|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Jun 30, 2022 22:22:50 GMT
Sure. I was referring to this comment: "I get to tell you when life starts, and I get to tell you that you are a murderer, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say."
An attack on the idea of deciding when/where life begins. The "I get to tell you" part seems to be a clear reference to those favoring banning abortion. IE, "I get to tell you life begins at conception". But the logic seems equally applicable to those who support government mandates against murder. IE, "I get to tell you life begins (or at least exists with a right to not be terminated) at birth (and beyond)".
And almost equally applicable to someone who attempts to defend their right to live by killing their would-be killer. IE, "I get to decide when my life exists and when your right to attack it doesn't".
So it looks like this attack, when taken out of the specific instance of that decision being made, is an attack on any opinion regarding any decision of this type being made by any state authority, and possibly even private authority.
The broadness and universality, I think, makes it unsuitable as an argument against those that would hold an opinion on abortion.
As a side note, see how enjoyable this can be when we slow down and take a little back and forth and couple posts to flesh out an idea, rather than simply telling the other side they aren't worthy or similarly denouncing them?
I think you are focusing on the outcome, the actual position, instead of the more important part, which is that only one person or group gets to decide. I could care less what the outcome is. The ONLY thing that matters in a democracy is that we all have a say. Whether that happens at the city, state, or federal level, no single group should be able to completely get their way. And that is exactly what the pro-birthers want. They want ZERO abortions. That's not a negotiation with people who do, where we decide when life starts, that isn't at conception AND isn't when the baby pops out. It's somewhere in the middle, the literal definition of a compromise. So I cannot answer your question, because to me, it misses the point completely. Freon
I'm focusing on the logic of your attack. Everyone who has an opinion has something they want. What you want is a completely separate concept from what may or may not be negotiated.
Some people want abortion on demand at any stage. Some people want only non-elective abortions. Some people want abortion in the first trimester only. Some people want abortion in the first two trimesters, but not the third. There are a myriad of positions that people take.
Your attack line and logic is equally applicable to every single one of those stances.
It works like this:
French person: Abortion should be fully available until the 14th week of pregnancy then only available for medical emergencies.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
Planned Parenthood worker: Abortion should be available up until birth, in all cases.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
See how the logic applies to all opinions on the issue? But it isn't just this issue. The attack is just as pointlessly vague and universal that it applies to any political stance and beyond.
Now, of course, you haven't made the same attack on any position except for the "ban all abortions" opinion. For whatever reason. But it is equally applicable, which is why it is such a weak attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldtrapper on Jun 30, 2022 22:30:36 GMT
You’re the one that brought up the Bible, Thorest Gump. Tell me what it says. I don’t rely on the Bible to defend my pro life position. If you can find me doing so, please share it. It most definitely doesn't say what you think it does. You can start with Genesis. And move on to your God's slaughter of the human race except for seven people. And more besides. You get your 'morality' from that shit?  Or you can do as most do, and start with the New Testament, and Christ.
According to your version the "caveman" had more morals then the Christian which would be a lie.  |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jun 30, 2022 23:12:47 GMT
It most definitely doesn't say what you think it does. You can start with Genesis. And move on to your God's slaughter of the human race except for seven people. And more besides. You get your 'morality' from that shit? Or you can do as most do, and start with the New Testament, and Christ.
According to your version the "caveman" had more morals then the Christian which would be a lie.  Why would we start with the NT when much of the manure flowing from the mouths of Conservative 'Christians' today comes from the OT? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 30, 2022 23:53:38 GMT
It's fascinating that in a discussion where I don't bring up the Bible at all, Simpleton Edgelords like thor feel the need to push the Bible into the conversation for no apparent reason other than to appear edgy and demean another's faith. Awwwww, you poor victim. I said I think it’s fascinating. I could care less what some Head Injury Edgelord thinks. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 30, 2022 23:54:01 GMT
It's fascinating that in a discussion where I don't bring up the Bible at all, Simpleton Edgelords like thor feel the need to push the Bible into the conversation for no apparent reason other than to appear edgy and demean another's faith. Awwwww, you poor victim. I said I think it’s fascinating. I literally can’t be hurt by what some Head Injury Edgelord thinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 30, 2022 23:58:14 GMT
I don't know. I would qualify myself as a "pro-birther," but it seems to me that there have to be at least a couple of exceptions. If you are willing to negotiate, then you are working towards a final resolution. Zero negotiation is a no-win scenario, which means it just wastes time. And wasting time, when the pendulum has swung to an excess of one position, is a corrupt strategy. Freon I agree. Just clarifying that a "pro-birth" or "pro-life" position isn't always all-or-nothing. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 1, 2022 1:05:04 GMT
Why is it still OK to hate on vampires? Because they still suck. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 1, 2022 1:09:25 GMT
I said I think it’s fascinating. I could care less what some Head Injury Edgelord thinks was failure in my military career and keep getting owned by a Half-wit. Because of this, I haz a sad. I'm sorry, you poor victim. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 1, 2022 2:17:06 GMT
I think you are focusing on the outcome, the actual position, instead of the more important part, which is that only one person or group gets to decide. I could care less what the outcome is. The ONLY thing that matters in a democracy is that we all have a say. Whether that happens at the city, state, or federal level, no single group should be able to completely get their way. And that is exactly what the pro-birthers want. They want ZERO abortions. That's not a negotiation with people who do, where we decide when life starts, that isn't at conception AND isn't when the baby pops out. It's somewhere in the middle, the literal definition of a compromise. So I cannot answer your question, because to me, it misses the point completely. Freon
I'm focusing on the logic of your attack. Everyone who has an opinion has something they want. What you want is a completely separate concept from what may or may not be negotiated.
