|
|
On August 18 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:
Implying that non-conservatives don't understand if all choices are bad? Everyone understands when all choices are "bad" or "unfortunate," but Conservatives rather throw people to the curb if they make mistakes rather than help them recover their lives. The whole concept of "responsibility" is way overblown by conservatives.
You have to understand that when it comes to problem solving conservatives have two and only two ideas: Deterrents and Blaming the Victim.
And let's face it, that's really only one idea.
|
On August 18 2012 06:08 BlueBird. wrote:
If you think all political music is shit, that's your opinion, but just cause classical instrumental music doesn't have politics doesn't mean modern music can't, it's apples and oranges. I've had this debate just recently cause of how political Roger Water's The Wall tour is, and people complaining about it.
Actually, even classical music was/is full of politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_politics
I knew there was a good reason why I always preferred Shostakovich. :D
Some of the most chilling and haunting music ever composed. Full of political intrigue... loyal comrade? or satricial parody and slap in the face to troll Stalin?
http://video.pbs.org/video/1295305133/] PBS Video
|
On August 18 2012 10:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:
Implying that non-conservatives don't understand if all choices are bad? Everyone understands when all choices are "bad" or "unfortunate," but Conservatives rather throw people to the curb if they make mistakes rather than help them recover their lives. The whole concept of "responsibility" is way overblown by conservatives. You have to understand that when it comes to problem solving conservatives have two and only two ideas: Deterrents and Blaming the Victim. And let's face it, that's really only one idea.
You have to understand when it comes to problem solving with liberals they all automatically assume you're too stupid to know what's good for you so they put programs in place to allow them to make all the decisions while simultaneously putting you into a position such that you won't be able to object due to economic reliance.
See, I can make caricatures of real thought processes and blanketly apply them to a large group with diverse modes of thought too! Guess what, it add just as little to the discussion and alienates me just as much as your statement! (except not really because you're the only one being completely serious!)
|
On August 18 2012 10:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:
Implying that non-conservatives don't understand if all choices are bad? Everyone understands when all choices are "bad" or "unfortunate," but Conservatives rather throw people to the curb if they make mistakes rather than help them recover their lives. The whole concept of "responsibility" is way overblown by conservatives. You have to understand that when it comes to problem solving conservatives have two and only two ideas: Deterrents and Blaming the Victim. And let's face it, that's really only one idea.
And the only solution liberals have is to fix it by taking away money from rich people. And when that doesn't work (and it never does) the reason is because they didn't take enough money away from rich people.
Isn't this fun?
|
On August 18 2012 09:36 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad. I think the point is that conservatives want to make the choice for other people. That is, like, when Paul Ryan gets raped he can decide to keep the baby if he wants, but it's something the state shouldn't get involved in... Reducing the number of abortions is, however, a totally non-controversial goal (except that conservatives don't want to teach people about condoms so idk maybe this is wrong)
Alright, from now on no more deciding for others. We must let the fetuses decide if they want to aborted.
And to the extent conservatives have a position on sex education (Palin for example is often wrongly accused of demanding abstinence only), it's larger of a problem of how old the kids are, the range of topics covered (which is no longer just condoms) , the bad job educating students on everything else, and that even if kids know how to have safe sex, they are still KIDS. They are still by and large IRRESPONSIBLE. They risk unnecessary health, emotional, and financial difficulties so better to send a clear message.
|
On August 18 2012 11:34 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:36 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad. I think the point is that conservatives want to make the choice for other people. That is, like, when Paul Ryan gets raped he can decide to keep the baby if he wants, but it's something the state shouldn't get involved in... Reducing the number of abortions is, however, a totally non-controversial goal (except that conservatives don't want to teach people about condoms so idk maybe this is wrong) Alright, from now on no more deciding for others. We must let the fetuses decide if they want to aborted.
Sure! And when you have somebody who has to make a decision who is not capable of doing so, that responsibility should go to the legal guardian amirite?
They risk unnecessary health, emotional, and financial difficulties so better to send a clear message.
Here's my message to kids re sex: "Hey kids! Sex is pretty great (but you already knew that didn't you?)! It feels good and you can become emotionally intimate with another person! Just make sure you treat each other well and take the necessary precautions, which I will tell you about in great detail because I am a responsible and mature adult and I want you to lead happy and unrepressed lives! P.S. Boys, this is a clitoris, let me explain what to do with it!"
|
Show nested quote +
Alright, from now on no more deciding for others. We must let the fetuses decide if they want to aborted.
