isnt that a sin? fucking myself would be bad in the eyes of someone against sodomy, yes?
I've not mentioned sin in this discussion. Why do you?
Who said that I'm "against sodomy"? I've merely stated that there is no right to it.
youre still only 25 you have alot of time to turn yourself around and become more like whites.
WOW, you apparently know me. You know my age. Am I supposed to be impressed because of that? I'm also 6'1", 210 pounds, and hung like a moose. So, no thank you, I do not wish to be "more like whites".
Do you know what the definition of the word "nigger" is? I assume that you don't, because of all of the people with whom I've disagreed on/., you're the one who most accurately depicts it.
And JYI, you've gotten it backwards. The anti-jew rhetoric states that it's the Jew who uses the black as muscle...
Another point of interest, like most black people, my family has been in this country longer than the vast majority of yours.
I don't need affirmative action to get a job. I get jobs because I'm very good in my chosen career field.
What about RU-486? The 'morning after pill'? What if it's taken within the week of conception, maybe even before the egg has implanted? How is that any different than a miscarriage? How is that a 'murder', if the only thing lost is a microscopic group of nearly undifferentiated cells?
I have no problem with a "morning after" pill. If a woman is raped, it can prevent her from becoming pregnant. My problem with RU486 is that it can be used for several weeks after the pregnancy has begun.
And from your final statement, you'd aparently try to jail any woman who attempted to get an abortion I guess. Would this be grandfathered? All women who have ever gotten an abortion would be crowded into prisons if you were elected? Remember, be consistent here!
Yes. Women who get abortions should be jailed when we recriminalize abortion. As for your second question, it's a red herring. Have you ever heard of ex post facto? It means that you can't be charged with doing something that is now illegal if it was legal when you did it.
If there weren't publicly funded clinics that provide abortions and it was done by private doctors by no public subsidies, it would be ok?
No more than it is ok for the mafia to carry out hits and gangland executions. They're all privately funded. My standing to speak about it and hold an opinion comes from the fact that I am a member of this society.
You'd have to tack a few more greats on to that. My family has been in the north and free for 6 generations. I don't imagine that you can do the math though.
I'm not saying that sometimes the law isn't sometimes over- or mis-utilized, but... isn't this the exception instead of the rule?
I have no statistics on that, in fact I have no idea if any even exist. That's not my point. The law was written to be abused. It was written to silence the voices in opposition to abortion on demand.
Thank God... a Clinton reference. Now the scorecard is complete.
I like a good BJ as much as the next man, however I'm not so vain as to believe that just because I enjoy something and that I want it makes it something that I have a right to.
I think the problem is that you don't believe in absolute rights, though. Just for the ones you believe in.
Sure I do. The right to freedom of speach is absolute. The right to defend one's self from harm is absolute. I could go on, but I think that you get the point.
You didn't address the questions about rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.
Rape? Allowed. Incest? Allowed. Life of the mother? Allowed. But the problem comes in when the laws are worded to read the "health of the mother". Because mental health can be used as a justification. A woman only need to claim that she's had a few bad dreams and that it will be too stressful for her to carry the baby to term and she gets a pass.
Abortion is an agonizing decision for any woman.
Ok, I'm glad you mentioned that. Why is it so agonizing? Because they know that it's a person that they're killing.
And you can ban them all you want, but all that will do is lead to illegal back-alley abortions and lots of mutilated and dead young women. You really think that's better?
I have no compassion or sympathy for someone who dies as a result of their attempt to murder a defenseless child. The "Safety" pro-abort argument is as idiotic as claiming that we should legalize bank robbery because illegal bank robbery has caused people to kill innocent bystanders or be killed by the police in the commission of their crime.
I'm not afraid of anyone, homosexual or not. It's a misnomer. Homophobia is a term that was invented to shame people into hiding their natural aversion to deviant sexuality.
You don't understand homosexuality, so you want it banned.
Some guys like guys, some girls like girls, some girls and guys like both girls and guys. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. I don't "want it banned". I don't care how or with whom you have sex. There is nothing more interesting to me than my own action, and nothing less interesting to me than yours. Tolerating and accepting are not the same thing.
Someone you know and care about is gay... you just probably don't know it.
In fact I know several people whom I care about that are either homosexual or bisexual. That doesn't change the fact that I feel that they don't have a right to sodomy.
