Next stage is the end of the beginning.

"The 'no penis' thing....yeah, that's kinda nuts"
giggle

"I also see that the right has moved so far right that what one might consider 'centrist' today would be extremist right 25 years ago"

Which reminds me that in the entire conversation I've been pretty much writing off the Reps and the right. I'd really like to see them do all the same things just flipping left for right and all.

I would argue that the right hasn't gone so much further from the 'center' than the left has. Of course, the 'center' is always subjective, but my barometer is basically the only mantra from the libertarians I can agree on, your rights end were mine begin. Maximizing that mantra as much as the practicalities of real world allow is what I would consider an ideally centrist goal line.

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

@VoodooV
It may (or may not) surprise you that I agree with almost everything you said.

Killing is a necessary part of our society, yes.
The hypocrisy of killing (as you said, distinguished from "murder") in our modern culture is glaring.
I also agree that lots of very unpleasant things happen in a sufficiently-free society. People will kill people. People will take advantage of people. Terrorist acts will be perpetrated. People will make terrible movies and terrible art that is offensive to my sensibilities. Nothing bad will happen only when no one is allowed to choose anything for themselves.

But we do set boundaries, laws, for the precise reason you stated: "Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa."

That's what makes us a civilization, right? We give up certain freedoms with the knowledge that others will be compelled to give up those freedoms as well, and we will all be able to pursue happiness more comfortably as a result. For instance, we agree not to kill our neighbors on a whim and take their stuff, knowing that others will be compelled to avoid doing the same to us. We agree not to drive while intoxicated (even if we're really good at it) knowing that others (many of whom aren't as good at it as we totally are) will be compelled not to do so, and we'll all be less likely to get flattened.

Many of these laws imply some intrinsic value to a human life. Murder is illegal because that seriously infringes on the rights of another human. Sure, we stratify killing - murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, but the band across which individual (as opposed to institutional) killing is NOT murder is pretty narrow, especially if it's intentional. Self defense, mental illness...
This is where the abortion debate diverges from analogy and requires that we define when a fetus can be considered a human, because after that point, we're killing a human.

I also disagree with the "especially with their own body" argument. Sure, a fetus could not survive without the mother (up to a point), but if you cut that fetus, the mother will bear no scar. The child will bear that scar. Once we say there is a human there, that is no longer her body. Parents are held responsible for care of their children, and consequences are dictated for negligence. Because of my understanding of fetal development, I believe this responsibility extends into the womb.

I think the deferral of the question of "when" to "those far more educated" may nullify the entire argument. If you can accept that there's a point beyond which abortion should no longer be an option, but we don't know when it is, then we have to accept that it might be "before pregnancy can even be recognized".
The process of fetal development is fairly well-understood and documented, and you're obviously intelligent enough to appreciate the process. Maybe trying to pinpoint the "OK-NOT OK" boundry for yourself might change the way you think about the issue, or maybe not, but I believe it would make you better able to argue your point effectively. Arguing for killing a human in order to increase the quality of life of someone else strikes me as being a very difficult position to defend. Arguing for removing a mass of tissue with the potential for becoming a human seems much more defensible. But again, we obviously see this issue with differing perspectives.

@ReverendTed

Abortion is not murder, but that's not really the point. America, and by extension, the world, doesn't really have a problem with killing as a whole. We war with ourselves and kill fellow beings in the name of religion, politics, land and other resources. We kill criminals if they commit heinous enough crimes. We kill vast amounts of wildlife for fun and sport. We kill flies and other insects merely because they bother us. We step on insects without even knowing it.

We humans kill.
We are killers.
There is no escaping this fact.
Create the right conditions and anyone will kill...anyone.

The only thing you can do is: 1. Hopefully create a world in the future where we don't have to kill as much and 2. Hope that we are killing for the right reasons. Sometimes this will be true, sometimes it won't be. But that's life. That's the human condition. A law will change nothing other than whether or not abortions are performed safely or not. I choose to live in a world where if someone I know decides to have an abortion, that they do it safely with a doctor and not in some back alley. Abortions will happen REGARDLESS of what the law says. If we're going to end an unborn child's life, let's at least make sure the mother remains safe. Outlawing abortions just increases the chance that we'll have two ended lives instead of just one.

