|
On July 02 2013 04:54 xM(Z wrote:the example i gave is already happening, it's live and it's called: sex-selective-abortion, google it. sure it's a small step but when you consider the feminist agenda: Show nested quote +In contrast, in the dawn of this beautiful new fourteenth baktun where abortions may soon be free and safe and bountiful, we have arrived at the era of feminist selection. Instead of male gametes winning the evolutionary game by being the most aggressive, most violent, or by having the brightest chin feathers, women now calibrate male evolutionary success by choosing to procreate with men who are emotionally supportive, or intelligent, or who possess a host of desirable traits. Empowered with the ability to abort the offspring of sexually violent aggressors or men who cannot sustain lasting relationships, women will now cognitively decide the course of human history. Feminist selection protects women’s best interests, and, in turn, the best interests of their offspring -– at the expense of male sexual aggression. Show nested quote +In effect, free and legal access to safe abortions is the ultimate tool against patriarchy and the masculine dominance structure. one can't help but be a sexist. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a girl, she decides to abort it, you go to sleep crying. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a boy, you decide to abort it, oh wait ... you go to sleep crying.
If you wanted to have a girl, but she doesn't:
You could divorce her and adopt your own daughter.
If you wanted to abort the son, but she doesn't:
You could also go to court, say you want to disavow connection to the child and would want to have a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want. There is no child at risk yet, you cite that you didn't expect for her to get pregnant and feel that a child would destroy your life.
|
On July 02 2013 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:38 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:10 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:46 ZackAttack wrote:
If you use the rules in a holy text as a historical record, then it is just a record of what the laws were, not if they were effective or not. The people that lived then don't know anything more about whether a law is actually effective then we do. The only way to get that information is through objective scientific study. Historical data is just that--data. Science studies data--like the data historical texts provides.... Historical data is showing that a society previously used ______ rule sets and found them effective; we either ignore their experience or we accept them. Science takes up multiply data points and analyzes them. We can either ignore history and pretend those data points are irrelevant, or we can learn from history and actually deal with those data points directly. What is it that shows that those how effective those laws were? Even if they were it could be for outdated reasons, and current study is still better. It is data but it is terrible data that can easily be replaced by better data by current study. Yes--it is data point that needs to be either proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant. Just like I said in my prior post... Simply ignoring it doesn't show that it is "wrong" or "outdated." Once it is proven wrong/outdated/irrelevant all one needs to do is show the work proving that and seeing if the findings are relevant. It has to be relevant in the first place before anyone needs argue that it isn't. Just because its old doesn't mean it was right. If the only thing we know is that no abortions no matter what was the law a thousand years ago and we have no way to tell whether it was good or bad for the population. As it stands, this data is not quantitative or qualitative in any way. It tells us nothing, so it is irrelevant. Being that its the law that was followed for about 1900 years of western history--saying it isn't quantitative or qualitative is just being stubborn. I agree it is irrelevant--but not because it is a law that didn't or doesn't work; I agree it's irrelevant because what is important is civil liberties and I believe in protecting the liberties of a woman's right to her body. But saying something that was successfully used in the past is irrelevant because you don't like the source is foolish. One should not forget history; even the bad parts of history should be argued against and faced head on to show why it was bad.
I'm not saying it should be considered. I'm saying someone needs to show that it actually worked, not just say that it did. Just because it has been around for a long time does not mean it is good. If it was truly positive and not just there because the leaders were religious or controlling people with religion then there must be some evidence if that, or it means nothing.
|
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around.
|
On July 02 2013 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:54 xM(Z wrote:the example i gave is already happening, it's live and it's called: sex-selective-abortion, google it. sure it's a small step but when you consider the feminist agenda: In contrast, in the dawn of this beautiful new fourteenth baktun where abortions may soon be free and safe and bountiful, we have arrived at the era of feminist selection. Instead of male gametes winning the evolutionary game by being the most aggressive, most violent, or by having the brightest chin feathers, women now calibrate male evolutionary success by choosing to procreate with men who are emotionally supportive, or intelligent, or who possess a host of desirable traits. Empowered with the ability to abort the offspring of sexually violent aggressors or men who cannot sustain lasting relationships, women will now cognitively decide the course of human history. Feminist selection protects women’s best interests, and, in turn, the best interests of their offspring -– at the expense of male sexual aggression. In effect, free and legal access to safe abortions is the ultimate tool against patriarchy and the masculine dominance structure. one can't help but be a sexist. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a girl, she decides to abort it, you go to sleep crying. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a boy, you decide to abort it, oh wait ... you go to sleep crying. If you wanted to have a girl, but she doesn't: You could divorce her and adopt your own daughter. If you wanted to abort the son, but she doesn't: You could also go to court, say you want to disavow connection to the child and would want to have a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want. There is no child at risk yet, you cite that you didn't expect for her to get pregnant and feel that a child would destroy your life.
how would " a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want" work, alimony wise? because women can sometimes make you pay for your child even if you were a sperm donor.
edit: (the other preemptive stuff are not really solutions since inevitably, a girl will die and a boy will live while both were half unwanted)
|
On July 02 2013 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around.