And last I heard, embryos and fetuses weren't infants.
Only because you refuse to listen. Fetus is a latin term for(drumrolll please) baby. Are you going to tell me that babies aren't infants? There is none so blind as him who will not see.
And would you REALLY give up ever getting a blowjob ever again, or ever going down on a woman ever again?
So, not only does it block VIOLENT (violence being defined as both physical and MENTAL) and aggressive protesting at Abortion Clinics, but.. *gasp*... religious institutions. So.. its not all bad after all, is it?
FACE has been used to remove people who were passively sitting across the street from abortion clinics holding protest signs.
So you're practicing "sodomy"?
There's nothing in the worly quite like a good "Lewinski".
Your love of bringing up extreme cases to bolster your own argument just illuminates the lack of depth to your own.
Clarity is best achieved at the ends of the spectrum. Either a right is absolute or it isn't.
To my knowledge in my state there are no prohibitions of any kind against sodomy.
Sodomy includes oral sex (only in the Texas law, the wording specifically states that only sodomy between same sex partners is illegal... this is the reason it was invalidated, because it violates the equal protection clause... what is legal for me should be legal for you)
So then you can have all of the sodomy you want as long as you can find a willing woman? That is the same deal that I get. The fact that you may not want a woman is immaterial. Some people want children, is that a violation of the equal protection clause?
A typically overly simplistic spewing of dogma.
Child murder is a term that I picked up from Susan B. Anthony. It's not mine, I will not take credit for it.
What if it's in the first few weeks, when the "fetus" is little more than a microscopic group of cells?
You're not going to get away with playing that word game with me. Fetus means baby. What you're doing is equivalent to saying that "It's not a baby, it's a baby!".
Science is no real help here
I beg to differ. Science is able to tell us that the baby is a separate and distinct person from the mother because they have different genetic codes. Science is able to tell us that the mother's body recognizes the baby as a foreign entity because of her immunological response to the presence of the baby.
Why can't Bush's claim to "Trust the people to do the right thing" with their tax money be applied to 'trust the people to do the right thing' with regards to abortion?
Why should people be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to any type of murder? Would fvor trusting people to do the right thing when it comes to deciding when Grandma has lived long enough and should be put out of her misery? After all it's a moral and value judgement as to whether an elderly person's life is still worth living. Why should the government be involved with legislating moral and religious issues?
What's that whole.. "pursuit of happiness" thing I hear so much about...
Ever heard of NAMBLA? Am I to assume that you're just as much in favor as their right to the pursuit of happiness?
Ahhh, the "murder" card! Touche! Didn't see _that_ one coming!
Take it up with Susan B. Anthony, she is the first person that I've seen who called it child murder.
But you seem to have taken simplistic arguments to an artform.
I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.
Federal Crime to protest a business? Huh? Be a little more vague and mysterious, please.
FACE. It's illegal to protest an abortion clinic if someone inside "feels threatened" by you being there. It's a federal crime that could land you in federal prison and get you a 6 figure fine.
I'm sorry you are scared to watch MTV. Maybe you should see a therapist about that...
I'm not the one who has a problem.
No, they'd rather they just take over other people's lives and tell them how they should live. That's the ticket!
I'd sacrifice the "right" to sodomy and infanticide if it means preserving my right to free speech and self defense.
Because Republicans are very unlikely to agree with me on issues involving personal privacy, gay rights, corporate rights, HMO liability, environmental issues, police searches, and yes, abortion.
Though you listed it last, I'd be willing to bet that like most other democrats, that's one of your BIG issues. As long as you can fuck your brains out and not have to worry about the consequences, everything else is secondary. Right?
Or for that matter, anything that is a half-way decent color copy of the original. If I didn't hate the bastards so much, I'd love to be an FBI badge at one of those shows. Particularly one on commission:).
Bogus software wouldn't bother me at all, at least if it worked when I got it home. I'm talking about defective modems that were taken from a trash heap somewhere and new boxes made for them and put out for sale.
I could give a damn if someone is selling bootlegs of Freddy the Fish or something like that.
Can you show me a source for GW favoring making it illegal for a man to love another man?
He's fiscally irresponsible, given his promise to throw the surplus back at rich people who aren't hurting for the money, and not concentrating on paying down the debt, or more carefully 'targeting' the tax-cut so as not to over-stimulate the economy, etc., etc.
