DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 18, 2011, 01:49:04 PM
-
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income.
Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me 2 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others.
When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/05/18/understanding_liberals) for its future.
-
Well said .
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Seems as if there would be a good job somewhere for someone who was a good translator Liberal> Conservative and back.
Google doesn't translate this , I already checked.
-
This is utterly stupid.
You make it sound like liberals want to confiscate 100% of what people earn to donate it to others, and that is bnot the case.
The current dispute is about whether those making over $200,000 per year (FIVE TIMES the national average) should pay 32% or 35% of money above $200K in taxes to help run the government.
And you make it sound like liberals want to enslave Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and chain them to an oar of a galley and dig up Sam Walton and render him for his fat.
-
Wow...a hard core liberal not grasping how to understand liberals?? ;) Notice also yet ANOTHER example of the deflection master, implying the piece is about liberals wanting to confiscate 100% of everything rich, and give that 100% to everything not rich
-
This is utterly stupid.
You make it sound like liberals want to confiscate 100% of what people earn to donate it to others, and that is bnot the case.
The current dispute is about whether those making over $200,000 per year (FIVE TIMES the national average) should pay 32% or 35% of money above $200K in taxes to help run the government.
And you make it sound like liberals want to enslave Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and chain them to an oar of a galley and dig up Sam Walton and render him for his fat.
Is it truely fair that 95% of the expense of the government be paid by less than 10% of the population?
I mean there is just no way they are getting good value for their money.
-
This is utterly stupid.
You make it sound like liberals want to confiscate 100% of what people earn to donate it to others, and that is bnot the case.
The current dispute is about whether those making over $200,000 per year (FIVE TIMES the national average) should pay 32% or 35% of money above $200K in taxes to help run the government.
And you make it sound like liberals want to enslave Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and chain them to an oar of a galley and dig up Sam Walton and render him for his fat.
Actually there are two disputes.
Whether present government spending is sustainable
and whether tax increases are needed to bring revenue in line with spending.
If the answer to 1 is no then raising taxes (2) on everyone in addition to cuts in spending might be a solution.
Targeted solutions will not work if the problem requires universal cuts and universal tax increases.
I don't see how taxing based on class is any more fair than taxing based on gender race or creed.
-
And if I understand correctly, you can raise the taxes on every millionaire/billioniare in this country, and it won't even dent the amount of debt we've currently acrued, under this President and Democratic Congress
-
I am pretty sure that ending the tax breaks on the wealthiest would do a LOT MORE than ending funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS.
And you tend to not understand correctly. Often, you appear not to understand at all.
-
News flash, the weathiest are already paying FAR more than their fair share. You tend to not understand that concept correctly. Often, you appear not to understand at all
-
I am pretty sure that ending the tax breaks on the wealthiest would do a LOT MORE than ending funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS.
I'm pretty sure that raising taxes on everyone and seriously cutting spending is the only fair solution, if the government we have is the one we want.
-
I agree with that as a better way to lower the debt.
Note that I was comparing two other lesser options, not reducing the debt.
-
I agree with that as a better way to lower the debt.
Note that I was comparing two other lesser options, not reducing the debt.
I understand what you were saying. I'm just saying it's time for the posturing to end.
That is if the problems are as serious as advertised.
Targeting the rich is as fair as targeting retired professors who were smart enough to live frugally and invest what they had left over. Where is the fairness in that?
-
Not to mention that "the rich"'s levels of income have huge sways, and aren't nearly as stable as that of the poor and middle class.
To try and design a policy of running the country on the backs of "the rich" will inherently collapse, anytime the market takes a nosedive. Someone making 10million 1 year, can easily make 2million or less the following year. Of course, Xo would claim, hey, its still 2 million, what's he complaining about? The complain is the 5x loss of revenue that the government was "banking" on to feed the spending beast
-
XO is not the enemy. From what i understand, he is a tried and true capitalist.
-
Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one, ARE the enemy. NOT evil, just WRONG, and couldn't be more wrong.
-
Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one, ARE the enemy. NOT evil, just WRONG, and couldn't be more wrong.
And that has what to do with XO?
-
Strange, I could have sworn I was referring to Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one. Is Xo one of those? You'd have to ask him, I suppose
-
Strange, I could have sworn I was referring to Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one. Is Xo one of those? You'd have to ask him, I suppose
Why post what you did unless you think XO is the enemy? Even if he did want to turn this into a socialist country he wouldn't be the enemy, he would simply have a different opinion than you.
-
"liberals"
Who do we mean?
The Democratic party seems to be buying the votes of the half of the country that do not pay any income taxes and the 20% or so who are receiveing enough government support to not work.
-
Strange, I could have sworn I was referring to Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one. Is Xo one of those? You'd have to ask him, I suppose
Why post what you did unless you think XO is the enemy?
Because I was responding to YOUR post as to who is, not to Xo.
-
Are you stating that those who think differently than you should be considered enemies?
-
It seems to me that to sirs, anyone who does not think like sirs is "the enemy".
-
Are you stating that those who think differently than you should be considered enemies?
Are you NOT paying attention? Or are you trying, really hard to make this about something, it isn't? Something along the lines of "ahh, I know exactly what sirs meant, by God, that's what sirs had to have meant, and damn any of his explanations to try and weasel out of it"
Let's try this again : Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one, ARE the enemy. NOT evil, just WRONG, and couldn't be more wrong
Now, what part are you having trouble with?? Are you trying to make something out of the word "enemy", even though it was you who brought up the word??
So, IF Xo, who happens to be a hard core liberal, DOES want this country to turn into a socialist one, then YES, he is WRONG, and he'd be referred to as "the enemy"
Lets make it even clearer....LIBERALISM is the enemy here. NOT every liberal, just those who want to turn this country into a socialist one. Notice that has squat to do with anyone that disagrees with me. My wife disagrees with me on many an issue. It doesn't make her the enemy.
Are we clear, yet?? So cut the crap with the inferred disagree with sirs, you must be the enemy garbage
-
just so i understand.
The philosophy , in this case socialistic liberalism, is the enemy.
And those who believe in this philosophy, would be enemies.
You don't believe in socialistic liberalism, therefore you disagree with those who do.
So i guess we need to see whether XO is a socialistic liberalism proponent to determine whether you consider him the enemy.
-
I think I already said that, but for clarity sake, let's post it a 3rd time...Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one, ARE the enemy. NOT evil, just WRONG, and couldn't be more wrong
So what you need to see, is IF Xo, who happens to be a hard core liberal, DOES want this country to turn into a socialist one, then YES, he is WRONG, and he'd be referred to as "the enemy"
And yes, Socialistic liberalism, as DEFINED by trying to turn this country into a socialist one, is "the enemy"
-
How can an idea be an enemy?
-
It seems to me that to sirs, anyone who does not think like sirs is "the enemy".