Well as of right now abortion is not strictly against the law in the US, but it is limited. Both sides need to show their evidence in this case. However, even if abortion had been strictly against the law for all of the history of government, "it's good because its always been that way" is not a good argument.
|
On July 02 2013 05:12 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:54 xM(Z wrote:the example i gave is already happening, it's live and it's called: sex-selective-abortion, google it. sure it's a small step but when you consider the feminist agenda: In contrast, in the dawn of this beautiful new fourteenth baktun where abortions may soon be free and safe and bountiful, we have arrived at the era of feminist selection. Instead of male gametes winning the evolutionary game by being the most aggressive, most violent, or by having the brightest chin feathers, women now calibrate male evolutionary success by choosing to procreate with men who are emotionally supportive, or intelligent, or who possess a host of desirable traits. Empowered with the ability to abort the offspring of sexually violent aggressors or men who cannot sustain lasting relationships, women will now cognitively decide the course of human history. Feminist selection protects women’s best interests, and, in turn, the best interests of their offspring -– at the expense of male sexual aggression. In effect, free and legal access to safe abortions is the ultimate tool against patriarchy and the masculine dominance structure. one can't help but be a sexist. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a girl, she decides to abort it, you go to sleep crying. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a boy, you decide to abort it, oh wait ... you go to sleep crying. If you wanted to have a girl, but she doesn't: You could divorce her and adopt your own daughter. If you wanted to abort the son, but she doesn't: You could also go to court, say you want to disavow connection to the child and would want to have a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want. There is no child at risk yet, you cite that you didn't expect for her to get pregnant and feel that a child would destroy your life. how would " a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want" work, alimony wise? because women can sometimes make you pay for your child even if you were a sperm donor. edit: (the other preemptive stuff are not really solutions since inevitably, a girl will die and a boy will live while both were half unwanted)
Which is why you do it immediately after knowing they are pregnant and not when the kid has popped out...
Unless you honestly believe in a secret society of women who get randomly pregnant and kill off the humans they dislike.
|
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!!
|
On July 02 2013 05:19 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around. Well as of right now abortion is not strictly against the law in the US, but it is limited. Both sides need to show their evidence in this case. However, even if abortion had been strictly against the law for all of the history of government, "it's good because its always been that way" is not a good argument.
Actually, you're wrong again.
Because abortion *is* legal, it is up to people against the law to *prove* that the legality of abortion is false. Because, as I said, since abortion is considered the norm; you need to prove that there would be a specific improvement to society by removing or changing it.
To change abortion laws, abortion itself has to be proven bad. Until proof of it being bad shows up, it will be legal simply because it's always been legal (albeit for such a short period of time).
|
On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!!
Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy.
|
On July 02 2013 05:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:54 xM(Z wrote:the example i gave is already happening, it's live and it's called: sex-selective-abortion, google it. sure it's a small step but when you consider the feminist agenda: In contrast, in the dawn of this beautiful new fourteenth baktun where abortions may soon be free and safe and bountiful, we have arrived at the era of feminist selection. Instead of male gametes winning the evolutionary game by being the most aggressive, most violent, or by having the brightest chin feathers, women now calibrate male evolutionary success by choosing to procreate with men who are emotionally supportive, or intelligent, or who possess a host of desirable traits. Empowered with the ability to abort the offspring of sexually violent aggressors or men who cannot sustain lasting relationships, women will now cognitively decide the course of human history. Feminist selection protects women’s best interests, and, in turn, the best interests of their offspring -– at the expense of male sexual aggression. In effect, free and legal access to safe abortions is the ultimate tool against patriarchy and the masculine dominance structure. one can't help but be a sexist. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a girl, she decides to abort it, you go to sleep crying. you get a wife, you both decide to have a baby, it's a boy, you decide to abort it, oh wait ... you go to sleep crying. If you wanted to have a girl, but she doesn't: You could divorce her and adopt your own daughter. If you wanted to abort the son, but she doesn't: You could also go to court, say you want to disavow connection to the child and would want to have a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want. There is no child at risk yet, you cite that you didn't expect for her to get pregnant and feel that a child would destroy your life. how would " a divorce/annulment to legally separate you from the son you don't want" work, alimony wise? because women can sometimes make you pay for your child even if you were a sperm donor. edit: (the other preemptive stuff are not really solutions since inevitably, a girl will die and a boy will live while both were half unwanted) Which is why you do it immediately after knowing they are pregnant and not when the kid has popped out... Unless you honestly believe in a secret society of women who get randomly pregnant and kill off the humans they dislike.
