Home › Forums › The NOT-Forum › Zach/Kevsky Debate
Ok, some back story. Chris posted an article on his fb about how the state of Ohio made it so you can only have an abortion if the baby’s heart stops beating. (Not you, because you are probably a dude). (I don’t know if the bill passed through the Ohio senate)
The follow is the comments (please do not comment until I say I’m done so it can be read by all without interruptions)
Chris S.: They declare a person dead after their heart stops beating, so this is a logical place to draw the line. It’s also good this is a state law and not a federal one. Win for states rights.
Superchris: I was actually trying to find a way to say that just now. I have so many reasons outside any Biblical points why abortion is wrong I kept saying too much. But it still needs to pass the Ohio Senate.
Zach: I would say that this is evidence of the wrongness of states rights. Whether or not it is ok to murder babies is not something that should be decided on the provincial level
Superchris: I’d want to see it be on a federal level, but I also find nothing wrong with a State enforcing a stricter rule unless there was a federal rule against it.
Zach: I agree that states should be restricting it as much as they can, I disagree with Chris S that it’s good that the issue is decided at the state level
Superchris: Ah, gotcha.
Noah G.: Zachary Fontes, although making in on any other level would be more difficult. Sometimes, I think we need to compromise if we want to move forward.
Kev: Zachary Fontes I literally can not comprehend how you can think states rights is a bad thing. The freedom to move to a place that does things the way you want them to be done is amazing. If there was a law that said “Zach gets punched in the face each morning” wouldn’t you want that to be easy to get away from?
I feel like you want extreme federal power because you think YOU would be the one in charge. You wouldn’t be. You can not wield the ring of power. It must be destroyed!
Zach: I’m saying that decisions of absolute morality, like slavery, segregation, and abortion, need to be made by the highest level of government, because they are either wrong or right everywhere, the morality of such acts doesn’t change by state. There should be no state where it is legal to murder an unborn infant, period. That is something the entire nation must prohibit, it cannot be allowed anywhere. That is the primary purpose of the government, to restrain and avenge evil and protect the innocent. We had to pass the 14th amendment because states couldn’t be trusted to treat people equally.
And to your second paragraph, which is pure ad hominem, the answer is simply no. Not only would there not be only one person on the top in the system I think is best (the executive would be very weak, the legislature would have most of the power), but I know that I myself do not have a personality lending itself to governmental leadership. I simply take Scripture, history, and logic and attempt to discern what the best way for government to fulfill its God-given mandate is.
Zach: And if the law said “Zachary gets punched in the face every morning” I would endure the punches until I could leave the country. Of course, such a law wouldn’t exist because it’s the straw man plot of an anarchist, but if it did, that’s what I’d do. Also, your inability to comprehend people disagreeing with you on states rights says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Kev: Zachary Fontes lol. Stop using the word “straw man” as a “get out of jail free card” for any example I use to try to get you to understand things. It’s not. The fact that you don’t understand more complicated factors of my arguments leads me to have to simplify them for you. Those aren’t straw men, just simplifications for your sake.
I don’t “not comprehend” because you disagreeing with me, but rather the same way as any person hurting themselves is not understandable. I don’t understand your “I would endure it till I could move to another country” thing either. It doesn’t make sense to me that you could make excuses for such injustice. It seems to me like some sort of Stockholm syndrome. I don’t think it should be illegal for you to think that way, but I don’t understand why you do.
When I say, “you” I simply mean, that those overreaching powers won’t always do what YOU want them to do. You’re saying there should be a federal government that enforces everything YOU think is right. But we have a federal government already that literally doesn’t. So isn’t it better that at least there is ONE state that does? Or is it all or nothing for you? Isn’t it good if the federal government can’t step in and say, “You are not allowed to ban abortion”? My point is (and you claim this is a straw man, but it is not and I’ll try to make it even simpler for you) You assume this all powerful federal government would always hold the same moral values you do, but we live in a very corrupt world, and those people in power are often the most corrupt of them all. No matter WHAT governmental system there is, they will always make laws that are immoral. I would personally like the ability to get away from those kinds of laws. Ya know, like instead of having to leave a whole country (which you need permission from the federal government to do) you could just leave the state (which you DON’T need permission from the federal government to do).
Kev: Zachary Fontes “I wouldn’t move to another country”. I don’t understand why you would be fine with other countries existing. With your logic of centralization=perfection, wouldn’t you want to advocate for a one world government?
Zach: Your statements show that you don’t quite understand that there are very intelligent people who think that states rights don’t actually benefit the people…. like literally most of the world’s republics. All the nations that have borrowed from our Constitution, states rights is something that has been unanimously left out because it’s foolish and inefficient. You assume that attacking states rights is hurting myself and others when in fact it benefits everyone. And I never have advocated for a one-world government, I believe that God created different nations for a reason. You have to understand, I’m not just pulling this out of nowhere, I start with Scripture and work from there. The nations serve as checks against each other and as refuge from the tyranny of certain nations. Your insults to my comprehension are not based on reality, nor are they an excuse to oversimplify and distort what I have repeatedly made clear. Nobody who has actually listened to what I say about government would make that “argument” about the punching me, because 1) they already know my solution, and 2) know I would be a lot more concerned if someone else was getting punched. God ordained government. If the government is going to mistreat me, I will bear it until I can escape it. If I cannot escape it, I will still bear it, because that’s what Scripture says to do. I will speak out against it, I will use every legal means to change the law, but in the end I will submit to the authority God places above me. And no, I do not harbor any delusions that a government of my design would fully agree with me any more than the current one does, however it would objectively be more efficient. Things would get done faster, issues of morality would be dealt with head on rather than sidestepped through gridlock, and obstructionism would be impossible. The national government would have the tools required to fulfill its divine mandate, which isn’t true in our system.