That doesn't seem to be what he's saying at all. He's saying anybody who wants to turn this country into a Socialist one is the enemy. That is something I would fight against vociferously as well.
You on the other hand said: "I cannot deal with right wing people, be they Black or White."
You have your own issues you have to answer for. You hate a certain segment of the population just because they disagree with you.
Obama in the last election told hispanic voters to go out and "punish your enemies." I'm sure you approved of that demagogic language as well.
-
How can an idea be an enemy?
Naziism was "an idea". Fascism was an "idea". Communism is "an idea". Yea, they're also forms of Government, but its the idea behind that form of Government that makes it "the enemy"
Seriously, what's the problem here, Bt? This is pretty common sensical, especially for those who covet the constitution and what made this country great. You looking for everyone to just gather around the campfire, and sing Kum Ba Ya? No disagreeing allowed? Why are you having such a problem with my position??
-
How do you fight an enemy that is an idea?
-
By supporting politicians who also covet the constitution, and that which makes this country great. By supporting legislation that frees up the citizenry to do what they do best
By defeating politicians and legislation that does the opposite
-
By supporting politicians who also covet the constitution, and that which makes this country great. By supporting legislation that frees up the citizenry to do what they do best
By defeating politicians and legislation that does the opposite
And if there are more people who support the enemy idea than those who support your world view, what then?
-
By supporting politicians who also covet the constitution, and that which makes this country great. By supporting legislation that frees up the citizenry to do what they do best
By defeating politicians and legislation that does the opposite
And if there are more people who support the enemy idea than those who support your world view, what then?
Then they will (Horrors oh horrors)win elections.
If their ideas are right that will then b e the time to prove how well those ideas work.
If their ideas are unworkable , the public will thereby be educated.
-
;) someone gets it, without trying to make this something, its not
-
By supporting politicians who also covet the constitution, and that which makes this country great. By supporting legislation that frees up the citizenry to do what they do best
By defeating politicians and legislation that does the opposite
And if there are more people who support the enemy idea than those who support your world view, what then?
Then they will (Horrors oh horrors)win elections.
If their ideas are right that will then b e the time to prove how well those ideas work.
If their ideas are unworkable , the public will thereby be educated.
Will it not be too late by then?
Look at California.
-
By supporting politicians who also covet the constitution, and that which makes this country great. By supporting legislation that frees up the citizenry to do what they do best
By defeating politicians and legislation that does the opposite
And if there are more people who support the enemy idea than those who support your world view, what then?
Then they will (Horrors oh horrors)win elections.
If their ideas are right that will then b e the time to prove how well those ideas work.
If their ideas are unworkable , the public will thereby be educated.
Will it not be too late by then?
Look at California.
How steep must a learning curve be?
The people need the truth and the ability to understand it .
I suppose they need the ability to learn at a rate greater than the rate that ruin creeps up on them.
But what is the alternative to giving the other side a proper turn ?
-
Seems to me that if your idea is superior then educating those who believe otherwise of the merits of your idea would be the best course of action. I just don't see how that could be fruitful if non believers are treated as enemies.
-
Compromising on core principals is not a terribly viable function. Smiling while the other side continues to beat on you, and take advantage of your "kindness: isn't going to change "the enemy" into someone willing to compromise on their principals either
And notice, I'm not advocating calling "the enemy" evil. That's wrong, because that would justify an ends justifying the means approach to defeating them. Plane nailed it, the electorate has to become educated. If abysmal failure is the last vestage of education, so be it. But Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one, ARE the enemy. NOT evil, just WRONG, and couldn't be more wrong
-
Compromising on core principals is not a terribly viable function. Smiling while the other side continues to beat on you, and take advantage of your "kindness: isn't going to change "the enemy" into someone willing to compromise on their principals either
I don't recall saying anything about compromising your core values. I just don't see how you educate someone who you view as the enemy without them picking up on the attitude of disrespect and disdain for them and their ideas.
Can you see Coca Cola wooing Pepsi drinkers by calling them dangers to civilization?
-
I don't see the decision between Coca Cola or Pepsi as a decision between supporting abortion or not
It's a perspective kinda thing. Perhaps with your demonstrated morally relatavistic prism, they are kinda the same
-
Ok let's talk abortion.
Though legal, i would presume pro-life folks would prefer that the procedure be used rarely.
I guess one way to accomplish that is at the point of a gun. But that would involve governmental social engineering and my guess is most conservatives are against that.
The other way would be to persuade an expectant mother that there are better alternatives to abortion.
Which do you think is the better approach?
-
Let women decide for themselves. Period.
Stupid laws forcing women to pay for sonograms they do not want and making them sign a form to refuse to look at the damned things is one oppressive thing the idiot FL legislature has done, and that sucks.
-
Ok let's talk abortion.
No, let's talk perspective.
Coca Cola or Pepsi
Abortion or Life
And you think they're on equal grounds of if one chooses another, all is just fine??
How about writing a song about the Rocky Mountains or writing a song about a convicted Cop Killer. Pretty much equal in your eyes, I assume??
It's a perspective thing, Bt. I, like you, can actually differentiate acts that are wrong, if not evil. (granted, in my eyes. One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighters. I get that). But I've been blessed by God, taught about morals, per my parents & my walk with God, and along with my being raised in this country, I'm confident I have a pretty strong grasp of the difference between a person choosing between coke or pepsi vs a person choosing between abortion or life of the unborn. The former's choice isn't life altering, and doesn't even warrant a discussion on the notion of "enemy"
I choose Dr Pepper, anyways, so it's a moot point
-
Ok let's talk abortion.
No, let's talk perspective.
Coca Cola or Pepsi
Abortion or Life
And you think they're on equal grounds of if one chooses another, all is just fine??
How about writing a song about the Rocky Mountains or writing a song about a convicted Cop Killer. Pretty much equal in your eyes, I assume??
It's a perspective thing, Bt. I, like you, can actually differentiate acts that are wrong, if not evil. (granted, in my eyes. One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighters. I get that). But I've been blessed by God, taught about morals, per my parents & my walk with God, and along with my being raised in this country, I'm confident I have a pretty strong grasp of the difference between a person choosing between coke or pepsi vs a person choosing between abortion or life of the unborn. The former's choice isn't life altering, and doesn't even warrant a discussion on the notion of "enemy"
I choose Dr Pepper, anyways, so it's a moot point
That's a shame. Perhaps one of your allies on the right can pick up the baton and continue this discussion of how best to convey ideas.
-
hmm
wheels turning again
in nature quite afew animals in stressed situation have miscarriages as a survival mechanism. suppose alarge percent of miscarriage are found to be deliberate would natural abortion be frowned upon by pro-life?
-
It was not a song about a "cop killer" you moron. It was a song about a woman falsely accused of killing a cop. Whether she killed the cop or not is irrelevant, unless the song recommends killing cops, and it does not.
