>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.


No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.

I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.

Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.

If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?

@chilaxe @artician
Not to get too involved in you diatribe, there are a few points I'd like to throw in.
1). Sleeping in your car is fine, in a pinch, Congrats to you for pushing through the strife. Fact is, you shouldn't to live like a third world refuge to get an education. Quite a few people out there have families, so this solution is not a solution. Living in one's car is by definition, "Homeless." No respectable employer will hire you without a permanent address. Besides that, for a person with a wife and one or two kids, this is NEVER an option.

2). Although student loans are extremely helpful, they aren't as easy to get as one might think. Without an address, next to impossible. Once you have the loan, paying it back is hard. It took me 13 years to pay back my loan (with interest). It''s one more expense on top of all the other living expenses. Getting an education does not automatically get you a good job right away. For me, it took years of stepping up job to job, working min-wage jobs and changing cities 3-4 times to get where I am. I'm finally in what would be considered a semi-decent job and I still can't afford decent food for my family and clothing. I myself have a couple pairs of shorts and no pant's at all - winter's coming and it's getting cold. (I'm not complaining, just stating facts.)

3). life's tough out there, and there is no denying that the economy is slouching, governments are mismanaged and corporations are running things. It's fact that the banks and leaders in charge are corrupt and stuffing their own pockets while the majority are all struggling to get half way up the pile that everyone is living on.

4). Race..., why race? race is irrelevant to this crisis. Yes it sucks that some white people have an advantage while it is also true that there are non-white people that have it better than some whites. Who cares. It's not race that determines this crisis, it's scruples. Those that have no problem stealing and screwing over others prosper first, while those who "would never do that," end up lower in the pile. It's the classic story of "Nice guy finishes last<./i>" If you don't screw someone over before they screw you over, they get ahead of you. If you are smart enough, are without scruples and have the fierce determination to crush others on the way up - you prosper. The rest of us wallow in our own goodness because we didn't see the car that hit us. Now we are angry and want recompense.

That's where we are now. the scales are out of balance and they need to be straightened. So who's going to do it, when is it going to happen, and at what cost?

Rubbish Ant. Do you remember Facts of Life? They used to show Tutti's face all the time... COMPLETELY UNCENSORED!

And need I remind you of MacGuyvers mullet?

You think you were sent by God? Try again..

And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day. However, I recognize that not everyone matured past junior high so I have accepted the ridicule as a fact of life. You guys are actually some of the more polite atheists that I've met.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Don't you understand? I've been sent by God to test your faith and resolve! I love you the same way He does.
And be honest, feeling persecuted gives you a major righteous hard-on. Your welcome.

You suggest that men are "intrinsically 'horndogs'," because, like all other animals, we want to pass on our genetic material. I understand how that might explain why we're predisposed to want to mate, but that doesn't explain why it's considered acceptable (or natural) for men to act like "horndogs". What if our society's courtship rituals necessitated a great deal of respect and reverence for the intelligence of those we courted? Acting like a "horndog" would be contrary to the aim of passing on our genetic material.

Let me ask you this: Women, as animals, also have a fundamental desire to pass on their genes. Why, then, in our society*, is it not considered normal for women to act as "horndogs?" (I'm not suggesting women don't lust after men, they of course do. It's not, however, considered socially acceptable** for them to portray that lust in the same manner).

* I use the term society loosely to mean Western Society, but of course there are sub-societies and sub-cultures and we all come from different places.
** Again, a generalization, but I think we can all agree that the portrayal of men as objects of lust occurs much less than women.

EDIT: Furthermore, are you suggesting that men's drive to procreate overrides all other desires? Have we, as a species, not overcome that drive at all? Do we not have alternative pursuits and drives? What about those people who find it satisfactory to leave a legacy though their work, rather than through their children?

EDIT 2: And do you really think that drive to pass on our genetics is sufficient to explain human sexuality? How do you explain people having sex for pleasure? Homosexuality? Birth control? I see so many holes in the biological justification for behaviour.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.

<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>
>> ^StimulusMax:
...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.



<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>

>> ^StimulusMax:

...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

>> ^bmacs27:

marbles, It isn't clear what right I'm infringing by trespassing (is it a search?). Still, what you are saying is that the government purpose cited is not a compelling one. How about the park service's offices, can I demonstrate there?


Frederic Bastiat: "Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

If you're trespassing on private property, then you're violating the owner's natural right to life.

If you're trespassing on public property, rarely is that ever violating anyone's natural rights. Depending on the circumstances you could be violating legal rights or statutory rights by interfering with a government function. Sometimes that may be the intent of the demonstrators. Dancing at the JM doesn't violate anyone's rights, natural or legal. Outlawing it does.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Sigh. Do you really want to go toe-to-toe, STINK?
Here's Barack, the clown YOUR sycophantic media elected.
Palin said "Squirmish?" Got it. Izzat anything like BHO's CORPSE-MAN?

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” --BHO

“Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.” -- said in front of Sioux Falls, SOUTH DAKOTA audience

“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”
---May 2007 speech. Actual death toll: 12.

A "few" other gaffes here.

"In their first meeting, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama’s gift in return: 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe. His gift a month later to Queen Elizabeth doesn’t quite make up for the snub, either: an iPod full of his own speeches."

