Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Abortion [split]
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179032 is a reply to message #178164] |
Sun, 13 November 2005 11:28   |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Okay, I'm just going to fucking say this, and this is going to be the last thing I put towards this debate:
Abortion is murder. Murder is against the law. That is why the government should have a say in it or not. I don't give a fuck if it has to do with a woman's body or what bullshit struggle she's in. Regardless of the circumstances, it's MURDER. Only exception is if sacrificing one life will save another (a.k.a. medical purposes), if one life isn't sacrificed, then both would be lost.
If a man fails to assist a woman, that's his fault for being an asshole. I don't agree with him abandoning the woman nor do I think he's worth of the title "man". Regardless of that fact, him abandoning the woman and child isn't murder, abortion is, so this fact has absolutely no bearing on the argument, it's just indirect bullshit thrown in.
Also, on the subject of inconveniences, a lot of things are inconvenient, but guess what, we don't get rid of them. I bet you, at times, were an inconvenience to your parents. I bet I was, and I'm sure there's very few people whom they were not an inconvenience to their parents at some point in time. Regardless of that fact, they didn't kill you. Children are not at fault, here. It's the parents. To kill the child because two people can't control their horomones is a ridiculous idea, and anybody who condones it has a screw loose.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179038 is a reply to message #179022] |
Sun, 13 November 2005 12:58 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Arcane1 wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 11:28 |
So here is the bottom line question:
How is it that one law, or one set of rules made by a governing body can set the standards for all situations that may arise? How is it that a governing body that is removed from the situation entirely be allowed to tell any and all future citizens how to operate appropriately? Even if there was a "true" majority decision on what is "right" or "wrong", how can that standard be Appropriately applied to ALL future people that can be potentially affected? Certainly there are no other rules or laws that apply so broadly without individual consideration and having such immediacy and privacy issues. Certainly this is a case where the law does not allow for appeals after the fact, which is the basic guarantee against human fallibility in the legal system. What I see it boiling down to is how could I, or You, or Anyone else have the Right to make that decision arbitrarilary, across the board and without appeal for every person that will possibly be faced with such a decision?
|
There are a wide range of opinions and beliefs about the issue but they all boil down to just that: opinions and beliefs. Laws need to be made on the basis of what we know, or don't know about something not on what we believe or don't believe about something. We need hard facts about an issue to come to a satisfactory result. If we don't have objective information on which to proceed then we have to proceed with extreme caution. Science helps provide those facts. The fact of abortion is that a human life is ended by it. That's basic biology, proven as well as anything can be proven. From conception, an organism is a biological member of its species. It doesn't get much more clear than that.
By keeping it simple, a governing body can set a standard for all to obey. Science already shows that abortion kills a human being, who is physically incapable of committing any crime. Laws already say that killing a human being who has done no wrong is murder. Therefore abortion is murder. That's as plain and simple as one could get. Both standards were in place many years before issues like 'Roe v Wade' came before a court, or a legislature. Those standards hold true now, and will hold true forever. Court's can decide how finer details apply to individual cases over time, but the basic standard is there for all. Without it, you have no justice or order in society, it all falls into anarchy.
Governing bodies put laws in place as much to guide people as to maintain order. Murder is murder, and murder is wrong no matter how right it may feel at the time, or how much it doesn't seem like murder. When faced with a situation, there's a clear standard in place to guide you. Personally, there are some anti-war protesters I think should be shot. However, murder is murder, so I wouldn't do it.
In direct response to "What gives the government the right to interfere", its their purpose. A governing body, at least one elected by the society it governs, is mandated with objectively looking at a situation. A government has to look at all aspects without being involved in a situation and use that objectivity, that "detached perspective" to figure out what the standard should be.
If life and death decisions are left in the hands of people who are "emotionally involved" in the situation then we'd have chaos, for example: a suicidal person would be handed a gun and told to choose. Objective perspectives are what we need to make laws. Objectivity is what gives the government the right to get involved when it comes to issues where people's lives hang in the balance. Issues like abortion are decided in such short time frames, since pregnancy only lasts 9 months, that the objective view has to be taken. The decision is too great to leave to the subjective, emotional responses of people caught up in what's happening. If the government has any say at all in society, its at times like this.