Look, you will NEVER convince me of your macho Biblical pro-fetus crap about abortion. I have given up on all of you, and so just take your stupid "pro life" crap and shove it, I am not addressing it here any more. There is nothing left to say, the horse is dead and even the bones are sinking into the ooze.
-
Convicted of killing a cop....song about that convicted cop killer....ergo a song about a cop killer
But nice to know how the insults are flying high. You & BsB are definately good at something. Take pride in that
And thanks for helping to demonstrate to Bt how the idea of trying to "be nice" to someone who appears on the surface to be a member of "the enemy" would manifest itself
-
I don't recall saying you had to be nice. I have said that i don't think debates should be about the person you are debating.
I was just curious why you considered XO an enemy and what you hoped to accomplish by treating him as such?
-
We already addressed your erroneous conclusion of my calling Xo "the enemy". Perception is not reality. Best stick with asking him what his goals of this country are, then you can address the notion of sirs referring to him as "the enemy", and what that actually means. ........ Hint, it's doesn't mean he's evil
-
A song about a person falsely accused of killing a cop is not a song about a cop killer.
A song about a cop killer would be a song in which the cop deserved to die, and perhaps recommendations about how bad cops should be killed in the future.
Woody Guthrie sang a famous song about Pretty Boy Floyd, who did kill a cop, I believe. Should anyone who has ever sung this song be excluded from the White House? I used to help run a coffeehouse, and almost all the singers knew this song, as well as songs about Jesse James.
How about this one:
Bonnie and Clyde is a 1967 American crime film directed by Arthur Penn and starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway as the title characters Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker. The film features Michael J. Pollard, Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons, with Denver Pyle, Dub Taylor, Gene Wilder, Evans Evans and Mabel Cavitt. The screenplay was written by David Newman and Robert Benton, adapted from the exploits of legendary crime duo Bonnie and Clyde. Robert Towne and Beatty provided uncredited contributions to the script; Beatty also produced the film. The soundtrack was composed by Charles Strouse.
Shall we exclude all these people from WH invitations as well?
-
If XO is in favor of a more socialistic government then he is your enemy.
Originally the enemy was liberalism, in which XO believes, then you qualified it further, so we need more data to see if XO still is your enemy.
Which makes my statement in #13 true, for the moment.
-
in nature quite afew animals in stressed situation have miscarriages as a survival mechanism. suppose alarge percent of miscarriage are found to be deliberate would natural abortion be frowned upon by pro-life?
==============================================================
In nature there are more than a few animals in which the mother kills and eats one or more of the recently born young to assure her survival and that of the rest of the litter. Cats do this, so do some birds.
Then we have insects in which the mother kills and eats the father, or the recently hatched kill and eat the mother.
And there are rodents, who eat their poop and/or feed it to their young.
It is pretty tricky to apply what we see as natural law as being a divine recommendation.
-
A song about a person falsely accused of killing a cop is not a song about a cop killer.
Not accurate, as the person was convicted in the murder of a cop, not falsely accused. Subsequently upheld on appeal. FACT, end of story
If XO is in favor of a more socialistic government then he is your enemy.
Yes, IF, he is wanting to turn this country into a socialist one
Originally the enemy was liberalism, in which XO believes, then you qualified it further, so we need more data to see if XO still is your enemy.
No, originally "the enemy" was Liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist one. NOT evil, just WRONG, and couldn't be more wrong. Clarity was then provided for better grasp of the point that was being made
-
Jury verdicts are not statements of absolute truth, everyone knows that.
People have the right to believe whatever they wish.
singing in a song that someone was falsely accused does not make anyone an accomplice.
-
singing in a song that someone was falsely accused does not make anyone an accomplice.
It's a celebration of that person.
He also advocated killing George W. Bush in a song. Common is not somebody that is an appropriate person to perform at the White House. Neither are the other two poets that Obama invited who are against interracial marriage.
They just don't represent the values of the American people.
-
made me think of mumia and decided to wiki him
4 witnesses and a yelled confession" I killed the shot the bleep and hope he dies"not exact quote.
and still he has global support
all I keep thinking how much more proof is needed? youtube videos?
truthfully he`s be dead now if it wasn`t for the support
-
Jury verdicts are not statements of absolute truth, everyone knows that.
Doesn't matter what you "feel", and no one is claiming you can't feel or believe anything you want. It's called the Elvis Facter. Its still a FACT, that the person in question has been convicted, by a Judge & Jury, in the murder of a cop, UPHELD ON APPEAL
singing in a song that someone was falsely accused does not make anyone an accomplice.
and again with the DEFLECTION of trying to claim false accusation, or that a songwriter is an an accomplice to the murder, if they glorify them in song. You best stop while you're........oh, too late.
-
It was not a song about a "cop killer" you moron. It was a song about a woman falsely accused of killing a cop. Whether she killed the cop or not is irrelevant, unless the song recommends killing cops, and it does not.
Look, you will NEVER convince me of your macho Biblical pro-fetus crap about abortion. I have given up on all of you, and so just take your stupid "pro life" crap and shove it, I am not addressing it here any more. There is nothing left to say, the horse is dead and even the bones are sinking into the ooze.
I have been avoiding Bible refrences till now , but if you insist , do be aware that it is strictly the biblical view that protects your own right to live.
-
I have been avoiding Bible refrences till now , but if you insist , do be aware that it is strictly the biblical view that protects your own right to live.
Only if I am a fetus.
I am not a fetus.
-
I have been avoiding Bible refrences till now , but if you insist , do be aware that it is strictly the biblical view that protects your own right to live.
Only if I am a fetus.
I am not a fetus.
You are not a schoolchild either.
and no it is the social mores that found ther law not the other way around , so it is indeed Biblical attitudes that protect your right to live.
Why shouldn't we all be just as agnostic about your right to live now as you would have been a few decades ago when you were a fetus ?
-
You are making no sense at all.
-
He's dead on, pun intended, on the analogy
-
A pun is a play on words.
There is no pun.
-
For a "language" professor, you apparently need to stick to spanish, as your grasp of english and puns is seriously deficient, apparently
-
Where is the pun?
There is no pun.
-
As I said, the English language is apparently not your strong suit. Best stick with Spanish
-
Where is the pun?
I bet you can't find it, as it is not there.
I doubt that you even know what a pun actually is.
-
As I said, the English language is apparently not your strong suit. Best stick with Spanish
-
As I said, the English language is apparently not your strong suit. Best stick with Spanish
Just to be clear, would that be a deflection?
-
I am thinking the words "stupid sirs remark" fits better. There is no pun. A pun requires a word with two meanings, and there is none.
-
If there is a pun, he should point it out instead of personalizing the exchange with silly aspersions to your former profession. I don't see how that enlightens anyone.
