Look, There's Some Middle Ground Here, People

07/07/2007
He's a hard man to get a read on.
See? They are mind boggling huge.
A photograph of the earth, as currently seen from space.
Inspired by this comment I made (which one reviewer called "maybe the most relevant political comment on NutCan to date.") I decided to write an article on why everything doesn't have to be so black and white. Both sides of an issue argue the slippery slope "If we budge and inch, the other side will take a mile" argument and nothing ever happens. At what point did society completely lose it's ability to compromise on anything?

Abortion

The "classic" hot button issue. My personal feelings on it are as layered and complicated. I lean to the side that says, "It doesn't affect me, I don't have to live with myself after doing it, so if you think the child's life will be absolutely unlivable, then I guess it's your call." Ultimately though, I just lie in the "never say never" camp. If abortion laws changed to be severely locked down, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It's just hard to fit that on a bumper sticker.

I just want the ability to make the call, or have the doctor be able to decide, that my wife Sarah's life is in danger if something isn't done about it. I mean shouldn't that be what "choose life" is about? I don't want to see a law where we have to bullheadedly charge into a situation where Sarah has a 15% chance to survive and the baby, in turn, has even less of a chance. I want the option to choose Sarah at 95% and baby at zero. It just makes sense. The biggest argument against the "mother in danger loophole" is that of course doctors across the land would automatically start declaring pregnant women with a cold "in danger." This argument is preposterously ridiculous. Of course their COULD be unscrupulous doctors but it would be dealt with the same way doctors who abuse handing out prescriptions.

No issue is argued more black and white in America than abortion, and no issue I can think of has more gray area.

Girl A - 14 years old, 70 pounds, raped by her father 2 weeks ago, currently residing in a halfway house, battling crack addiction, would almost certainly die if pregnancy is carried to term, and the baby would have severe birth defects, if it survived at all.

Girl B - 28 years old, healthy, well off, carrying her devoted husband's perfectly healthy baby, hours away from going into labor.

I don't care if you are the biggest right wing, born again, abortion clinic bombing, nutcan; or the biggest left wing nazi feminist. You can not tell me that those two girls are in the exact same situation. You can not tell me they should be covered under the same "No abortions for anyone, under any circumstances" laws. Likewise you would have to concede that there should be some line, somewhere, that unless superseded (like by health complications), abortion is no longer an option for you. There has to be a place we can put that line that would appease 90% of the population, don't you think? We're never going to get anywhere if the people we're aiming to please are the abortion clinic bombers and the people who think a woman should be able to change her mind right up until the umbilical cord is cut.

Clearly the answer is abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Gay Marriage

This is one of those issues where I can't fathom how there is even a debate surrounding it. In a land where Church and State are supposed to be separate there are virtually no non religious reasons out there to not allow it. Any non-religious arguments are generally cherry picked statistics from religious groups attempting to make a secular argument. I guess they apply the same cherry picking skills that allows them to dislike homosexuals because the Bible says God is against them, but conveniently gloss over the "Judge not, that you be not judged," and the numerous "love everyone, even (and especially) your enemies" passages.

At any rate here's the thing, and where we can meet in the middle. It's true that some gay couples want the recognition of their marriage because they think they should be the same. However many just want the practicalities of being married. They want to share insurances and the like. I really don't think that is so much to ask.

Churches are private organizations. They should/could/do exercise their right to marry or not marry anyone. The priest that performed Sarah and My wedding could have told us to take a hike for any reason, or no reason. I don't think anyone is arguing that Churches across the land should be forced to marry gay people. If someone is arguing that they are way off base. These would be legal in the eyes of the government, not in the eyes of God.

I guess I really don't understand why 2 people that have been together 20 years can't be on the same health insurance, but a guy and a girl who met yesterday, don't know each others names, and don't live on the same sides of the country, can, if they get married. Perhaps the solution is to allow any two people to legally declare each other "roommates," for the "paperwork" benefits.

The "Amnesty" Bill

Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about this bill. The only coverage of it I've seen is Lou Dobbs, and something in the back of my mind makes me think I'm not getting both sides of the issue. It's subtle maybe, but something told me he was leaning to the "against" side.

Again, I don't know a lot, but here's what I'll say. I think the bill errs on the side of "let's just not be naive." I mean, what good would it do to pass a bill saying they all had to go? That's already the law. If the illegals weren't given some incentive to out themselves, why would they?

Also, as far as the "we should keep them out at all costs, 'They turk urrr jurrrbss'," people, I have this to say:

People are clever, no matter what you did to keep out a populace given sufficient time and motivation to get in, it wouldn't be good enough. ANY border locking down to help drive down the number of illegal immigrants would have to be accompanied by a massive "unlocking" of the legal path to citizenship to have a snowball's chance in hell of being effective.

I do understand where the bill falls short, namely by rewarding people who did the wrong thing to begin with. However, I think the bill is also a way of saying, "They are already here, they are going to stay no matter what we do, and they are going to keep coming. We need to get these people on the books and in the system."

In an ideal world, this bill wouldn't need to happen, I do however, from the admittedly little I know about it, think it's a realistic assessment of what few options we really have in the matter.

Microsoft

Ok now perhaps this is a little out there, and shoehorned into this article, but live with it - I'm sick of all the Microsoft hatred out there. It's reached the irrational point. It's reached hate for the sake of hate. Microsoft isn't my favorite, but I think the anti group has become a little too out of control.

First of all Microsoft is hardly an "evil empire." Bill Gates gives away money like he can't give it away fast enough.

Microsoft code is "buggy", "vulnerable to hackers," etc.
If your computer is on the internet it is vulnerable. Your mac is vulnerable, your linux machine is vulnerable, and us Firefox users are vulnerable. The reason you hear about exploits against Microsoft products are because:
1) Why write an exploit that will affect like 3% of the population when you can affect almost everyone? (Microsoft is the US and hackers are the illegal immigrants. They are too clever and too determined to get in to hold them off.)
2) Because every Microsoft shortcoming that is found due to the world gunning for them (See #1) is then discussed ad nauseam by all the haters (Hurrrr, I used a $ for the S, aren't I just the epitome of cleverness), creating new haters and spiraling ever downwards.

Internet Explorer doesn't follow the standards
Ok, now in the interest of full disclosure, IE is the bane of my existence. I can't stand it. IE sucks when it comes to implementing the WC3 standards, I don't think you'll find much of a debate there. However, as good as theoretical standards are, if 90-95% of web browsing is done in IE, doesn't that make how IE renders it the "standard?"

It is indeed frustrating to have a website look perfect, and as expected, in Firefox, only to check your page in IE and wonder (sometimes with out-loud expletives) how it rendered what you told it to do into that. However, sometimes I wish the browsers just rendered the same, even if that meant Firefox took a step backwards on the standards, so you didn't have to come up with lame hacks to get your site to work in both.

BETA was widely considered to be a superior product to Video Cassettes, but in the end everyone was better off and life was that much easier because we "chose a standard." Even if that meant everyone lined up behind the inferior VCRs. When it comes to the browser market sometimes I feel like the market has spoken but us nerds just refuse to let go of our "Beta" because the "VCR" doesn't work with a completely arbitrary list of features some other nerds pulled out of thin air. If 95% of cars used one part and 5% used another would a mechanic ever have the gall to call the one that's used 5% of the time the "standard" part?

It's just humorous to me how many people, myself included, plug our ears and go "la la la la" and plow forward with these Utopian standards and then 'blame' the IE users for using an 'inferior product' when the site looks like crap - to 95% of the internet. Any time it comes down to choosing between needing to break standards to make something look perfect in IE, and sometimes maybe less perfect in Firefox, we say "screw those IE n00bs, rabble standards!, rabble WC3 rabble rabble! What other industry would put up a fuss about needing to do something fairly insignificant to cater to 95% of their clients?

The Monopoly Argument

Windows comes on almost every machine purchased.
What's your point? So the market has spoken. People do have other options. THEY just aren't choosing to take them. If there was something fundamentally non functional about Windows people would have moved on.

Windows comes with a lot of software. This hurts competition because no one will pay for, say WinZip, now that Windows handles zip files natively
Fair enough. However, what other industry would we argue so fervently for LESS to be built into a product for the same price. Imagine the business auto makers are taking from the after market stereo companies by having the audacity to include a sound system right off the line!

Microsoft has even been accused of actually crippling competitors' software in the past.
Well, first of all, again there was no gun to the customers head when they chose windows in the first place. Given that, couldn't one argue it's within Microsoft's right to disallow, or allow, whatever they want? You can't just toss whatever car part you want into your Dodge, you need to use Dodge's parts. (Mopar? Anyone? Mopar?)

It's time to tone down the irrational hatred. No, they aren't a perfect corporation. However, the fact that Microsoft is still releasing updates for software you bought 4 years ago should be considered a good thing, not a sign of the end times. Anyone who has any experience doing any significant programming will tell you no software is every really done, or as perfect as it can be.

Global Warming

Anytime I hear someone debating whether or not global warming exists I always come back to the same thought. Does it matter at all? Most of the things that Global Warming advocates want put in place are things that should be done regardless of their benefit to the planet, because said benefit is one of many long term and short term benefits. Doing a cost-benefit analysis with the environment may make you look like a bastard, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. At the same time, the argument "We should make no changes to the status quo if Global Warming doesn't exist" doesn't make sense either.

Should we cripple our automakers with outrageous emissions and fuel economy standards? No. That would just drive the price of cars up, and hurt the 'little people'. Is it unreasonable to set our emission standards at or above what other countries set theirs at 20 years ago? No, it isn't.

Is there any reason to not replace every light bulb you can with a more efficient version? Sure, they cost more today, but they pay for themselves in a few months and you don't have to worry about them for years. I think it's funny that people, in their minds, assign energy usage importance in order of the "importance" of the appliance. The appliances are energy efficient, so that's all that matters. Meanwhile most of the country is still lighting their homes with what is, in essence, an open short producing as much heat as it does light.

We now find ourselves at the Tree Huggers' least favorite two words: Nuclear Power. Despite the battle cries of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (which by the way led to zero deaths or injuries) nuclear power is our safest, and yes, cleanest, option. There is no green ooze to hide. "Toxic Waste" is actually little gray pellets. Those pellets are transported in drums that might themselves be able to survive a nuclear attack. If a drum was spilled en route to being stored you know what you do? You just pick the damn pellets up. Oh, Jeremy you mean they quarantine the tristate area while a Hazmat team comes in. Then the area is rendered unlivable for 30 years, right? No. While I'm sure suits would be worn for precautionary sake, the pellets really aren't that dangerous. (Unless you plan on filling your pillow with them for a week.) Besides, once the waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain is done the idea of toxic waste is moot. We could just as well consider it gone forever. This hasn't, however, stopped people from protesting nuclear power, and the facility at Yucca mountain. One of the talking points against nuclear is how unsafe the plants are, but thanks to their protesting all our Nuclear plants are from the 70's. They are also likely being more overworked than they would need to be, if state of the art plants were allowed to open.

I think what bugs me most about the anti-nuclear people is that they don't have any solutions of their own. Coal? Oil? The closest they can get is solar and wind energy, but those are far from being viable options. Besides, nothing is for free. Any energy those turbines take from the wind is just that, taken away. That has to effect something. (Not to mention the birds that are killed.) Also on a size-per-power-output basis they are horrible. First off, I think people see a field of them, without any thing to scale off of, and don't take their sizes into account. The things are freaking huge and the footprint to make any real power out of them is as well.

There has to be some compromise out there, regardless of your opinion on global warming. Lowering your "carbon footprint" can save you money. Lessening our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is important. Whether or not global warming will soon kill us all, or is a complete myth.

In Conclusion

Hopefully I accomplished my goal of reminding everyone that compromises are necessary in everything, even the hot button issues. Nothing is as black and white as some people make it out to be. Perhaps though there are, in fact, a lot of people in the gray area. Maybe the problem is you only get a voice if you reside in East/West Crazy Town.

Maybe, almost by definition, living in the gray means lacking the strong convictions the two fringes have on the same issue. As such, maybe then it just seems like there is no one left defending reason because no one can hear us in our "Who ever yells the loudest, or has the catchiest slogan, wins" society.
jon.jpgJon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert
07/07/2007 @ 03:10:01 AM
 Quote this comment
A few quotes and what my nitpicking mind thinks of them:

"First of all Microsoft is hardly an "evil empire." Bill Gates gives away money like he can't give it away fast enough."

Those may very well be two truthful statements, but the latter doesn't make the former necessarily true. I think being generous is great, especially if you're actually helping people. But what about ill-gotten gain? I'm not putting forth the idea that Microsoft's wealth or Gates' is from (or not from) immoral means, but if it was, I'm not so sure that fact would just be absolved by their generosity.


"BETA was widely considered to be a superior product to Video Cassettes, but in the end everyone was better off and life was that much easier because we 'chose a standard.'"

Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, but I find the statement "everyone was better off" a bit hard to prove. I mean, sure there was some convenience added but maybe I would have gotten a better experience from beta. They could have been like coke and pepsi. Do you want a one soda world jeremy? (I know this may not be relevant to your overall point about ie but, still, I'm red flagging it.)


"The reason you hear about exploits against Microsoft products are because:
1) Why write an exploit that will affect like 3% of the population when you can affect almost everyone"


Even so, that doesn't mean that people are wrong in thinking that, say a Mac, is less likely to be messed up by the hackers and bugs and whatnot. (forgive me if I use the wrong terminology) The non microsoft programs/machines are probably theoretically as vulnerable, but practically less targeted. And since it's the practical that people care about, it seems valid to say that those machines are "safer," in one sense at least. A person's understanding of the reason they are safer might be way off, and they should learn the difference, but it still seems like a valid item in the "plus" column for non-microsoft things and, therefore a "minus" for microsoft things.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 07/09/2007 10:32:45 am
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
07/07/2007 @ 04:40:33 AM
 Quote this comment
"Is there any reason to not replace every light bulb you can with a more efficient version?"
Any reason? How about mercury?
Granted, they say the overall mercury effect is a net positive by using the bulbs, but on a smaller level, like to an individual, there is some reason to hesitate. Since you asked.

"Hopefully I accomplished my goal of reminding everyone that compromises are necessary in everything, even the hot button issues. Nothing is as black and white as some people make it out to be."
Compromises in EVERYTHING????????? NOTHING is as black and white...?????????? Pretty black and white statements, one might say.
Secondly, all across America today, children will be heard uttering, "Mommy, Jeremy said I had to compromise on everything. I guess that includes my morals and sense of self-worth. I'm off to take drugs and have unprotected sex."

(Is there a tongue in cheek emoticon?)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jon messed with this at 07/07/2007 4:47:03 am
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
07/07/2007 @ 10:17:47 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 07/07/2007 @ 03:10:01 AM
"The reason you hear about exploits against Microsoft products are because:
1) Why write an exploit that will effect like 3% of the population when you can effect almost everyone"


Even so, that doesn't mean that people are wrong in thinking that, say a Mac, is less likely to be messed up by the hackers and bugs and whatnot. (forgive me if I use the wrong terminology) The non microsoft programs/machines are probably theoretically as vulnerable, but practically less targeted. And since it's the practical that people care about, it seems valid to say that those machines are "safer," in one sense at least. A person's understanding of the reason they are safer might be way off, and they should learn the difference, but it still seems like a valid item in the "plus" column for non-microsoft things and, therefore a "minus" for microsoft things.


I disagree with this. Hackers probably are more likely to attack a Microsoft application. But I'm sure Microsoft accounts for this in testing plus hackers will actually help to find any holes during the beta period so that by the time you actually install an official release from Microsoft it's probably been put under a lot more fire than say a Mac and therefore should have less possible exploits remaining. And if a hacker does manage to find a new exploit there are so many Microsoft users that you're pretty much guaranteed that someone will know about it right away and Microsoft will fix it up quickly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/07/2007 @ 10:35:54 AM
 Quote this comment
Thats a heavy article for Saturday morning. Let me get back to you on Tuesday.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
07/07/2007 @ 10:56:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Imagine going to the video store and half the movie companies signed a deal to be released on beta only and half released on VCRs only. Think of everytime you brought a movie over to someone's house needing to check it they had a VCR or Beta player.

My point about Microsoft isn't that the other people aren't safer. Just that their altruistic reasons for thinking they're safer are a little off base. It doesn't matter what kind of alarm system you have, you're going to think it's doing an excellent job if no one ever tries to rob you. They aren't fundamentally as safe as people make them out to be, they just aren't being tested as fervently. (I'm not saying they aren't safer, but it's not like Mac and Linux have figured out some way to be hacker proof no matter what, while Microsoft bumbles along, clueless to the concept.)

Also, I think kids today could use a little "compromising" in their self worth.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Well you can get this lapdance here for free.
07/07/2007 @ 11:48:06 AM
 Quote this comment
As I am analyzing the data for a future post, let me take the time to say this ... Rodney Peete does rule.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - Bring down the Beast!!!
07/07/2007 @ 12:30:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Come on people the world has moved on....its time to embrace Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD as the new VHS vs. Beta.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
07/07/2007 @ 12:44:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Well see, that wouldn't be AS apt an analogy since the media itself is the same (discs) so it's possible to make players that play both, like they did with DVD R and DVD-R.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/07/2007 @ 09:19:58 PM
 Quote this comment
The truth about Microsoft is that they are just good at what they do. And in reality, we are all a little better off having such a standardized software system where ever we go. Knowing that if I save a Word file on my computer, I can open it up pretty much anywhere I go is a good thing. Can you imagine if there were as many different types of software systems like this as there are different types of cars? You would never be able to know whether you could access your information on a computer other than your own.

Also, I'm not afraid to admit that I'm a fan of Microsoft. I've used Windows all my life. So what if Microsoft has taken a few ideas here and there from other operating systems. Mazda uses steering wheels even though Ford used this device in cars first. Also, I really hate Macs. It's probably because I've used Window's all my life, but I just don't understand the elitest Apple mentality that Mac OSX is so supperior. Sure it's got some nice features that obviously make it a successful system, but I've just never been able to get used to it. And have there ever been any more useless and annoying mouse devices put out than by apple. Seriously, I've never heard anybody complain about the 2 button, scroller-in-the-middle mouse. Why does Apple need to "revolutionize" such an accepted and efficient device. Were they bored?