Abortion, by definition is the LAWFUL termination of an unborn child...LAWFUL. Murder is the UNLAWFUL termination of a life. Key distinction there.

This false morality that some people are somehow above and beyond the rest of us mere mortals and hold life to be irrevocably sacred just does not understand history or the human condition. These sorts of people seem to be the same people who would casually send us to war for religious or ideological reasons and thus condone the termination of more lives. The hypocrisy is glaring.

In regards to this notion that a person would go have an abortion just because a baby would be inconvenient is sad certainly, but when it comes right down to it....tough. Cost of living in a free society. people are going to things you don't approve of. deal with it. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. People who go have abortions out of convenience are in the minority. Quit worrying about what the minority does..especially with their own body. You and I don't get to decide what is right for someone else.

We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet. If every viable pregnancy ever was brought to term, we would have an even bigger resource shortage problem on our hands.

We live in a world where your quality of life (and your offspring) is directly related to your job. Until the quality of life of humanity becomes more equalized, We are going to continue to have situations where if someone gets pregnant it will directly affect their quality of life (and their child's) for the worse. So I really don't have a problem with someone terminating the pregnancy so that they go on to improve their quality of life so that they can have a kid later who will benefit from that better quality of life.

I too would ideally prefer adoption to abortion. But that's not exactly saying much. Adoption agencies have tons of kids and not enough parents to go around. As fertility science continues to improve, fewer and fewer parents are going to want adoption when they can just undergo a procedure and still have their own. This recently happened to a friend of mine who was having difficulty conceiving. She and her husband initially decided to adopt, but at some point, they changed their mind and pursued some massively costly fertility treatments so that they eventually did conceive. I was immensely happy for her, but at the same time, I personally felt they should have stuck with the adoption as those orphans are already here and need help now. But here's the thing. It's not my choice, it's hers and her husbands. So we can deal with the realities of the situation or continue to play hypotheticals. If everyone gave their kid up for adoption instead of abortion, we'd just have a different kind of problem and the quality of life of a vast amount of kids would be affected for the worse.

As for your big questions, They are best left to people far more educated on this subject than you and I. Of course there is some point in a pregnancy where abortion should no longer be an option. I don't think anyone is arguing this. As you say, the question is when. I simply don't know and am unqualified to make that judgement. No matter what is decided upon, it obviously won't satisfy everyone, but a decision has to be made and you can't please everyone.

The difference between religion and science is that science updates its knowledge based on evidence. That's how we make fun of religion: pointing out they do not update their knowledge based on evidence. Your question is about why we make fun of religion. The answer is that for a set of knowledge that is contradicted by evidence, we believe religion has undue influence, and we seek to reduce that influence. One example is that abstinence-only education programs correlate with rises in sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Abstinence-only education is religiously motivated. Science would recommend giving people condoms and educating them on how to use them, reducing both unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

People can read and believe whatever they want. When it starts to matter is when people who believe false things gain real political power and create laws that harm people based on the false information. Another's right to act on their faith ends when it begins to unduly affect the lives of others.>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

Pretty fucked up when you think about it:

Republicans: "Unborn Fetuses, you get equal rights, Corporations, you get equal rights, but actual people, homosexuals, fuck you!!

Hey religion, your rights end where mine begin!

@GeeSussFreeK As Netrunner says, virtually nobody advocates specifically for statism. In theory, pretty much everyone can agree on the Libertarian principle of your rights end where mine begin. The trouble is a very widely ranging difference of opinion on where my rights and your rights begin to overlap.

I would propose though that the most extreme 'statists' of late would have to be the ranks of Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bashir Al-Assad, and Omar al-Bashir to name a very short list of those imposing the most rigid of adherence to the absolute power of the head of a state. If you oppose statism, at least to some degree the removal or end of such men holds common cause with your ideals, no?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
That's kind of a ridiculous statement. I know plenty of people who could seriously hurt someone if they chose to (i.e. if they were forced to defend themselves). Does that mean they "carry the threat of violence"? Police are required to enforce the law, by force if necessary. That is their given role in society. Do you wish to strip them of the tools to do that?
Now, don't get me wrong, individual police officers (such as this guy) can be assholes, and in some cases there is even a bad culture in police depts, but that doesn't mean that the institution is inherently flawed. Or do you simply not believe we need a police force?

