So you are telling me that the pro-life crowd views the debate as centering whether or not the fetus is deserving of protection and not whether or not the woman has a right to control her own body?
No, they view the debate as being over murder, just like you view the debate as being over personal choice. But that's not the basic difference between both sides - the basic difference is whether a fetus is a person, or part of a woman's body. That debate is mostly avoided, because people find it much easier to yell "murderer!" and "freedom-hater!" than calmly discuss the meaning of humanity, and what's required to be called a person.
Bullshit. "Pro-abortionist" implies that I'm for abortions. Pro-choice implies that I'm for a woman's right to choose.
You're wrong. Pro-choice is a loaded term, and I'm not arguing it anymore.
I know why they feel the way they do.
No. If you truly understood their mindset, you wouldn't say "if they don't believe in abortions then nobody is forcing them to get one."
To my way of thinking they don't have the right to impose their opinions on me or anybody else.
So your way of thinking forbids standing up for the rights of others? Would you watched the Holocaust and said "Nobody's forcing me to kill jews. I'm not letting them impose their opinions on me!"
But I don't give a damn! They can believe whatever they want until they start trying to impose it on other people. Then they've crossed the line.
And again, you're failing to see both sides of the debate. Anti-abortionists see it exactly the same way. You're evil, believe in legal murders, and are trying to impose your opinions on the legal system so other people can kill their children. All they're trying to do, really, is defend life.
I don't always advocate seeing an issue from both sides, because sometimes the other person is just wrong, but in the abortion debate you have to. There's no scientific evidence for either side, and that's a problem. You, instead of arguing about anti-abortionists stifling your personal choice, should be arguing about what a human is. You'll have a much higher chance of converting a person or two, and you'll be helping realign the rhetoric with the disagreement. Better yet, start studying neurology. Once consciousness is described scientifically, the debate will be over.
People have been predicting the Malthusian doom of mankind and the planet forever, and people like you have been sneering at the skeptics every time.
Obvious implication: Nothing happened, so they were wrong. Obviously you're wrong now, and nothing's going to happen. Because, you know, nothing happened in the past.
I don't know why I'm feeding a troll, but I suppose it's too late now. By the way, don't allude to Pink Floyd, if that was your intention with "sunshine". You're not worthy.
There it is, your fundamental misunderstanding distilled to 5 words. The debate is not over personal choice. You view abortion as a personal choice, and anti-abortionists don't due to their differing opinions on the fetus (the real debate).
Pro-abortionist? That's a loaded term. I'm pro-choice.
No, you don't understand what a loaded term is. A loaded term carries the debate with it. Pro-choice and pro-life are loaded terms because they imply that your opponents are anti-choice or anti-life. Anti-abortionist and pro-abortionist are terms describing the position without bias.
A child isn't completely dependant on another being for survival. A fetus is connected to a woman that has the right to choose if she wants it inside of her or not.
I'm resisting the urge to curse at you in frustration. I'm aware that you don't think a fetus is a person. It was a thought experiment. The anti-abortion crowd sees the situation thus: "People are killing their children! I've gotta do something to save the poor kids!" Your response is "Well, nobody's forcing you to get an abortion." I was trying to get you to see from their perspective, so you'd understand why they're imposing their opinions on other people (even those anti-abortionists don't impose their opinions in other areas).
You are really, really stupid. Read my post again. You're an example not of people dodging the debate, but of people not even understanding the debate. I'll take pity on you and explain.
The question is not whether the government can tell us what to do with our own bodies. Few want that. The question is _whether_ a fetus is part of the woman's body. Pro-abortionists don't think it is. That's the point of disagreement. They believe the fetus is a SEPARATE body.
Regarding your last sentence: If it were legal to kill your own children before their 18th birthday, would you say "well, nobody's forcing me to kill MY child" or would you fight it?
God dammit, when will you people stop dodging the real debate? Anti-abortionists don't think they're telling a woman what to do with her own body, just like pro-abortionists don't think they're advocating women killing babies. The real question is whether a fetus is a person or not - is it part of the woman's body? There's no good answer to that, so everyone avoids it. There are arguments for both sides and no definitive answer. Just give up trying to convince people and focus on other issues.