So to sum up. Microsoft is good for everybody. Apple, with all their innovations (some are indeed good: Ipod), still kinda sucks. Microsoft is just good at what they do. And because of that, life is a lot easier for all of us.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
07/07/2007 @ 11:18:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Apple's one button mouse is intolerable. It's one of those things where you just wonder how pig headed a group of people can be.

Also, anyone remember the completely round iMac mice? Tiny, uncomfortable, non-ergonomic, piles of crap they were.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/07/2007 @ 11:36:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Agreed with previous sentiment on the one-button mouse. Not only is it intolerable, it's inexplicable.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle!
07/08/2007 @ 08:38:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 07/07/2007 @ 12:30:34 PM
Come on people the world has moved on....its time to embrace Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD as the new VHS vs. Beta.


At this point I refuse to get involved with that race. I'm going to wait it out.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
07/10/2007 @ 09:14:32 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, since I tried to summarize in the end there but did a little too much summarizing let me add this:

I never intended to argue that a person should compromise on every little issue.

You shouldn't compromise with your 2 year old child you know categorically better than if say, they want candy for supper.

If your friend wants to go on a killing spree and you would prefer the two of you kill no one, you shouldn't go on half a spree.

I was merely addressing compromise in regards to issues that we have to decide on as a society. Issues where you're going to have good points on the left, good points on the right, crazies on both sides, and a vast array of people along the spectrum.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 07/10/2007 9:17:15 am
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat!
07/10/2007 @ 11:12:18 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 09:14:32 AM

You shouldn't compromise with your 2 year old child you know categorically better than if say, they want candy for supper.


This is exactly why I won't compromise with anyone, because I categorically know better than everyone else in the world.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
07/10/2007 @ 11:25:09 AM
 Quote this comment
And everyone else feels the same way about you and everyone else. Thus, the problem at hand.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 11:32:54 AM
 Quote this comment
Oh, and it's Tuesday, PackOne.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 07/10/2007 11:34:22 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style."
07/10/2007 @ 12:56:55 PM
 Quote this comment
no I agree, Micah's track record of being right far exceeds everyone elses. The one person I don't hate to hear say "I told you so!"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 01:10:24 PM
 Quote this comment
For the record I was just answering what I assume was a tongue in cheek comment from Micah with a tongue in cheek response. I wasn't trying to start an "Is Micah, in fact, the most correct person in the world?" debate.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 07/10/2007 1:30:15 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 01:27:37 PM
 Quote this comment
emoticon

Isn't he?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 01:30:26 PM
 Quote this comment
It's debatable.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - That hypocrite smokes two packs a day.
07/10/2007 @ 01:39:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 11:32:54 AM
Oh, and it's Tuesday, PackOne.


Yes, I realize it is the day everyone worldwide has been waiting for - my opinion. Strangely enough, I haven't had much to say about anything lately. My business is slowly crumbling around me, and I have been in that proverbial "funk" zone for about a week now. However, I know the world patiently awaits my sound off, so I will do what I can.

On the abortion topic - the truth of the matter is it shouldn't be an issue unless a medical emergency, or a criminal act is in the equation. I am not advocating a society without choice, but, there needs to be some universal rules put in place regarding the conception of children. I'm sick and tired of hearing about all the hungry kids, neglected kids, and kids with no shot. Can't the world realize that enough is enough. We continue to promote pregnancy with financial incentive, glorify it as manly, and present it as some right of passage to life. REGULATE IT. I understand that people want to spread their legacy on the future generations - GREAT. Have one kid. I'm guilty of it too. When we got a pet we HAD to go out and get a purebread Golden Retriever. After a short while we realized that there are hundreds of dogs in need of a good home because some dumb ass got a dog and decided they couldn't, or didn't want to care for it anymore. It's the same way with child bearing. I say everybody gets one shot at their purebread - then you have to ADOPT.

I'll respect the right to choice - I'd rather see a life ended before it began than a life wasted by stupid people who don't have the self control to think before they sink the pink.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 01:47:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Horribly tactless post aside, how would you propose to regulate it? Outside of fines/taxes for a certain number of kids there's no real way, and all that would do is take money from the people who need it the most.

(Full disclosure: I've often said that we should regulate it too, but in more of a "wouldn't that be ideal" way then you seem to be saying.)

Also, I totally thought you were going one way with it, then it came flying back in the exact opposite direction at the end there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:02:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Tactless? How about reality. Make people get a license for more than one child - and make it EXPENSIVE. This way those without without the means to support a gazillion kids can't afford the license either. I know it's unrealistic, but so is trying to solve the problems we already have. Everyone gets one shot, and if you do well you are rewarded with the opportunity of raising another child. Until children are viewed as an opportunity in this society no change will take place.

Maybe my real issue is with adoption - it seems that too many uncaring parents are getting away with bringing children into the world. My biological parents were freshman in college when they had me. They were wise enough to realize that maybe I would have a better life in the hands of someone more able to raise me than themselves.

I don't believe in hurting any creature in any way. With this outlook I really tow the line on abortion. However, I do think the issue of abortion would be far less of a hot button topic if the issue of neglect and poor planning was not so out of control.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted.
07/10/2007 @ 02:08:39 PM
 Quote this comment
The chinese regulate it through fear and punishment. They could only have 2 kids, so parents would go out and burry baby girls alive so they could try again to have a boy to carry on family legacy. (THis may not be done now, but I assure you it was in the last century)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - She's just a woman. Never again.
07/10/2007 @ 02:13:57 PM
 Quote this comment
I am well aware of that - and I don't deny regulation may leave us with a whole new set of problems. Once again though, de-regulation may just be the death of society as well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:16:49 PM
 Quote this comment
And then if someone doesn't buy the license what then? An even more expensive fine they can't afford? Take all their money and then a year later give them foodstamps cause they're broke?

Also I still have no idea where you stand on abortion, you seem way way to one side then two sentences later you seem way way to the other side.

Also2, I think it's fair to call any post that ends with "sink the pink" tactless. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - Well use me, use me, 'caus you ain't that average groupie.
07/10/2007 @ 02:23:39 PM
 Quote this comment
What is tactless is not thinking about the pink before sinking it. I'm just calling it like I see it. I think reducing the act to a phrase out of a porno is the equivelant to someone not thinking twice before tinkering with pregnancy. I revert back to your thread topic - of being some middle ground. I personally would not consider abortion as an option. For those who have proven they cannot control themselves I think adoption or abortion should be mandatory.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:26:31 PM
 Quote this comment
On the next topic it's real black and white for me. Let the gays marry. Let em raise kids too. God knows they can't do any worse than those couples before them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:27:48 PM
 Quote this comment
I called the post tactless, not a crime against humanity, take a chill pill. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:32:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 02:27:48 PM
I called the post tactless, not a crime against humanity, take a chill pill. emoticon


I'm not burning up. emoticon Just stating my own NPD induced opinion. Unfortunately, at this stage of my life, the only real change I will personally be taking on any of these topics is my words on nutcan.com. I look at most of the world with a defeatist attitude at this point.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:36:57 PM
 Quote this comment
emoticon

"I weep for the future"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 07/10/2007 2:37:10 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:39:56 PM
 Quote this comment


You will be glad to know I plan on remaining childless. Good thing for the future. Better thing for any kid that would have me as a parent.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:47:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Amnesty bill. If you have enough moxy to risk getting arrested, living on the street, and leaving your family in the pursuit of a better life, go ahead and stay. I'll even go a step further and say you should be required to find a worthless crack dealer and send him back to where you just came from.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:58:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Microsoft. My PC's have always been fine for me. I grew up programming BASIC on an Apple IIc. Since that time I have never programmed anything - so I can't comment on the specifics. The only real comment I have on Microsoft is the weird comment someone once told me. They said that if Bill Gates saw a hundred dollar bill on the ground he would lose more money in the time it took to pick it up - than to just keep walking. I always found that strange. If I could get this to be the case for me with even a dollar - I'd be fricking happy as a nutcanner on Hannity and Combs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne screwed with this at 07/10/2007 2:59:59 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 02:58:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Global warming. Like I eluded to previously - we are screwed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
07/10/2007 @ 07:41:35 PM
 Quote this comment
This country needs less regulation not more. It's getting to the point that the freedom we excercise the most is the freedom to make more laws telling us what we can and can't do. Quotas or licenses for having children is no good.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex perfected this at 07/10/2007 7:48:43 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
07/10/2007 @ 08:10:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Relating to the gay marriage issue how to you define separation of church and state in relation to separation of religion and morality? I'm sure there are lots of other laws that are based purely on "moral" issues which in many cases could be considered to have originated from religious beliefs. Is there some list of issues that separates morals from religion?

Also both of your Bible quotes are horribly misapplied. "Judge not, that you be not judged," doesn't mean that you can't have laws in a society and enforce them. It means something more like don't think you're all high and mighty and go around pointing out everyone else's faults, because you sin just as much as anyone else. And I'm not even sure where you're going with the "love everyone, even (and especially) your enemies" example. Love everyone = let people do whatever they want? Is that how parents should love their children? Wouldn't it be more loving and caring to try and show others the errors of their ways and bring them the message of salvation?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
07/10/2007 @ 09:10:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Inside of a marriage there should be no controversy whatsoever. I am married. Any kids I have will be well within what I should expect. Even if I only wanted 2 or 3, but end up with 6 is just something I will deal with and enjoy all the while.

The problem is stupid idiots who have one night stands, or knock up their girl friends, or get knocked up by their boyfriends, or whatever reason, and claim an "accidental pregnancy", and because of that claim it as their right to end the life a heart thumping human being that eats, sleeps, and kicks around inside of the mother. The ONLY reason for choice would be in the case of a medical threat to the mother, or incest, possibly rape, and a small number of other exceptions. People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions. If you have sex with anyone, that is your freedom of choice. If that choice leads to a pregnancy, you are out of luck. (Actually, you are blessed, because being able to bring a child into this world is a beautiful thing.) You already excercised your freedom of choice. This is a horrible society if you can be put in jail for killing the eggs of a bald eagle, but you supported for making the decision to kill an unborn child. That's my 2 cents, and I don't see much room for compromise. I'm going to err on the side of not killing a human (with the few said exceptions) (oh, and I'm a moderate/liberal, I'm against the war, and whatnot).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 09:22:54 PM
 Quote this comment
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

This is the complete verse in question (actually, it's 3 verses for context). Basically, don't pass a judgement on someone when you are doing the same thing or worse. Jesus said to fix the problems in your own life and stop being the accuser, or people will start doing (and rightly so) the same thing to you. It doesn't mean let someone who's making destructive decisions keep making those decisions. But there is a point when you stop and realize that you aren't going to change everyone.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
07/10/2007 @ 09:25:44 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not going to disagree with your reasons for abortions (which I don't agree with) but I will disagree with you about your other point. Some people who accidentally have kids are not "blessed" and maybe should give those kids up for adoption because some of those kids are going to end up having a crummy life. Not all of them, because some people end up making it work, but some people end up making their kids lives miserable and it's a shame. Kids should have equal opportunities to succeed, and there are tons of people out there who want kids who aren't fortunate to have their own. Plus, chances are that those people who accidentally have kids in said situations are just going to be burdens on society.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2007 @ 11:24:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 08:10:14 PM
Relating to the gay marriage issue how to you define separation of church and state in relation to separation of religion and morality? I'm sure there are lots of other laws that are based purely on "moral" issues which in many cases could be considered to have originated from religious beliefs. Is there some list of issues that separates morals from religion?

Well see, there's your problem, it's your religious beliefs that lead you do rule it as a moral issue in the first place. I, and many others, don't see homosexuality as immoral to begin with, so I don't see it as a moral issue.

Edit: It's true that many of our broader laws have roots in religion (the 10 commandments in particular) but I'm pretty sure even the most secular person could sign off on those broad topics. I have to imagine as a society we would have come up with "we shouldn't kill and rob each other" on our own. The issue at hand is the specific details. The things that society doesn't have a problem with, but some people do "because the Bible says so." It's likely a person who is a Christian and against homosexuality wouldn't feel they way they do if they weren't Christian. They would still think murder is bad.

I'm also not saying a person can't feel the way they want to feel, I just don't want Christians forcing anti-gay laws into the halls of an establishment that is supposed to take a step back from religion.
Alex Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 08:10:14 PM

Also both of your Bible quotes are horribly misapplied. "Judge not, that you be not judged," doesn't mean that you can't have laws in a society and enforce them. It means something more like don't think you're all high and mighty and go around pointing out everyone else's faults, because you sin just as much as anyone else. And I'm not even sure where you're going with the "love everyone, even (and especially) your enemies" example. Love everyone = let people do whatever they want? Is that how parents should love their children? Wouldn't it be more loving and caring to try and show others the errors of their ways and bring them the message of salvation?


Of course you can have laws, I don't know how you even interpreted what I said into that. There are a lot of Christians who do, in fact, think they are higher and mightier than everyone else. How can you possibly say one person is immoral and not be passing judgment, or implying you are "more moral" than them? Love everyone doesn't mean everyone can do anything they want, but love everyone CERTAINLY means don't hate anyone. There is a fairly decent sized group of Christians that legitimately hate homosexuals (and not just the crazy "God Hates Fags" soldier funeral protesters, whom are in a bat shit insane category all their own.)

Scott Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 09:10:41 PM
The problem is stupid idiots who have one night stands, or knock up their girl friends, or get knocked up by their boyfriends, or whatever reason, and claim an "accidental pregnancy", and because of that claim it as their right to end the life ...
The ONLY reason for choice would be in the case of a medical threat to the mother, or incest, possibly rape, and a small number of other exceptions. People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions. If you have sex with anyone, that is your freedom of choice. If that choice leads to a pregnancy, you are out of luck. .... I'm going to err on the side of not killing a human (with the few said exceptions) .


This was one of those things that I went into my women's 301 class thinking "I wonder how much more liberal I'll be on this issue" (assuming I'd hear some rational arguments) Then after hearing and reading people talk about pregnancies like they were unlucky happenstance, and abortions like they were. a)An inaliable right and b) Were absolutely no big deal what so ever, I came out more against than ever.

If you choose to have sex you chose any/all ramifications of the outcome. If you were impaired and had a stupid one night stand that leads to a pregnancy, well you chose to drink that night.

Edit: In other words, I could live with the right being taken away from the people who are "just having second thoughts." If I was conceded my list of exceptions, which is more or less your list.

(There's also a lot of gray area in the subset of the Abortion argument of when it's a baby, and when it's not. But I didn't feel the need to get into that. I only bring it up since you said "a heart thumping human being that eats, sleeps, and kicks around inside of the mother" which would be later on in the term. At what point we qualify "lump of cells" from "baby" could be a separate "line" in and of itself.)

(And by the way all those "few exceptions" you listed are compromises)

Sarah Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 09:25:44 PM
I'm not going to disagree with your reasons for abortions (which I don't agree with)


Classic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/10/2007 11:56:58 pm
2887.gifAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
07/11/2007 @ 12:49:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 11:24:40 PM
Well see, there's your problem, it's your religious beliefs that lead you do rule it as a moral issue in the first place. I, and many others, don't see homosexuality as immoral to begin with, so I don't see it as a moral issue.

Edit: It's true that many of our broader laws have roots in religion (the 10 commandments in particular) but I'm pretty sure even the most secular person could sign off on those broad topics. I have to imagine as a society we would have come up with "we shouldn't kill and rob each other" on our own. The issue at hand is the specific details. The things that society doesn't have a problem with, but some people do "because the Bible says so." It's likely a person who is a Christian and against homosexuality wouldn't feel they way they do if they weren't Christian. They would still think murder is bad.

I'm also not saying a person can't feel the way they want to feel, I just don't want Christians forcing anti-gay laws into the halls of an establishment that is supposed to take a step back from religion.


Firstly, you completely dodged the morality vs religion question. And secondly, if as you said there is really no good non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage, then doesn't it have to be considered a moral issue? You just happen to think that it's morally ok, but it's still basically a moral issue.

If laws are made or upheld to prevent gay marriage then isn't society saying that they do have a problem with it? Also I'm sure there are lots of non-Christians who aren't ok with gay marriage. The same thing that inherently lets people know that killing and robbing is wrong also lets them know that homosexuality is wrong too. But there are people that kill and people that rob so there will also be people who want to pratice homosexuality. So in summary, yes I 100% think homosexuality is wrong, but it's basically legal in this country which I guess I'm ok with because of freedom of religion and separation of church and state (though I wish society were less accepting of it), but marriage has always been pretty much reserved for one man and one woman since it started and if 2 guys want to live together all their lives then fine, but they shouldn't receive the same benefits because it's not the same thing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this 2 times, last at 07/11/2007 12:50:09 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
07/11/2007 @ 10:00:27 AM
 Quote this comment
I didn't think I did dodge it. Societies morals are rooted in religion, but as I said I have to imagine we would have made similar laws to some of the 10 commandments either way. I'm not philosopher enough to untangle morals and religion, but there are a lot of atheists floating around out there, and they aren't all killing and raping people.

if as you said there is really no good non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage, then doesn't it have to be considered a moral issue?

I don't follow that line of reasoning at all. You'll have to explain what you mean a bit more.

In an ideal democracy "society" would make laws, but that's not the way laws are made. Laws are made by an out of touch governing body that follows the money. There is no law being "upheld," which is why I think it's so bizarre that there's any grounds to not allow it, at least in the interim if/when a law IS made.

It reminds me of the Maurice Clarett situation. He left college early and tested the NFL's "x years out of high school" rule. ESPN had a bunch of legal minds on and asked them what they thought the outcome would be. The consensus was unanimous. The NFL's rule had been customarily followed up until then, but there are no legal grounds for it. Maurice was an able bodied adult and had to be allowed to offer his services to the 'workplace' like any other profession. They all thought it would be over the second it was ever legally challenged. Somehow that fairly basic American law was, in the end, lost in a sea of money and emotions.