Saying that may make me a heartless monster, but its the truth.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179045 is a reply to message #179038] |
Sun, 13 November 2005 13:39 |
 |
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 13:58 |
Saying that may make me a heartless monster, but its the truth.
|
Keep in mind that I certainly am not going to make that judgement. Nor do I think that anyone that would is correct. They simply lack the ability to respect another's reality.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I need some good Conservative/Republican types [message #179294 is a reply to message #178579] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 15:59 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Yeah, DUH, but the cartoon is directly implying hypocrisy between a pro-choice and pro-environment stand.
Such an implication is, however, logically flawed in that the non-hippie is not giving birth to the condor eggs.
|
| Hyd-umbass <-- How's that for a witty name change? |
The hippie is trying to protect the eggs because they are the eggs of an endangered species; the non-hippie is hungry and eats the eggs that were going to be discarded anyway.
By the commonly held definition of life that pro-choicers use (of whom we can assume the hippie is a part), those eggs are not yet alive, yet the hippie is trying to defend them as if they were living condors.
The cartoon correctly argues that such a stance is hypocritical.
How is that "logically flawed?"
|
Eggs were going to be discarded anyway? I don't feel like going back 2 pages to look at the cartoon again, so how about you explain that one.
The hippie is defending them because they will become living condors. Because they are an endanfered species. Not the same thing.
| Hydra |
Too bad science doesn't agree with you.
|
Yes, thank you, I know the literal definition of life, too. I was referring to the version of life that I believe applies to this issue.
| Hydra |
Yet another shining example of hypocrisy coming from you.
You give yourself such high praise in not using personal insults, then you say something like that... tsk tsk tsk.
|
Because you know they're so wrong.
| Hydra |
So you're okay with killing babies as long as they're human babies.
Gotcha.
|
You missed the point. Entirely. Really, right over your head. WOOOSH.
| Hydra |
You're going to attribute abortion operation mishaps in Africa solely to its illegality?
|
Stop suggesting that because I say something it means I believe it is the one factor in a system. In this case it is the main factor. Yes, it is, and you are wrong if you believe it is not.
| Hydra |
Do you think those women would receive even half-decent operations if abortion was legal? They can barely receive a simple vaccination that doesn't somehow result in health complications! Healthcare in Africa sucks!
|
It sucks even worse in back alleys. Africa does have hospitals, besides what you see on FOX news. They're really not helpless people at all. Their health care system is poor, albeit, but it is not nonexistant. An African hospital can carry out sterilized abortions. Back alleys cannot. Vaccinating the countryside is an ENTIRELY different problem. It is a problem of supply. This is not.
| Hydra |
Legalizing abortion doesn't automatically mean those women receiving them now will suddenly get better healthcare as those people doing the back-alley abortions will be the same people performing the legal practice; they'll just be allowed to do it by the government for a cheaper price.
|
I'm afraid you know nothing about this topic.
| Hydra |
And abortion's illegality is a single factor among a myriad of others forcing those women to seek those abortions in the first place.
|
Then name the myriad of other factors. Because you wouldn't suggest that such a myriad existed if you didn't know what it was. Or would you?
If you're going to respond to a real-life example, try to become a little more informed on what is actually happening with it.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179297 is a reply to message #179039] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 16:03 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| ACK |
This line of thought requires that you assume spontaneous generation for life and consciousness. I say this because your intellect, your being, and your very existence are owed to the clump of cellular matter that forms a body and from there forms a consciousness.
|
That's a badly worded statement that wouldn't mean anything if it were worded correctly anyways.
You're just trying to confuse the other guy with fake big language to win an argument.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179337 is a reply to message #178164] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 21:15 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingLiberalTool |
Eggs were going to be discarded anyway? I don't feel like going back 2 pages to look at the cartoon again, so how about you explain that one.
|
| Quote: |
The hippie is defending them because they will become living condors. Because they are an endanfered species. Not the same thing.
|
The concept is still the same. Both the unborn condor and an unborn human baby are biological lifeforms in their earliest stages of development. Why is it okay to kill the human and not okay to kill the condor, because humans aren't endangered? Where the hell is the logic in that?
| Quote: |
Yes, thank you, I know the literal definition of life, too. I was referring to the version of life that I believe applies to this issue.
|
....
The only "version" of life that applies to this issue is the only "version" of life that applies to EVERYTHING having to do with life. Life between sexually reproducing organisms begins at conception. That is a biological FACT. An unborn human is ALIVE FROM CONCEPTION; there is NO OTHER LOGICAL WAY TO EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT TOTALLY DISREGARDING EVERYTHING BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED.
| Quote: |
You missed the point. Entirely. Really, right over your head. WOOOSH.
|
You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you like a bus, would you?