-
As I said, the English language is apparently not your strong suit. Best stick with Spanish
Just to be clear, would that be a deflection?
Nope...but apparently you're not as sharp as I really thought you were, or your just trying to defend Xo, for the sake of defending Xo. Dead, as in aborted child....dead on as in accurate. Gads ::)
-
Ya know, I'm not sure what is more disconcerting......that a language professor couldn't grasp the "dead" pun, or that Bt couldn't :o
-
I suspected dead was the word you were playing on, so you were once again wrong in your inference, so no need to be disconcerted, i was just curious why you couldn't seem to bring yourself to just point it out to xo, as adverse as you are to deflection.
-
No, I wasn't wrong, if you demonstrated that you appeared to not get it either. What you could have done is to enlighten Xo as to what you believed the pun to be about, but instead you played the ignorant roll in this little tangential thread to nowhere. Apparently instead wanting to take erroneous stabs at some form of deflection, on my part. So, you were wrong once again.
As far as pointing it out to xo, it was so transparent as to what the pun was, I really didn't think it needed an arrow. For a 7 year old who has no clue as to what an analogy is, or a pun, yea, I could see the need for pointing it out. But an adult? And a language professor on top of that??
Couldn't help but also notice how in your effort to take pot shots at me, Xo's references to my supposed stupidity, gets a complete pass on your part. Talk about perpetuating & enabling unenlightenment.
Appears to "speak volumes"
-
No, I wasn't wrong, if you demonstrated that you appeared to not get it either.
Did i demonstrate that? If so where?
What you could have done is to enlighten Xo as to what you believed the pun to be about, but instead you played the ignorant roll in this little tangential thread to nowhere.
No. I asked if you were deflecting his question.
As I said, the English language is apparently not your strong suit. Best stick with Spanish
Just to be clear, would that be a deflection?
See right there.
As far as pointing it out to xo, it was so transparent as to what the pun was, I really didn't think it needed an arrow.
But yet he asked, and you deflected, choosing instead to be aghast that a bilingual professor of the language arts could be so ignorant as to not recognize a pun if he saw one.
Perhaps now that he knows for sure what would you were punning he can agree or disagree that it is indeed a proper pun.
Me i was more curious about the need to deflect.
-
You are making no sense at all.
Did it make sense for you to say "I am not a fetus"?
You have been a fetus it is just a life stage.
Haveing no respect for human life is a bad thing.
But you can compartmentalise people into those who are persons and those who are non persons, then your disrespect for the non persons doesn't threaten your own ilk.
However, it no longer makes sense for you to criticise Natzis of 1935 Germany or Confederates of 1866 America for doing precicely the same .
-
No, I wasn't wrong, if you demonstrated that you appeared to not get it either.
Did i demonstrate that? If so where?
The where is in exactly how I referenced it. Instead of letting Xo in on the pun, you're out there inquiring why hasn't sirs, as if you had no idea, either. I've been in many a debate, where if a poster was "questioning" something, and another poster knew, or at least had an idea what the answer was, they'd post it for assistance to the person asking. You didn't do that, did you. Ergo, you made it appear that you didn't get it either,
What you could have done is to enlighten Xo as to what you believed the pun to be about, but instead you played the ignorant roll in this little tangential thread to nowhere.
No. I asked if you were deflecting his question.
Which would be the response if you didn't know what the pun was, and thought I didn't either. I then made it clear that I wasn't
As far as pointing it out to xo, it was so transparent as to what the pun was, I really didn't think it needed an arrow.
But yet he asked, and you deflected
NO, since a deflection is a response when one doesn't have an answer, or can't answer, or is embarrased by the truth of the answer. I both knew and had no problem with posting it. You then asked if it was some form of deflection, which I made clear how it wasn't
You're starting to move into the misrepresentation phase again, with this completely irrelevent tangent. WHY? I had such great respect for you Bt, and you're pulling this crap again??
Me i was more curious about the need to deflect.
That credibility meter just keeps going down and down. I feel for yas. And thanks again for taking all this time and energy to take stabs at my non-deflection, while Xo's stupidity comments aimed at me continue to get a pass from you.
-
There was no pun.
I was a fetus but I am not a fetus any longer. It lakes prefect sense to state that I am not a fetus. It is the absolute truth. I am not an egg, a sperm or a zygote, either.
And no, I will give the job of respecting fetuses to the only person responsible: the woman who has one inside. It is not my business to respect any damn fetus.
-
The where is in exactly how I referenced it. Instead of letting Xo in on the pun, you're out there inquiring why hasn't sirs, as if you had no idea, either. I've been in many a debate, where if a poster was "questioning" something, and another poster knew, or at least had an idea what the answer was, they'd post it for assistance to the person asking. You didn't do that, did you. Ergo, you made it appear that you didn't get it either,
Nice attempt at minimizing, but your original charge that i didn't get it didn't contain the wiggle word appear that appeared afterwards.
Ya know, I'm not sure what is more disconcerting......that a language professor couldn't grasp the "dead" pun, or that Bt couldn't :o
And it really is not my job to explain your puns. But one won't think that if after being asked three times the same question, the question would be answered.
as for the deflection:
NO, since a deflection is a response when one doesn't have an answer, or can't answer, or is embarrased by the truth of the answer.
Interesting definition. Would it be embarrassing to get caught doing the same thing you accuse others of doing? For example:
and again with the DEFLECTION of trying to claim false accusation, or that a songwriter is an an accomplice to the murder, if they glorify them in song. You best stop while you're........oh, too late. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/trying-to-understand-liberals/msg124635/?topicseen#msg124635)
or this one:
Wow...a hard core liberal not grasping how to understand liberals?? ;) Notice also yet ANOTHER example of the deflection master, implying the piece is about liberals wanting to confiscate 100% of everything rich, and give that 100% to everything not rich (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/trying-to-understand-liberals/msg124476/?topicseen#msg124476)
-
The where is in exactly how I referenced it. Instead of letting Xo in on the pun, you're out there inquiring why hasn't sirs, as if you had no idea, either. I've been in many a debate, where if a poster was "questioning" something, and another poster knew, or at least had an idea what the answer was, they'd post it for assistance to the person asking. You didn't do that, did you. Ergo, you made it appear that you didn't get it either
Nice attempt at minimizing, but your original charge that i didn't get it didn't contain the wiggle word appear that appeared afterwards.
Wrong again (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/trying-to-understand-liberals/msg124787/#msg124787), since appeared was used in how I came to my conclusion, when you "asked". It wasn't necessary in the very 1st response.
And it really is not my job to explain your puns.
No, of course not. I wasn't asking...XO was. It was pretty transparent, that apparently even you got it. But the language professor apparently couldn't
The fact you had to spend all this ridiculous time with your erroneous claims of deflection, punctuated now by the SOP of misrepresentation, all the while Xo's much more blatant stupidity barbs, remain unmentioned, dare I say, "speaks volumes".