"The Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: 'Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

Minus the fibs, I couldn't care less if Barack steps on his Telepromptongue now and again. It's the whole inexperienced-total-failure-as-President part that bothers me.
PALIN/FIRE HYDRANT 2012


http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm

People make mistakes. Sucks being human doesn't it?

Sigh. Do you really want to go toe-to-toe, STINK?

Here's Barack, the clown YOUR sycophantic media elected.

Palin said "Squirmish?" Got it. Izzat anything like BHO's CORPSE-MAN?


“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” --BHO


“Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.” -- said in front of Sioux Falls, SOUTH DAKOTA audience


“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”

---May 2007 speech. Actual death toll: 12.


A "few" other gaffes here.


"In their first meeting, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama’s gift in return: 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe. His gift a month later to Queen Elizabeth doesn’t quite make up for the snub, either: an iPod full of his own speeches."


"The Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: 'Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”


Minus the fibs, I couldn't care less if Barack steps on his Telepromptongue now and again. It's the whole inexperienced-total-failure-as-President part that bothers me.

PALIN/FIRE HYDRANT 2012

The machine gun was meant to end conflicts because the losses would be to great. People will be the people they are regardless of the facts of life.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life.


This is true in all schools, I believe.

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.


You've obviously never been picked on or been in a fight in school. The good in this video is not the situation (that was brought about by the smaller, asshole kid), it's not watching the smaller kid get body slammed (yes, he absolutely deserved it), and it's not the fact that the big kid walked away while the little kid stumbled around like a drunken sailor.

The good in this video is that someone stood up for themselves and came out on top. Sure, it wasn't the best way to prove himself but, the situation was brought to him. He faced it and, imo, dealt with it the way any normal human being with a backbone would. It's not the fight that makes people happy, it's the fact that someone who was clearly an underdog came out on top. With a vengeance. I don't think any of those little shits saw that coming.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life. The normal advice you got was to stand up to bullies. It doesn't work. This video is a real one off. If this had happened at my school the big kid who stepped up at 0:27 would have kicked the shit out of the fat kid.


Exactly so. Forget everything you know (or think you know) about why kids bully. We used to think that it was insecure kids seeking to tear down kids that are even MORE insecure, and that the bullying was a consequence of problems at home, etc.

The problem was that all the federal dollars that went towards studying the problem looked at juvenile delinquents, who, as you might imagine, have messed up home lives and self-esteem issues. Even though all the populations studied were far from random, the view that bullies have antisocial tendencies predominated.

Then Columbine happened. Despite what you might think of Kleibold and Harris, they were in fact bullied, and not by kids from broken homes. The people who tormented them were from upper middle class homes with two parents and no problems. Suddenly the federal dollars manifested to study ALL children, and they discovered something astonishing (tho not to someone who'd ever been bullied):

Bullies bully because it works. And we teach them this at a very early age. How? Imagine one of those "paygrounds," with the ball pit and the curvy slides. A team studies literally thousands of interactions between children and their peers via closed circuit cameras. They watched as children who did not know one another navigated the various social networks that would form and dissolve in front of their eyes. From time to time, a kid would get socially aggressive, and the other child would seek succor from an adult. Now the adult probably has the belief that "they have to work it out for themselves," and so must make a choice between intervening and not. Otherwise, children learn to 'tattle', to recruit a heavy (in the form of an adult) to get his or her way, right.

So, out of, say, ten of these instances, how many times has the aggrieved child made an earnest effort to negotiate on a peer level, and actually needs an adult for intervention? 1 time? Half the time? Try 9 times out of ten. And almost always, the adult rebuffs the child. So this teaches the socially aggressive child that he or she can do whatever he or she pleases, and no one will come to the aid of their victim. Welcome to the Serengeti, children. It's as if we never left.

So what's to be done? As a teacher, I've thought about it a lot. First, I ALWAYS intervene. This means that 10% of the time, I fall for sheer crap-weasel-ness, but that only works once. If another intervention is needed, I keep an eye on the petitioner, and if he or she's becoming an instigator, it's time for a little time out, usually with no explanation (until after class is over). The next is to muck with the social dynamic. I control the environment in the room, not the students. They can interact with each other as much as they want, but I control all the mundane things that add up to so much in the long run.

What this kid was demonstrating in this video was the Ender Wiggins's School of Social Dynamism, which is that if you show yourself capable of great rage that can be tightly controlled, people will give you a wide berth. Is it right? I don't know how long the bullying had occurred, nor what measures had been instituted to resolve the problem. If it's the average American school, 1) too long, and 2) not enough.

Oh, and don't forget the role of the other crap-weasels in this video--the instigators with the cameraphone. Like the now infamous Epic Old Man video, the 'videographer' talked a lot of smack, and failed to help in any way. They too need to be punished for aiding to an atmosphere where such an outcome was likely. Luckily, someone was stupid enough to make a recording of exactly what they were saying.

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life. The normal advice you got was to stand up to bullies. It doesn't work. This video is a real one off. If this had happened at my school the big kid who stepped up at 0:27 would have kicked the shit out of the fat kid.

This video is fine, but it really isn't the norm, by a long way. I've got scars and teeth knocked out to prove it.

I wonder how this all panned out for him.

Some increasing in wages is a fact of life for any employee, it is necessary to keep up with whatever the inflation rate is.