You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges.
To your other point, the system is inherently flawed and it draws these types of cops that are assholes. If I was a violent person I'd want to be a cop or a soldier, just as if I was a pedophile I'd want to be a kindergarten teacher or TSA agent. When a cop is caught doing bad things (even killing innocent people), there seems to be a "cover up" culture that protects them. It's not always, but mostly.
If you hired a private security company to protect your neighborhood or home, and one of them came up to you and said he was going to "break your fucking face", he'd be fired on the spot. Why? Because you have the option to no longer hire that company. You don't have that option with cops.


The system is flawed, but not 'inherently' as you suggest. Inherently suggests that the flaw is the fact the police force even exists as an arm of society. I can't abide calling that an inherent flaw. We don't live in a utopian world, your freedom ends were mine begins can NOT be maintained without force and the threat of force, and that is, inherently, what a police force is.

Point out the specific problems with the implementation of a police force, but it's mere existence as part of a mandatory social contract is NOT one of them.

wtf? have you all lost your minds?

1. you can't compare a womans vagina to a wad full of cash. but presuming that you could... just because i flashed my wad full of cash does not make it less wrong or even permissible for someone to steal it. your rights end where mine begin.

2. women don't get raped because they're scantily clad. rape is less about sexual gratification and more about power and control. i was a wild ass teenager and i put myself in a lot of unwholesome situations, i experienced my fair share of unwanted, boundary violating sexual advances. i was also a raging tomboy/baby crusty... my clothing didn't have anything to do with the creeps who wanted/tried/did take advantage, it was ALWAYS about power and superiority and control. ALWAYS about some mental defect that made dudes get off on the ability to overpower.

3. you can't blame anyone for mistaking your flirtation with interest. anyone who does is probably being a bitch. but flirting and be provocative is not "stepping into the lion's den and asking to get bit" and you're not contractually obligated to put out... anyone who thinks that it is does is a defective asshole and possibly predatory and almost certainly has issues with women and their ability to own their sexual power, again.. its about power and dominance and control.

4. i sort of agree with the notion that you attract what you put out there. like i chat it up with a lot of mentally ill/homeless men... so a lot of these guys tend to want to marry me.... when i go dancing at the hip hop club, i dont get offended when i get balls rubbed on my leg or some horny drunk guy wants to take me home.... i just go find a girl to dance with after that.... when i go dancing at the gay bar looking like a big dyke, i dont get pissed off when a lesbian flirts with me... i go bowling a lot, i dont get mad when bowling alley people hit on me.... if you dress and behave in a certain way in a certain place, you're bound to attract someone.. you have no right to be surprised or offended when that happens... it may even be what you're looking for.. ... but it does not negate someone else's responsibility to control themselves and respect your words more than your tits. and anyone who doesn't see that, has issues with women and their sexual power. and rape is, once again, about power and control. it is not about cleavage or temptation.

edit: there is also offensive language... i dont get mad if you thought i was flirting with you and expressed an interest, i do get mad if you don't speak to me with respect. again, its about power and control ooorrr maybe you're a social piarha with no idea how interact with people, either way, you're getting turned down and that doesnt make me a tease. it's your problem.

Yep, but I can't say much more without ruining the delivery. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

No one is watching to the end because the beginning is so believable mundane.

No one is watching to the end because the beginning is so believably mundane.

It seems you need to rethink a few things here. You don't seem to really understand the general Libertarian philosophy.

References please.

If the general Libertarian philosophy is actually described somewhere please point us to it. For the most part it seems that Libertarianism is nothing more than a catch all for anyone disillusioned with both the Dems and the Reps, hardly a 'movement' with any kind of unified policies. That very ethereal lack of any consistent policy is exactly the criticism made of Libertarianism.

The only common belief seems to be the 'your freedom ends were mine begins' philosophy, which arguably is already the underlying goal of a great many democratic constitutions universally rejected by Libertarians. If you hold to both those thoughts, your 'philosophy' is no longer consistent with itself, and you can't expect it to be taken seriously.

I'll be in town for the next few months, with the exception of long weekends and 2-3 weeks at the end of july/beginning of august.

I know many spots to gather and mingle - but none better than here

A little help.