But its ok, I think the pattern has been established now. Your "inquiry" as to "is that a deflection" was never serious. You (erroneously) decided it was. And despite overwehlming facts and explanations to the contrary, you're going to rationalize what ever you need to, in order to justify your original erroroneus conclusion (the stepping into the misrperesentation phase of this ridicuous tangent the thread has taken)
as for the deflection:
NO, since a deflection is a response when one doesn't have an answer, or can't answer, or is embarrased by the truth of the answer.
Interesting definition. Would it be embarrassing to get caught doing the same thing you accuse others of doing?
and again with the DEFLECTION of trying to claim false accusation, or that a songwriter is an an accomplice to the murder, if they glorify them in song. You best stop while you're........oh, too late. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/trying-to-understand-liberals/msg124635/?topicseen#msg124635)
or this one:
Wow...a hard core liberal not grasping how to understand liberals?? ;) Notice also yet ANOTHER example of the deflection master, implying the piece is about liberals wanting to confiscate 100% of everything rich, and give that 100% to everything not rich (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/trying-to-understand-liberals/msg124476/?topicseen#msg124476)
Only if they were inaacurate references. Since they weren't, they too are not deflection efforts. But keep up the hard work. Misrepresenting sirs appears to have become a devoted hobby of yours. :(
-
It wasn't necessary in the very 1st response.
Sure it was, that was where you leveled your accusation.
-
It wasn't an accusation, it was an observation, so no, it wasn't. When asked, I then provided you the necessary clarity which brought about the observation.
I think we're done here, unless your hobby hasn't met its quota for the day
-
You sure do cut and run a lot.
of course that is just an observation.
Just as i observed that you were deflecting XO's queries in the pun thread. Not matter your protestations.
Geez i used to respect you Sirs, always trying to be polite and objective, but now all you do is misrepresent, deflect and hit enter and declare victory.
Of course that is also just an observation.
-
sirs should identify what he calls a "pun"
He cannot, alas, for there is no pun. sirs might not know what a pun is.
-
sirs should identify what he calls a "pun"
He cannot, alas, for there is no pun. sirs might not know what a pun is.
One would think he would have answered the question at least after the third request instead of making snarky observations about your credentials, and as adverse as he is to deflection, but alas he did not see the need.
or so i observed.
-
He has not, because he cannot.
There is no pun.
-
You sure do cut and run a lot.
If most all readers have noted, there are copious amounts of my posting, on this and other subjects. Many of which find me saying the same thing over and over again, in trying to redirect these deflection and misrepresentation efforts, which pretty much debunks the idea of "cut & running". But alas, let me not get in the way of your mandated quota of misrepresentating sirs. By all means, continue. Your continued defending of Xo and pass of his stupidity references is also duly noted
-
STILL WAITING......Debate forurm.......questions posed.......still waiting for responses to those specific questions :-\
The irony.
-
Indeed. Let us know when you plan to address those questions (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124841/#msg124841)
-
However, it no longer makes sense for you to criticise Natzis of 1935 Germany or Confederates of 1866 America for doing precicely the same .
====================================================================
Did they say that a woman has a right to determine the fate of her fetus? That is my position.
I believe that this was not what they were condemned for.
The Nazis were condemned for exterminating human beings, not fetuses.
By 1866, the Confederates did not need condemnation. Someone might have told them "We told you so", about the profound unwisdom of secession and then firing on Ft. Sumter.
-
However, it no longer makes sense for you to criticise Natzis of 1935 Germany or Confederates of 1866 America for doing precicely the same .
====================================================================
Did they say that a woman has a right to determine the fate of her fetus? That is my position.
I believe that this was not what they were condemned for.
The Nazis were condemned for exterminating human beings, not fetuses.
By 1866, the Confederates did not need condemnation. Someone might have told them "We told you so", about the profound unwisdom of secession and then firing on Ft. Sumter.
I think you are half an inch from understanding yourself.
Watch this copy and paste simplicity.
The Nazis were condemned for exterminating Jews, not human beings. The Confederates were condemmened for enslaveing Negros not human beings.
human beings
-
Plane, you're into this God made man, man is special, if you abort a fetus you are going against God and the sanctity of life and so forth. However, a lot of us don't see it that way.
I see a turtles egg as being no more, or less, sacrosanct then a human fetus. Not all turtle eggs hatch a turtle, and if they do, many do not survive the first few days. Some of this is by choice of say, a predator, many by just the obstacle course nature presents.
For many humans, with our reproductive abilities, long duration of care necessarily given our offspring, the formation of a fetus and its likelihood of success can place upon us another serious obstacle on an already crowded course. Some planing is therefore desirable. It's a fact of life. It's a fact of a life that is long, hard, and that requires actions that are in some cases not pretty.
Your view is your view. It isn't my view, or apparently XO's view, or the view of millions around the world. Marry, if you want, someone who shares your view. Train your offspring, if you want, in the finer points, as you see them, of your view. But don't push your view on me, or my wife, or my girlfriend, or my offspring. There is nothing more special about your take on the world. There is nothing more special about your beliefs. You have no clearer path to wisdom. We all are just trying. We all are just making an effort to understand what Chinese Chan/Zen refers to as the great question of birth and death.
You find your Holly, I'll find mine.
BSB
-
Plane, you're into this God made man, man is special, if you abort a fetus you are going against God and the sanctity of life and so forth. However, a lot of us don't see it that way.
I see a turtles egg as being no more, or less, sacrosanct then a human fetus. Not all turtle eggs hatch a turtle, and if they do, many do not survive the first few days. Some of this is by choice of say, a predator, many by just the obstacle course nature presents.
For many humans, with our reproductive abilities, long duration of care necessarily given our offspring, the formation of a fetus and its likelihood of success can place upon us another serious obstacle on an already crowded course. Some planing is therefore desirable. It's a fact of life. It's a fact of a life that is long, hard, and that requires actions that are in some cases not pretty.
Your view is your view. It isn't my view, or apparently XO's view, or the view of millions around the world. Marry, if you want, someone who shares your view. Train your offspring, if you want, in the finer points, as you see them, of your view. But don't push your view on me, or my wife, or my girlfriend, or my offspring. There is nothing more special about your take on the world. There is nothing more special about your beliefs. You have no clearer path to wisdom. We all are just trying. We all are just making an effort to understand what Chinese Chan/Zen refers to as the great question of birth and death.
You find your Holly, I'll find mine.
BSB
You are not being observant here BsB although your points here baout my views are good guesses I have been avoiding scriptural support for my case.
You and XO are attacking all of the points I have not tried to makde, and have made no logical case for yourself at all.
Look at the arguement you have just made , thaqt because lots of Fetus die killing them is not a moral problem. Well lots of guys your age die , natural causes and accidents just like Fetus do. I still think that killing you with no due process is a moral problem.