I'm not going to say, and never really meant, that there is no non-religious person on the planet that thinks gay marriage is bad. However, you'd be kidding yourself to try and argue 98% percent of the blow back isn't from Christians.

You can't just say "it's not the same thing." You have to actually say why it isn't.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 07/11/2007 10:07:28 am
flower .jpgPackOne - That hypocrite smokes two packs a day.
07/11/2007 @ 10:35:10 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 09:10:41 PM
Inside of a marriage there should be no controversy whatsoever. I am married. Any kids I have will be well within what I should expect. Even if I only wanted 2 or 3, but end up with 6 is just something I will deal with and enjoy all the while.

The problem is stupid idiots who have one night stands, or knock up their girl friends, or get knocked up by their boyfriends, or whatever reason, and claim an "accidental pregnancy", and because of that claim it as their right to end the life a heart thumping human being that eats, sleeps, and kicks around inside of the mother. The ONLY reason for choice would be in the case of a medical threat to the mother, or incest, possibly rape, and a small number of other exceptions. People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions. If you have sex with anyone, that is your freedom of choice. If that choice leads to a pregnancy, you are out of luck. (Actually, you are blessed, because being able to bring a child into this world is a beautiful thing.) You already excercised your freedom of choice. This is a horrible society if you can be put in jail for killing the eggs of a bald eagle, but you supported for making the decision to kill an unborn child. That's my 2 cents, and I don't see much room for compromise. I'm going to err on the side of not killing a human (with the few said exceptions) (oh, and I'm a moderate/liberal, I'm against the war, and whatnot).


Sarah Wrote - 07/10/2007 @ 09:25:44 PM
I'm not going to disagree with your reasons for abortions (which I don't agree with) but I will disagree with you about your other point. Some people who accidentally have kids are not "blessed" and maybe should give those kids up for adoption because some of those kids are going to end up having a crummy life. Not all of them, because some people end up making it work, but some people end up making their kids lives miserable and it's a shame. Kids should have equal opportunities to succeed, and there are tons of people out there who want kids who aren't fortunate to have their own. Plus, chances are that those people who accidentally have kids in said situations are just going to be burdens on society.


Two quotes I can pretty much agree with 99.9%. I think an issue that hasn't been touched on this thread is - What exactly constitutes life? Is it just a heartbeat? Is it emotional capabilitites? I am not wholly convinced that a 8 week old fetus is alive yet. When someone can definitively answer that question and prove that an unborn child is aware and feels the pain of abortion, my feelings may sway slightly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 10:49:47 AM
 Quote this comment
What I find odd is that our society seems fairly accepting of abortions, but seems to pretty wholeheartly condemn euthanasia, when that person can outright TELL you they're in too much pain, or whatever, to go on.

(Also don't read in between the lines to infer my opinion on the matter, I really don't have one yet.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 10:53:25 AM
 Quote this comment
To respond to Jeremy's last- I personally have decided that life begins when the fetus can survive outside of the womb without assistance. I don't necessarily agree with abortion, but that's the answer I tell myself.

I, for one, have no qualms with gay marriage, gay parenting, etc. I'm not going to let the fact that I am straight stop other people from being happy (or as some say, misserable) in marriage. Let people be happy with other people.

I used to be a homophobe, but these days, when I park outside of the Minneapolis Eagle before a Twins game ($5) and a guy checks me out, I think "Hey thanks, that's a compliment" instead of "GWB-INFERNO!" from the old-days.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 07/11/2007 10:53:47 am
flower .jpgPackOne - She's got the whole wide world singing baby's song.
07/11/2007 @ 11:18:53 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:53:25 AM
To respond to Jeremy's last- I personally have decided that life begins when the fetus can survive outside of the womb without assistance. I don't necessarily agree with abortion, but that's the answer I tell myself.

I, for one, have no qualms with gay marriage, gay parenting, etc. I'm not going to let the fact that I am straight stop other people from being happy (or as some say, misserable) in marriage. Let people be happy with other people.

I used to be a homophobe, but these days, when I park outside of the Minneapolis Eagle before a Twins game ($5) and a guy checks me out, I think "Hey thanks, that's a compliment" instead of "GWB-INFERNO!" from the old-days.


Thats a great post.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
07/11/2007 @ 12:02:42 PM
 Quote this comment
To be fair, Carl is a beautiful man.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 12:15:49 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:35:10 AM

When someone can definitively answer that question and prove that an unborn child is aware and feels the pain of abortion, my feelings may sway slightly.


I'm using this quote to put out some thoughts, but this isn't really directed at PackOne or any individual as much as it's just my thoughts on the subject.

The issue of pain/awareness usually comes into the abortion argument if it goes on long enough. Personally, the more thought I've put into that particular line of thinking, the more I find it irrelevant. I know A huge, if not THE huge, sticking point on abortion is the whole definition of life and so people want to use some measure of something like pain to draw an "ok" and "not ok" line. But, to me, that can't be the line. For one, it turns the whole argument into an examination of one moment where the procedure takes place. Pain or no pain, the issue of abortion is an issue of lives and lifetimes, not one specific moment.
Also, I don't think you can use that framework (of pain or awareness) for deciding whether an action is acceptable or not. A person could come up with countless scenarios where someone might not feel an injury or be aware of something that's happening to them, yet it would be flat out wrong to go through with that action. Not even just in life and death issues. Can you steal if you're positive they won't miss it? I'm fairly sure some people think that's ok. Personally, I don't. Then obviously there are the issues of the people in comas to various degrees, dementia, etc.
Which actually leads me to my final point (at least for now). Maybe it's the same point, just differently stated, I can hardly tell. Anyway, applying these types of litmus tests of pain or no pain, etc. are basically saying that we think that we know what constitutes a fair life or a fair denial of life. And in this I mean both a biological life and what I'll just call the experiential life, meaning roughly every other aspect of living. Now, the following isn't meant to sound too "slippery slopish" but I'm sure there's that apect to it. But to me, it seems too easy for people to start applying certain criteria to deem whether or not a life, or potential life, or fetus or whatever you want to call it is protected or not. Can it feel pain? Well there are some adults who can't feel pain. It can't make decisions for itself and we're not sure it's aware; but that's not really limited to fetuses either. It doesn't really have friends or family that will grieve, yet you could say the same about a lot of adults. And I know that there are differences in these cases. And I don't know how much these arguments are being used or if they ever will be. But to me, it seems like trying to sum up something as complex as life, and all that it entails, simply based on what the person/thing is able to experience/not experience or comprehend/not comprehend is a task we shouldn't be so eager to take on. I'm not so sure we're as equipped as we might think we are.

And just in case you're wondering, I don't say all this as someone who thinks I've nailed down the exact procedures for dealing with the huge spectrum of issues involving life and death. But I hope to have at least put some good ideas out there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jon screwed with this at 07/11/2007 12:22:16 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else."
07/11/2007 @ 12:24:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Good points for Jon

And Jeremy, I forgot all about the beautiful man thing. Where'd that come from again??? I think I remember where, but not sure.

EDIT- FYI, the guy told Nicci I was "a cutie" hence, Bill named his ferret Cutie. If that's what YOU were thinking.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 07/11/2007 12:25:30 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Well use me, use me, 'caus you ain't that average groupie.
07/11/2007 @ 12:36:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Good points Jon. I agree it brings up a whole different set of issues. It also brings up a species point as well. Is it okay to destroy a hornets nest because you want a garden there? Does the moral issue only involve the human species?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 12:41:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:24:10 PM
And Jeremy, I forgot all about the beautiful man thing. Where'd that come from again??? I think I remember where, but not sure.

EDIT- FYI, the guy told Nicci I was "a cutie" hence, Bill named his ferret Cutie. If that's what YOU were thinking.

I don't think it is from anything (or at least I didn't mean it to be), I was just putting that fact out there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 07/11/2007 12:41:26 pm
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 12:50:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:49:06 AM
So in summary, yes I 100% think homosexuality is wrong, but it's basically legal in this country which I guess I'm ok with because of freedom of religion and separation of church and state (though I wish society were less accepting of it), but marriage has always been pretty much reserved for one man and one woman since it started and if 2 guys want to live together all their lives then fine, but they shouldn't receive the same benefits because it's not the same thing.


Wow that's probably the first instance I've seen of outright bigotry on this site....hope you already picked up your hood and robe for the rally.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
Micah edited this at 07/11/2007 12:51:42 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 01:01:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, just to add to the pain relevant/irrelevant argument, but play devils advocate a bit. Should that be the cut off of whether or not something should happen anyway? Couldn't you argue 2 seconds of pain to save 20 years of pain is the more humane thing to do?

The fact that we have brought up so many caveats just goes to show how much gray area there is. Should a girl who is in no position to have a baby have to have her life ruined and live in near poverty, in turn giving her baby a bad shot at life, rather than going on to be a success and get married and have 3 kids? On the other hand, assuming she chose to have sex, shouldn't she have to deal with the consequences of that? Which is better? A society full of drains on the system, or a consequence free society?

This is why I remain in the "just never say never" camp. Draw all the lines you want, but you have to allow some loop holes.

It's the same reason mandatory sentencing doesn't work. People draw up these hard and fast laws and then later on someone in a situation the lawmakers never contemplated will technically violate a law that was clearly never indented for people in that situation.

Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:50:28 PM
Wow that's probably the first instance I've seen of outright bigotry on this site....hope you already picked up your hood and robe for the rally.

Homosexuality is sort of the last thing you're "allowed" to be so openly against. Like 50% of the population would consider that a perfectly valid statement. Then there are some who would see it almost as saying "I think being black is 100% wrong." I'm not sure where I fall along the spectrum. As of right now we're leaning toward homosexuality as a choice, so in that sense it's "ok" to be on the opposite side of the choice. However research seems to be headed down the "it isn't even a choice to begin with" road, so I may have to reevaluate that.

Edit: I made the comment before you added your "hood and robe" comment, so clearly you fall in the "Then there are some" category. I really don't think it is the same thing though. We're potentially talking about things you chose to be and things you just are, which are different situations. Also, he said he thinks homosexuality is wrong, not that he drives around at night looking for gay people to hang.

Edit2: This is all regarding my feelings on whether or not I consider it being bigotry, not how I feel about homosexuality, which I'm fine with. (Though it does give me the creeps.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 07/11/2007 1:23:57 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 01:02:36 PM
 Quote this comment


take a look at that
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this 3 times, last at 07/11/2007 1:03:21 pm
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
07/11/2007 @ 01:32:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 01:01:51 PM
Also, just to add to the pain relevant/irrelevant argument, but play devils advocate a bit. Should that be the cut off of whether or not something should happen anyway? Couldn't you argue 2 seconds of pain to save 20 years of pain is the more humane thing to do?


In regard to what? How certain are you of said pain?

And since it's been brought up, people talk about how if some girl has a baby it will ruin her life and the kid's. And no doubt, it creates tons of problems in many peoples' lives. You don't need to sell me on how teen pregnancy is a problem and how it can compound. It does create really rough situations. But again, if we start to place ourselves as the judge of "this fetus's life wouldn't be worth living," we're delusional in our estimation of our knowledge of the future and in our estimation of what the value of a life is.

And as for the problems it creates for the mother, we've already spoken of adoption. And I know, in some people's minds I'm not allowed to even suggest such a thing since I'm a male and I haven't been in the situation, but I'll stick by it. Will it be a sacrifice? Of course. I'm humbled by the thought of even being in a situation like that myself. But we can't let the fact that it's hard outweigh the fact that at the very least there is potential for an actual human life.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jon perfected this at 07/11/2007 1:33:26 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - Take your shirt off, twist it 'round yo' hand...spin it like a helicopter.
07/11/2007 @ 01:34:38 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm a male and an adoptee. I'd like to speak face to face with whoever suggests that a male can't talk about adoption.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
07/11/2007 @ 01:44:09 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 01:34:38 PM
I'm a male and an adoptee. I'd like to speak face to face with whoever suggests that a male can't talk about adoption.

I think Jon just meant a male can't have an opinion on abortion without potentially just looking like a misogynistic ass like a white guy can't have a contrary opinion to reparations without just looking like a racist.

As for Jon's reply to me: (and I'm aware you we're necessarily condemning me)

I was just putting the idea out there, not necessarily stating how I felt about anything.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 01:56:05 PM
 Quote this comment
See that whole male opinion thing is BS to me. The whole process of adoption is equally painful for both parents providing that they care in the first place. I think this point is valid regardless of the relationship status as well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
07/11/2007 @ 02:02:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Though I guess to address it a little more: (and again just to present the a different side, not necessarily state my opinion)

Jon Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 01:32:02 PM
And as for the problems it creates for the mother, we've already spoken of adoption. And I know, in some people's minds I'm not allowed to even suggest such a thing since I'm a male and I haven't been in the situation, but I'll stick by it. Will it be a sacrifice? Of course. I'm humbled by the thought of even being in a situation like that myself. But we can't let the fact that it's hard outweigh the fact that at the very least there is potential for an actual human life.


Even with adoption there is a potential for the very act of carrying the child to term causing harm to the mothers future. She could have to drop out of school, miss out on jobs because they don't want to hire someone who is pregnant, etc. Either way you are also talking about ruining an existing established life, or terminating something that is, at the moment, arguably not human, and in many ways no more a separate entity from the mother herself than you could consider her pancreas.

It's one of the big reasons it's such a feminist issue. Sure a couple chooses to have sex, but if the girl gets knocked up then guy also has the option of saying, screw this I want nothing to do with you (except potentially have to send checks once in a while, a year and a half down the road) The guy's life doesn't really have to be affected at all, if he chooses. Women think they should have an analogous "screw this, I want out choice." You're placing the consequences of two people's choice into one persons lap.

Also to clarify my point clarifying a point JON thinks guys can have an opinion, it's just many people don't think we should get one. (Try arguing in a Women's Studies course that a husband should have even a 1% say in whether or not his wife keeps a baby of theirs, as I once tried to do, if you doubt me.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 07/11/2007 2:21:05 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - No matter how many MC's I eat up ... oh, it's never enough.
07/11/2007 @ 02:18:08 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't disagree with you at all. I am just saying that giving a child up for adoption affects both parents for the long term - emotionally and otherwise. I would go further and say that it affects the mindset of the father that says "screw this" even more.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne perfected this at 07/11/2007 2:18:31 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:20:35 PM
 Quote this comment
A guy that says "screw this" and then later in life grows a "set" and realizes the impact of his actions - pays for that decision dearly. Not that he shouldn't either.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne edited this at 07/11/2007 2:21:04 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:23:34 PM
 Quote this comment
That doesn't mean a) Those guys didn't place more then 50% of the burden on the mother or b) That there aren't assholes out there who truly feel nothing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - The Harvard comma's #1 fan.
07/11/2007 @ 02:27:02 PM
 Quote this comment
I agree. But if we take the male out of the equation from the on-set ... failure.

EDIT: I am actually agreeing with a nutcanner.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne edited this at 07/11/2007 2:27:51 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
07/11/2007 @ 02:27:35 PM
 Quote this comment
or c) the fact that he feels bad 10 years later makes up for anything he did to that child/mother.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
07/11/2007 @ 02:28:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Who said anything about taking the male out?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:30:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 02:28:00 PM
Who said anything about taking the male out?


You said trying to argue that a male should have a say left you with a bad experience.

To choice c) Nothing will ever make up for it. That's why women's studies should be left to women.

EDIT - I would also like to say that I personally think the percentage of males that feel NO empathy towards the CHILD/MOTHER is probably microscopic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne messed with this at 07/11/2007 2:32:54 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
07/11/2007 @ 02:32:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Are you talking about "taking the male out" of the discussion of what a woman does with her baby is wrong, or are you talking about taking the male out of the child raising is bad? I think maybe you're talking about the former and I'm responding to the latter.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:34:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 02:32:30 PM
Are you talking about "taking the male out" of the discussion of what a woman does with her baby is wrong, or are you talking about taking the male out of the child raising is bad? I think maybe you're talking about the former and I'm responding to the latter.


emoticon

Success - it's hard to work and try to make valid understandable points at the same time.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne screwed with this at 07/11/2007 2:37:43 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:37:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Well then I agree, it's preposterous to argue the father should get no say in the outcome.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:39:39 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 02:37:31 PM
Well then I agree, it's preposterous to argue the father should get no say in the outcome.


I should have just said that to begin with. It's not a man vs. woman thing for me at all. Mothers will and should be overly protective of their born/unborn offspring. Sometimes, it just gets taken a little too far.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:45:25 PM
 Quote this comment
I guess I'm willing to concede that if its a mutual decision that neither person wants the baby, and the father wants abortion the mother wants adoption, or vise versa, tie goes to the mother. However, if either person wants the baby I think that trumps the other's feelings. To argue the woman has every right to abort/give away a baby the father (who intends on being a devoted father) wants "just because" is, however, preposterous.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 07/11/2007 2:46:36 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - From your first cigarette to your last dyin' day.
07/11/2007 @ 02:49:51 PM
 Quote this comment
What about the mother that feels that her mate is no longer worthy of fatherhood now that she has just realized she is pregnant? - Keeping in mind that nothing has changed since the previous day when she did not know.

Ie: Two college kids - party animals. Girlfriend finds out she is pregnant. Next day, boyfriend - who still works at the same pizza joint he did the day previously gets totally wiped out of the picture. No longer good enough.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 02:56:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Well again, nothing is without exceptions. Even if I call it preposterous. (For one thing I never covered the relative indifference of the parents. There's a wide array of feelings between "I've never wanted anything more than I want this baby" and "I absolutely could not have this baby") I see your point that a person who was ok to party with completely changes in the light of "and this is going to be my babydaddy." However I still think if he wants the kid you'd have to respect that. If he was good enough to have sex with he was good enough to be your babydaddy.