The war on cars is in the power cops have to give out tickets for reckless driving, parking and putting a buck fifty into a broken meter, and failing to use a turn signal in a turn-only lane. It's just like the war on terror - it makes old people feel safer, gives arbitrary power to the government, and most people are too stupid to realize it does nothing for them.
I'm not sure, to be honest. So far GNUnet hasn't avoided that fate; there's not too much content on the network yet. I try to keep the daemon running on my computer whenever it's on, and encourage its use whenever the topic of P2P networks compes up, but I doubt it helps much. I assume Freenet and/or GNUnet will grow as the RIAA sues more people and starts leaning on ISPs to block networks like Gnutella, but who can tell?
He could have put it on gnunet, turned on active migration, waited a few weeks for it to disperse, then post a few mesages on IRC and his blog saying "Hey! check out what I found on gnunet! Why, who could have put that there?"
That's true. I was trying to point out that gold would become no rarer, and thus no less valuable, if the US economy collapsed. But your point is also important to keep in mind.
1. It's possible (but unlikely) that addictive personality is entirely independent of genetics. But it doesn't matter - there's no way stupid people dying could hurt the gene pool.
2. I know the difference, but saying "gee, those DARE people were just squares - I won't get addicted! Besides, I might gain the approval of a few other people!" is stupidity as much as it is ignorance.
3. You ignore the ability of intelligent people to resist them. How many smart sheeple do YOU know?
4. You ignore that most of those are because drugs are illegal. Ignorance because of propaganda, wasted tax money, drug cartels, and abuse of power all stem from the Drug War.
5. That, along with liberating the people's tax money, is why drugs should be legalized.
You can owe all you want to society, I don't think I should. If I get hurt, scammed, or whatever due to my own stupidity, I don't expect society to help me. The problem with the system is there's no way to avoid it. I owe society in the same way I owe someone who washes my windshield without asking. But, because society has jails and the windshield washer doesn't, I pay my taxes like a good little citizen.
And the libertarians are right, it should be optional. There's really no way to liberate yourself from the debt to society, since most or all of the world is governed. I know I'm not independent, but I sure wish I were.
Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide.
That's natural selection. I know a few people who that happened to (not to the point of overdose or suicide yet, AFAIK). I also know people who were't too stupid to know that cocaine is addicting, and some people with enough will power to only try it once or twice. If you're too goddamn stupid to control yourself, I don't want my tax money being spent saving you from yourself. Yes, it's heartless, but if the world goes back to working that way, each generation will be better than the previous one.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong. Pro-choice is a loaded term, and I'm not arguing it anymore.
No. If you truly understood their mindset, you wouldn't say "if they don't believe in abortions then nobody is forcing them to get one."
So your way of thinking forbids standing up for the rights of others? Would you watched the Holocaust and said "Nobody's forcing me to kill jews. I'm not letting them impose their opinions on me!"
And again, you're failing to see both sides of the debate. Anti-abortionists see it exactly the same way. You're evil, believe in legal murders, and are trying to impose your opinions on the legal system so other people can kill their children. All they're trying to do, really, is defend life.
I don't always advocate seeing an issue from both sides, because sometimes the other person is just wrong, but in the abortion debate you have to. There's no scientific evidence for either side, and that's a problem. You, instead of arguing about anti-abortionists stifling your personal choice, should be arguing about what a human is. You'll have a much higher chance of converting a person or two, and you'll be helping realign the rhetoric with the disagreement. Better yet, start studying neurology. Once consciousness is described scientifically, the debate will be over.
I don't know why I'm feeding a troll, but I suppose it's too late now. By the way, don't allude to Pink Floyd, if that was your intention with "sunshine". You're not worthy.
You are really, really stupid. Read my post again. You're an example not of people dodging the debate, but of people not even understanding the debate. I'll take pity on you and explain.