The truely poor get MORE back under GW's tax plan than they do under Gore's. While it's true that "rich" people get more money back, THEY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE. If I get 20% back and Bill Gates get's 2%, of course he gets more money back than I do because he paid a 1000x more to begin with. The budget surplus that Gore's looking to spend on the geezers relies upon a projected increase in the economy. In order to have the money in the first place, the economy has to GROW!
He's inarticulate and really inexperienced in foreign affairs... do you really want this guy who can't even prounce words in his own Mother Tongue in sensitive negotations with other countries?
I nearly forgot, to some people being able to tell a lie well is more important than the ability to tell the truth.
He represents a switch back to the ways of the past... with the potential to roll back hard-won freedoms in the areas of gay civil rights
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
a woman's right to choose,
To choose murder? That's why he gets my vote.
freedom of (and from) religious expression in public life, etc...
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
do you want to go back to the state this country was in in 1990/91?
Are you seriously asking ME that? Socially, absolutely. Back when it was not a federal crime to protest the wrong type of business. Back when the tree huggers and dirt kissers didn't have the ability affect public policy because the people in charge weren't in bed with them. Back when I didn't have to worry about flipping channels only find to hairy faces lip locked on MTV. Back when no mainstream politician had the audacity to suggest taking over 1/7 of the US economy or suggest that I pay for someone to murder her own child.
Slashdot Mirror
It's their private business, and you want to deny them their RIGHT to express themselves. That's how you are trying to deny them their rights.
You can't deny someone something that doesn't exist.
no, why do you say there is no right for consenting adults to do what pleases them???
Because there is no such right. If you got off on the idea of someone killing you and found someone else who was willing to do so, would that be ok?
I don't care how you see it, you think you're pagan, but you contradict.
I don't "think" that I'm a pagan any more than I "think" that I'm black. I simply am.
They have the same rights as you and I
Have you seen me claim otherwise?
Why is there no second moon in the night sky? What doesn't make sense is your question.
read up on paganism, you totally contradict pagans beliefs, shouldnt you be believing in allah?
It depends on how you choose to define pagan. If you only include Wiccans and related beliefs, I suppose that my opinions would be contradictory.
But I don't see it that way.
LK
isnt that a sin? fucking myself would be bad in the eyes of someone against sodomy, yes?
I've not mentioned sin in this discussion. Why do you?
Who said that I'm "against sodomy"? I've merely stated that there is no right to it.
youre still only 25 you have alot of time to turn yourself around and become more like whites.
WOW, you apparently know me. You know my age. Am I supposed to be impressed because of that? I'm also 6'1", 210 pounds, and hung like a moose. So, no thank you, I do not wish to be "more like whites".
LK
I'm part native american. Go fuck your self.
Do you know what the definition of the word "nigger" is? I assume that you don't, because of all of the people with whom I've disagreed on /., you're the one who most accurately depicts it.
And JYI, you've gotten it backwards. The anti-jew rhetoric states that it's the Jew who uses the black as muscle...
Another point of interest, like most black people, my family has been in this country longer than the vast majority of yours.
I don't need affirmative action to get a job. I get jobs because I'm very good in my chosen career field.
LK
What about RU-486? The 'morning after pill'? What if it's taken within the week of conception, maybe even before the egg has implanted? How is that any different than a miscarriage? How is that a 'murder', if the only thing lost is a microscopic group of nearly undifferentiated cells?
I have no problem with a "morning after" pill. If a woman is raped, it can prevent her from becoming pregnant. My problem with RU486 is that it can be used for several weeks after the pregnancy has begun.
And from your final statement, you'd aparently try to jail any woman who attempted to get an abortion I guess. Would this be grandfathered? All women who have ever gotten an abortion would be crowded into prisons if you were elected? Remember, be consistent here!
Yes. Women who get abortions should be jailed when we recriminalize abortion. As for your second question, it's a red herring. Have you ever heard of ex post facto? It means that you can't be charged with doing something that is now illegal if it was legal when you did it.
LK
If there weren't publicly funded clinics that provide abortions and it was done by private doctors by no public subsidies, it would be ok?
No more than it is ok for the mafia to carry out hits and gangland executions. They're all privately funded. My standing to speak about it and hold an opinion comes from the fact that I am a member of this society.
You'd have to tack a few more greats on to that. My family has been in the north and free for 6 generations. I don't imagine that you can do the math though.