Any situation like this gets hairy in practice. I just brought it up because in that class to argue that, even on a theoretical level, the guy should even get an opinion, let alone have it factor into the decision, I may as well have been arguing that Hitler was a pretty good guy and the Jews were kind of asking for it anyway, in a Synagogue.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/11/2007 3:07:30 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - It's a sin that somehow, light is changing to shadow.
07/11/2007 @ 03:04:46 PM
 Quote this comment
emoticon

Getting harder and harder not to like nutcan.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
PackOne messed with this at 07/11/2007 3:05:24 pm
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat!
07/11/2007 @ 03:46:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 01:01:51 PM


Edit: I made the comment before you added your "hood and robe" comment, so clearly you fall in the "Then there are some" category. I really don't think it is the same thing though. We're potentially talking about things you chose to be and things you just are, which are different situations. Also, he said he thinks homosexuality is wrong, not that he drives around at night looking for gay people to hang.

Edit2: This is all regarding my feelings on whether or not I consider it being bigotry, not how I feel about homosexuality, which I'm fine with. (Though it does give me the creeps.)


I really didn't know that the whole "choice" argument was taken seriously anymore. I've known quite a few gay people in my life and not one of them ever claimed that it wasn't just who they were. You don't choose what qualities you are attracted to in terms of hair, eyes, whatever....why does the trait of gender automatically set off some alarm that goes "Oh my god he CHOSE to have sex with that guy." I didn't just "decide" I like girls with dark hair and blue eyes.....its just who I am. Substituting guys for girls doesn't turn that into a choice. It got turned into a choice so that people can say "You made that choice and now you're going to hell for it," and so they don't have to try and come to grips with the clearly horrifying fact that God may have made them that way.

I also think you need to seperate the opinion of whether abortion is ok and whether it is ok to legislate. I feel there are two majorities in America. A majority of Americans don't like abortion and wouldn't have one themselves. But there is also a majority that doesn't feel it's the government's right to legislate that choice. Maybe this has been mentioned since I haven't scoured every post as I have some work to do today.

Oh and Carl....remembering GWB INFERNO! was pretty much the highlight of my week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 04:15:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Care to fill us in on the GWB INFERNO?

The issue isn't that someone is sitting around thinking "I'm going to switch to guys." I really hope no body thinks it's really just something to choose to be one day, or for that matter can just decided someday to not be.

Sure you like a certain type of girls, but did a lifetimes of choices/situations add up to end up in that result, or were you just born pre-genetically predisposed to like dark hair and blue eyes?

All I meant is that while ultimately it might be out of your control, you could still decide that blond girl is pretty hot, even if she wasn't your hypothetical ideal. If you were black you couldn't just "choose" to not be. The gayest gay guy could choose to settle down with a woman, if say he wanted a family, even if he wasn't primarily attracted to women.

Plus again, you can be against a concept (homosexuality) and not dislike homosexuals. There's no analogous "I'm against black people, but have no problem with them."

That's why to me it's a little different than outright bigotry.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 07/11/2007 4:20:56 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 04:34:11 PM
 Quote this comment
GWB Inferno? You kinda had to be there....

I agree with the separation of the concept and legislation of abortion. Just because I don't personally agree with something (for whatever reason) doesn't mean that it someone else doesn't have the right to chose for themself.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
07/11/2007 @ 09:19:08 PM
 Quote this comment
I wanted so badly to read these posts and launch into some liberal neo-feminist tirade on the inaccuracies of your opinions, but it appears my little friends have all matured into free-thinking, well-rounded adults in the past xx number of years, and so I don't have anything to say except ... I agree.
(Why did I even bother to register as a user on this site)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 09:30:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:00:27 AM
I didn't think I did dodge it. Societies morals are rooted in religion, but as I said I have to imagine we would have made similar laws to some of the 10 commandments either way. I'm not philosopher enough to untangle morals and religion, but there are a lot of atheists floating around out there, and they aren't all killing and raping people.


That's pretty much my point. There is no one who is philosopher enough untangle it. And you argued separation of Church and State in regards to legalizing gay marriage in an article about the "gray areas", and I'm arguing that separation of Church and State with regards to what is morals and what is religion is probably one of the most gray of all areas. Religions can't just do ANYTHING they want in this country, and on the flip side you can't really expect people (voters -> lawmakers) to not be influenced by their own personal beliefs in their decision making process.

Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:00:27 AM

if as you said there is really no good non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage, then doesn't it have to be considered a moral issue?

I don't follow that line of reasoning at all. You'll have to explain what you mean a bit more.


Would it make more sense if we called it a moral question and not an issue? The word issue has negative connotations. People are generally opinionated on the topic based on their morals (I'm pretty sure morals would include things you think are ok to do as well as things you think aren't ok to do, no?). So it's a morals question regardless of which way you feel about it? Maybe I'm wrong here, but my logic makes sense to me.

Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:00:27 AM

In an ideal democracy "society" would make laws, but that's not the way laws are made. Laws are made by an out of touch governing body that follows the money.


That's a whole different discussion which should probably be saved for another day.

Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:00:27 AM

You can't just say "it's not the same thing." You have to actually say why it isn't.


Actually I can say it. I already did. How about this:

female != male

x = female
y = male

x y != x x
x y != y y

Who says you'll never use algebra outside of school.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
07/11/2007 @ 09:43:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:15:49 PM
I'm not so sure we're as equipped as we might think we are.


I didn't think it was necessary to quote the whole thing, but I think this entire comment was great.

At the least, even if you think that any human or society is actually capable of deciding what is and isn't a life, isn't this a case where you would want to error on the side of extreme caution?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
07/11/2007 @ 09:47:52 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:36:35 PM
Good points Jon. I agree it brings up a whole different set of issues. It also brings up a species point as well. Is it okay to destroy a hornets nest because you want a garden there? Does the moral issue only involve the human species?


I 4 1 don't believe that humans are categorically the same as animals. It's just not the same thing emoticon.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
07/11/2007 @ 10:07:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:50:28 PM


Wow that's probably the first instance I've seen of outright bigotry on this site....hope you already picked up your hood and robe for the rally.


I'm going to go ahead and assume that the hood and robe comment is in relation to some sort of mage costume at a WOW convention of some sorts.

Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 03:46:06 PM


I really didn't know that the whole "choice" argument was taken seriously anymore. I've known quite a few gay people in my life and not one of them ever claimed that it wasn't just who they were. You don't choose what qualities you are attracted to in terms of hair, eyes, whatever....why does the trait of gender automatically set off some alarm that goes "Oh my god he CHOSE to have sex with that guy." I didn't just "decide" I like girls with dark hair and blue eyes.....its just who I am. Substituting guys for girls doesn't turn that into a choice. It got turned into a choice so that people can say "You made that choice and now you're going to hell for it," and so they don't have to try and come to grips with the clearly horrifying fact that God may have made them that way.

I also think you need to seperate the opinion of whether abortion is ok and whether it is ok to legislate. I feel there are two majorities in America. A majority of Americans don't like abortion and wouldn't have one themselves. But there is also a majority that doesn't feel it's the government's right to legislate that choice. Maybe this has been mentioned since I haven't scoured every post as I have some work to do today.


The fact that no gay person you ever meet didn't think that they were making a choice doesn't prove anything. And I can just as well say that homosexuality got changed from a choice into some hardwired biological behavior so that people don't have to try to come to grips with the clearly horrifying fact that God actually doesn't approve it. Either way, neither argument has much basis other than religious beliefs. Although I could maybe argue historical precedence that the views on it have actually changed from it being a choice to it being innate behavior that a person has no control over.

Also, I disagree on the abortion thing. I think most people that "don't like abortion" consider it murder and therefore feel compelled to try and make/keep it illegal to prevent the killing of human beings. People aren't just going to say, "I think abortion is murder, but if someone else wants to murder someone then I guess that's their choice."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 10:13:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 01:01:51 PM
Also, just to add to the pain relevant/irrelevant argument, but play devils advocate a bit. Should that be the cut off of whether or not something should happen anyway? Couldn't you argue 2 seconds of pain to save 20 years of pain is the more humane thing to do?


I'm going to go all slippery-slope on this one, just because I know how much you love the slipperly-slope.

If we're going to start killing everyone who's in pain because "it's for their own good" couldn't that get out of hand pretty quickly? I'd rather not list any examples because I think we're all imaginative enough to see where that could go.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/11/2007 @ 10:21:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 09:19:08 PM
I wanted so badly to read these posts and launch into some liberal neo-feminist tirade on the inaccuracies of your opinions, but it appears my little friends have all matured into free-thinking, well-rounded adults in the past xx number of years, and so I don't have anything to say except ... I agree.
(Why did I even bother to register as a user on this site)


Considering that there are multiple points of contention over the last 50 posts, how can you just say you agree? That's like someone asking you if want paper or plastic and you saying, "sure, I agree". Therefore I can only interpret your post in one way: "I wanted so badly to read these posts...but it appears..." you didn't. There, now you have an opinion to tirade against. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
07/11/2007 @ 11:06:16 PM
 Quote this comment
I disagree somewhat. Paper or plastic is a bit more cut and dry then what we're talking about. It is possible to agree both sides of a thorny issue have good points.

I would like to know her feelings on the issue though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - I'm flippin' burgers / you at Kinko's straight flippin' copies
07/11/2007 @ 11:19:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:07:13 PM

The fact that no gay person you ever meet didn't think that they were making a choice doesn't prove anything. And I can just as well say that homosexuality got changed from a choice into some hardwired biological behavior so that people don't have to try to come to grips with the clearly horrifying fact that God actually doesn't approve it. Either way, neither argument has much basis other than religious beliefs. Although I could maybe argue historical precedence that the views on it have actually changed from it being a choice to it being innate behavior that a person has no control over.

Also, I disagree on the abortion thing. I think most people that "don't like abortion" consider it murder and therefore feel compelled to try and make/keep it illegal to prevent the killing of human beings. People aren't just going to say, "I think abortion is murder, but if someone else wants to murder someone then I guess that's their choice."


Except that a lot of gay people couldn't give a rats ass if God approves of it or not, so they have no incentive to change it from a choice to a biological behavior. You, on the other hand, have every incentive to demand that its a choice, otherwise you have no other way of telling them how wrong they are. And seriously, the statement against homosexuality is in the Old Testament for god's sake (unintended). By all means, lets all embrace the vengeful god of the Old Testament rather than the compassionate one that might actually cause some good in the world. You should really keep reading, because there's some other wonderful revelations in Leviticus and Exodus that would really help everyone's world views.

On abortion, thats actually how millions of women think. And I wasn't just stating an opinion. If you look at polls, over half the country (usually around 52%) consider themselves "pro-life." Yet only 20% of American thinks that abortion should be banned outright, and 60% think it should be entirely up to the people involved. You can work the numbers some as with any statistics, but those numbers have stayed relatively consistent over the last few years.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
07/11/2007 @ 11:33:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 09:30:08 PM

That's pretty much my point. There is no one who is philosopher enough untangle it. And you argued separation of Church and State in regards to legalizing gay marriage in an article about the "gray areas", and I'm arguing that separation of Church and State with regards to what is morals and what is religion is probably one of the most gray of all areas. Religions can't just do ANYTHING they want in this country, and on the flip side you can't really expect people (voters -> lawmakers) to not be influenced by their own personal beliefs in their decision making process.

Well again, people who are very anti-religion still have morals. Society defines what our social mores are outside of religion. I just lack the litterary ability to define the line, that doesn't mean there isnt one. As for whether or not people should be influenced by their religious beliefs: Separation of church and state doesn't apply. All that means is a government can't force religion on everyone. Ideally perhaps people could ask themselves "If I wasn't religious how would I feel and should I 'pass on' that belief to a society that might not agree." Ultimately you are free to vote however you want. I've heard of people that voted for Bush because his daughters were hotter than Kerry's.

However, personal beliefs and politicians pandering to the religious right for money and votes are two different things.
Alex Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 09:30:08 PM

Would it make more sense if we called it a moral question and not an issue? The word issue has negative connotations. People are generally opinionated on the topic based on their morals (I'm pretty sure morals would include things you think are ok to do as well as things you think aren't ok to do, no?). So it's a morals question regardless of which way you feel about it? Maybe I'm wrong here, but my logic makes sense to me.

No it wouldn't help. I seriously don't see morality and homosexuality in the same ballpark. In fact, they're playing different sports altogether. I still don't see the logic that if we remove religion from the debate it still HAS to be a moral issue.

Alex Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 10:07:13 PM
Although I could maybe argue historical precedence that the views on it have actually changed from it being a choice to it being innate behavior that a person has no control over.

Also, I disagree on the abortion thing. I think most people that "don't like abortion" consider it murder and therefore feel compelled to try and make/keep it illegal to prevent the killing of human beings. People aren't just going to say, "I think abortion is murder, but if someone else wants to murder someone then I guess that's their choice."

History has changed it's mind on a lot of things. We don't burn people for being Witches anymore. At some point we must have decided that was stupid.

Also I'll disagree on the last point there. First of all the statistics support the original statment Micah made. Secondly on a philosophical basis.

a) There are a lot of people who just like to SAY they are pro-life to feel good about themselves. In a recent poll 9 out of 10 people said they were religious, or believed in God. What do you think the percentage of people actually practicing a faith is?

b) No, not everyone does consider it murder.

c) Even if you were to concede it's murder, murder has loop holes too. (Like self defense....if only there was an analogous loop hole in the abortion debates.)

d) Some people realize that although their personal feelings are strong, they are only that strong because they are religious. So they pass that belief onto their children, and share their opinions with others, but don't necessarily think society absolutely has to share their religious viewpoint.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 07/11/2007 11:35:00 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 12:45:04 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:19:04 PM

Except that a lot of gay people couldn't give a rats ass if God approves of it or not, so they have no incentive to change it from a choice to a biological behavior. You, on the other hand, have every incentive to demand that its a choice, otherwise you have no other way of telling them how wrong they are. And seriously, the statement against homosexuality is in the Old Testament for god's sake (unintended). By all means, lets all embrace the vengeful god of the Old Testament rather than the compassionate one that might actually cause some good in the world. You should really keep reading, because there's some other wonderful revelations in Leviticus and Exodus that would really help everyone's world views.


Just because some people may be more predispositioned to commit certain sins than others, doesn't mean that people can just say well God made me this way so whatever (I mean they can say what they want, but I don't believe that God accepts that as repentence). And for people who don't see anything wrong with it or have different religious views, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Also the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one of the New Testament, and I don't believe God's mission statement is to "cause some good in the world". Again, just my beliefs on what the Bible says.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
07/12/2007 @ 12:53:19 AM
 Quote this comment
The other thing we haven't yet touched on is how scary it is to literally interpret a book that's been translated from translations.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
07/12/2007 @ 12:57:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:45:04 AM
Just because some people may be more predispositioned to commit certain sins than others, doesn't mean that people can just say well God made me this way so whatever (I mean they can say what they want, but I don't believe that God accepts that as repentence). And for people who don't see anything wrong with it or have different religious views, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Also the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one of the New Testament, and I don't believe God's mission statement is to "cause some good in the world". Again, just my beliefs on what the Bible says.


Fair enough, but you do understand many of them don't care about God's opinion on the matter, yes? Also the sin of homosexuality is the same as any other sin. As far as I understand a sin is a sin is a sin, and everyone is a sinner. Therefor God must forgive you of your sins in order for a person to get into heaven. If a sin is a sin is a sin then God must be just as forgiving about homosexuality, and for that matter, murder, as he is about back talking your parents as a teenager.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 01:26:50 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:33:30 PM

Ideally perhaps people could ask themselves "If I wasn't religious how would I feel and should I 'pass on' that belief to a society that might not agree."


So even if it where theoretically possible for a person to say for the next 5 minutes I'll be non-religious (whatever that means), what exactly are they supposed to base their decisions on? Isn't this kind of like forcing everyone to be athiest whenever they need to make such a decision?

Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:33:30 PM

No it wouldn't help. I seriously don't see morality and homosexuality in the same ballpark. In fact, they're playing different sports altogether. I still don't see the logic that if we remove religion from the debate it still HAS to be a moral issue.


Well it sure seems like some sort of issue/question/debate, so how would you classify it?

Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:33:30 PM

a) There are a lot of people who just like to SAY they are pro-life to feel good about themselves. In a recent poll 9 out of 10 people said they were religious, or believed in God. What do you think the percentage of people actually practicing a faith is?

b) No, not everyone does consider it murder.

c) Even if you were to concede it's murder, murder has loop holes too. (Like self defense....if only there was an analogous loop hole in the abortion debates.)

d) Some people realize that although their personal feelings are strong, they are only that strong because they are religious. So they pass that belief onto their children, and share their opinions with others, but don't necessarily think society absolutely has to share their religious viewpoint.


a) As long as people vote the same as they poll it doesn't matter what "they really believe" in this case. But an interesting topic in and of itself.

b) I don't think I ever said everyone?

c) The one situation where it most seems there should be legal loopholes is for situations where the mother is at risk. In that case, it seems better to have leeway for a medical professional to assess the situation and give the mother options. What would I actually do were I married and had a wife in that situation, I have no idea.

d) I still think it's pretty complicated to try and say what is religious and what is not. Spefically if we're talking about deciding when a new human becomes a new human. As far as I know there really isn't any scientifical consensus on that question, so how do I non-religiously make that decision for myself? Flip a coin?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 01:38:48 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:57:51 AM

Fair enough, but you do understand many of them don't care about God's opinion on the matter, yes? Also the sin of homosexuality is the same as any other sin. As far as I understand a sin is a sin is a sin, and everyone is a sinner. Therefor God must forgive you of your sins in order for a person to get into heaven. If a sin is a sin is a sin then God must be just as forgiving about homosexuality, and for that matter, murder, as he is about back talking your parents as a teenager.


Yes. What's your point?

