The appendix (in its literal backwater) has been seen to miss some of the flora changes that happen on some big diarrhea events and it is assumed by some to be the source of an ability to return to "some approximation" of the previous status quo.
I doubt you, personaly, have raised 2 close-in-age children and done so without some part of "aggression and coercion" being used for good. so With one child it may be possible to so control their envioment to achieve this (but probably not), but a 20-month-old will (at some stage) maim a toddler they are living with if not physically stopped. IAASAHDFOF.
There's no such thing as a neutral term. There is only politics. The above poster was actually conscientious by using the most negative terms for both sides: "anti-life" and "anti-choice," because one side fashions itself "pro-choice" and the other "pro-life." But because of politics, in the media the dominant language used favors one side over the other: "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." They group pro-lifers along with terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. This is like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. belonged to the Black Panthers.
Certainly it's not fair to call pro-choice "anti-life," but neither is it fair to call pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." Pro-choice advocates are not fighting for death but for freedom. But pro-life advocates are not fighting against freedom, but for human dignity--for a child who does not choose to die. So what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but politics decides which roses should be considered sweeter.
Parent post is an Insightful gem. Well done azcoyote.
Slashdot Mirror
As a fellow Daily Lurker from the 90's ... me too.
Just in case they are checking against unique ID's and the revolutions rallying cry, here is my voice... Fuck Beta.
[I belive that was the first time I have ever had reason to typed the lettering "Fuck".]
The appendix (in its literal backwater) has been seen to miss some of the flora changes that happen on some big diarrhea events and it is assumed by some to be the source of an ability to return to "some approximation" of the previous status quo.
I doubt you, personaly, have raised 2 close-in-age children and done so without some part of "aggression and coercion" being used for good. so With one child it may be possible to so control their envioment to achieve this (but probably not), but a 20-month-old will (at some stage) maim a toddler they are living with if not physically stopped. IAASAHDFOF.
There's no such thing as a neutral term. There is only politics. The above poster was actually conscientious by using the most negative terms for both sides: "anti-life" and "anti-choice," because one side fashions itself "pro-choice" and the other "pro-life." But because of politics, in the media the dominant language used favors one side over the other: "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." They group pro-lifers along with terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. This is like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. belonged to the Black Panthers. Certainly it's not fair to call pro-choice "anti-life," but neither is it fair to call pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." Pro-choice advocates are not fighting for death but for freedom. But pro-life advocates are not fighting against freedom, but for human dignity--for a child who does not choose to die. So what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but politics decides which roses should be considered sweeter.
Parent post is an Insightful gem. Well done azcoyote.
Paul Simon lyric right?
Too wordy. How 'bout just "harmless".
Too brief. How 'bout now "mostly harmless".