you can't know the sex of a baby through normal means until ~20weeks/late stage pregnancy.
it's not about secret societies, it's about one, a single person that could rally the others. looking at history, it always happened that way. i honestly don't think it will happen but i can't rule it out as a possibility.
|
On July 02 2013 05:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:19 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around. Well as of right now abortion is not strictly against the law in the US, but it is limited. Both sides need to show their evidence in this case. However, even if abortion had been strictly against the law for all of the history of government, "it's good because its always been that way" is not a good argument. Actually, you're wrong again. Because abortion *is* legal, it is up to people against the law to *prove* that the legality of abortion is false. Because, as I said, since abortion is considered the norm; you need to prove that there would be a specific improvement to society by removing or changing it. To change abortion laws, abortion itself has to be proven bad. Until proof of it being bad shows up, it will be legal simply because it's always been legal (albeit for such a short period of time).
You just said that the pro choice side had to show why abortion being illegal is bad because it was the law for 1900 years, and now you say it is up to the pro life side because it is currently mostly legal. I say that because it is not clearly legal or not, both sides have to present a practical case.
|
On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy.
Dildos are the preferred weaponry of the Feminist Agenda. They aren't used for pleasure.
|
On July 02 2013 05:32 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:19 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around. Well as of right now abortion is not strictly against the law in the US, but it is limited. Both sides need to show their evidence in this case. However, even if abortion had been strictly against the law for all of the history of government, "it's good because its always been that way" is not a good argument. Actually, you're wrong again. Because abortion *is* legal, it is up to people against the law to *prove* that the legality of abortion is false. Because, as I said, since abortion is considered the norm; you need to prove that there would be a specific improvement to society by removing or changing it. To change abortion laws, abortion itself has to be proven bad. Until proof of it being bad shows up, it will be legal simply because it's always been legal (albeit for such a short period of time). You just said that the pro choice side had to show why abortion being illegal is bad because it was the law for 1900 years, and now you say it is up to the pro life side because it is currently mostly legal. I say that because it is not clearly legal or not, both sides have to present a practical case.
Um... no...
I've never said Pro-Choice had to show why abortion being illegal is bad.
What I said, if you read this discussion, is that one should not ignore old laws simply because you disagree with it. Abortion was already discussed in Roe v Wade and hence was proven important. It is now the law until a better argument shows up.
The old laws hinged on biblical texts--but simply because they initially were from holy texts does not automatically refute their existence. Holy texts, by their natures, are historical documents that some people believe and others do not. I wouldn't make murder legal just because the reason it was put into law was a holy text. I would have to prove that murder is good for society in order to do that.
A law being old, or being from a book you dislike, or being outdated has to be proven bad for it to be changed. Roe v Wade gave the US abortion--if it gets brought up the question should always be framed from the context of Roe v Wade because that is why it is legal. Abortion is not legal because the Bible is bad, Abortion is legal because Roe v Wade makes it so. People disliking Roe v Wade is not argument against Roe v Wade for much the same reason people disliking the Bible is not an argument against western history.
Cool down.
|
On July 02 2013 05:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. Dildos are the preferred weaponry of the Feminist Agenda. They aren't used for pleasure.
|
I think the Kama Sutra wants a word with xM(Z.