I understood your point entirely. You, in accordance with your programming by militant leftist environmentalist groups, would go out of your way to protect the eggs of an endangered species from destruction if given the opportunity; yet you would not lift a finger to protect an unborn human being from annihilation simply because humans aren't an endangered species (and because you don't believe them to be alive in the first place).
| Quote: |
Stop suggesting that because I say something it means I believe it is the one factor in a system.
|
I'll stop saying it once you stop implying it.
| Quote: |
In this case it is the main factor. Yes, it is, and you are wrong if you believe it is not....
Then name the myriad of other factors. Because you wouldn't suggest that such a myriad existed if you didn't know what it was. Or would you?
|
To name a few: lack of abstinence education; oppressive governments; anti-capitalistic (and therefore anti-progress) economic policies imposed by said oppressive governments; the culture ("it takes a village to raise a child"); rampant war (civil war in many cases); religious/ethnic cleansing and genocide; the UN's inaction towards taking the proper steps to get rid of the malignant forces causing war; the funding of said oppressive governments by billions of dollars in foreign aid given directly to the governments (Africa is just a black hole that will suck up as much money as we can throw into it to no avail); the refusal of powerful foreign powers to remove the oppressive regimes forcefully
And elitists like you for criticizing them when they actually do.
| Quote: |
That's a badly worded statement that wouldn't mean anything if it were worded correctly anyways.
|
It's worded correctly; you're saying that just because you disagree with him, yet you can't refute what he said because it is based on sound logic--logic that you can't beat.
| Quote: |
You're just trying to confuse the other guy with fake big language to win an argument.
|
DO
NOT
TALK
ANYMORE.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Tue, 15 November 2005 21:16] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179377 is a reply to message #179039] |
Wed, 16 November 2005 11:49 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 15:17 |
| Quote: |
A developing fetus, without a developed cerebral cortex that has yet to experience stimulation sensation and thus "sentience" cannot be compared to a post-sentient human that is rendered unconscious or sleeping.
|
This line of thought requires that you assume spontaneous generation for life and consciousness. I say this because your intellect, your being, and your very existence are owed to the clump of cellular matter that forms a body and from there forms a consciousness.
Do you or do you not agree with this? If not, explain why your logic seems to be unable to sustain itself.
|
I think that is debatible, from an objective standpoint. Personally I agree with jball, in that the only time it can be deemed a necessary evil is when both lives are in danger and it is certain that only one will live.
As for the generation of sentience, it could be said that self awareness comes as a result of cells clumping together in such a fashion that the reasoning human being can interact with the reality it exists in. Think of it as if the sentience always existed and the body formed to accept that particular existence. Decartes kind of had this idea as well.
The alternative (as far as I can tell) is to suggest that sentience IS created by clumping certain cells together. Both are very unknown to us now, but both are things to consider.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179406 is a reply to message #179337] |
Wed, 16 November 2005 16:11 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| The Greatest Superhero Who Ever Lived |
I don't feel like going back 2 pages to look at the cartoon again, so how about you explain that one.
|
Thanks. You saved me the time it took to refresh my web browser.
| Hydra |
The concept is still the same. Both the unborn condor and an unborn human baby are biological lifeforms in their earliest stages of development. Why is it okay to kill the human and not okay to kill the condor, because humans aren't endangered? Where the hell is the logic in that?
|
Yes, Hydra, we both know they are unborn life forms. The arguments for keeping the two alive are what is different. I'll explain this from another angle to see if you get it. The hippie's argument is obviously that the condor egg should be allowed to mature so it can repopulate the california condor population. Your side's argument for ending abortion is that a blob of cells have the same legal rights to life as a born person. Let's use our critical reasoning skills to determine that these two reason are not the same. Ok?
| Hydra |
The only "version" of life that applies to this issue is the only "version" of life that applies to EVERYTHING having to do with life. Life between sexually reproducing organisms begins at conception. That is a biological FACT. An unborn human is ALIVE FROM CONCEPTION; there is NO OTHER LOGICAL WAY TO EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT TOTALLY DISREGARDING EVERYTHING BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED.
|
| Hydra |
You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you like a bus, would you?
|
Yes, you exaggerated, but at the same time you entirely ignored what I was saying.
| Hydra |
I understood your point entirely. You, in accordance with your programming by militant leftist environmentalist groups, would go out of your way to protect the eggs of an endangered species from destruction if given the opportunity; yet you would not lift a finger to protect an unborn human being from annihilation simply because humans aren't an endangered species (and because you don't believe them to be alive in the first place).
|
See above.
| Hydra |
I'll stop saying it once you stop implying it.