The question is not whether the government can tell us what to do with our own bodies. Few want that. The question is _whether_ a fetus is part of the woman's body. Pro-abortionists don't think it is. That's the point of disagreement. They believe the fetus is a SEPARATE body.
Regarding your last sentence: If it were legal to kill your own children before their 18th birthday, would you say "well, nobody's forcing me to kill MY child" or would you fight it?
Then point out the flaw in my reasoning.
I didn't ask what you think, and don't care. But I would like to point out that your opinion is idiotic.
God dammit, when will you people stop dodging the real debate? Anti-abortionists don't think they're telling a woman what to do with her own body, just like pro-abortionists don't think they're advocating women killing babies. The real question is whether a fetus is a person or not - is it part of the woman's body? There's no good answer to that, so everyone avoids it. There are arguments for both sides and no definitive answer. Just give up trying to convince people and focus on other issues.
Can we borrow your "obvious" tag?
Those particular important people didn't have tanks.
His position is simple - if it hasn't malfunctioned in the past, it won't malfunction in the future.
The war on cars is in the power cops have to give out tickets for reckless driving, parking and putting a buck fifty into a broken meter, and failing to use a turn signal in a turn-only lane. It's just like the war on terror - it makes old people feel safer, gives arbitrary power to the government, and most people are too stupid to realize it does nothing for them.
No, they prefer to learn their science from study and research. Good question, though.
Why are we now reposting thigns we see on fark???
The power of rightsholders and monopolies like the RIAA. He sponsored the INDUCE Act.
I'm not sure, to be honest. So far GNUnet hasn't avoided that fate; there's not too much content on the network yet. I try to keep the daemon running on my computer whenever it's on, and encourage its use whenever the topic of P2P networks compes up, but I doubt it helps much. I assume Freenet and/or GNUnet will grow as the RIAA sues more people and starts leaning on ISPs to block networks like Gnutella, but who can tell?
Oops... I misread "should" as "could" in the post I replied to. You are perfectly correct.
He could have put it on gnunet, turned on active migration, waited a few weeks for it to disperse, then post a few mesages on IRC and his blog saying "Hey! check out what I found on gnunet! Why, who could have put that there?"
That's true. I was trying to point out that gold would become no rarer, and thus no less valuable, if the US economy collapsed. But your point is also important to keep in mind.
Gold is rare. That's why it's valuable.
Gnunet is a good choice. Download it and start up the daemon, the network needs nodes and content.
So then you'd have no trouble pointing me to a piece of land where the taxman can't get me?
Shit, that is a really good point. That sucks.
1. It's possible (but unlikely) that addictive personality is entirely independent of genetics. But it doesn't matter - there's no way stupid people dying could hurt the gene pool.
2. I know the difference, but saying "gee, those DARE people were just squares - I won't get addicted! Besides, I might gain the approval of a few other people!" is stupidity as much as it is ignorance.
3. You ignore the ability of intelligent people to resist them. How many smart sheeple do YOU know?
4. You ignore that most of those are because drugs are illegal. Ignorance because of propaganda, wasted tax money, drug cartels, and abuse of power all stem from the Drug War.
5. That, along with liberating the people's tax money, is why drugs should be legalized.
You can owe all you want to society, I don't think I should. If I get hurt, scammed, or whatever due to my own stupidity, I don't expect society to help me. The problem with the system is there's no way to avoid it. I owe society in the same way I owe someone who washes my windshield without asking. But, because society has jails and the windshield washer doesn't, I pay my taxes like a good little citizen.
And the libertarians are right, it should be optional. There's really no way to liberate yourself from the debt to society, since most or all of the world is governed. I know I'm not independent, but I sure wish I were.
That's natural selection. I know a few people who that happened to (not to the point of overdose or suicide yet, AFAIK). I also know people who were't too stupid to know that cocaine is addicting, and some people with enough will power to only try it once or twice. If you're too goddamn stupid to control yourself, I don't want my tax money being spent saving you from yourself. Yes, it's heartless, but if the world goes back to working that way, each generation will be better than the previous one.