Some people want abortion on demand at any stage. Some people want only non-elective abortions. Some people want abortion in the first trimester only. Some people want abortion in the first two trimesters, but not the third. There are a myriad of positions that people take.
Your attack line and logic is equally applicable to every single one of those stances.
It works like this:
French person: Abortion should be fully available until the 14th week of pregnancy then only available for medical emergencies.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
Planned Parenthood worker: Abortion should be available up until birth, in all cases.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
See how the logic applies to all opinions on the issue? But it isn't just this issue. The attack is just as pointlessly vague and universal that it applies to any political stance and beyond.
Now, of course, you haven't made the same attack on any position except for the "ban all abortions" opinion. For whatever reason. But it is equally applicable, which is why it is such a weak attack.
Sorry, I do not see it that way. I am only advocating for compromise, knowing full well that my position, whatever it is, will not be fully realized. Because I believe in coexisting and respecting other's opinions, over any personal need to have things only the way I want. This is the big separation between the far right, and just about every other group. The far right has only one position, and it is extreme, and it is non-negotiable. There really is no other group with that stance. And it is an unwinnable stance, in the long run, with all these battles in-between that just waste time and resources. If there was ANY chance the far right position could become the law of the land, I could see the value in the fight, but the idea that the rest of us are simply going to step aside, and allow one group to dictate law, belief, and the philosophical explanation for when people come into existence is conceited, naive, and unAmerican. There is NO chance of it happening. That's why I'm not the least bit concerned that it will last. I'm not leaving. And neither are the majority of Americans who do NOT want this to happen. So just like with guns, you can either negotiate, and be part of the final law of the land, or you can stay stalwart in your unwinnable position, and we will make policy without you. I really do not see any other possibilities. But please, show me the error of my logic. Freon |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 1, 2022 2:20:03 GMT
If you are willing to negotiate, then you are working towards a final resolution. Zero negotiation is a no-win scenario, which means it just wastes time. And wasting time, when the pendulum has swung to an excess of one position, is a corrupt strategy. Freon I agree. Just clarifying that a "pro-birth" or "pro-life" position isn't always all-or-nothing. I understand that, and I think you realize, I hope you do, that my comments are directed more at the far right, than at those like yourself who have a position, but also realize the bigger picture. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by oldtrapper on Jul 1, 2022 3:35:23 GMT
Or you can do as most do, and start with the New Testament, and Christ.
According to your version the "caveman" had more morals then the Christian which would be a lie. Why would we start with the NT when much of the manure flowing from the mouths of Conservative 'Christians' today comes from the OT? Very simple. Christianity starts with Christ.
But what would cave dwellers like you know.
And no one has said that the majority of "Conservatives" are Biblical Christians except for liars, and hypocrites.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 1, 2022 4:46:27 GMT
I'm focusing on the logic of your attack. Everyone who has an opinion has something they want. What you want is a completely separate concept from what may or may not be negotiated.
Some people want abortion on demand at any stage. Some people want only non-elective abortions. Some people want abortion in the first trimester only. Some people want abortion in the first two trimesters, but not the third. There are a myriad of positions that people take.
Your attack line and logic is equally applicable to every single one of those stances.
It works like this:
French person: Abortion should be fully available until the 14th week of pregnancy then only available for medical emergencies.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
Planned Parenthood worker: Abortion should be available up until birth, in all cases.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
See how the logic applies to all opinions on the issue? But it isn't just this issue. The attack is just as pointlessly vague and universal that it applies to any political stance and beyond.
Now, of course, you haven't made the same attack on any position except for the "ban all abortions" opinion. For whatever reason. But it is equally applicable, which is why it is such a weak attack.
