>> ^thepinky:
>> ^alien_concept:
Grrr. So basically you people believe that it is ok to let a person suffer for the rest of their lives because they are not allowed to make a choice concerning their own body and mental welfare. We have enough children in care waiting for the love of a family as it is. Those children were chosen to be born and look at them now. So it's better to potentially let not only the mother of this crime suffer the potential guilt, fear, hatred, future relationships and children, but also bring a child into the world who is unwanted and unloved because of the act. Take your blinkers off and stop whitewashing the issue, for fucks sake

I don't understand what you're saying. Does an abortion instantly fix all of the suffering that was caused by the rape or incest?
Unwanted, unloved children have just as much right to life as you do. All of these fluffy arguments don't change the fact that this argument is a matter of principle, not individual situation.
For example, my stance against the death penalty is a matter of principle. It is a fact that the death of a murderer often gives the family and friends of the victim closure and a feeling of justice. To deny the death penalty is to cause many people to suffer for the rest of their lives. But the death penalty is wrong because if even one innocent person is executed, it is too many. Monsters may be living semi-comfortable lives on our taxpayer dollars, families may be constantly harrowed up by the thought that their loved-one's murderer is still living, but the death penalty is still WRONG. I carry the same logic into the topic of abortion. Many children may be born unwanted and unloved and have to live off of taxpayer money, women may have to suffer even more pain by carrying a child and then knowing that it is living, but abortion is STILL WRONG.


You took that paragraph right there, and all you got out of it was that I could have been saying abortion fixes everything? I'm hardly implying that abortion should be forced on a victim am I. "I don't understand what you're saying" you write. Yet you have so much to say for yourself. Classic case of a narrow mind lady. Oh and to say unwanted/unloved children have just as much right to life? Just.Inane

>> ^alien_concept:
Grrr. So basically you people believe that it is ok to let a person suffer for the rest of their lives because they are not allowed to make a choice concerning their own body and mental welfare. We have enough children in care waiting for the love of a family as it is. Those children were chosen to be born and look at them now. So it's better to potentially let not only the mother of this crime suffer the potential guilt, fear, hatred, future relationships and children, but also bring a child into the world who is unwanted and unloved because of the act. Take your blinkers off and stop whitewashing the issue, for fucks sake


I don't understand what you're saying. Does an abortion instantly fix all of the suffering that was caused by the rape or incest?

Unwanted, unloved children have just as much right to life as you do. All of these fluffy arguments don't change the fact that this argument is a matter of principle, not individual situation.

For example, my stance against the death penalty is a matter of principle. It is a fact that the death of a murderer often gives the family and friends of the victim closure and a feeling of justice. To deny the death penalty is to cause many people to suffer for the rest of their lives. But the death penalty is wrong because if even one innocent person is executed, it is too many. Monsters may be living semi-comfortable lives on our taxpayer dollars, families may be constantly harrowed up by the thought that their loved-one's murderer is still living, but the death penalty is still WRONG. I carry the same logic into the topic of abortion. Many children may be born unwanted and unloved and have to live off of taxpayer money, women may have to suffer even more pain by carrying a child and then knowing that it is living, but abortion is STILL WRONG.

Yeah, big letdown there! I want some closure!

If a member of my family or one of my close friends was murdered, I would not want the killer to have the death penalty, because what would that solve? Would it bring back my loved one? As if we feel it's okay to kill someone because it's "justified?" Maybe the killer, in his mind, thought what he was doing was justified. Does that make it right? Of course not. And neither does the justification for the death penalty. It doesn't bring back the victim, and it doesn't bring closure to the family. It only perpetuates a fascination with death and revenge that we should have removed from our society when we stepped out of the caves and into the enlightened age. Are we to forever be barbarians?

>> ^BillOreilly:
Public Hanging is the order of the day for this atrocity.
And all you who oppose the death penalty, ask yourself, what if your family member was the one killed and BEHEADED?
Ya, that's right, suddenly your stance on the death penalty would have a marked "shift".

Conservatism is a form of mental illness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox

"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Wow, I feel like I'm back in high school after reading that last post. You need some closure, dude.

I think people who are enthralled by Ron Paul are starting to fall into the trap of single voter issues specifically his foreign policy with regards to imperialism and war in foreign locales, there is a clear line that a Ron Paul presidency would entail a closure of US borders and stricter immigration procedures, the welfare state would be abolished and so will abortion rights on a federal level.

The notion that the newsletters that bore his name, which contain bigot racist remarks were printed for some 5 years (previous ones weren't) and he can't name the ghost writer, or didn't know of the content of something that had his name as a banner is ludicrous. I don't think he himself is a racist himself, the rhetoric between the newsletters is totally not what you see in person.

I find the whole thing rather disappointing, as it proves that back when it wasn't a presidency run Ron Paul did anything to raise money.

lol, the other one left me on another emotional level - but I liked 25 too. I think I had a queue slot left, but did indeed feel like letting someone else get a crack at it.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
"Because videos 21-23 lacked closure, I had to see 24 as well before going to sleep. Enjoy"

I see your 24 and raise you #25

Your cliffhanger is restored. find me 26 lol

"Because videos 21-23 lacked closure, I had to see 24 as well before going to sleep. Enjoy"

I see your 24 and raise you #25

Your cliffhanger is restored. find me 26 lol

Well, that was entirely unfulfilling. I hate seeing dumb people almost kill other dumb people, I hate that they probably think this was still cool. I hate that there was indeed no closure as to, well, what actually happened. I hate the ridiculous use of slo-mo, the bad camera work, the lack of noting whether there was an actual purpose to rolling the rocks, or whether they were just doing it for shits and giggles.

Buh.

Video needs closure. Guessing what happened in the aftermath is just not interesting to me.

Are you encouraging sober sifting, MarineGun? For shame. I'm with swampgirl, except I'm drinking Bushmill's. It's still whiskey, so it's good enough for government work.

And I like it, ringo. It's one comprehensive video that brings closure to the whole 'This is SPARTA!' meme. That by itself is worth an upvote.

that's lovely, qualm! "need for cognitive closure" is a big problem on all sides. when an issue is too complex to keep in one little brain, some people can't stop themselves falling back on hitlerism, or vague hippy stuff and a big bong.

Speaking of brains: Study finds right-wing brain defective, lacks functionality found in the left-wing brain:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5349018.story?coll=la-home-center


And from an earlier study:

____

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

____

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

By the way... a little background about Patea, from Wiki (fascinating stuff! ):

"Patea is the second-largest town in southern Taranaki, New Zealand. It is 55 kilometres west of Wanganui, on the banks of the Patea River, and had a 2001 population of 1302. The town's name is pronounced approximately as "pah-tay-ah". The town was initially founded as a garrison settlement during the New Zealand land wars of the 1860s.
The town came to national attention in the second half of the 20th century for the closure of the main employer, a freezing works. Subsequently it gained more fame, in and beyond New Zealand, as the home of Māori singer Dalvanius Prime and the group Patea Māori Club, whose single, "Poi E", was one of the early indicators of a renewed impetus in Māori popular music."