There is no better case to make that a fetus is a non person than to make the case that veterans or old people or one or another race is of non person status.
I feel that I really won against XO when he abandoned logic entirely and stated Look, you will NEVER convince me of your macho Biblical pro-fetus crap about abortion. I have given up on all of you, and so just take your stupid "pro life" crap and shove it, I am not addressing it here any more. There is nothing left to say, the horse is dead and even the bones are sinking into the ooze.
In other words "I am not open to reason" or " I need not justify my opinion to you nor to myself"
Now do you really mean to say that you are no more special to the law than a turtle?
Or do you mean that there need be no respect for life just because it is human?
My point, which I feel has not been adressed, is that drawing a circle around a type of person and declareing them non- persons is the door to great sins that has been opened several times in history causing great tragedy, and that declareing people who are fetus, non human is the same problem in every way.
I would not argue with a NATZI that the bible was against his stance on Jews being sub human , this would not be effective , I simularly have not been refering to the book in this arguement , it would be legitamate to me , but not to you.
So I restrict my arguements to logic as much as possible , and I see no logical answer yet.
Why indeed shouold there be a line drawn around people of a certain age and call them worthless and protecct them less than lab animals?
Why shouldn't we solve several economic problems by drawing a line around people too old to be persons and declare them void of any debts to them and beyond the protection of the law.
The logic is the same.
-
By 1866, the Confederates did not need condemnation. Someone might have told them "We told you so", about the profound unwisdom of secession and then firing on Ft. Sumter.
Did Confederates think they wefre defeated or wrong?
That is not the same thing.
-
I see, so there's no logic in my case, but yours is overflowing with logic. I rest my case.
"Last night I heard a wooden horse neigh."
Who ever told you that life is logical? What fairy tale did that come out of? And who ever told you it was supposed to be logical? In the real world 1+1 doesn't equal 2.
As a student was leaving his masters hut late one night, the master blew out his, the students, candle just as he entered the dark. Suddenly the student could see.
Blow out your candle Plane, it's blinding you.
BSB
-
I see, so there's no logic in my case, but yours is overflowing with logic. I rest my case.
"Last night I heard a wooden horse neigh."
Who ever told you that life is logical? What fairy tale did that come out of? And who ever told you it was supposed to be logical? In the real world 1+1 doesn't equal 2.
As a student was leaving his masters hut late one night, the master blew out his, the students, candle just as he entered the dark. Suddenly the student could see.
Blow out your candle Plane, it's blinding you.
BSB
You should not have assumed that I was trying to make my case on a religious basis, your assumption has left you open to this .
When do you see a human being?
If you cannot when I can must we assume that I am blind?
-
Well, I tried to put up a long post three times, wouldn't post. So I'll just say, Plane, it's your mind, use it as you wish.
BSB
-
Darn Karma budgeting.
-
As we all know, things change as time marches on. I notice I'm a lot less inclined to spend much time pointing out my views on a subject. I'm no less tolerant of different views, I just don't see any point in trying to get my views across more than once or twice. They were a long time in the making. I'm happy with them. So be it.
Another change. I have always liked wild places. If I look back over my life I feel like the best experiences I've had, outside of loving someone and being loved in return, are those I had in the most remote spots I've been to. Canoeing in northern Maine. Being lucky enough to get to ride a spectacular horse for two weeks on a trip up in the Rocky Mountains. However, I've noticed that, while the experiences aren't quite the equal of those and others I've had, I am taken on a daily basis by how beautiful this planet is. I'm ever aware of its vastness and the vastness of the universe it's a part of. Everything has become more spacious as I age. My mind seems more spacious. The world seems more spacious. Even the universe, as vast as it has always felt to me, seems more spacious.
I wish that those caught up in strife could experience just how big a thing it is we get to be part of for such a small amount of time.
BSB
-
Did Confederates think they wefre defeated or wrong?
That is not the same thing.
======================================
I said they did not need condemnation. They realized that they were defeated. Condemnation would not convince them that they were wrong. For most of them, death sufficed for this.
-
As we all know, things change as time marches on. I notice I'm a lot less inclined to spend much time pointing out my views on a subject. I'm no less tolerant of different views, I just don't see any point in trying to get my views across more than once or twice. They were a long time in the making. I'm happy with them. So be it.
Bt would likely consider that cutting and running. I know he's pulled the same claim, under the similar circumstances with me. Not sure why BsB would get a pass
-
BSB is an "in the moment" kind of guy. It's a Buddhist thing.
I'm happy he comes by and visits time to time.
-
So am I. Not sure why his cut and run gets a pass though. Some form of Moderate thing?
-
Nah. I just respect him more today, than i do you. He isn't as whiney and needy.
-
Ahhh, I see...those you tend to agree with, and vice versa, get more respect, despite if they do the same thing you claim someone you disprespect is doing. And concurrently, those that highlight your flaws and how wrong you can be at times, deserve your disrespect, even when never cursing or calling you personal names, like stupid. Got it :-\
-
sirs is whiny and needy?
I never noticed.
-
Ahhh, I see...those you tend to agree with, and vice versa, get more respect, despite if they do the same thing you claim someone you disprespect is doing. And concurrently, those that highlight your flaws and how wrong you can be at times, deserve your disrespect, even when never cursing or calling you personal names, like stupid. Got it :-\
Want some cheese with that whine?
I'll defer to XO as to whether that is a pun. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Nice of u2 to help reinforce my point, thank you very much 8) Yo, Xo, you forgot stupid and *place adjective here* land of sirs
-
Nice of u2 to help reinforce my point, thank you very much 8) Yo, Xo, you forgot stupid and *place adjective here* land of sirs
You ever pause to think that XO might have been defending you? A literal reading of his post could point in that direction.
-
"whiny" and "needy" were not the precise adjectives that I would use in describing sirs.
-
There ya go.
-
Nice of u2 to help reinforce my point, thank you very much 8) Yo, Xo, you forgot stupid and *place adjective here* land of sirs
You ever pause to think that XO might have been defending you? A literal reading of his post could point in that direction.
I've seen his version of "defense". When they're not simply a deflection, they frequently include personal slurs, that you apparently give a pass to, while spending oodles of time trying to (ir)rationalize non-deflection references of mine
By all means, continue. You, B, and Xo could start your own let's bash sirs club. Boy oh boy, the misrepresentations you could muster if all 3 of you put your heads together would be epic, indeed
-
Sirs: "consider cutting and running"
Well Sirs, I suppose one could say that spending as much time in here "debating" as you do is the real cut and run.
BSB
-
There ya go 8)
-
So, sirs, you waltz in here, start up some shit, and then act like it's proof of something when someone strikes back? That about cover it?