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
In this case it is the main factor. Yes, it is, and you are wrong if you believe it is not....
Then name the myriad of other factors. Because you wouldn't suggest that such a myriad existed if you didn't know what it was. Or would you?
|
| Hydra |
To name a few: lack of abstinence education; oppressive governments; anti-capitalistic (and therefore anti-progress) economic policies imposed by said oppressive governments; the culture ("it takes a village to raise a child"); rampant war (civil war in many cases); religious/ethnic cleansing and genocide; the UN's inaction towards taking the proper steps to get rid of the malignant forces causing war; the funding of said oppressive governments by billions of dollars in foreign aid given directly to the governments (Africa is just a black hole that will suck up as much money as we can throw into it to no avail); the refusal of powerful foreign powers to remove the oppressive regimes forcefully
And elitists like you for criticizing them when they actually do.
|
First, of all, I give you credit for working Saddam into this. Even though it's an entirely unrelated concept. If African dictators were locked down to the extent Saddam was before Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, Africa would be a much safer place. That said, let's dissect.
Oh, wait, I don't have to. You misunderstood yourself. You listed a series of causes as to why women in Africa get abortions. Not why they have to get back alley abortions. Allow me to illustrate.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
That last point is actually readily demonstrated in African countries where abortion is illegal so women just get abortions in back allies instead of the hospital. As a result, many die from poor operations.
I personally don't want that to happen in America.
| Hydra |
You're going to attribute abortion operation mishaps in Africa solely to its illegality?
Do you think those women would receive even half-decent operations if abortion was legal? They can barely receive a simple vaccination that doesn't somehow result in health complications! Healthcare in Africa sucks!
Legalizing abortion doesn't automatically mean those women receiving them now will suddenly get better healthcare as those people doing the back-alley abortions will be the same people performing the legal practice; they'll just be allowed to do it by the government for a cheaper price.
And abortion's illegality is a single factor among a myriad of others forcing those women to seek those abortions in the first place.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Then name the myriad of other factors. Because you wouldn't suggest that such a myriad existed if you didn't know what it was. Or would you?
| Hydra |
To name a few: lack of abstinence education; oppressive governments; anti-capitalistic (and therefore anti-progress) economic policies imposed by said oppressive governments; the culture ("it takes a village to raise a child"); rampant war (civil war in many cases); religious/ethnic cleansing and genocide; the UN's inaction towards taking the proper steps to get rid of the malignant forces causing war; the funding of said oppressive governments by billions of dollars in foreign aid given directly to the governments (Africa is just a black hole that will suck up as much money as we can throw into it to no avail); the refusal of powerful foreign powers to remove the oppressive regimes forcefully
|
|
|
|
Notice how you changed the meaning of those abortions. Do you need another try?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
That's a badly worded statement that wouldn't mean anything if it were worded correctly anyways.
| Hydra |
It's worded correctly; you're saying that just because you disagree with him, yet you can't refute what he said because it is based on sound logic--logic that you can't beat.
|
|
Allow me to define why it is a poor sentence.
| ACK |
This line of thought requires that you assume spontaneous generation for life and consciousness. I say this because your intellect, your being, and your very existence are owed to the clump of cellular matter that forms a body and from there forms a consciousness.
Do you or do you not agree with this? If not, explain why your logic seems to be unable to sustain itself.
|
Now,
1) "assume spontaneous generation for life and consciousness" is itself a bad wording, but besides that point j_balls argument doesn't actually require the assumption that life and consciousness are created with no apparent reason.
2) "agree with this?" is an ambiguous pronoun.
3) Whether or not consciousness is generated spontaneously doesn't render his logic non... self-sustaining.
There are some reasons. And quite frankly, that phrase was less comprehendable than any literary question I saw on the SAT [And those can get pretty incomprehensive] If any sentence or phrase passes that point, it's time to go back and re-evaluate your ideas.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179440 is a reply to message #178164] |
Wed, 16 November 2005 17:26 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Yes.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179475 is a reply to message #178164] |
Wed, 16 November 2005 21:04 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Part of an application for a Junior/Senior year magnet high school.
