures force apathetic people to alter their apathetic life-style and they don't like it one bit. Good!

2.) Many people who have had abortions or who support legal abortions like to think of themselves as "good" people. But those photographs publicly prove to them and to everyone else that they are immoral for being pro-abortion. Those pictures don't just "claim" pro-choice people are immoral. They prove they are immoral. And they prove it right in front of all their friends and girlfriends and boyfriends. It's got to be very embarrassing for them. Good!

3.) Also, many anti-abortion people are very patriotic and they like to think they live in a "good" and "moral" country. But these pictures prove that the United States is on the moral level of Nazi Germany. In fact, we're worse. The reason is because the citizens of Nazi Germany would have been shot if they protested the holocaust but American citizens are not forced to commit abortion, they do it voluntarily. Nazi Germany's citizens committed their holocaust under threat of death if they refused but the American citizen voluntarily commits our holocaust. We are WAY worse than Nazi Germany. And again, those pictures don't just "claim" that to be a fact, they prove it. The pictures shatter the illusion of patriotic people that America is a "moral" country. Good!

THEN WHAT IN THE HELL GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DISRESPCT ME LIKE THAT!?!
If a person is pro-choice then he is worthy of disrespect. If a person is pro-life, then those pictures are not directed at him (unless he falls under catagory 1 in which case a person who is apathetic about murder is worthy of disrespect). If he falls under catagory 3, then he is not being disrespected. Rather he is being taught the moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the United States. It is the United States that is being disrespected, not him.

Along with being able to use this idea of free speech it also comes with responsibility to respect others.
Wrong. I respect the right of others to express their views but I am in no way obligated to respect them personally.

You would not go up to someone who was in a concentration camp and say that the Nazis killed people too would you???
Apples and oranges. The prisoners in the concentration camps did not murder their fellow prisoners. But some of the kids at Columbine do murder their own children.

No you would not, why because you have respect for what they have gone though.
No, I have sympathy for what they have gone through. There's a difference.

So for some reason because Columbine is a high school we don’t deserve any of your respect, or the respect of the protesters??
The kids who experienced the evil of Harris and Klebold and then turned right around and committed the same attrocities (on their own children no less) are worthy of more disrespect than kids at any other high school in the nation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Argento
Anyway I am pro choice because of all the kids’ lives that might grow into a family of hate and neglect. These grown children who have had hard lives and little direction are likely to grow into criminals themselves and raise yet more children whom have just as little of a chance to be a “good” person as they did.
So you don't believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty?

It’s a chain and whatever the cure is so be it.
So you disagree with Greg. You think the ends do justify the means.

. . . however relevant you feel the bible may or may not be its use in a debate over a law being written is not legal.
Wrong. We have laws on the books right now whose foundation comes directly from the Bible. The death penalty for murder for example. Are you saying we should legalize theft and rape and murder because the Bible is against those things?

Also, many US congressmen are Christians. Congressmen write laws. Are you saying all Christian congressmen should be forced to resign? If not, by whose standards are they supposed to write law? Someone else's standards other than their own?
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath


"legalized murder" is a fine example of religionist "newspeak".


Murder is, by definition, "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

An action cannot be both legal and unlawful...

unlawful adj. 1. Against the law. 2. Immoral. 3. illegitimate.

Webster's II New Riverside Desk Dictionary, Copyright 1988 Houghton Mufflin Company, First Longmeadow Press Edition 1995.

Because Knight generally appeals to the standard of absolute morality rather than current US laws, it is obvious that when Knight writes concerning murder, he is referring to "The immoral killing of one human by another..."

Even though you claim there is no absolute morality, surely you recognize by now that Knight does.

I wonder if you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder. Perhaps you'd also argue that because the unborn are not defined as human by current US laws, abortion cannot be called murder. And since Jews were not humans according to the laws of Nazi Germany, no Jews were murdered.

A Jew is a human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human. Would you agree, Zakath?
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Thanks, Jefferson. I participated in a debate or two a year ago, but it looks like my post count has reset. Ah well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top