Sure! And when you have somebody who has to make a decision who is not capable of doing so, that responsibility should go to the legal guardian amirite?
And that continues until kids become adults which is commonly 18 but there are exceptions so lets just make 13 the time up until the legal guardians can decided their offspring actually aren't worth a continued existence.
|
On August 18 2012 12:00 dvorakftw wrote:
And that continues until kids become adults which is commonly 18 but there are exceptions so lets just make 13 the time up until the legal guardians can decided their offspring actually aren't worth a continued existence.
I agree. Legal guardians should have until their fetuses turn 13 years old to decide whether to abort or not.
|
On August 18 2012 11:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 11:34 dvorakftw wrote:On August 18 2012 09:36 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad. I think the point is that conservatives want to make the choice for other people. That is, like, when Paul Ryan gets raped he can decide to keep the baby if he wants, but it's something the state shouldn't get involved in... Reducing the number of abortions is, however, a totally non-controversial goal (except that conservatives don't want to teach people about condoms so idk maybe this is wrong) Alright, from now on no more deciding for others. We must let the fetuses decide if they want to aborted. Sure! And when you have somebody who has to make a decision who is not capable of doing so, that responsibility should go to the legal guardian amirite?
So you are OK with parents killing their 1 year old babies too? They are their legal guardians after all?
Or does it bother you more that you can actually see them?
It is easier to be OK with someone ending someone elses life as long as you can't see the victim. Strange thing about humans...
|
On August 18 2012 12:15 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 11:53 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 11:34 dvorakftw wrote:On August 18 2012 09:36 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad. I think the point is that conservatives want to make the choice for other people. That is, like, when Paul Ryan gets raped he can decide to keep the baby if he wants, but it's something the state shouldn't get involved in... Reducing the number of abortions is, however, a totally non-controversial goal (except that conservatives don't want to teach people about condoms so idk maybe this is wrong) Alright, from now on no more deciding for others. We must let the fetuses decide if they want to aborted. Sure! And when you have somebody who has to make a decision who is not capable of doing so, that responsibility should go to the legal guardian amirite? So you are OK with parents killing their 1 year old babies too? They are their legal guardians after all? Or does it bother you more that you can actually see them?
I think the idea that fetuses are persons is absurd. At the very least, it's an interesting ethical question which I don't think it's up to the state to make. (edit: and certainly the proposition that abortion is equivalent to infanticide is laughable. I think we should see abortion as a step up from infanticide - which is more common in world cultures than you might think - and as an intermediate step toward the nonexistence of unwanted pregnancies)
Obviously the goal is to avoid abortions. You think any woman wants to have an abortion? It's a traumatic experience. Maybe if we gave everybody free birth control and real sex ed we wouldn't have to have this discussion. In the meantime, I'd like the state not to go around imposing controversial religio-philosophical opinions on other people.
It feels weird to be talking about "Freedom" and "keeping the state out of things." Isn't that supposed to be y'all's line?
edit: (I'm convinced that the reason people want to outlaw abortion is to increase the number of babies born into unfortunate social circumstances, so you can have a larger underclass to exploit. Which makes sense because we're so eager to have these precious bundles of joy in the world, but not so eager to give them a world worth living in)
|
On August 18 2012 12:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 12:15 Savio wrote:On August 18 2012 11:53 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 11:34 dvorakftw wrote:On August 18 2012 09:36 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad. I think the point is that conservatives want to make the choice for other people. That is, like, when Paul Ryan gets raped he can decide to keep the baby if he wants, but it's something the state shouldn't get involved in... Reducing the number of abortions is, however, a totally non-controversial goal (except that conservatives don't want to teach people about condoms so idk maybe this is wrong) Alright, from now on no more deciding for others. We must let the fetuses decide if they want to aborted. Sure! And when you have somebody who has to make a decision who is not capable of doing so, that responsibility should go to the legal guardian amirite? So you are OK with parents killing their 1 year old babies too? They are their legal guardians after all? Or does it bother you more that you can actually see them? I think the idea that fetuses are persons is absurd. At the very least, it's an interesting ethical question which I don't think it's up to the state to make. Obviously the goal is to avoid abortions. You think any woman wants to have an abortion? It's a traumatic experience. Maybe if we gave everybody free birth control and real sex ed we wouldn't have to have this discussion. In the meantime, I'd like the state not to go around imposing controversial religio-philosophical opinions on other people. It feels weird to be talking about "Freedom" and "keeping the state out of things." Isn't that supposed to be y'all's line?