BSB
-
Actually, sirs will take any fallacious argument, nitpick on some teensy detail and turn it into a Constitutional issue, and then ask incomprehensible, unanswerable questions and wait and wait for an answer. Anything that prevents him from doing this is called a "deflection".
-
So, sirs, you waltz in here, start up some shit, and then act like it's proof of something when someone strikes back? That about cover it?
BSB
Wrong as ususal (as is Xo). But at least you're consistent. Gotta give you high marks for that. As I said, you, Bt and Xo have a nice fan club going though. Work together and I bet you can generate some awesome misrepresentations of me and my positions
Sirs
-
................
Who ever told you that life is logical? What fairy tale did that come out of? And who ever told you it was supposed to be logical? In the real world 1+1 doesn't equal 2. ............
BSB
Logic is a tool , learning how it works doesn't require eschewing intuition , religion , direct experience , trial and error and whatever other tool you might like to use.
When you find logic and intuition at odds , which do you prefer?
When Logic and experience are pointing diffrently , which do you prefer?
I think that logic is insuficient in itself , it needs to partner with experience and experiment to really become dependable.
-
................
Who ever told you that life is logical? What fairy tale did that come out of? And who ever told you it was supposed to be logical? In the real world 1+1 doesn't equal 2. ............
BSB
Logic is a tool , learning how it works doesn't require eschewing intuition , religion , direct experience , trial and error and whatever other tool you might like to use.
When you find logic and intuition at odds , which do you prefer?
Hmmmm........I'm going to have to go with logic
When Logic and experience are pointing diffrently , which do you prefer?
Strangely, I'm going to have to go with experience, on that one
I think that logic is insuficient in itself , it needs to partner with experience and experiment to really become dependable.
Agreed
-
When you find logic and intuition at odds , which do you prefer?
Hmmmm........I'm going to have to go with logic
Yes most people would , but intuition is more availible and not entirely useless.
When you have a bad feeling , about going down that alley , getting on that elevator, swimming across that gap.....
....do you really need to compute a logical reason to avoid?
-
When you find logic and intuition at odds , which do you prefer?
Hmmmm........I'm going to have to go with logic
Yes most people would , but intuition is more availible and not entirely useless.
Never claimed "useless". Your question required a choice, a prioritizing. I had to go with logic, knowing that emotions can completely cloud one's logic and common sense. Experience is one thing, but merely going "with one's gut" doesn't quite do it for me.........unless experience is the predominant foundation, behind that gut feeling
-
When you find logic and intuition at odds , which do you prefer?
Hmmmm........I'm going to have to go with logic
Yes most people would , but intuition is more availible and not entirely useless.
Never claimed "useless". Your question required a choice, a prioritizing. I had to go with logic, knowing that emotions can completely cloud one's logic and common sense. Experience is one thing, but merely going "with one's gut" doesn't quite do it for me.........unless experience is the predominant foundation, behind that gut feeling
That is right, most people respect logic most.
Even if they don't use it much.
It might be interesting to list every alternative means of decision making in order by dependbility and fondness, but it would be a serious chore.
I am pretty sure I would not place randomised choice last on the list anyway.
-
(http://www.maroonedcomic.com/comics/2011-05-19-287.jpg)
-
First you have to be in the right place before logic can work for you. Ever watch someone who is just wrong headed, then they try and apply logic? It an be kinda funny to watch but its damn dangerous in certain situations.
Getting the lay of the land, understanding where you are, etc., that comes from the gut. You can't logic your way into that kind of understanding. Logic is a secondary resource. First you gotta be there, then you can begin to find the hidden logic. That's the key to logical explanations, they're hidden. You can't get at them from the outside. You can't impose logic. You can't just take a formula and put it anywhere you want. That's one of the differences between those who want to conserve things, and those who except change. The conservative wants to keep applying the same old formula. Ain't going to work, boys and girls.
"Inside every gook there's an American trying to get out." No there isn't.
BSB
-
Yes, logic requires the facts.
It is good to gather facts enough to make logic possible before an important decision,..
But...
When you can't get all of the facts sometimes you have to move anyway, seldom is dithering better than making a choice.
-
Whose facts do you gather, Plane?
Example: When Colin Powell got in front of the UN and reported on the analysis he was given by the CIA, on Iraq's weapons program, whose facts was he given, and how were those facts gathered?
They were gathered by applying a method that had been used to identify the movement of weapons around the old Soviet Union. This means of identification was Soviet weapon specific. It had zero to do with Iraq's weapons, real, or imagined.
They could have used any and all logic they wanted to and it would have turned out wrong every time. They weren't there either in reality or figuratively. They were imposing the wrong method from the outside.
So, my friend Plane, do you. You are calling the abortion of a fetus murder by applying the wrong method from the outside.
BSB
p.s. I wonder what any of that means?
-
Whose facts do you gather, Plane?
Example: When Colin Powell got in front of the UN and reported on the analysis he was given by the CIA, on Iraq's weapons program, whose facts was he given, and how were those facts gathered?
They were gathered by applying a method that had been used to identify the movement of weapons around the old Soviet Union. This means of identification was Soviet weapon specific. It had zero to do with Iraq's weapons, real, or imagined.
They could have used any and all logic they wanted to and it would have turned out wrong every time. They weren't there either in reality or figuratively. They were imposing the wrong method from the outside.
So, my friend Plane, do you. You are calling the abortion of a fetus murder by applying the wrong method from the outside.
BSB
p.s. I wonder what any of that means?
You may have to symplify that a bit before I catch the connection.
A Human Fetus is certainly alive and certainly human, but by some mysterious process not a human being nor even an animal worthy of protection from cruelty .
In my state cruelty to animals can be a felony, but there is no limit to what can be done to a fetus.
If you wanted to kill a dog by rinsing its lungs with a salt solution you could be arrested, or pulling it limb from limb with a wire , maybe gets you a bit of jail time.
A fetus is not proven to be anything , where are any facts?
So it is not anything , it is not even an animal worthy of pity.
Good thing we need not be certain hm?
-
Again, I am not going to defend some woman's fetus. This is not my concern.
-
Again, I am not going to defend some woman's fetus. This is not my concern.
Of course , as a class of person that can never vote nor even protest , why care about them?
When it happens to you , with identical logic , perhaps ?
-
Only if I am reincarnated as a fetus.
And if that happens, and I am aborted, I know can always try again.
-
Only if I am reincarnated as a fetus.
And if that happens, and I am aborted, I know can always try again.
If that is true , then it is true for you right now.
-
I am overly worried about this.I don't think that a fetus has enough self-awareness to make an abortion unpleasant for more than a few seconds. And of course, then you just try it again.
-
I am overly worried about this.I don't think that a fetus has enough self-awareness to make an abortion unpleasant for more than a few seconds. And of course, then you just try it again.
Are you willing to admit this is an assumption?