I would agree with your statements about sin, with the caveat that God doesn't forgive you unless you repent. Murderers can end up in heaven, back talkers can end up in heaven, and people who lived a homosexual lifestyle at some point can end up in heaven.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 06:15:12 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:57:51 AM

Fair enough, but you do understand many of them don't care about God's opinion on the matter, yes? Also the sin of homosexuality is the same as any other sin. As far as I understand a sin is a sin is a sin, and everyone is a sinner. Therefor God must forgive you of your sins in order for a person to get into heaven. If a sin is a sin is a sin then God must be just as forgiving about homosexuality, and for that matter, murder, as he is about back talking your parents as a teenager.


Actually, unlike gay sex, which is an "abomination", if you back talk your parents, they are supposed to kill you. So you really don't get a whole lot of time to repent that one. (Exodus 21:17)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:08:55 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, you're supposed be be stoned if you "lay with a man as you lay with a woman" too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
07/12/2007 @ 10:34:29 AM
 Quote this comment
Since I don't feel like jumping too far into a discussion that has proceeded this far without me, I'll limit my thoughts on the "comment area" discussion to the following points (while, of course, reserving my right to enter the fray at a later time):

Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 12:50:28 PM
Wow that's probably the first instance I've seen of outright bigotry on this site....hope you already picked up your hood and robe for the rally.


That was uncalled for.

Jon Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 01:32:02 PM
But again, if we start to place ourselves as the judge of "this fetus's life wouldn't be worth living," we're delusional in our estimation of our knowledge of the future and in our estimation of what the value of a life is.


What he said.


Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 02:02:29 PM
Even with adoption there is a potential for the very act of carrying the child to term causing harm to the mothers future. She could have to drop out of school, miss out on jobs because they don't want to hire someone who is pregnant, etc. Either way you are also talking about ruining an existing established life, or terminating something that is, at the moment, arguably not human, and in many ways no more a separate entity from the mother herself than you could consider her pancreas.


Well, life isn't always fair. I wouldn't exactly say that missing school or a job opportunity could be considered "ruining a life", more like unfortunate consequences of a bad choice. Regardless of when you consider it a human being, a fetus, unlike a pancreas, will eventually grow into one. To destroy that just to avoid a 9-month inconvenience just doesn't sit well with me (For the record, I realize Jeremy wasn't necessarily arguing this point as his view as much as he was encouraging discussion).

Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:19:04 PM
You, on the other hand, have every incentive to demand that its a choice, otherwise you have no other way of telling them how wrong they are.


Generally speaking, whether or not some behavior is a choice or a preference hard-wired into your brain doesn't change its ultimate "rightness or wrongness". It may change secondary issues, like how it is dealt with, how accepted/tolerated it is, but if the action is wrong in the eyes of God/Society/whatever, it's still wrong either way (I see that Alex sort of made this point earlier this morning, but I'll leave my thought in as well).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Matt perfected this 3 times, last at 07/12/2007 11:12:54 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
07/12/2007 @ 10:54:42 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:06:16 PM
I disagree somewhat. Paper or plastic is a bit more cut and dry then what we're talking about. It is possible to agree both sides of a thorny issue have good points.

I would like to know her feelings on the issue though.


Dude, I so go paper. ANyone who choses plastic is WRONG and GOING TO HELL. Unless you want to use plastic to pay, then you are good to go. I also use metal spoons because cutting down trees to make spoons is WRONG.

I wear Hemp clothes because hemp is the most... ok no I don't, shut up.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 10:54:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 01:26:50 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:33:30 PM

No it wouldn't help. I seriously don't see morality and homosexuality in the same ballpark. In fact, they're playing different sports altogether. I still don't see the logic that if we remove religion from the debate it still HAS to be a moral issue.


Well it sure seems like some sort of issue/question/debate, so how would you classify it?

It's a complete non issue with me. The question "Are we eating to much garlic, as a people?" is more likely to cause me concern. Besides, can't something be a debate without being religious or moral in nature?
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 01:26:50 AM

Jeremy Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:33:30 PM

a) There are a lot of people who just like to SAY they are pro-life to feel good about themselves. In a recent poll 9 out of 10 people said they were religious, or believed in God. What do you think the percentage of people actually practicing a faith is?

b) No, not everyone does consider it murder.

c) Even if you were to concede it's murder, murder has loop holes too. (Like self defense....if only there was an analogous loop hole in the abortion debates.)

d) Some people realize that although their personal feelings are strong, they are only that strong because they are religious. So they pass that belief onto their children, and share their opinions with others, but don't necessarily think society absolutely has to share their religious viewpoint.


a) As long as people vote the same as they poll it doesn't matter what "they really believe" in this case. But an interesting topic in and of itself.

b) I don't think I ever said everyone?

c) The one situation where it most seems there should be legal loopholes is for situations where the mother is at risk. In that case, it seems better to have leeway for a medical professional to assess the situation and give the mother options. What would I actually do were I married and had a wife in that situation, I have no idea.

d) I still think it's pretty complicated to try and say what is religious and what is not. Spefically if we're talking about deciding when a new human becomes a new human. As far as I know there really isn't any scientifical consensus on that question, so how do I non-religiously make that decision for myself? Flip a coin?


b) Yes, I meant that not ever Pro-Lifer sees it as outright murder. Sometimes the concept just doesn't sit well with someone. It doesn't mean they would consider a person a murderer.

c) Good, then we more or less agree. What you would do in that situation is up to you. Welcome to the wonderful world of being pro-choice. emoticon Should i consider it humorous, given the thread that you said "were I married and had a wife?" emoticon

d) Some issues would be easier than others I imagine. Abortion for example would be "easier" for a non religious person to be against than homosexuality because abortion touches on a few of society's universal morals, while people are more so against homosexuality "because the bible says so." Realistically I don't think people can always do this, I'm not saying they should always do it, I was just saying ideally they could try to set aside religion for matters of public policy. That isn't to say they wouldn't arrive at the same conclusion anyway. As far as stupid reasons to vote for something go religious views are far down the list anyway. (And in the end what is ANY vote, if not trying to push your personal beliefs into public policy.) My concerns surrounding the deteriorating separation of church and state have more to do with politicians not doing what they think is right, but doing what the religious right wants them to do, than they have to do with Ma and Pa Kettle voting for an anti-gay marriage amendment at the poll.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 07/12/2007 11:09:30 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
07/12/2007 @ 11:09:54 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 10:54:45 AM
c) Good, then we more or less agree. What you would do in that situation is up to you. Welcome to the wonderful world of being pro-choice. emoticon Should i consider it humorous, given the thread that you said "were I married and had a wife?" emoticon


He wrote "were I married and had a wife in that situation". Sure, he could have just said "If I had a wife in that situation" and gotten the point across, but then it may have given the impression that he was married when he is not. Whatever the case, while what he said may be a little redundant (can something be a little redundant, or is it one of those either/or type of things?) it's not as bad as you made it out to be.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this 6 times, last at 07/12/2007 12:12:42 pm
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 11:24:33 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:08:55 AM
Well, you're supposed be be stoned if you "lay with a man as you lay with a woman" too.


I stand corrected...I always thought this one didn't call for death, but I was wrong. Guess I'll have to go sell my daughter into slavery.


Matt Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 10:34:29 AM


That was uncalled for.

Generally speaking, whether or not some behavior is a choice or a preference hard-wired into your brain doesn't change its ultimate "rightness or wrongness". It may change secondary issues, like how it is dealt with, how accepted/tolerated it is, but if the action is wrong in the eyes of God/Society/whatever, it's still wrong either way (I see that Alex sort of made this point earlier this morning, but I'll leave my thought in as well).


Well I find being completely intolerant of large groups of people to be uncalled for.

My point wasn't that it makes it right or wrong, but that I feel that the entire choice argument was created by people who didn't want to have to deal with the fact that people might be created that way from birth, and the effect that would have on their faith. The gay community has never embraced the choice argument and it was a product of the system around them, not their own.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
07/12/2007 @ 11:37:27 AM
 Quote this comment
Well Jesus later says no one should be put to death, unless of course there is a person involved who has never sinned. (Because who are we, as sinners, to lord over and condemn other sinners.)

Born into it, or not, you could ultimately choose not to act on it. If we found out serial killers were genetically predisposed to want to kill, that wouldn't mean we'd have to accept their lifestyle. (And no I don't think they are on par with each other, I'm just illustrating a point)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 11:47:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 11:24:33 AM
Well I find being completely intolerant of large groups of people to be uncalled for.


Except, what you quoted as a case of bigotry was him saying that he considered homosexuality wrong but that it was legal and he was ok with that (a view he shares with, I would say, a great number of people). Yet, you felt the need to equate him (and thus those who share his view) with the KKK. Talk about being intolerant of a large group of people.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Matt messed with this at 07/12/2007 11:48:46 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
07/12/2007 @ 11:55:17 AM
 Quote this comment
Plus like I said earlier, you CAN be against an act and not the actor.

Saying "I think homosexuality is wrong" != "I hate homosexuals," though I'm sure they wouldn't want to hear what you said.

(Conversely to the "fighting intolerance with intolerance" argument: Aren't we intolerant of the KKK's thoughts and actions? Isn't it fully justifiable to think someone in the KKK is a bastard coated bastard, with bastard filling? I think, hypothetically speaking, being intolerant of intolerance is acceptable.)

Edit: Also to the somewhat implied "the more people that think it, the more acceptable it must be" argument (and not to pick on Matt, since we all think like that) the KKK was pretty popular in its heyday, that didn't reduce their % of bastard by volume content any.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 07/12/2007 11:58:41 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle!
07/12/2007 @ 12:03:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Why is it that people whos beliefs are religion-based think that everyone should comply and be held accountable for them?

I firmly believe that the rules and regulations imposed on an individual by THEIR religion are THEIR burden. They do not belong to an individual who does not follow that religion, or core of beliefs. That is the religious side.

When it comes to murder and theft, etc, that is a social issue, and this is where we as a whole, as a society get to make rules for everyone to fall under- for this reason: You CHOSE to live [Here] which means you CHOSE to comply with our rules and regulations.

If you do not BELIEVE in what your religion states, then you CHOSE to believe something else...

...that's just how I feel- let people do what they will do, unless they take away from another. Does it really matter to you if men love men and women love women? Does it change your life in any way? No, probably not... but prove me wrong.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this 2 times, last at 07/12/2007 12:05:45 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 12:03:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 11:09:54 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 10:54:45 AM
c) Good, then we more or less agree. What you would do in that situation is up to you. Welcome to the wonderful world of being pro-choice. emoticon Should i consider it humorous, given the thread that you said "were I married and had a wife?" emoticon


He wrote "were I married and had a wife in that situation". Sure, he could have just said "If I had a wife in that situation" and gotten the point across, but then it may have given the impression that he was married when he is not. Whatever the case, while what he said may be a little redundant (can you be a little redundant or is it one of those either or things?) it's not as bad as you made it out to be.


No, I guess it isn't.

edit: Redundancy is redundancy, but you could probably move up levels of redundancy by increasing the amount of instances in a redundant sentence.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/12/2007 12:12:10 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich
07/12/2007 @ 12:13:15 PM
 Quote this comment
where I work, redundancy is a good thing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons
07/12/2007 @ 12:24:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 11:47:06 AM
Micah Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 11:24:33 AM
Well I find being completely intolerant of large groups of people to be uncalled for.


Except, what you quoted as a case of bigotry was him saying that he considered homosexuality wrong but that it was legal and he was ok with that (a view he shares with, I would say, a great number of people). Yet, you felt the need to equate him (and thus those who share his view) with the KKK. Talk about being intolerant of a large group of people.


Actually what I took offense to was saying that he wished society was less accepting of it, which would entail society condemning a lifestyle choice that, as Carl said, doesn't affect their lives at all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons
07/12/2007 @ 12:24:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:13:15 PM
where I work, redundancy is a good thing.


Good thing you don't work in England
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 12:46:03 PM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:24:27 PM
Matt Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 11:47:06 AM
Micah Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 11:24:33 AM
Well I find being completely intolerant of large groups of people to be uncalled for.


Except, what you quoted as a case of bigotry was him saying that he considered homosexuality wrong but that it was legal and he was ok with that (a view he shares with, I would say, a great number of people). Yet, you felt the need to equate him (and thus those who share his view) with the KKK. Talk about being intolerant of a large group of people.


Actually what I took offense to was saying that he wished society was less accepting of it, which would entail society condemning a lifestyle choice that, as Carl said, doesn't affect their lives at all.


Well, unless he said that he wished it so much that he was thinking of rounding up some of his buddies and burning some crosses in the yards of some gay people, I think the "hood and robe" comment crossed the line.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 12:55:45 PM
 Quote this comment
On abortion: I feel very strongly about this issue, you asked for it, so here's my rant. I am on the side of It Needs to Be Legal. I don't think anyone who is pro-choice is "pro-abortion" and I'm so sick of people just assuming that. Like I'd get pregnant and have an abortion just for laughs.
But there are so many instances where it is medically necessary for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, and even some cases where socially it would be a big mistake to have the baby (yes yes, there is adoption but so what? It's MY choice).
But the misconception I fight most often as a strongly pro-choice woman is this: Everyone who loves to throw out the term murder. Guess what? That turns this into a religious issue, as in life begins at conception. You say the fetus is a "person." I say it's not. And even the most up to date studies show a fetus cannot feel pain until 20 weeks into pregnancy - guys, that's 5 months, a point at which 98% of abortion providers would even consider terminating. And since you cannot prove that that fetus is a "person" other than to say that's what the bible intimates, you cannot mandate that it's murder and should therefore be illegal. Throwing that term around as an excuse to find more ways to control a woman's rights, is lazy.

On homosexuality: An overwhelming amount of research is being conducted right now to prove there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Read up. It's not a choice.
Think of it this way: With all the continued bigotry towards gay people, who in their right mind would contemplate choosing a lifestyle that was going to land them as a minority, as someone who cannot get married or share health benefits, as someone
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
07/12/2007 @ 12:56:16 PM
 Quote this comment
... who could likely get their ass kicked for holding hands with another guy or another woman? Would you?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower."
07/12/2007 @ 01:04:56 PM
 Quote this comment
I agree with Wendy on Abortion- but going further, I still think it's a choice, until the "being" can exist without the unbilical cord.

No to throw a wrench into all of the debates, but seriously- what happens if stem cell research goes unchecked? Women will be able to "sell off" their fetus...es (plural feti?) the same way we sell off our blood and plasma.... is that where things are going??? That scares the shit outta me.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 07/12/2007 1:24:45 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 01:29:19 PM
 Quote this comment
I would be against it if it even got to the "fetus farming" stage, but it's stupid to just throw the already existing things away under some half-baked "right to live" notion.

Also again (and not that necessarily I feel this way, but just to put it out there again) "genetic predisposition" just means you have tendencies to do things. Maybe a guy tends to be attracted to other guys, and that can't be helped, but ultimately he could choose to be with a woman. It is different than say genetically being a certain race, which you have no control over no matter how badly you wanted to. (The level of difference is up for debate, perhaps, but it is different.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
07/12/2007 @ 08:10:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 01:04:56 PM
I agree with Wendy on Abortion- but going further, I still think it's a choice, until the "being" can exist without the unbilical cord.


And just when is that point? Babies can be born early on their own or removed (probably not the technical term) early for medical reasons and they still survive.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:16:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:55:45 PM
Think of it this way: With all the continued bigotry towards gay people, who in their right mind would contemplate choosing a lifestyle that was going to land them as a minority, as someone who cannot get married or share health benefits, as someone... who could likely get their ass kicked for holding hands with another guy or another woman? Would you?


So your reasoning is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be in a minority for which they might very likely take some flack in one form or another? If that's true then well, I guess only rampant conformists are in their right mind.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:16:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Never claimed that I knew when the point was, and I'm pretty sure that would be debated pretty hotly too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:19:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:16:04 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:55:45 PM
Think of it this way: With all the continued bigotry towards gay people, who in their right mind would contemplate choosing a lifestyle that was going to land them as a minority, as someone who cannot get married or share health benefits, as someone... who could likely get their ass kicked for holding hands with another guy or another woman? Would you?


So your reasoning is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be in a minority for which they might very likely take some flack in one form or another? If that's true then well, I guess only rampant conformists are in their right mind.


I don't think you can compare a lot of non-conformists and the flack they get to homosexuals and the flack they get. Especially because non-conformists don't conform strictly for the sake of not conforming. Of all the gay men that I know, not one would tell me they're gay just to stick it to society.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
07/12/2007 @ 08:22:03 PM
 Quote this comment
It's really starting to get to me how people think that being gay or bi or what have you is something that could possibly be a choice, or something you can just turn on or off.

Think of it this way- Jeremy is hetero, and is in love with and married to Sarah. Sure, he's straight, but he could CHOSE to be with a man, couldn't he? Put away your beliefs and "right or wrong" attitudes and think of it in those terms.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:24:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:24:27 PM

Actually what I took offense to was saying that he wished society was less accepting of it, which would entail society condemning a lifestyle choice that, as Carl said, doesn't affect their lives at all.


I don't get the "doesn't affect their lives at all" line of thinking. There are lots of things that are illegal and/or socially taboo that really if other people do them have no effect on my life.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
07/12/2007 @ 08:28:20 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:19:40 PM
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:16:04 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:55:45 PM
Think of it this way: With all the continued bigotry towards gay people, who in their right mind would contemplate choosing a lifestyle that was going to land them as a minority, as someone who cannot get married or share health benefits, as someone... who could likely get their ass kicked for holding hands with another guy or another woman? Would you?


So your reasoning is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be in a minority for which they might very likely take some flack in one form or another? If that's true then well, I guess only rampant conformists are in their right mind.


I don't think you can compare a lot of non-conformists and the flack they get to homosexuals and the flack they get. Especially because non-conformists don't conform strictly for the sake of not conforming. Of all the gay men that I know, not one would tell me they're gay just to stick it to society.


I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page here (mostly because I have no idea what you even said), but my point was that there actually are lots of people who do choose to be in minorities of many kinds that do receive some level of negative treatment by others because of it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted.
07/12/2007 @ 08:28:42 PM
 Quote this comment
whether or not something is socially taboo is moot, since homosexuality is still overwhelmingly socially taboo.