Kev: Zachary Fontes thanks for your reasoned response. 🙂 while I don’t agree with a lot of what you are saying, I understand why you are saying it and can see where you’re coming from. I too don’t believe in “fighting” the government. I hold the same belief in gritting and bearing it till you can escape, or change it through appropriate means. (Though I wouldn’t restrict myself to saying “legal” means, since that’s pretty arbitrary. What’s “legal” can be pretty bad sometimes. I would say biblical means.) I hope you know I am not an advocate for anarchy or revolution in a physical or violent sense. I think we can change the world through ideas and invention. I think we agree on those points. (To some degree).
For me, this is why I think it’s important to maintain ease of geographical mobility and escape from abuse of power. I know you understand that, because you’re using that logic to explain the need for multiple countries. The reason I say it hurts you is because a larger, stronger national government decreases the people’s mobility. Centralizing power means more people are hurt when that power is wrong or misused. Much like a sickness, it is easier to handle when it can be isolated to a smaller area. You can’t stop a sickness by spreading it all over the country. (By sickness I don’t mean government, I mean corruption). Logically, a corrupt city or state government is easier to escape than a corrupt national government. Wouldn’t it be? Or am I missing something here?
I don’t want to assume, but it feels like you’re saying the national government wouldn’t be corrupt because God says they won’t. I don’t believe that’s what the Bible says. If you think it does, Either the Bible is wrong…or you are as I can probably cite 1 or 2 examples of corrupt governments, if you need them. 😛
What, besides the Bible saying so, prevents national government from being corrupt? (And I know you have your yearly elected 7 kings in your government laid plan. But I mean in general, how does centralizing power to people outside of your own geographic area, help the people?
Currently we have people in cities making laws that negatively effect farmers and people living outside the cities. (As a very specific example) Currently we have people advocating for a ban on guns saying, “we need a law that bans guns because I can’t think of any reason anyone needs to own a gun”, while there are people in rural parts of the country who use guns at tools and they are needed for their livelihood. To what degree is it better to not have representation?
This is what I don’t understand. That you would rather abortion be legal nation wide, than a state have the ability to stand on principles held by its local population. I don’t think morality should be based on the whims of the crowd. The nation will not always be moral and they will not always elect moral leaders. I think being able to say, “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” is important.
Kev: Zachary Fontes Also, I’m sorry for calling you simple. That was inappropriate and rude of me. I get reactionary when people start talking about controlling my life. 😛 But I shouldn’t let that affect the way I treat people. Especially my friends. And you are my friend Zachary. 🙂
Amanda K.: o_o k
Superchris: I woke up to this
I agree with Amanda K.
I agree and disagree with all of them. But amanda’s I agree with 100%
Like I said earlier, I am only about halfway, maybe a little more, through with reading it. It’s a lot to process and digest.
I know how I stand on the subject, which is different from both of them. So, reading something different and trying to see it from their perspective…it’s hard work
I skimmed it… I think for the most part I agree with Kevin. Abortion is something that I think should be illegal nationwide, but with how liberal the supreme court has been on issues like gay marriage, I’m not sure I trust the federal government.
I agree with Kevin for the most part, but there are a couple things I disagree with. They ate small. Maybe it’s just the way he phrases it
They ate small?
Are. What I disagree with
I finally finished reading it and digesting it all.
For the most part I agree with Kevin, but I also see where zach is coming from, though I feel like he has a somewhat extremist say of thinking. He sounded very much “all or nothing” to me, when I would rather individual states start to adopt the same idea, until all the states do, or at least most, and then we can work on the national law. Start small, and work our way up. If we can get abortion illegal, (now, in certain circumstances, I kinda understand abortion…but it’s still not right, give the kid up for adoption instead. Or better yet, I’ll take the kid) and we can get gay marriage illegal again or…at least less normalized.
I see how the world is around me, I don’t want my *future* kids growing up with that. If a 5 year old says they are gay…guess what, world, THEY AREN’T!!! (The people i know in the LGBTQ+ community agree with this fact…they also agree that most of the people that say they are LGBTQetc, arent. They are just looking for attention. And they agree that nobody under age 16 can really say whether they are gay or not, because your mind isn’t developed enough, but I say, even still. 16 year Olds are emotionally and hormonally unstable. Your hormones don’t chill the heck out until age 25…)
I presume you saw Kevin’s “Gay LeFou” video?
Saw it. Loved it. Agreed with every word
…how did you feel about it
I agreed for the most part. I’m not really okay with the fact that they’re putting that in there in any way, but I liked Kevin’s perspective.
If you watch the original you can tell that Le fou is gay.
But, there is supposedly a kiss scene. On the lips. I have an issue with that being in a kids film. If he just acts gay, then kids won’t pick up on that
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.