In my mind the simple question is this: Are unborn children alive?
Answer: Nobody knows exactly when "life" begins.
Therefore: Since the State does not know if these fetuses are alive or not, should the default position of the law be one that errs on the side of preserving possible life or errs on the side of ending possible life?
I don't see why you seem dead set on erring on the side of death rather than life.
After all, if I am at a target range and I think there "might" be a human life behind my target, my default position (as the owner of the range AKA government) would be to have a rule that you do not take a shot if there is even a slight chance that someone elses "life" could be placed in danger.
If you are gonna err, then err on the side that preserves life.
EDIT: However I agree that contraception should be free to anyone of any age and encouraged. It parents don't want their kids having sex, it is THEIR job to teach them, not the government's job.
|
No, they are obviously alive. The question is whether they are persons. (trivially, you cause the death of things that are alive every day. What you try not to do is cause the death of persons).
I'm not "erring on the side of death." I'm erring on the side of the state not getting involved in religious questions unless there is a very clear social consensus, which there is not. If a woman in my life were considering getting an abortion, I would counsel her to consider it very carefully because I think doing that is asking for lifelong regrets.
|
On August 18 2012 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
No, they are obviously alive. The question is whether they are persons.
I'm not "erring on the side of death." I'm erring on the side of the state not getting involved in religious questions unless there is a very clear social consensus, which there is not. If a woman in my life were considering getting an abortion, I would counsel her to consider it very carefully because I think doing that is asking for lifelong regrets.
Their DNA is human. They are alive (according to you). What else is needed to be a "person"?
|
On August 18 2012 12:31 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
No, they are obviously alive. The question is whether they are persons.
I'm not "erring on the side of death." I'm erring on the side of the state not getting involved in religious questions unless there is a very clear social consensus, which there is not. If a woman in my life were considering getting an abortion, I would counsel her to consider it very carefully because I think doing that is asking for lifelong regrets. Their DNA is human. They are alive (according to you). What else is needed to be a "person"?
I think that is a very interesting and controversial question! That's the point. The state can't assume it has the answer, which would be required to outlaw abortion.
edit: (I should say, I actually would support the rights of states to outlaw abortion, although I think that would be a terrible policy idea. I would like to see most questions of this type determined by communities (and states are the closest proxy we have to "community" legislation, although that's really a stretch anyway and I think we should redesign the whole thing from scratch, but that's another topic). Since the US as a whole is clearly not a community, I don't think the federal government has the ethical right to do so)
|
On August 18 2012 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 12:31 Savio wrote:On August 18 2012 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
No, they are obviously alive. The question is whether they are persons.
I'm not "erring on the side of death." I'm erring on the side of the state not getting involved in religious questions unless there is a very clear social consensus, which there is not. If a woman in my life were considering getting an abortion, I would counsel her to consider it very carefully because I think doing that is asking for lifelong regrets. Their DNA is human. They are alive (according to you). What else is needed to be a "person"? I think that is a very interesting and controversial question! That's the point. The state can't assume it has the answer, which would be required to outlaw abortion.
Actually the state has gone further and has gotten involved already and said that States CANNOT outlaw abortion even if there is a clear consensus within that state. Roe v Wade.
|
Did you know that there was a time when there was no consensus on whether or not Black people were persons? Better not let the government get involved until the communities decide for themselves whether or not black people qualify as people.
It shouldn't be an issue. Err on the side that preserves life.
|
If that is in fact what Roe v Wade says, then I guess I buy it. At any rate (as I said in the edit), I would like to see this kind of thing determined by communities, not unwieldy geopolitical entities like nations or provinces.
|
On August 18 2012 12:39 Savio wrote:
Did you know that there was a time when there was no consensus on whether or not Black people were persons? Better not let the government get involved until the communities decide for themselves whether or not black people can be killed.
The difference is that black people can talk and tell you that they are persons. There it is unambiguous.
|
On August 18 2012 12:39 Savio wrote:
Err on the side that preserves life.
Tell that to Iraqi civilians.
|
On August 18 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 12:39 Savio wrote:
Did you know that there was a time when there was no consensus on whether or not Black people were persons? Better not let the government get involved until the communities decide for themselves whether or not black people can be killed. The difference is that black people can talk and tell you that they are persons. There it is unambiguous.
Ahh, so it IS being able to talk that makes you a person. I feel sorry for those with severe Cerebral Palsy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