Taboos are different from illegal activity because in the main, illegal activities take away safety or rights of others. Social taboos are whether or not mainstream society is in agreement.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
07/12/2007 @ 08:33:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:28:42 PM
whether or not something is socially taboo is moot, since homosexuality is still overwhelmingly socially taboo.

Taboos are different from illegal activity because in the main, illegal activities take away safety or rights of others. Social taboos are whether or not mainstream society is in agreement.


I think I mostly agree, and homosexuality isn't illegal, so...?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:37:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:22:03 PM
It's really starting to get to me how people think that being gay or bi or what have you is something that could possibly be a choice, or something you can just turn on or off.

Think of it this way- Jeremy is hetero, and is in love with and married to Sarah. Sure, he's straight, but he could CHOSE to be with a man, couldn't he? Put away your beliefs and "right or wrong" attitudes and think of it in those terms.


I'm assuming that is supposed to be a rhetorical question with an answer of no? Otherwise it seems like you're contradicting yourself???
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
07/12/2007 @ 08:40:06 PM
 Quote this comment
rhetorical
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:45:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:33:40 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:28:42 PM
whether or not something is socially taboo is moot, since homosexuality is still overwhelmingly socially taboo.

Taboos are different from illegal activity because in the main, illegal activities take away safety or rights of others. Social taboos are whether or not mainstream society is in agreement.


I think I mostly agree, and homosexuality isn't illegal, so...?


My comment was in response to yours:

"I don't get the "doesn't affect their lives at all" line of thinking. There are lots of things that are illegal and/or socially taboo that really if other people do them have no effect on my life."

How a person has sex or who they love has nothing to do with what you or anyone else thinks about it, period. If it doesn't effect you, leave it alone. Let someone live the life they were born to live. It doesn't hurt you (I mean any of us) one bit.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 07/12/2007 8:45:56 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 08:55:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:28:20 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:19:40 PM
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:16:04 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:55:45 PM
Think of it this way: With all the continued bigotry towards gay people, who in their right mind would contemplate choosing a lifestyle that was going to land them as a minority, as someone who cannot get married or share health benefits, as someone... who could likely get their ass kicked for holding hands with another guy or another woman? Would you?


So your reasoning is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be in a minority for which they might very likely take some flack in one form or another? If that's true then well, I guess only rampant conformists are in their right mind.


I don't think you can compare a lot of non-conformists and the flack they get to homosexuals and the flack they get. Especially because non-conformists don't conform strictly for the sake of not conforming. Of all the gay men that I know, not one would tell me they're gay just to stick it to society.


I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page here (mostly because I have no idea what you even said), but my point was that there actually are lots of people who do choose to be in minorities of many kinds that do receive some level of negative treatment by others because of it.


Repeat, more slowly:
Non-conformists, do not conform, for the sake, of not conforming. They find ways to separate themselves from society, to be different.
Most gay men that I know, would not be gay, just to "stick it to society" or to be different. Those that do, are simply flamboyant to be different or to not conform. They're aren't gay for that reason.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:09:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:22:03 PM
It's really starting to get to me how people think that being gay or bi or what have you is something that could possibly be a choice, or something you can just turn on or off.

Think of it this way- Jeremy is hetero, and is in love with and married to Sarah. Sure, he's straight, but he could CHOSE to be with a man, couldn't he? Put away your beliefs and "right or wrong" attitudes and think of it in those terms.


Only if it was you.

Really though this line of reasoning more makes the "it's a choice" argument.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:15:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:55:46 PM
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:28:20 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:19:40 PM
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:16:04 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:55:45 PM
Think of it this way: With all the continued bigotry towards gay people, who in their right mind would contemplate choosing a lifestyle that was going to land them as a minority, as someone who cannot get married or share health benefits, as someone... who could likely get their ass kicked for holding hands with another guy or another woman? Would you?


So your reasoning is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be in a minority for which they might very likely take some flack in one form or another? If that's true then well, I guess only rampant conformists are in their right mind.


I don't think you can compare a lot of non-conformists and the flack they get to homosexuals and the flack they get. Especially because non-conformists don't conform strictly for the sake of not conforming. Of all the gay men that I know, not one would tell me they're gay just to stick it to society.


I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page here (mostly because I have no idea what you even said), but my point was that there actually are lots of people who do choose to be in minorities of many kinds that do receive some level of negative treatment by others because of it.


Repeat, more slowly:
Non-conformists, do not conform, for the sake, of not conforming. They find ways to separate themselves from society, to be different.
Most gay men that I know, would not be gay, just to "stick it to society" or to be different. Those that do, are simply flamboyant to be different or to not conform. They're aren't gay for that reason.


I regret ever using the wor[d] "conformists" in the 1st place. Everyone who is in a minority is not a "non-conformist". I don't think I actually did this, but if I did I never meant to imply that people choose to be gay to "stick it to society" or to infer that gay people are categorically non-conformists.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex messed with this at 07/12/2007 9:16:42 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:19:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:45:11 PM
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:33:40 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:28:42 PM
whether or not something is socially taboo is moot, since homosexuality is still overwhelmingly socially taboo.

Taboos are different from illegal activity because in the main, illegal activities take away safety or rights of others. Social taboos are whether or not mainstream society is in agreement.


I think I mostly agree, and homosexuality isn't illegal, so...?


My comment was in response to yours:

"I don't get the "doesn't affect their lives at all" line of thinking. There are lots of things that are illegal and/or socially taboo that really if other people do them have no effect on my life."

How a person has sex or who they love has nothing to do with what you or anyone else thinks about it, period. If it doesn't effect you, leave it alone. Let someone live the life they were born to live. It doesn't hurt you (I mean any of us) one bit.


So I can't have opinions on things that don't affect me?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
07/12/2007 @ 09:22:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex:
Then back to your first point to which I responded, and we'll remove the conformist word. No, I do not think very many people (key word many meaning some might) would choose to BE something that COULD result in getting their ass kicked, or result in their legal rights being taken away, or result in being shunned by their families or result in their life being a little harder than it would be if they had just "chosen" to be straight.
Yes, there are always exceptions.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:25:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:24:04 PM
Micah Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:24:27 PM

Actually what I took offense to was saying that he wished society was less accepting of it, which would entail society condemning a lifestyle choice that, as Carl said, doesn't affect their lives at all.


I don't get the "doesn't affect their lives at all" line of thinking. There are lots of things that are illegal and/or socially taboo that really if other people do them have no effect on my life.


Well yes and no. If murdering people was acceptable it could affect you because you we're more likely to be murdered. Homosexuality itself really doesn't have an analogous argument. Furthermore gay marriage should have even less of an affect, since the guys are already together, and just want the joint health insurance, and the like.

It's hard to argue something has a vast impact on your day to day life if two guys could be gay and you didn't even know it. Think of two guys you are good friends with that were roommates, now imagine you find out 4 years later they were actually gay. I hardly think your world would come crashing down.

Now of course this whole line of discussion sort of meets a dead end. Although some people choose not to care about things that don't affect them, it doesn't in anyway imply a person is only allowed to have an opinion about things that directly affect them.

AIDS in Africa doesn't have much of an impact on my day to day life, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it. I don't mean to start another section of flames, but I am firmly against AIDS. None of you with change my opinion on that. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 07/12/2007 9:26:07 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:28:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has AIDS ...
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:30:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:09:58 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 08:22:03 PM
It's really starting to get to me how people think that being gay or bi or what have you is something that could possibly be a choice, or something you can just turn on or off.

Think of it this way- Jeremy is hetero, and is in love with and married to Sarah. Sure, he's straight, but he could CHOSE to be with a man, couldn't he? Put away your beliefs and "right or wrong" attitudes and think of it in those terms.


Only if it was you.

Really though this line of reasoning more makes the "it's a choice" argument.


It does if you happen to think the answer is yes. And the way the question is posed it seems likely that a fair percentage of people would say yes, myself included. I think it's rather unlikely that I would ever make that choice (or that Jeremy would for that matter) but I can't say that it's impossible.

And if it's not a choice, then how do you explain people who have gone from straight to gay or gay to straight or bi or whatever else is in between the 2 extremes?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
07/12/2007 @ 09:30:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:22:59 PM
Alex:
Then back to your first point to which I responded, and we'll remove the conformist word. No, I do not think very many people (key word many meaning some might) would choose to BE something that COULD result in getting their ass kicked, or result in their legal rights being taken away, or result in being shunned by their families or result in their life being a little harder than it would be if they had just "chosen" to be straight.
Yes, there are always exceptions.


Well, again, you could argue the "choice" isn't to be attracted to the same sex, but to not be with someone of the opposite sex. A gay guy still has the equipment to hook up with a female. Maybe the choice isn't to be gay, but to not be straight. (Of course, are you gay or straight depending on who you have sex with, or what you inherently are.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
07/12/2007 @ 09:33:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:22:59 PM
Alex:
Then back to your first point to which I responded, and we'll remove the conformist word. No, I do not think very many people (key word many meaning some might) would choose to BE something that COULD result in getting their ass kicked, or result in their legal rights being taken away, or result in being shunned by their families or result in their life being a little harder than it would be if they had just "chosen" to be straight.
Yes, there are always exceptions.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you look back through history or even take a random sample of 100 people in a mall, it doesn't seem like it would be to hard to find someone who could've have had an "easier" life if they hadn't choosen to take a minority stance.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
07/12/2007 @ 09:34:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:30:15 PM
And if it's not a choice, then how do you explain people who have gone from straight to gay or gay to straight or bi or whatever else is in between the 2 extremes?


Maybe some people are born gay and other people are just confused as to what they are.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
07/12/2007 @ 09:38:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:34:47 PM

Maybe some people are born gay and other people are just confused as to what they are.


So are they born to be inherently confused for all their days (or for only a certain number of their days before their orientation is revealed to them) or is it a choice (concious or unconcious) to be confused?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:40:19 PM
 Quote this comment
(Text from Wikipedia, a totally reliable source. Motivation for looking it up: primate psychology course in college, also totally reliable)

"Some studies, notably Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), have indicated that the majority of people appear to be at least somewhat bisexual. The studies report that most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to some (falsely attributed to Kinsey), only about 5%u201310 percent of the population can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual. On the other hand, an even smaller minority has no distinct preference for one sex or the other.

Despite common misconceptions, bisexuality does not require that a person be attracted equally to both sexes. In fact, people who have a distinct but not exclusive preference for one sex over the other can and often do identify as bisexual. Some recent studies, including one by controversial researcher J. Michael Bailey, which attracted media attention in 2005, purported to find that bisexuality is extremely rare in men, but such studies have typically worked from the assumption that a person is only truly bisexual if he or she exhibits virtually equal arousal responses to both opposite-sex and same-sex stimuli, and have consequently dismissed the self-identification of people whose arousal patterns showed even a mild preference for one sex.[8] Bailey, in fact, found that approximately one-third of the men he studied, a percentage that remained consistent across all three orientation groups, were not aroused by any of the sexual stimuli that he presented, a finding which he dismissed as irrelevant to his conclusions."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:41:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:38:05 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:34:47 PM

Maybe some people are born gay and other people are just confused as to what they are.


So are they born to be inherently confused for all their days (or for only a certain number of their days before their orientation is revealed to them) or is it a choice (concious or unconcious) to be confused?


I described two sets of people there. Finding one bi person who flops back and foreth and can't make up his mind doesn't mean that's an ability/desire they all have.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
07/12/2007 @ 09:45:03 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:33:02 PM
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:22:59 PM
Alex:
Then back to your first point to which I responded, and we'll remove the conformist word. No, I do not think very many people (key word many meaning some might) would choose to BE something that COULD result in getting their ass kicked, or result in their legal rights being taken away, or result in being shunned by their families or result in their life being a little harder than it would be if they had just "chosen" to be straight.
Yes, there are always exceptions.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you look back through history or even take a random sample of 100 people in a mall, it doesn't seem like it would be to hard to find someone who could've have had an "easier" life if they hadn't choosen to take a minority stance.


There is a huge difference between someone who takes a "minority stance" (aka, political opinions, social opinions like the ones we are discussing here, religious demonstrations) and actually being and living as a minority.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/12/2007 @ 09:50:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 09:40:19 PM
Bailey, in fact, found that approximately one-third of the men he studied, a percentage that remained consistent across all three orientation groups, were not aroused by any of the sexual stimuli that he presented, a finding which he dismissed as irrelevant to his conclusions."


"Let's see, this data seems important, this data not so much, tweak a few numbers here, cut that out, and walla, totally valid scientific research!"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
07/12/2007 @ 10:00:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Obviously it wasn't hence the comment that it was "controversial." I think that paragraph was more meant to describe how his research was irrelevant than anything else.

Let's stop all the fussin' and a feudin'. Anyone want to play some Counter Strike:Source?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else."
07/12/2007 @ 10:24:21 PM
 Quote this comment
are you kidding? I havent played that in a while- like a month. I will mop the floor with porter hizzouse
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
07/12/2007 @ 10:30:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Get on aim or something then.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/13/2007 @ 10:01:28 AM
 Quote this comment
I know this thread has had alot of talk about minorities. Tonight, my buddy (29 year old white guy with a shaved head), and I (35 year old white guy), are taking an 11 year old girl, who happens to be African-American, fishing. I don't find it remarkable by any means, just a different kinda night for two white dudes.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
07/13/2007 @ 10:12:33 AM
 Quote this comment
I shaved my head about ten years ago- we're talking no-guard, not Bic... I was looked at very strangely when I was down south. 17 years old and people are walking AROUND me.

Feels strange.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/13/2007 @ 10:18:58 AM
 Quote this comment
To be fair you were also wielding a mace like a maniac.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
07/13/2007 @ 10:22:33 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 07/13/2007 @ 10:12:33 AM
I shaved my head about ten years ago- we're talking no-guard, not Bic... I was looked at very strangely when I was down south. 17 years old and people are walking AROUND me.

Feels strange.


It's amazing how people change their view with a shaved head.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - many posts
07/13/2007 @ 03:13:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Wow. I don't come here for a day and look at all the stuff I missed. Now's the point where I say, "I wouldn't say I missed it Bob."

I have an inclination to just let this all rest. I will regarding most of it, but I will add just a comment or two.

Micah Wrote - 07/11/2007 @ 11:19:04 PM
And seriously, the statement against homosexuality is in the Old Testament for god's sake (unintended). By all means, lets all embrace the vengeful god of the Old Testament rather than the compassionate one that might actually cause some good in the world. You should really keep reading, because there's some other wonderful revelations in Leviticus and Exodus that would really help everyone's world views.


As a matter of accuracy, you can find at least one reference to homosexuality in the New Testament. Obviously, from there you can have the same arguments of what to do with it depending on your beliefs, but I just thought I'd share that.

As for the rest of the stuff about the Old Testament laws, it's actually a pretty complex issue. I'd be far from an expert on it as a whole, but I'll just share some insight. First off, in case anyone is wondering, Christians don't believe in following the letter of ALL the regulations given in the Old Testament. But it's not for the reason that they sound so odd. The book of Romans, among others, in the New Testament sheds some pretty interesting light on that (I think). I won't try to condense it here.

As for the comment about the vengeful Old Testament God. The picture is sometimes painted to say that they are different, but I agree with Alex that He is in fact, the same God. Since the God of the New Testament is based on the person of Jesus and the God that he reveals, it might be of note that Jesus does not reject the God of the Old Testament. In fact, he repeatedly points to Him and shows how he fits in the picture, thus shedding light on both.
So, although God interacts with humanity in numerous different circumstances in what seems to be different ways, a study of His character shows the same God in Genesis, Exodus, etc. through the gospels, the letters to the early church and Revelation. And I don't mean to imply that we automatically understand completely everything about His character and His actions, just that the "inconsistancy" between the God of each of the testaments isn't all it's made out to be.

Anyway, not really in regard to the things we've been talking about, but as for the somewhat implied comment about the oddities of the rules in some books of the Bible, one thing to probably remember when reading some of the Old Testament books of rules and regulations is that a large group of them is meant for a specific set of people in a specific time and place. Namely, a group called the Israelites that was, at the time of the rules being given (I think), en route from Egypt to a new land many years ago. Again, I'm faaar from an authoritative voice on the situation they were in and the reasons for all the rules, etc., but it is insightful to learn about the situation they were in and how certain rules were to be applied. For instance, some sections of verses dealt with the concepts of clean and unclean in regard to ceremonies. Anyway, it'd be difficult to understand the exact "why" regarding everything, but I've read some really interesting stuff on how looking at the practices of surrounding societies sheds light on why God might have forbidden certain practices. It is repeatedly stated that God wanted to form that society (the Israelites) to be set apart from the other nations. Anyway, God wanted the best for them and wanted to do work in and through them and dwell among them. So there are rules about being clean, and there are laws about justice (in a society that I'm guessing probably didn't always have a prison system), and there are decrees about showing mercy and fairness and not taking revenge. No doubt, some things will probably always strike us as odd, but looking at everything in a context within the rest of the Bible as well as the plans that God puts forth and the ideals that come through again and again, things can become a bit clearer.

Ok, just one more thing.

Jeremy Wrote - 07/12/2007 @ 12:53:19 AM
The other thing we haven't yet touched on is how scary it is to literally interpret a book that's been translated from translations.


It's an interesting thought. Here's what I've learned though.