|
On July 02 2013 05:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:32 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 05:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:19 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around. Well as of right now abortion is not strictly against the law in the US, but it is limited. Both sides need to show their evidence in this case. However, even if abortion had been strictly against the law for all of the history of government, "it's good because its always been that way" is not a good argument. Actually, you're wrong again. Because abortion *is* legal, it is up to people against the law to *prove* that the legality of abortion is false. Because, as I said, since abortion is considered the norm; you need to prove that there would be a specific improvement to society by removing or changing it. To change abortion laws, abortion itself has to be proven bad. Until proof of it being bad shows up, it will be legal simply because it's always been legal (albeit for such a short period of time). You just said that the pro choice side had to show why abortion being illegal is bad because it was the law for 1900 years, and now you say it is up to the pro life side because it is currently mostly legal. I say that because it is not clearly legal or not, both sides have to present a practical case. Um... no... I've never said Pro-Choice had to show why abortion being illegal is bad. What I said, if you read this discussion, is that one should not ignore old laws simply because you disagree with it. Abortion was already discussed in Roe v Wade and hence was proven important. It is now the law until a better argument shows up. The old laws hinged on biblical texts--but simply because they initially were from holy texts does not automatically refute their existence. Holy texts, by their natures, are historical documents that some people believe and others do not. I wouldn't make murder legal just because the reason it was put into law was a holy text. I would have to prove that murder is good for society in order to do that. A law being old, or being from a book you dislike, or being outdated has to be proven bad for it to be changed. Roe v Wade gave the US abortion--if it gets brought up the question should always be framed from the context of Roe v Wade because that is why it is legal. Abortion is not legal because the Bible is bad, Abortion is legal because Roe v Wade makes it so. People disliking Roe v Wade is not argument against Roe v Wade for much the same reason people disliking the Bible is not an argument against western history. Cool down.
You need to read this very carefully because you have ignored it so far. I am not saying to not take the bible into account when making laws if you are looking at it as a historical text. I am saying you have to show why it is relevant before it can be used as a argument. However, it is hardly ever used in the capacity. When people use the bible to argue against abortion it almost always, "it is against the word of god". That is irrelevant. Even if it were used as a historical text it is poor in showing how effective laws are because that is not the goal of the text. Roe v Wade is obviously relevant to the discussion because it is the direct cause of current law. The bible can only be used as a historical reference for an argument, but it's accuracy is highly questionable due to its age, history of publication, and the fact that there is a miracle on every other page. A better source would be an actual western history study or textbook. I am not choosing to ignore the bible because I dislike it, I am arguing the it should be ignored in this case because it has not value to either side of the discussion.
Edit: spelling
|
On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy.
you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty.
you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra.
do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating.
|
On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right, and on the way it finds laws and theory's that have real world immeadiatly application that actually improves the lives of people. This is what we should think about when creating laws. It is true that it says nothing about morales which are important when making law, but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. You are ignoring facts, probability, and honesty, in order to put yourself on a pedistal as the guy not arguing for anything because nothing is certain. You can do that all you want alone but when it ends with alowing the government to force women to carry the baby of their rapist you need to wake up. Also, lol I'm not even mad.
what is wrong with you? im not even a christian, have never even read the bible. you keep talking nonsense, i bet you cant even properly explain the evolution theory, big bang theory and relativity theory properly, while it is a truth right in front of our eyes, right?
you keep putting words in my mouth, nowhere have i said that science is the same as organised religion. but it is people like you who would merit such a statement, because you try to justify stuff with science it cannot justify.
you chew and chew and spit out cliche after cliche... science admits its faults? sure sometimes it does... sometimes it does not... try to read Kuhn about it, it might open your eyes...
If you were not so fruiting hardheaded, you may have read in my previous post that i am pro abortion. but you do this cause no good by throwing around nonsense. get your facts straight, get your definitions straight...
|
On July 02 2013 05:55 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:32 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 05:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:19 ZackAttack wrote:On July 02 2013 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your mistaking burden of evidence.
Since it has always worked for so long means that the burden of proof is on new legislation to show that it is wrong. You have to prove that "it was only used to control the masses" you have to show that "it was not actually effective back then."
For example, sanitation laws in the US was pretty much defined by studies done in New York. Essentially, people were dying because of poor sanitation. A study was made and it was shown that improving sanitation will decrease mortality rate. It was then asked if it was worth it to change laws in order to improve mortality rates--laws were then changed ecause it was proven that, within the context of mortality rates, it was worth it to spend more on sanitation.