I personally don't care if you enjoy nasal sex. My point is that sodomy isn't something that you have a right to.
I'm not saying that sometimes the law isn't sometimes over- or mis-utilized, but... isn't this the exception instead of the rule?
I have no statistics on that, in fact I have no idea if any even exist. That's not my point. The law was written to be abused. It was written to silence the voices in opposition to abortion on demand.
Thank God... a Clinton reference. Now the scorecard is complete.
I like a good BJ as much as the next man, however I'm not so vain as to believe that just because I enjoy something and that I want it makes it something that I have a right to.
I think the problem is that you don't believe in absolute rights, though. Just for the ones you believe in.
Sure I do. The right to freedom of speach is absolute. The right to defend one's self from harm is absolute. I could go on, but I think that you get the point.
LK
You didn't address the questions about rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.
Rape? Allowed. Incest? Allowed. Life of the mother? Allowed. But the problem comes in when the laws are worded to read the "health of the mother". Because mental health can be used as a justification. A woman only need to claim that she's had a few bad dreams and that it will be too stressful for her to carry the baby to term and she gets a pass.
Abortion is an agonizing decision for any woman.
Ok, I'm glad you mentioned that. Why is it so agonizing? Because they know that it's a person that they're killing.
And you can ban them all you want, but all that will do is lead to illegal back-alley abortions and lots of mutilated and dead young women. You really think that's better?
I have no compassion or sympathy for someone who dies as a result of their attempt to murder a defenseless child. The "Safety" pro-abort argument is as idiotic as claiming that we should legalize bank robbery because illegal bank robbery has caused people to kill innocent bystanders or be killed by the police in the commission of their crime.
Yeah you are. It's called homophobia.
I'm not afraid of anyone, homosexual or not. It's a misnomer. Homophobia is a term that was invented to shame people into hiding their natural aversion to deviant sexuality.
You don't understand homosexuality, so you want it banned.
Some guys like guys, some girls like girls, some girls and guys like both girls and guys. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. I don't "want it banned". I don't care how or with whom you have sex. There is nothing more interesting to me than my own action, and nothing less interesting to me than yours. Tolerating and accepting are not the same thing.
Someone you know and care about is gay... you just probably don't know it.
In fact I know several people whom I care about that are either homosexual or bisexual. That doesn't change the fact that I feel that they don't have a right to sodomy.
And last I heard, embryos and fetuses weren't infants.
Only because you refuse to listen. Fetus is a latin term for(drumrolll please) baby. Are you going to tell me that babies aren't infants? There is none so blind as him who will not see.
And would you REALLY give up ever getting a blowjob ever again, or ever going down on a woman ever again?
In exchange for saving babies, absolutely.
LK
Fine, allow them to have abortions and save the other 96% of babies that are murdered.
You don't have a say in abortion, you don't have to carry the child for 9 months.
I'm a tax paying member of this society. I have as much of a say about the welfare of it's other members as anyone else.
So, not only does it block VIOLENT (violence being defined as both physical and MENTAL) and aggressive protesting at Abortion Clinics, but.. *gasp*... religious institutions. So.. its not all bad after all, is it?
FACE has been used to remove people who were passively sitting across the street from abortion clinics holding protest signs.
So you're practicing "sodomy"?
There's nothing in the worly quite like a good "Lewinski".
Your love of bringing up extreme cases to bolster your own argument just illuminates the lack of depth to your own.
Clarity is best achieved at the ends of the spectrum. Either a right is absolute or it isn't.
LK
YOU have a right to it, why don't I?
To my knowledge in my state there are no prohibitions of any kind against sodomy.
Sodomy includes oral sex (only in the Texas law, the wording specifically states that only sodomy between same sex partners is illegal... this is the reason it was invalidated, because it violates the equal protection clause... what is legal for me should be legal for you)
So then you can have all of the sodomy you want as long as you can find a willing woman? That is the same deal that I get. The fact that you may not want a woman is immaterial. Some people want children, is that a violation of the equal protection clause?
A typically overly simplistic spewing of dogma.
Child murder is a term that I picked up from Susan B. Anthony. It's not mine, I will not take credit for it.
What if it's in the first few weeks, when the "fetus" is little more than a microscopic group of cells?
You're not going to get away with playing that word game with me. Fetus means baby. What you're doing is equivalent to saying that "It's not a baby, it's a baby!".