The New Testament's accuracy/consistency, speaking in terms of liturature fares pretty well. That is, there isn't really a reason to think it's changed from the original document. Actual manuscripts have been found dating back pretty close to the times they are believed to be written. And the language the NT is written in is Greek. (I think it's not exactly the same as the current Greek language, but it's Greek) So although it has been translated into many languages, and English probably wasn't the first, it's not a "game of telephone" kind of situation. Scholars can translate directly. Or, you can actually learn NT Greek and read it in the original language.
Anyway, I don't know as much about the Old Testament history as a document. But like I kind of said before, the life of Jesus sheds light on the Old Testament. For those of us who believe in Jesus as God's Son, it's important to note his references/quoting of the Old Testament in his teachings, as that shows his view of those Old Testament verses as authoritative. He corrected peoples' behavior in regard to the OT, but didn't reject the OT, as I think I mentioned before. And I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming since we have NT manuscripts from about 2000 years ago, we probably have OT manuscripts from around Jesus' time that we can work from in light of that. But all that being said, I'm not a biblical historian by any means, but there are such people and they can probably explain things better anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower."
07/13/2007 @ 03:34:04 PM
 Quote this comment
As far as what God says or what God thinks, this is all I know for sure, because it was God who posted it on the PCW guestbook:

"Hello, this is God. I was like looking at your page and saw the page on that Micah guy and he sounds like he really kicks ass. If I were you I would buy him lots of stuff cause he deserves it for kicking so much ass. If you dont buy him stuff youre gonna go to hell cause I am God and I'll send you there. And give him food and stuff."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - We can do this easy, or we can do it real easy
07/13/2007 @ 03:47:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Now THAT is a wonderful God.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
07/13/2007 @ 03:53:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Well even if you faithfully translate a document (even from the original) there are words and concepts that don't exist in the new language, or have alternate meanings that leave the phrase open to interpretation. There are words and phrases that mean different things in different times or different areas. Not all that long ago if people read someone ranting and raving about "gay people" they would wonder why the author is so angry about happy people.

The following is a perfectly reasonable conversation in certain areas of the US:
"I'll have a coke."
"What kind?"
"Mountain Dew"

Look at how many English translations of the Bible are currently available. If it were a cut and dry translation you wouldn't have two English versions, let alone 2000.

Even the line "Man should not lay with mankind the way he lays with a woman," as it's often translated, makes me wonder.

Obviously the original first and sixth words in that sentence weren't the same word, or it wouldn't have been translated the way it so often is. It begs the question if the author meant "man... with man", why not just say that? It's so much more cut and dry that way.

Maybe "a woman" was originally "one woman" and the sentence is warning people to be faithful.

Maybe the original word in mankind's place was a old, regional, "slangish" term for "family," and it was a warning about incest.

Maybe "man" is meant to be taken literally and lesbianism is acceptable.

Also, I think Micah's original point about the Old Testament was more along the lines of the fact that any time there 's something "outrageous" in the old testament it's "Well, Christians really live by the New Testament." Any time the two testaments conflict it's, "Well, Christians really live by the New Testament."

It seems like there's a lot of "living by the New Testament" that goes on. Until, of course, it's convenient to reach back to the Old Testament to read in between the lines on some passage to justify an opinion on something.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 5 times, last at 07/13/2007 4:04:40 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
07/13/2007 @ 04:02:24 PM
 Quote this comment
I edited that comment above pretty significantly by the way, since there are like 5 people here currently who may have read the "pre-addition" version.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
07/13/2007 @ 04:17:16 PM
 Quote this comment
For the record, homosexuality is dealt with multiple times in the New Testament, and it isn't exactly supportive of the lifestyle. Just wanted to put that in there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/13/2007 @ 04:30:36 PM
 Quote this comment
My two points there were separate.

I know that's not the only line in the bible dealing with homosexuality, I was just using the line to make the point, since we had already referred to it in the thread.

From "Also, Micah" on I'm just talking in general terms, not just about homosexuality.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/13/2007 @ 04:45:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 07/13/2007 @ 04:17:16 PM
For the record, homosexuality is dealt with multiple times in the New Testament, and it isn't exactly supportive of the lifestyle. Just wanted to put that in there.


Also, save for Romans I, which could be interpreted differently in and of itself, the New Testament (and perhaps the Bible itself) does a dubious job in addressing homosexuality
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
07/13/2007 @ 07:29:10 PM
 Quote this comment
I didn't really read that whole thing word for word, but a quick skim makes me think that given sufficient time and motivation I'm pretty sure I could shoot some holes in some of it.

The Old and New testament don't conflict. The 10 commandments were meant to apply to all people for all time, they're commandments not laws. Having to worship on the sabbath day and sacrifice lambs were laws given specifically for Old Testament believers. Once Jesus came to earth and lived a perfect life which fulfilled all these laws, there was a fundamental shift. It was no longer necessary to sacrifice lambs as a symbol of what was to come. The Old Testament laws don't need to be followed anymore. That's doesn't mean that Christians can do whatever they want still because there are the commandments and some other things that God says in either or both testaments that aren't acceptable.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
07/15/2007 @ 04:58:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 07/13/2007 @ 07:29:10 PM
I didn't really read that whole thing word for word, but a quick skim makes me think that given sufficient time and motivation I'm pretty sure I could shoot some holes in some of it.

The Old and New testament don't conflict. The 10 commandments were meant to apply to all people for all time, they're commandments not laws. Having to worship on the sabbath day and sacrifice lambs were laws given specifically for Old Testament believers. Once Jesus came to earth and lived a perfect life which fulfilled all these laws, there was a fundamental shift. It was no longer necessary to sacrifice lambs as a symbol of what was to come. The Old Testament laws don't need to be followed anymore. That's doesn't mean that Christians can do whatever they want still because there are the commandments and some other things that God says in either or both testaments that aren't acceptable.


Who declared that there was a fundamental shift? I'm not arguing, but am just curious (although I reserve the right to argue it later.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
07/15/2007 @ 05:07:22 PM
 Quote this comment
I think it was something Jesus said once... although without looking into it, I can't specifically note the time/place
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - www.digi.com
07/16/2007 @ 07:51:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Still can't find it, though I didn't look to hard.

I'll let those who know contradict or prove me :-)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
07/16/2007 @ 12:05:29 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm pretty sure the shift had to do with the fact that B.C. you had to get God's forgiveness by sacrifices of lambs and the like.

A.D. you just have to ask for his forgiveness. Jesus was the "lamb of God", "sacrificed" for everyone for all time, so no more sacrificing is necessary. Jesus also outright discussed "law" changes. His "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone" was a shift from the previous system. (Which if I'm not mistaken was something along the lines of a crime needed to be witnessed by two or more people, and they were the ones that would later on get to begin the stoning.)

Does anyone know how sacrifices work/worked? Like when you killed the animal for God, was that act "giving him" the animal, but you were then allowed to "take it back" and use it? Or did you have to leave it there?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/16/2007 @ 12:30:10 PM
 Quote this comment
You couldn't use a sacrifice- that is why it is a "sacrifice." Literally, take what is yours, destroy it as a gift offering.

It could be said that in the days of ritual sacrifice, an animal had to be killed in a certain way in order to be used as food- I would bet the farm that the sacrifice was done in way as to make the cow not-Kosher.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 07/16/2007 12:45:07 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
07/16/2007 @ 01:36:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it depends in who's sacrifice it's viewed as. Is it YOUR sacrifice because it's one of your animals you don't get anymore, or is it a sacrifice of the animals' life/blood.

I saw some specials on Discovery of all these cultures that still do sacrifices, but they almost always still used/ate the animal, I was wondering if the Bible gets into the details of that practice.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - www.digi.com
07/16/2007 @ 02:26:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Is this based out of curiosity, or is it fodder for the Fact Machine?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/16/2007 @ 02:43:40 PM
 Quote this comment
What in the hell does that mean?

E: If you're asking whether or not I'm going anywhere with this, the answer is no.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 07/16/2007 2:49:07 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
07/16/2007 @ 03:16:45 PM
 Quote this comment
affirmative to your negative.

negative ghost rider, the pattern is full.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land.
07/16/2007 @ 03:19:08 PM
 Quote this comment
I get the lamb part, but where does it say that the laws from Exodus no longer need to be followed.

I believe that the ancient Greeks did not eat the animals that they sacrificed, and they really are the kings of sacrafice. They had to sacrafice something like 10 bulls to walk to the bathroom so Apollo would grant them safe passage.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/16/2007 @ 03:23:25 PM
 Quote this comment
They sure as hell did. And who was it, Odysseus who messed with the sacred bulls? Look what THAT got him!

Micah, I just tried to fwd you some worthless office fwd crap, and aparently micah@[yourlasnamehere].com doesn't work. www.[yourlastnamehere].com does, and man does that porsche look nice!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/16/2007 @ 03:27:29 PM
 Quote this comment
But in other news, a British man takes a swim at the North Pole: Global Warming indeed!?

Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
07/16/2007 @ 03:36:15 PM
 Quote this comment
I thought you were joking, and it was a completely different person, so when the first thing I clicked was wedding pictures and the 2nd picture that came up was a picture with Micah in it, I was a bit taken back.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle!
07/16/2007 @ 04:20:15 PM
 Quote this comment
If you see Jesse and you don't automatically know that he's Micah's brother, I dunno what's wrong with you.

Plus, I knew Jesse had a Porsche, so I was ahead of you two steps.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
07/16/2007 @ 04:37:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Well Micah's face registered before I saw anyone else anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way!
07/16/2007 @ 09:23:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Actually Odysseus told all of his men not to eat the Cattle of the Sun, but they did anyways because they were stranded on the island for weeks. So then the sun god punished all of them and killed all of his men. But Odysseus survived and killed all of his wife's suitors.

Carl....it is now mmladousa@mylastname.com

And I don't look anything like my brother you fools.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/16/2007 @ 10:14:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Who said you did?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
07/16/2007 @ 11:34:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/16/2007 @ 12:05:29 PM
I'm pretty sure the shift had to do with the fact that B.C. you had to get God's forgiveness by sacrifices of lambs and the like.

A.D. you just have to ask for his forgiveness. Jesus was the "lamb of God", "sacrificed" for everyone for all time, so no more sacrificing is necessary. Jesus also outright discussed "law" changes. His "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone" was a shift from the previous system. (Which if I'm not mistaken was something along the lines of a crime needed to be witnessed by two or more people, and they were the ones that would later on get to begin the stoning.)


This may or may not be what you meant, but you didn't get forgiveness by doing sacrifices per se. Forgiveness of sins comes from faith that Jesus would/did die on the cross to pay for the sins of all people and rose again from the dead.

Micah Wrote - 07/16/2007 @ 03:19:08 PM
I get the lamb part, but where does it say that the laws from Exodus no longer need to be followed.


Hebrews 7:11-8:13, particularly 8:7-8:13

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD', for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The first covenant was that salvation could be obtained by following the law and living a perfect life. The second is that Jesus took our place in fulfilling the first and we need only to have faith in him to have forgiveness

Hebrews 9:11-15 also

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Galations 2:1-5:6 touches on this issue a few times

2:14-16

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

This is really more to my first comment about forgiveness, 3:5-6

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?- 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

5:1-6

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Edit: had some smartquote issues
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Alex screwed with this at 07/16/2007 11:41:13 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
07/17/2007 @ 01:21:23 AM
 Quote this comment
What is that, the Bible in its entirety?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle!
07/17/2007 @ 07:51:38 AM
 Quote this comment
Good reference, 4 nuts
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/19/2007 @ 12:53:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Remember when real men held off entire armies with just the jawbone of an ass?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/04/2007 @ 12:58:41 PM
 Quote this comment
I can't believe this massive flame war ended with some cryptic comment from Carl about an ass.

I was sitting around the other day pondering America's finances and politics and all of that when a thought occurred to me that reminded me of this article. When it comes to economics, like everything else, we're a two party system. For the most part there are two positions: Have everyone kick in a sum of money, then give out that money based on need, or have everyone just keep their money in the first place, but you're on your own. (I know this is a gross over simplification, but that's the gist of the two.)

While it's certainly open to debate which is better than the other it is definitely the case that you couldn't say either is flat out wrong.

So why am I posting? It occurred to me that while in most cases in a compromise all sides get something less than ideal, but ultimately a workable solution comes out of the fray, that just isn't the case here. Compromising on these two opposite economic views, or just the compromises that come with politics in general, just gets us a broke-ass-system.

You can't cut taxes and spend, but neither side can do things the way they want without conceding certain things to the other side. Every spending bill gets bloated up 10 times its size because all the "Bridge to Nowhere's" get added in to buy support for the bill. You can't just yank a system a family depends on, and still take just as much of their money.

Maybe this is a separate point, but I feel like so much money is just being lost in the disorganization of it all. Doesn't it seem like with computers and the tubes that connect them we should be to a point where there's almost a completely transparent report of where money goes? It seems like we should be able to have a money trail that's visible that we could track all the way down to what Dept. of UWEC is getting what, and for that matter specifically what they're buying. Other than some very specific exceptions, like you not being able to see the details of where our defense money is going (by which I mean 'Area 51' type stuff, what we're paying Haliburton and Lockheed Martin should be public knowledge), I think this should be a plausible system. (And even if you couldn't get details on defense, you could still see how much money goes there, so if they were using the exceptions to hide unrelated things, it would bloat the amount until maybe some questions got asked anyway.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 12/04/2007 1:02:46 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
12/04/2007 @ 03:06:15 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm somewhat lost on taxes, man. I just know they frustrate me. Here I am giving 43% of my income to something, yet all I know is that the roads are not plowed properly, they are potted, etc. I know that I would have police support if I needed it, but if I call 911 I get a huge bill. I just don't see what I am getting for my money but frustration.

I'm for paying a "flat tax" for some things that benefit all of us, but pretty selfish if it doesn't benefit me at all. I really hate paying for social security since I know that it won't ever come to me. Tax is such a broad subject I couldn't even come close to deciding, and I know this is common.

If we were to see all of the "Bridge to nowhere" aka Pork Barrel spending we would all flip out at all the wasted money.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/04/2007 @ 03:15:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/04/2007 @ 03:06:15 PM
If we were to see all of the "Bridge to nowhere" aka Pork Barrel spending we would all flip out at all the wasted money.


Which is sort of the idea.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
12/04/2007 @ 08:30:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 12/04/2007 @ 03:15:15 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/04/2007 @ 03:06:15 PM
If we were to see all of the "Bridge to nowhere" aka Pork Barrel spending we would all flip out at all the wasted money.
Which is sort of the idea.


Cause we could almost do something about it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
12/05/2007 @ 04:06:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, you and I wouldn't do anything about it, but you know, theoretically, someone could.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 12/05/2007 4:08:29 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
12/05/2007 @ 04:19:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 12/04/2007 @ 12:58:41 PM
Other than some very specific exceptions, like you not being able to see the details of where our defense money is going (by which I mean 'Area 51' type stuff, what we're paying Haliburton and Lockheed Martin should be public knowledge


I'm not sure how the funding was/is dealt with, but Lockheed Martin has been involved in building some secret projects over the years. Do these get the Area 51 exemption?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
12/05/2007 @ 04:41:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, I was thinking for cases like that we could see that Lockheed Martin is getting "x" amount of dollars, or maybe even "x" amount for "Project 8323423421b," but not be able so see that it was for the "Super-hyper-mega-eradicate-a-country-from-space-laser-beam" project. Also, possibly along side of that, the competing bids for said unknown project. (I'd like to see bid for the "normal" stuff too.)

Even if some details were spared we could still see where money is going because the numbers would have to add up.

I don't have any grand vision that ever penny would be accounted for doing this, but I'd like to know if say, Memorial isn't getting new computers every few years but the English department is spending 10k a year on replacing the same books they have already. In a bureaucracy like schools budgets are based off what you spent last year. So fiscally responsible departments are rewarded with a smaller budget the next year, when they might have more expenses, so they waste money to get more money. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case all over our government. It's too much information for a person to keep track of, but not for a computer to datamine and track.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
12/05/2007 @ 05:24:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Looks like you may get your wish (sort of).

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

I remember reading about this last year and your comments reminded me of it. I didn't realize it actually passed and is now law.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/06/2007 @ 02:47:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Just an FYI- when I was over in Iraq, I got paid roughly 24k per year. For the same type of work- but with days off, better food, living, etc- Haliburton people were pulling over 200k.

How did we like them apples? We didn't. They were great guys though, and sometimes they cooked us steaks.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 12/06/2007 2:49:01 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/06/2007 @ 03:10:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/06/2007 @ 02:47:26 PM
Just an FYI- when I was over in Iraq, I got paid roughly 24k per year. For the same type of work- but with days off, better food, living, etc- Haliburton people were pulling over 200k.

How did we like them apples? We didn't. They were great guys though, and sometimes they cooked us steaks.


I don't so much mind how the people are paid. It would bug me if I were there, but on the other hand soldiers are paid if there is a war or not, these people sort of "volunteered" for danger, if you will. I guess I just question why the military can't cook and clean and whatnot for itself, and how much we're paying for the supplies themselves. 200K might very well be the going rate to get a civilian to volunteer to go over there and drive a truck, that doesn't mean that Mountain Dew in the back should be billed to the taxpayers at $50 a 24 pack.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
12/06/2007 @ 03:19:22 PM
 Quote this comment
Another thing is this, if the answer to my question above is "there aren't enough troops" then why doesn't the Army create a whole host of "non combat" type positions (or even stateside) where you're enlisted in the army as a dishwasher, or whatever. I have to imagine there are a whole host of kids who are on the fence about joining the military, but would sign up if given the relatively safe position of toilet scrubber.

And if the answer to this question is "You already can enlist in non combat roles" then why doesn't the military "advertise" that more?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/06/2007 @ 03:31:35 PM
 Quote this comment
most of the mt dew I saw when I was there was from AAFES at a store where the soldiers payed for it themselves. I see your point though
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
12/06/2007 @ 03:32:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 12/06/2007 @ 03:19:22 PM
And if the answer to this question is "You already can enlist in non combat roles" then why doesn't the military "advertise" that more?


They don't advertise these jobs because they are not high demand, high impact, or more importantly, high INTEREST jobs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
12/06/2007 @ 03:35:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/06/2007 @ 03:32:32 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 12/06/2007 @ 03:19:22 PM
And if the answer to this question is "You already can enlist in non combat roles" then why doesn't the military "advertise" that more?


They don't advertise these jobs because they are not high demand, high impact, or more importantly, high INTEREST jobs.