It is the burden of new laws to prove their relevancy; not the other way around. Well as of right now abortion is not strictly against the law in the US, but it is limited. Both sides need to show their evidence in this case. However, even if abortion had been strictly against the law for all of the history of government, "it's good because its always been that way" is not a good argument. Actually, you're wrong again. Because abortion *is* legal, it is up to people against the law to *prove* that the legality of abortion is false. Because, as I said, since abortion is considered the norm; you need to prove that there would be a specific improvement to society by removing or changing it. To change abortion laws, abortion itself has to be proven bad. Until proof of it being bad shows up, it will be legal simply because it's always been legal (albeit for such a short period of time). You just said that the pro choice side had to show why abortion being illegal is bad because it was the law for 1900 years, and now you say it is up to the pro life side because it is currently mostly legal. I say that because it is not clearly legal or not, both sides have to present a practical case. Um... no... I've never said Pro-Choice had to show why abortion being illegal is bad. What I said, if you read this discussion, is that one should not ignore old laws simply because you disagree with it. Abortion was already discussed in Roe v Wade and hence was proven important. It is now the law until a better argument shows up. The old laws hinged on biblical texts--but simply because they initially were from holy texts does not automatically refute their existence. Holy texts, by their natures, are historical documents that some people believe and others do not. I wouldn't make murder legal just because the reason it was put into law was a holy text. I would have to prove that murder is good for society in order to do that. A law being old, or being from a book you dislike, or being outdated has to be proven bad for it to be changed. Roe v Wade gave the US abortion--if it gets brought up the question should always be framed from the context of Roe v Wade because that is why it is legal. Abortion is not legal because the Bible is bad, Abortion is legal because Roe v Wade makes it so. People disliking Roe v Wade is not argument against Roe v Wade for much the same reason people disliking the Bible is not an argument against western history. Cool down. You need to read this very carefully because you have ignored it so far. I am not saying to not take the bible into account when making laws if you are looking at it as a historical text. I am saying you have to show why it is relevant before it can be used as a argument. However, it is hardly ever used in the capacity. When people use the bible to argue against abortion it almost always, "it is against the word of god". That is irrelevant. Even if it were used as a historical text it is poor in showing how effective laws are because that is not the goal of the text. Roe v Wade is obviously relevant to the dis us soon because it is the direct cause of current law. The bible can only be used as a historical reference for an argument, but it's accuracy is highly questionable due to its age, history of publication, and the fact that there is a miracle on every other page. A better source would be an actual western history study or textbook. I am not choosing to ignore the bible because I dislike it, I am arguing the it should be ignored in this case because it has not value to either side of the discussion.
The bible is only irrelevant because Roe v Wade is not about the Bible.
If the argument of Abortion strays from Roe v Wade then the Bible becomes relevant again. In forums and sidewalks people will say "the bible says so" for the same reason that people will say "women's body."
What Pro-Lifers should be saying is that Murder is illegal--western law made it so using the Bible.
What Pro-Choicers should be saying is that Abortion is legal under the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade.
Both have been turned into short-hand phrases. The Bible says so, and women's rights says so.
before Roe v Wade, simply disliking the Bible does not mean you get to abort children. After Roe v Wade you don't get to make women into breeders just because you dislike Roe v Wade.
What protects one, protects the other. The bible, as a historical reference, can only be a data point. "we have done things for X time with only Y bad things happening and up to Z good things happening." is a valid argument. If it works, it works. You don't change things just because you don't like the source. To change anything it has to be proven that what is happening right now is bad, and needs to change.
Something being from the bible doesn't make it bad. For much the same reason that something coming from a scientist doesn't make it good.
It was a Catholic Priest that theorized the Big Bang. It was another catholic who figured out genes. Religious people have scientists too, they have historians too.
The reason religious texts are very effective at showing how laws work is because of length of time. The laws of the past is what allowed us to become what we are today. We need to prove that specific laws of the past are things hindering progress, are things that are bad for society. Those are proven on a case by case basis determined by context and overall scientific progress.
Ignoring data just because its from a holy text is stupid. You can't prove something is bad until you prove it is bad.
For example, you say
"Even if it were used as a historical text it is poor in showing how effective laws are because that is not the goal of the text."
You don't know the goal of the text. And most of the time, the goals of the text is irrelevant to the logic on why its laws are practiced. Don't kill, don't steal, etc... those are laws that were practiced by many societies because of religious texts. A lot of other laws came about because of philosophical discourse on holy texts. Some of them good, some of them bad. Blanket statements such as "Even if it were used as a historical text it is poor in showing how effective laws are because that is not the goal of the text" shows that you don't care about improving overall laws but only care about disproving religious doctrines. There are a lot of good laws that we have simply because some religious nutbags thought the bible was good enough. There were also bad laws because of it. Instead of getting upset that a bible was used at some point the focus should be simply on proving the case of each specific law on their own merits.
|
On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating.
The clitoris is not the only body part that gives women pleasure....
Do you really not know this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