Science is no real help here
I beg to differ. Science is able to tell us that the baby is a separate and distinct person from the mother because they have different genetic codes. Science is able to tell us that the mother's body recognizes the baby as a foreign entity because of her immunological response to the presence of the baby.
Why can't Bush's claim to "Trust the people to do the right thing" with their tax money be applied to 'trust the people to do the right thing' with regards to abortion?
Why should people be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to any type of murder? Would fvor trusting people to do the right thing when it comes to deciding when Grandma has lived long enough and should be put out of her misery? After all it's a moral and value judgement as to whether an elderly person's life is still worth living. Why should the government be involved with legislating moral and religious issues?
LK
What's that whole.. "pursuit of happiness" thing I hear so much about...
Ever heard of NAMBLA? Am I to assume that you're just as much in favor as their right to the pursuit of happiness?
Ahhh, the "murder" card! Touche! Didn't see _that_ one coming!
Take it up with Susan B. Anthony, she is the first person that I've seen who called it child murder.
But you seem to have taken simplistic arguments to an artform.
I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.
Federal Crime to protest a business? Huh? Be a little more vague and mysterious, please.
FACE. It's illegal to protest an abortion clinic if someone inside "feels threatened" by you being there. It's a federal crime that could land you in federal prison and get you a 6 figure fine.
I'm sorry you are scared to watch MTV. Maybe you should see a therapist about that...
I'm not the one who has a problem.
No, they'd rather they just take over other people's lives and tell them how they should live. That's the ticket!
I'd sacrifice the "right" to sodomy and infanticide if it means preserving my right to free speech and self defense.
LK
Because Republicans are very unlikely to agree with me on issues involving personal privacy, gay rights, corporate rights, HMO liability, environmental issues, police searches, and yes, abortion.
Though you listed it last, I'd be willing to bet that like most other democrats, that's one of your BIG issues. As long as you can fuck your brains out and not have to worry about the consequences, everything else is secondary. Right?
LK
Or for that matter, anything that is a half-way decent color copy of the original. If I didn't hate the bastards so much, I'd love to be an FBI badge at one of those shows. Particularly one on commission :).
Bogus software wouldn't bother me at all, at least if it worked when I got it home. I'm talking about defective modems that were taken from a trash heap somewhere and new boxes made for them and put out for sale.
I could give a damn if someone is selling bootlegs of Freddy the Fish or something like that.
LK
Maybe I don't like the idea of a Republican dominated Supreme Court.
I think that I already know the answer to this one, but I'll ask first. Why do you not like that idea?
Call it what you want. If the democrats held the same views as I do, I'd be a democrat.
Can you show me a source for GW favoring making it illegal for a man to love another man?
He's fiscally irresponsible, given his promise to throw the surplus back at rich people who aren't hurting for the money, and not concentrating on paying down the debt, or more carefully 'targeting' the tax-cut so as not to over-stimulate the economy, etc., etc.
The truely poor get MORE back under GW's tax plan than they do under Gore's. While it's true that "rich" people get more money back, THEY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE. If I get 20% back and Bill Gates get's 2%, of course he gets more money back than I do because he paid a 1000x more to begin with. The budget surplus that Gore's looking to spend on the geezers relies upon a projected increase in the economy. In order to have the money in the first place, the economy has to GROW!
He's inarticulate and really inexperienced in foreign affairs... do you really want this guy who can't even prounce words in his own Mother Tongue in sensitive negotations with other countries?
I nearly forgot, to some people being able to tell a lie well is more important than the ability to tell the truth.
He represents a switch back to the ways of the past... with the potential to roll back hard-won freedoms in the areas of gay civil rights
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
a woman's right to choose,
To choose murder? That's why he gets my vote.
freedom of (and from) religious expression in public life, etc...
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
do you want to go back to the state this country was in in 1990/91?
Are you seriously asking ME that? Socially, absolutely. Back when it was not a federal crime to protest the wrong type of business. Back when the tree huggers and dirt kissers didn't have the ability affect public policy because the people in charge weren't in bed with them. Back when I didn't have to worry about flipping channels only find to hairy faces lip locked on MTV. Back when no mainstream politician had the audacity to suggest taking over 1/7 of the US economy or suggest that I pay for someone to murder her own child.
I'd love it. Please give me the good old days.
LK