Isn't that for the person living in a destitute area who has been looking for a solid paying, regular job, for a couple years to decide? There's got to be some demand for these positions if we're subcontracting them out at $1000 a day.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/06/2007 @ 04:03:02 PM
 Quote this comment
True, it's more efficient to hire people through the military to do certain things like truck product, but part of what the 90's and Bill Clinton did for us was create a leaner, stronger, faster military. They cut the military to size, bolstering what they left in place with technology and quick-fight capabilities. Taking away from it the "less important" features such as supply route personnel, cooks, postall employees, supply depot, etc. THis is not the whole reason we have to sub out jobs, 6 years of continued war without "justification" has depleted the ranks further.

That, and one could say that the government is "creating jobs" and "putting money back into the economy" this way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
12/06/2007 @ 04:15:33 PM
 Quote this comment
It would be the same number of jobs, there just wouldn't be a middle man taking a hefty cut.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/07/2007 @ 07:41:57 AM
 Quote this comment
Thank the Dems 15 years ago
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
12/13/2007 @ 10:51:03 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 12/05/2007 @ 04:41:52 PM
Well, I was thinking for cases like that we could see that Lockheed Martin is getting "x" amount of dollars, or maybe even "x" amount for "Project 8323423421b," but not be able so see that it was for the "Super-hyper-mega-eradicate-a-country-from-space-laser-beam" project. Also, possibly along side of that, the competing bids for said unknown project. (I'd like to see bid for the "normal" stuff too.) Even if some details were spared we could still see where money is going because the numbers would have to add up. I don't have any grand vision that ever penny would be accounted for doing this, but I'd like to know if say, Memorial isn't getting new computers every few years but the English department is spending 10k a year on replacing the same books they have already. In a bureaucracy like schools budgets are based off what you spent last year. So fiscally responsible departments are rewarded with a smaller budget the next year, when they might have more expenses, so they waste money to get more money. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case all over our government. It's too much information for a person to keep track of, but not for a computer to datamine and track.


Matt Wrote - 12/05/2007 @ 05:24:59 PM
Looks like you may get your wish (sort of). Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 I remember reading about this last year and your comments reminded me of it. I didn't realize it actually passed and is now law.


USAspending.gov

Lockheed Martin was the top recipient of federal contract awards in FY 2006. They recieved over 32 billion dollars worth of contracts.
Contracts to LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 12/13/2007 10:55:21 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
12/14/2007 @ 07:47:39 AM
 Quote this comment
They're a big customer of ours, and I have spoken with several of their R&D folks and procurement people- they are very precise, and delberate- not to mention nice.

They do spend a lot of money, but have made a lot of great stuff.

Haliburton and KBR? Now that is a different story.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
06/09/2008 @ 03:59:31 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't want to reopen a can of worms here. However, I thought this was interesting.

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion - When the Anti-Choice Choose

This phenomenon is not in any way shape or form limited to pro-lifers. Any group with strong, something shouldn't be allowed, feelings is rife with this kind of stuff. (High ranking PETA officials using meds tested on animals when it's THEIR life on the line, Anti-Gay Politicos hosting gay orgies, ect) So I don't mean to be picking on just these pro-choice people and start World War 25 here on Nutcan, so don't read into this any further than the fact that there's sort of a fascinating aspect to people's twisted logic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 06/09/2008 4:01:09 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
06/09/2008 @ 04:27:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Great stories, very interesting and insightful.

What is the difference between pro-life and anti-choice? Is it just terminology, or does one trump another?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/09/2008 @ 04:34:21 PM
 Quote this comment
I guess I'll make a few points since I think the author gets off subject a bit toward the middle.

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong

There's nothing inherently hypocritical about that. Most people having affairs would probably admit what they are doing is morally wrong. It doesn't make them a hypocrite for doing it, it makes them immoral, at least in their own eyes, which, if anything, is the opposite of hypocrisy.

7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally."

This is a perfectly valid belief to have. The belief that no abortions should be allowed, until I need one, is hypocritical. The belief that there are some circumstances where it should be allowed, and some where it shouldn't, and it just so happened I fell into the first column, is perfectly ok. It's not an all or nothing debate. See original article.

A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

This is just largely irrelevant. Sure those populations are probably contain a larger percentage of pro-lifers than the general population, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a ton of overlap. Especially when you consider that what people "report" themselves to be isn't what they really are. If I had to fill out a form and was asked what denomination I was I would check Catholic, that doesn't really imply anything about how involved I am or how strong my beliefs are. This is especially true since most children just report they are whatever their parents are, and there's more of a backlash against overly religious parenting in terms of being naughty during their teen years. Combine that with a belief birth control is wrong and abstinence-only education is the only answer and you end up with catholic high schools with ridiculous pregnancy rates.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/09/2008 @ 04:38:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 06/09/2008 @ 04:27:51 PM
Great stories, very interesting and insightful.

What is the difference between pro-life and anti-choice? Is it just terminology, or does one trump another?


I suspect it's the one side trying to make pro-life sound more negative, the way pro-choice is often called pro-abortion. I'm not sure if it really is a thing or just this one author's phrase.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/09/2008 4:44:09 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
06/10/2008 @ 06:26:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Hypocrites where many coats.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
06/10/2008 @ 06:31:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 06/09/2008 @ 04:34:21 PM
I guess I'll make a few points since I think the author gets off subject a bit toward the middle. Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong There's nothing inherently hypocritical about that. Most people having affairs would probably admit what they are doing is morally wrong. It doesn't make them a hypocrite for doing it, it makes them immoral, at least in their own eyes, which, if anything, is the opposite of hypocrisy.


In my opinion, if you are doing something even though you know (or think) it's morally wrong, that makes you a hypocrite. What is hypocrisy if that isn't it? Are you saying that a person is a hypocrite if they say that an affair is wrong but don't admit that THEIR affair is wrong?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott screwed with this at 06/10/2008 6:34:24 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
06/10/2008 @ 09:43:34 PM
 Quote this comment
As long as they are painting themselves with the same brush then it's not being hypocritical. If asked for their opinion and they said "I think what I'm doing is wrong too", then I'm not sure that's hypocrisy. If they said something like "Well usually it's completely immoral, but my husband is never around and I don't think he loves me anymore, so it's ok for me." that's different.

It's also not really hypocritical, in my mind, for former protesters to cross the picket line. Sometimes you don't know what it's like until you have to choose. (God forbid) It's hypocritical to sit side by side with women you know nothing about having the exact same procedure done and call them sluts. It's hypocritical to go back to the picket line or your Right To Live organization afterwords.

So, in my mind, the women that stuck to their "it's murder, always" guns the whole time weren't being hypocritical. They likely just had some sort of other cognitive detachment.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
06/11/2008 @ 07:28:54 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 06/10/2008 @ 09:43:34 PM
It's also not really hypocritical, in my mind, for former protesters to cross the picket line. Sometimes you don't know what it's like until you have to choose. (God forbid) It's hypocritical to sit side by side with women you know nothing about having the exact same procedure done and call them sluts. It's hypocritical to go back to the picket line or your Right To Live organization afterwords.


So you ARE a hypocrite if you go from being pro-choice to pro-life, but you AREN'T a hypocrite of you go from pro-life to pro-choice. Seems a little biased to me. Why can't someone who had an abortion regret what she had done, and then join the crowd calling for the end to abortion. I have no problem with that. Learning from your mistakes is a noble virtue.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
06/11/2008 @ 08:38:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Well the motive and method would be important. If that woman who regretted her decision started a website, or handed out fliers, or something calmly discussing the fact that she regrets her decision and urging people not to do it, that's one thing. Lobbying congress to have the choice she just made taken off the table is hypocritical. Rejoining those protests is hypocritical. Those people aren't yelling "I've had an abortion, and I regret it. Please think long and hard about what you are doing!" They are calling people killers, sinners, and whores.

It doesn't have to be a two way street. That's just not the way life works. If a gay person spent a significant amount of time arguing for gay rights and then married a woman that isn't the same as a straight person arguing against gay rights for a large portion of their life, then turning out to be gay.

It's not bias, it's just the way it works. If you spend a significant amount of time arguing you know better than everyone and someone shouldn't be allowed to do something you disagree with, meanwhile the whole time you are doing it, then that's hypocritical. There's really not much of an analogous situation on the "other side." Straight people arguing for gay rights would be the opposite, and there's no hypocrisy there,

The reason I made the cross the picket line comment is because abortion is a bit different in that it's one event, rather than something you could be doing the entire time you're protesting other's rights to do it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 06/11/2008 8:40:32 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
06/11/2008 @ 09:41:16 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, as I thought about it on the way to work, I realized you set up sort of a straw man there. I never said pro-choice people can't, for whatever reason, change their mind and decide they are pro-life. We're talking about people who have had abortions.

It's also important to note that the "two" sides don't really divide the spectrum in two. Pro-Choice is an amorphous blob that envelops an entire gray area of thoughts and opinions. From "Any woman should be able to get an abortion at any time, for any reason, and up until the second that umbilical cord is cut that's just a part of me I can have tossed." to "I'm vehemently against abortion, but I don't think that gives me the right to deny other people their personal choice." It could also easily include people who've had abortions, wish they didn't, and want to tell their story to try and dissuade people from that choice. You could believe that only doctors should have the right to choose if the mother is in danger. You could believe in setting up some restrictions, but not stripping the option all together. All it inherently means is you don't think the government should have the right to disallow it, always, no matter what the circumstances are. It can be couched in one of a million beliefs from there.

Pro-Life on the other hand, though I'm sure there are exceptions, is a pretty standardized set of beliefs. There's not much of a spectrum here. They believe no one should have the right to choose, and are fighting to make that happen. So yes, going back to that is extremely hypocritical if you yourself took advantage of your right to that choice 2 days before you rejoined the picket line calling other people names, or returned to head your Right to Live organization to plan the next protest.

This issue is incorrectly categorized into pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides. It's all about the choice and how anti-abortion you are doesn't necessarily determine your side. (Though there's obviously a correlation.) I can't think of something that should make you a de facto "pro-choicer" for life than the fact that you "chose" when the chips were down, regardless of your regrets or feelings on abortion itself after the fact.

95% of pro-choice people probably want to reduce the number of abortions just as badly as the pro-lifers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 5 times, last at 06/11/2008 11:42:03 am
wendy.gifWendy
06/11/2008 @ 01:28:41 PM
 Quote this comment
What is the argument here? Which actions are hypocritical?
I think I agree with Jeremy that motive and intent have a lot to do with it.
Scott - If a woman, who is pro-life or pro-choice, has an abortion, then regrets it, I think she has every right to try and persuade other women to not have an abortion, if that's how she feels.
But if you have the abortion, and don't feel bad about what you did, and then protest and bomb abortion doctors, that's hypocritical because that woman is somehow removing her own actions from the mix, like she can do what she wants, but other women can't.
(I'm trying to think of a reversed situation of pro-life to pro-choice, but at the moment, I just can't, sorry)

SO, it's not about which sign of the fence you're on before and/or after the abortion, it's about being accountable for your own actions, and being (wo)man enough to stand behind your decisions.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 01:48:18 PM
 Quote this comment
There's a difference between "trying to persuade" and yelling "Murdering Whore!!!" at the 15 year old who feels bad enough already.

Trying to persuade someone not to have an abortion does not automatically make you a "pro-lifer". Joining a group that helps council women, even one that does everything it can to reduce the numbers of abortions, would be perfectly fine. Join a group whose objective it is to get abstinence only education replaced with something realistic. Or, join an organization whose goal it is to educate parents that this stuff shouldn't be left up to the school in the first place. There are other avenues for you to get your "I regret it" story into the hands of people who might want to hear it than rejoin a group who just tries to shame/humiliate them out of doing it.

It's the "I got mine, and now I want to pull up the ladder behind me" aspect that returning to these protest organizations implies that is what I think makes it hypocritical. There's no hard and fast rules you can set to say "this is" and "this isn't" hypocritical.

Maybe they should just tell the girls their baby has fingernails already, I hear that's been known to change minds.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
06/11/2008 @ 01:56:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, that's what I was saying, that I understand if someone changes their mind and finds reasonable ways to get involved in the pro-life movement.

And I'm just saying here ... can someone in the pro-life category explain to me why you don't often see pro-choice groups being violent and that typically falls to the pro-lifers? Don't murder the babies, but it's totally acceptable to murder the doctors who are doing something that's 100% legal where they're doing it (it's not like the doctors getting bombed are the back-alley doctors, they're at legal Planned Parenthood clinics).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 02:11:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Typically the more liberal side of an issue is also populated by more apathetic people, which makes it seem like a one sided argument. Also, it's not a two way street. What would pro-choice people bomb? Churches that they might also attend? There are crazies on both ends it's just on one side you have someone who's batshit insane and on the other you have someone who thinks blowing up a building full of people is noble. The difference is one thinks he's justified because he thinks he has God behind him.

If it bleeds it leads, so blowing up a building makes the news, some lunatic raving on the internet that she should be allowed to abort her 14 year old because it came from her gets written off as a lunatic.

It goes without saying that MOST pro-life people would be just as appalled by blowing people up as everyone else.

I do sometimes find it really bizarre that it seems often times the least Christian behavior is exhibited by the people claiming to be the most Christian.

(Though for the record I won't shed a tear if the Fred Phelps gets what's coming to him someday. If someone on the "left" hasn't reacted violently to those appalling scum then I don't think it's going to happen.)

Edit: Also, as for the babies vs doctors thing I suspect it has to do with sticking up for the innocent that can't defend themselves, whereas the doctor has obviously chosen to do this for a living. Which there's a certain amount of validity to, on the surface at least.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 06/11/2008 2:33:22 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 02:58:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 06/11/2008 @ 02:11:46 PM
Typically the more liberal side of an issue is also populated by more apathetic people, which makes it seem like a one sided argument.

What? Since when?

Jeremy Wrote - 06/11/2008 @ 02:11:46 PM
I do sometimes find it really bizarre that it seems often times the least Christian behavior is exhibited by the people claiming to be the most Christian.

Jeremy Wrote - 06/11/2008 @ 02:11:46 PM
Edit: Also, as for the babies vs doctors thing I suspect it has to do with sticking up for the innocent that can't defend themselves, whereas the doctor has obviously chosen to do this for a living. Which there's a certain amount of validity to, on the surface at least.


I find it completely unfair that right and wrong, when it comes to so-called "murder" by pro-lifers, can be manipulated depending on any number of circumstances. I have an abortion, and I'm a killer, and so is my doctor. But it's ok to kill the doctor because you're "saving the unborn babies he would have "killed" eventually at his clinic?"
This is my whole fight with people who are black & white pro-life. You do what you want. If you find abortion immoral and murderous, then don't do it, and go ahead and find a peaceful way to convince others to not do it either. But don't do something equally violent (or even hateful, like verbally attacking patients) and say it's justified because you happen to think abortion is murder.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 03:13:50 PM
 Quote this comment
It's two fold really. The "default" position for a lot of social issues is the liberal one. If you don't care at all about the abortion issue or gay marriage and a pollster calls you up you are going to say "Whatever, I don't care what people do." Which puts you in the pro-choice, pro-gay column by default. That same person isn't going to be active in those endeavors. On the flip side, however, there's probably a reason, religion usually, that you have strong feelings about, that is pushing you into the "right" of the issue.

It also doesn't help the seeming one sidedness that there's no usually no opposing public ad campaigns. How to you respond to an ad with a cute baby on it with some anti abortion message? No one thinks abortions themselves are a good thing. To one side there's an infinite amount of gray area and to the other it couldn't be more black and white. Only one of those is conducive to our bumper sticker society.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 06/11/2008 3:20:06 pm
wendy.gifWendy
06/11/2008 @ 03:48:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Since when isn't there an indifference column? I think more Americans are indifferent on any given issue, as opposed to having a really clear viewpoint, at least the younger generations. This website is a bad example of that, lots of opinionated contributers.

PS - There are some really great pro-choice bumper stickers for sale out there, and I'd have 20 except Chone doesn't want them on my new car because it hurts the resale value. Bumper sticker residue, I mean, not the political statement.
My favorites:
"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a baby?"
"Keep your theology off my biology"
"6 Billion miracles is enough"
"Against abortion? Then don't have one"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 03:59:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, indifference is an opinion, of sorts, here. "Do you think gay people should be allowed to marry?" "Sure, why would I care?"

I guess I forgot to specify it's hard to respond to the pro-life campaign in our bumper sticker society with bumper stickers that are even a little clever, at all funny, or don't make you come off like a heartless bitch. emoticon Obviously there probably exists bumper stickers for any issue.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 06/11/2008 4:02:05 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 04:08:22 PM
 Quote this comment
I think the reason I enjoy bumper stickers like that so much, is because of the reaction you get from the other side. There aren't a lot of pro-life stickers/slogans, that are very funny.

I invite all you Nutcanners to make up some funny pro-life slogans
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
06/11/2008 @ 04:09:56 PM
 Quote this comment
I know, but I don't think I like that aspect of our culture either. There's too much edgy for edginess' sake out there.

Edit: The difference they aren't really trying to be funny or clever.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 06/11/2008 4:16:31 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 04:23:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Who said edgy? I said funny.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 04:35:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, you said you like the reaction you get. I was saying I don't like that "I love to yell f**k in the Toys-R-Us because it's hilarious to watch the moms' reactions." aspect of our society.

Too many people think it's cool to be jerkasses for the sake of it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 04:41:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Hahahaha, that's a great new word!
Let's all use that at least once a day
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
06/11/2008 @ 05:46:18 PM
 Quote this comment
I was sort of hoping I could merge this into another comment, because this page is long enough, but I didn't make up the word jerkass.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 07:12:44 PM
 Quote this comment
After these messages, we'll return to the Wendy and Jeremy Show!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
06/12/2008 @ 09:17:35 AM
 Quote this comment
You two need to meet for coffee somewhere other than the 'can
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/12/2008 @ 09:24:26 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 06/11/2008 @ 07:12:44 PM
After these messages, we'll return to the Wendy and Jeremy Show!


I think you need to pull some strings with the head honchos and make this happen, Wendy. I'd settle for "The Jeremy Show" though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
06/12/2008 @ 10:20:14 AM
 Quote this comment
You should call it "Crowded at Second" with Jeremy Lindgren
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.