Long story.
But yes, I did take the SAT I.
I tell you what, that thing is a party and a half.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179486 is a reply to message #179406] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 00:11 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 17:11 |
Thanks. You saved me the time it took to refresh my web browser.
<<< "Stuff" omitted for brevity >>>
those can get pretty incomprehensive] If any sentence or phrase passes that point, it's time to go back and re-evaluate your ideas.
|
Wow, that was an interesting couple of posts. I thought that Nodbugger was the Master at wasting the internet, but he clearly has competition here.
Notice the sarcasm and obnoxious tone? That is what people that either A) don't care if they offend others use, or B) the tone that someone who really doesn't have a clue but thinks that he/she does uses. Certainly when added with the critiqueing of others' sentences and such off topic comments as your difficulties with the SATs, you fall in the latter. (That would be 'B' in case you are wondering)
Suggestion:
Until you grow up, and can have a proper debate, Shut up.
We now return you to the previously intelligent conversation that was underway.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179545 is a reply to message #179486] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 14:31 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Arcane |
Wow, that was an interesting couple of posts. I thought that Nodbugger was the Master at wasting the internet, but he clearly has competition here.
|
| Arcane |
Notice the sarcasm and obnoxious tone? That is what people that either A) don't care if they offend others use, or B) the tone that someone who really doesn't have a clue but thinks that he/she does uses. Certainly when added with the critiqueing of others' sentences and such off topic comments as your difficulties with the SATs, you fall in the latter. (That would be 'B' in case you are wondering)
|
My opinion differing from yours is not grounds to justify that I have no "clue" about the topic. Come to think of it, you sound like Nodbugger. Isn't that funny...
You missed what I was getting at with ACK's sentence. Sentence structure is something I could care less about as long as it is legibly understandable to the competent human. My point with ACK's sentence was he was suggesting someone's idea required the assumption of another idea which it in fact did not while at the same time using a rather cryptic sentence form to convey his "point" in an attempt to silence someone else's argument. Really, it was a sidetrack to the actual conversation. Which quite frankly you have ignored entirely in your poorly attempted deridement of my thoughts and views.
Furthermore, are you suggesting that it is a mark of poor intelligence to have difficulty with certain SAT critical reading questions? Because I assure you it is not. If you have taken the SAT yourself, I'm sure you understand.
[By the way, I had no intention of gloating that I had taken the SAT if you interpreted my meaning as such. I was merely referencing a constant of how difficult sentences can be to understand fully.]
| Arcane |
Suggestion:
Until you grow up, and can have a proper debate, Shut up.
|
You know, if you say that, surely you could debate my actual stance instead of the cut & paste "You are a liberal so shut up now" response that is practically the trademark of these forums.
One last thing...
| Arcane |
(That would be 'B' in case you are wondering)
|
That sounds pretty sarcastic and obnoxious to me, doesn't it? Well, as I recall, you already set a standard for the conditions that govern those who would make remarks such as this. Let me refresh your memory...
| Arcane |
That is what people that either A) don't care if they offend others use, or B) the tone that someone who really doesn't have a clue but thinks that he/she does uses.
|
Despite the fallacies inherent in this sentence, I believe we both understand what it means. So, which category do you fit into? Personally, I think it's both.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179559 is a reply to message #178164] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 16:15 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
You know what, I've had it. I don't have to prove myself to you, SuperFlyingLiberalTool. Responding to anything you say is pointless and detrimental to the discussion because you don't want to debate intelligently; you just want to make yourself look good.
You know, there was a time when I thought you had a chance of actually exhibiting some form of individual thought in what you say. When you and I were both fairly new here, I thought you would be able to discuss these political subjects fairly and open-mindedly.
Then, you kept on writing the same vehement Bush-hatred drivel for which you are notorious. To this day, you cannot name one single action of the president with which you agree. If he devoted all government funds toward cancer research directly leading to a cure, you would still not be satisfied. Why? Because you blindly hate him without any reason at all.
Even I would probably be able to find a few programs and actions that Clinton enacted during his presidency that I would agree with. Yet you will not concede that there have been any good moral consequences resulting from the war in Iraq or anything else the President has done in his 4+ years in office.
This violent hatred shows itself in anything political you write. If there's an issue about poverty, you link it to Bush's lack of social program funding. If there's an issue about global warming, you link it to Bush's environmental policy. If terrorists threaten to strike again, you link it to Bush's foreign policy.