-
I am willing to just let every woman decide for herself.
-
I am willing to just let every woman decide for herself.
But not let Tom decide to kill Harry?
Why this strong inconsistancy?
-
Fetuses do not have names. That is because they are not people.
What are the odds that "Tom" is carrying a fetus named "Harry" around in his uterus?
Very slim indeed.
-
Actually, every woman I know personally, had already named their "fetus". Sometimes months before its birth. So much for the "not people" tactic
-
They have no names until the are born officially. You are talking about PLANNED naming. That is not the same.
And the likelihood of a "Tom" giving birth to a "Harry" (or vice versa) is rather slim.
-
Not at all, I'm talking about actual names. They refer to them as this is my little girl Cindy, or this is Matt.
NOT ONCE, has any woman I've known who was pregnant with an unborn child EVER said, this is my fetus
-
So what?
What are you alleging to prove here?
The point is this: a woman who is pregnant has the RIGHT to give birth or not do so, unhindered by the opinions of people that they do not know, such as you, or me or anyone.
-
So what?
The what is the person with the name
-
Oh, who gives a shiite?
Not me.
-
You really never did. I'm just providing you the "so what" part.
-
Oh, who gives a shiite?
Not me.
When the same principal bites you, you might care.
The principal that a nameless person is not a person recalls the methods of the final solution , victims were tattooed with a numeral which identified them and doomed them names not needed to kill.
The next big social problem is geriatric , easy to solve the same way , take the name , issue a number and a person becomes a statistic.
When Medicare runs out of money and Social Security is running on fumes the promises they represent is to citizens , not nonpersons.
There will come a day in which second childhood will graduate into second fetushood and persons unable to prove their sentience will be forfeit their rights as persons and their protection under law.
-
Pretty much every country in Europe gives women the right to an abortion and not one of them has built any extermination camps.
This is a totally refutable "slippery slope" argument.
Entirely unconvincing.
-
Actually its very convincing, but as you've already declared, you don't care. That's why any such convincing commentary will be deemed by you as "not"
-
Nothing you say is ever convincing.
Jackass.
-
Good thing you don't care
-
Pretty much every country in Europe gives women the right to an abortion and not one of them has built any extermination camps.
This is a totally refutable "slippery slope" argument.
Entirely unconvincing.
You do not have to worry about a slippery slope if you are at the bottom of it. The provision of millions of abortions is an extermination pogrom.
-
You are full of crap. There is no correspondence at all with this.
-
You are full of crap. There is no correspondence at all with this.
I know you can't see it. I am familliar with the principal.
Plantation owners were completely unable to see anything wrong with slavery, considering a Negro as a person seemed rediculous to them.
Just repeat " a Fetus is not a Human being" over and over , never allowing the horror of any other possibility to take any space in your mind, this will allow you satisfaction with the status quo.
-
I am simply going to leave the moral issue up to the pregnant woman in question.
it is her business, and not mine.
-
I am simply going to leave the moral issue up to the pregnant woman in question.
it is her business, and not mine.
Just as if I were to find someone killing you , I should assume that he has good reasons in absense of evidence otherwise and mind my own business.
-
touche'....Plane's on a roll
-
It always gets dicey when elevating one "persons" rights whilst rescinding an others.
-
Bah!
I am not a fetus
-
Bah!
I am not a fetus
I am not certain this is true , but lets for the sake of argument say you are neither a Fetus nor a Negro nor a Jew.
This is why you have no intrest in opposing Fascism , White Supremacy or Abortion.
-
touche'....Plane's on a roll
I couldn't do it without XO.
You know it is hard to hit a fast ball , but it is the fast balls that get hit out of the park when they do get hit.
-
You are not certain that I am a fetus.
I have been posting here for several years. I read and I write.
No one is ever a fetus for more than 9 months or so.
If you cannot be sure that I am a fetus, then you are not smart enough to evaluate any comment that I make.
You swing the bat, you hit the ball, but it was not a baseball that you hit.
-
If you cannot be sure that I am a fetus, then you are not smart enough to evaluate any comment that I make.
I am greatly surprised that you are a fetus, I would not have thought it possible that you could be a trained Linguist , literate and also a fetus .
For most people the necessacery schooling and development take too long to accomplish as a fetus.
Still, if you say so, I will accept your statement as you present it.
-
Bah!
I am not a fetus
I am not certain this is true , but lets for the sake of argument say you are neither a Fetus nor a Negro nor a Jew.
This is why you have no intrest in opposing Fascism , White Supremacy or Abortion.
You are not certain that I am a fetus.
I have been posting here for several years. I read and I write.
No one is ever a fetus for more than 9 months or so.
If you cannot be sure that I am a fetus, then you are not smart enough to evaluate any comment that I make.
You swing the bat, you hit the ball, but it was not a baseball that you hit.
So you have no intrest in Abortion , because you are not a Fetus , you have no intrest in Aparthied or White Supremacy because you are not a Negro and Facism does not offend you because you are not a Jew?
As they say , If you are against slavery , don't buy one.
By the Way ,....Sorry about your ball.
-
The real reason for my argument......
Bah!
I am not a fetus
I am not certain this is true ,
but lets for the sake of argument say
you are neither a Fetus nor a Negro nor a Jew.
This is why you have no intrest in opposing Fascism , White Supremacy
or Abortion.[/size]
I am a succor for a pun or a ryme.
-
touche'....Plane's on a roll
I couldn't do it without XO.
You know it is hard to hit a fast ball , but it is the fast balls that get hit out of the park when they do get hit.
So true indeed.......right down the middle 8)
-
It's interesting to me that often you find placed in one grouping, pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-the use of things like waterboarding in the case of captured "terrorists". And just the opposite, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-extreme measures such as waterboarding, in another grouping. I wonder why that is?
BSB
-
It's interesting to me that often you find placed in one grouping, pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-the use of things like waterboarding in the case of captured "terrorists". And just the opposite, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-extreme measures such as waterboarding, in another grouping. I wonder why that is?
BSB
Simple enough, some people think that punishment should be proportional the the crime a person is convicted of and favor death penaltys for deadly dangerous persons or even corporal punishment for people who re keeping deadly dangerous secrets.
Some people beleive that causeing the innocent to suffer is a sin that God takes notice of.
That these wo groups have significant overlap doesn't suprise me.
Some people beleive that an unhappy life is not worth the liveing .
Some people think that innocence or guilt is irrelivant.
There seems to be a bit of overlap on that pair of sets also.
-
It always gets dicey when elevating one "persons" rights whilst rescinding an others.
I would call that the central issue.
-
Plane: "Simple enough,"
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked why Iraq was burning?: "Democracy is untidy"
-
Plane: "Simple enough,"
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked why Iraq was burning?: "Democracy is untidy"
You are good at making connections that I have a hard time getting.
I think I got it , but not right away.