No matter you say, the message is the same--Bush is bad, Bush is bad, and Bush is bad a hundred times moreover.
You know what? We get it! Enough already! Contribute something to the discussion, please, other than "Bush is bad"!
"Okay, did you know Republicans were the cause of original sin? Both the serpent and Eve were Republicans!"
You never let up, which would be an otherwise admirable attribute if you actually used evidence and facts in your arguments (from credible sources, that is, not from www.bushwatch.org).
Instead, we take turns proving you wrong time and again with clearly substantiated facts and evidence, only for you to totally ignore it all and continue with your random "Republicans are killing the Earth!" liberal bantering.
It's one thing if you're passionate about your ideas or your position on a particular issue; it's totally different to have absolutely no respect for the other side's argument.
That's the real issue with you. You have absolutely no respect for anyone else's opinions or beliefs other than your own. You show none to anyone else's unless they agree with you, and you try to give as much credit to yourself whenever you think you're flawlessly defeating your opponents' arguments. You think you have the absolutely correct viewpoint on an issue, and anyone else who disagrees with you is obviously less intelligent than you and does not deserve your respect.
That's why almost no one, especially me (like that mattered to you, though, since you think you're superior to me anyway), here has any respect left for you, either. Not even those who would be naturally inclined to agree with some your general viewpoints.
I've enjoyed reading some of Warranto's and Javaxcx's critiques of your anti-Iraq war posts. You and they agree in that the war was illegally initiated by the United States, yet they were the ones criticizing you on your unwillingness to accept any possible good that has come out of the situation. They agreed that the war is illegal, yet they concede that a large amount of moral good has emerged from the war as well; I even remember one of them saying that from a philosophical viewpoint, all wars are illegal, so the legality argument is not necessarily always applicable.
Their opinions I can respect. They disagree with me, sure, but they disagree with me for good reasons that they express articulately and disarmingly. They don't have to show everyone how smart they are by using "fake big language" because they don't have an inferiority complex like you.
I can discuss and debate intelligently with them.
You, on the other hand, can only converse with fellow like-minded blind fools (I'll refrain from naming names) who share your same vehement hatred of Bush and the Republican party. You refuse to debate intelligently with those who disagree with you, and you only succeed in throwing the political threads in which you participate off-topic.
You're a cancer to the Politics/Hot Issues forum.
I've had enough of you. I won't subject myself to any more of your Bush-hating bantering because it will only result in the breakdown of the discussion, and I urge others to follow my lead in ignoring this blind tool of the Democratic Party so more threads will not degrade into mindless bickering.
I'll discuss politics with people who can think for themselves and respect others' opinions.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179581 is a reply to message #178164] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 18:05 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, I suppose we've finally come to parting shots.
We'll never be able to agree with each other, that much has been obvious for over a year now. I make a post, you come to it with the intent of countering every bit of opinion, suggested policy, and referenced information in said post. When you make a post, I come to do exactly the same.
I can, in the past, claim that you used to be an interesting person of ideas to discuss ideals with. That has, however changed. What you used to contribute to forum discussions in generally felt political concepts has shriveled and blackened to a feeling of duty to protect what is Republican in the world. Where I can't be convinced that Republicans are doing good in the world, you can't be convinced that they aren't.
But there is one thing that seperates us entirely.
I say I used to enjoy your discussed opinions. The real reason that changed is your debate tactics, not so much the substance. To tell the truth, I really don't tire of listening to the political opinions of someone, on one condition, this condition being that they keep discussion civil. In the past year or so, your debate tactics have shifted from tolerance and civility to outright obnoxious dismissal and countless acts of ad hominem.
Your personal attacks are why I stopped caring for your arguments in any way, shape, or form. I quite frankly cannot stand it, and thus I cannot stand your arguments. I'm sure you think of your debating style still as being calm and reasoned through apparent logic, but that can no longer be held as true. That day is past and I fear will not come back any time too soon.
I can no longer post any source that is not trumpeted by the right of this forum, you central among them, as being biased against the President. This assumption every time is based not so much on reason for a belief in bias as it is that the source is contrary to the standing administration. As evidence of this I'd like to reference the Al Qaqaa ammunitions dump that I claimed the United States forces passed over and President George Bush failed to secure. My evidence for this was both reasonable logic, and testimony from an embedded reporter with an army group [I forget what degree of organization, spare me] who stopped only long enough to photograph the RDx dump. Additionally, the President's claim that that one group of 10-20 people secured the facility is rediculous as well. The site is the size of a town with roughly 1,000 buildings. It is this kind of evidence I consistently attempt to, and thus do, use as substantiation to my opinions. Not opinion pieces from democraticunderground.com or wherever.
Not surprisingly, the first thing that crossed your mind, along with the rest of the Renforums right's minds when you saw this topic was "How could this be wrong?" The possibility that it could be correct was so incredibly ludicrous to you, apparently, that it never even occured to you. You claim that I base every one of my arguments on one sole assumption and cannot be deviated from this one assumption; you are however guilty of this yourself.
While we're on the topic of unilateral thought processes, I really must insist that I do not hold President George W. Bush in absolute contempt. Just off the top of my head, I believe the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. There was a genuine war on terror. However, when I see the War in Iraq, I can discern next to no factual evidence actually justifying invading a sovereign nation and usurping their leader. Let me pose this question to you; When I see something I believe is wrong, what should I do? Personally, since it is the direction my nation is headed in, I believe I should voice my concerns. Is this so wrong? More and more so as time progresses, you have increasingly come to believe that it is. I fear that if you could have a 1984 in America led by President Bush, you would accept that willingly.
It is not physically possible to be more ignorant, myopic, or servile than to suggest that we must be so acceptive of the ideals of a government.
Hypothetically assuming that I am close-minded about the acceptability of President Bush's actions and that I believe everything he does is wrong, at least this cannot be seen as wrong.
On the other hand, being entirely close-minded about the perfect excellence of President Bush cannot be seen as wrong.
Until you seek to silence others who do not agree with his perfect excellence.
Too many times on these forums I have been the recipient of comments such as "shut up, you don't know anything." and "stupid liberal, go home." I hope you can come to realize how incredibly wrong such attempted opinion removals are and how dangerous the acceptance of such attempted removals can be. More or less, the one sign above all others of a fascist nation is the removal of contrary opinion towards the government from the ears of citizens. Surely you realize how dangerous this is.
No system is perfect without constant, unending criticism; this is due to the inherent fact that no system can be perfect. Especially not a system so manufactured as a government. And especially not one man. Not even if he is President. A common republican talking point, one I fear you partake in, is that a wartime President should not be criticized. No one should be foolish enough to be duped by this incredible, nigh-treasonous nonsense.
I really do hope you shy away from this. If you would only become civil and acceptive of ideas again, I would not only accept your opinion, but enjoy reading it and not seek to prove it wrong, but to seek to determine whether it is right or wrong. I would then only hope you would do the same for me.
If you've had enough of my mindless bickering, then fine. Have enough. But know that it is not only my right, but my obligation to voice every aspect, no matter how minute, of my criticism of the standing administration. Don't hate me for it, for if you do you are only a truly mindless pawn of those who only care for themselves, and you're just helping to destroy America. I know it sounds extrapolated from the genuine effects of your hate, but it really is not. If enough people rise to government with your idea of the submission of contrary ideas, America will wilt like a flower in a late-spring frost.
And we wouldn't want that, now, would we?
So ignore me or keep on hating. Your choice, really. I can't change your mind. But don't view my opinions as that which must be refuted and removed. I hope you change your idea of what contradiction means. And I hope you cease the disrespectful attacks upon myself. If you do I'll be more than thrilled to talk politics with you. Until such time, however, I won't exactly miss your company.
Have a nice day.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179852 is a reply to message #179581] |
Sun, 20 November 2005 02:18 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 19:05 |
Well, I suppose we've finally come to parting shots.
We'll never be able to agree with each other, that much has been obvious for over a year now. I make a post, you come to it with the intent
---Snipped to save bandwidth----
attacks upon myself. If you do I'll be more than thrilled to talk politics with you. Until such time, however, I won't exactly miss your company.
Have a nice day.
|
You are 14, right? Maybe 15? And you have experienced, lived, worked, etc. to develop all these opinions or you have simple regurgitated them from Mummy and Daddy? Right, the latter.
I went through and read many of your posts to see if Hydra was being accurate or not. He was quite accurate in his comments. And I have no history or preconceived notions.
I'd bet that the lack of "missing" will be a mutual thing.
Don't let the door hit you on that ass on the way out, and don't forget to look both ways at the street.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Aug 19 07:04:15 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01786 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