Sorry, I do not see it that way. I am only advocating for compromise, knowing full well that my position, whatever it is, will not be fully realized. Because I believe in coexisting and respecting other's opinions, over any personal need to have things only the way I want. This is the big separation between the far right, and just about every other group. The far right has only one position, and it is extreme, and it is non-negotiable. There really is no other group with that stance. And it is an unwinnable stance, in the long run, with all these battles in-between that just waste time and resources. If there was ANY chance the far right position could become the law of the land, I could see the value in the fight, but the idea that the rest of us are simply going to step aside, and allow one group to dictate law, belief, and the philosophical explanation for when people come into existence is conceited, naive, and unAmerican. There is NO chance of it happening. That's why I'm not the least bit concerned that it will last. I'm not leaving. And neither are the majority of Americans who do NOT want this to happen. So just like with guns, you can either negotiate, and be part of the final law of the land, or you can stay stalwart in your unwinnable position, and we will make policy without you. I really do not see any other possibilities. But please, show me the error of my logic. Freon A few things to note from history: 1. When movements such as these gain control, they inevitably start eating each other. Often, the smaller the differnces in POVs, the more bitter the in-fighting becomes. The Russian Revolution is a great example of this. First, EVERYONE wanted the Romanovs gone - Communists, Socialists, Whites, etc. The Communists won, and the in-fighting between the Lenin-Stalinists and Trotskyites began. 2. When the above happens, it ALWAYS ends badly. No exceptions. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Jul 1, 2022 4:49:37 GMT
Why would we start with the NT when much of the manure flowing from the mouths of Conservative 'Christians' today comes from the OT? Very simple. Christianity starts with Christ.
But what would cave dwellers like you know.
And no one has said that the majority of "Conservatives" are Biblical Christians except for liars, and hypocrites.
It should. But the loudest among you are the ones who are drowning out that message. That is why Christianity in the US is shedding numbers in droves, and why you need to address your (internal) problems. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jul 1, 2022 7:34:58 GMT
I said I think it’s fascinating. I could care less what some Head Injury Edgelord thinks was failure in my military career and keep getting owned by a Half-wit. Because of this, I haz a sad. I'm sorry, you poor victim. Oh I see what you did there. You changed my post to what you wanted me to say, and then repeated yourself about “victim”, and then did emojis. Hmm. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 1, 2022 8:45:23 GMT
Why is it still OK to hate on vampires? Because they still suck. Awap bapa looma a wap bam boom. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 1, 2022 8:56:07 GMT
I think you are focusing on the outcome, the actual position, instead of the more important part, which is that only one person or group gets to decide. I could care less what the outcome is. The ONLY thing that matters in a democracy is that we all have a say. Whether that happens at the city, state, or federal level, no single group should be able to completely get their way. And that is exactly what the pro-birthers want. They want ZERO abortions. That's not a negotiation with people who do, where we decide when life starts, that isn't at conception AND isn't when the baby pops out. It's somewhere in the middle, the literal definition of a compromise. So I cannot answer your question, because to me, it misses the point completely. Freon
I'm focusing on the logic of your attack. Everyone who has an opinion has something they want. What you want is a completely separate concept from what may or may not be negotiated.
Some people want abortion on demand at any stage. Some people want only non-elective abortions. Some people want abortion in the first trimester only. Some people want abortion in the first two trimesters, but not the third. There are a myriad of positions that people take.
Your attack line and logic is equally applicable to every single one of those stances.
It works like this:
French person: Abortion should be fully available until the 14th week of pregnancy then only available for medical emergencies.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
Planned Parenthood worker: Abortion should be available up until birth, in all cases.
Freon (potentially): I get to tell you when life should and shouldn't be protected, and I get to tell you what the exceptions are, and I get to tell you that I am righteous and good and everyone else must do as I say.
See how the logic applies to all opinions on the issue? But it isn't just this issue. The attack is just as pointlessly vague and universal that it applies to any political stance and beyond.
Now, of course, you haven't made the same attack on any position except for the "ban all abortions" opinion. For whatever reason. But it is equally applicable, which is why it is such a weak attack.
I didn't know a post could read like stale bread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 9:17:26 GMT
Awap bapa looma a wap bam boom. That sounds familiar. Isn't that a hit from the sixties? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 9:18:59 GMT
Awap bapa looma a wap bam boom. Wait a minute, that Tutti Frutti , isn't it? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 1, 2022 10:35:29 GMT
I'm sorry, you poor victim. Oh I see what you did there. You changed my post to what you wanted me to say, and then repeated yourself about “victim”, and then did emojis. Hmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jul 1, 2022 10:51:24 GMT
Oh I see what you did there. You changed my post to what you wanted me to say, and then repeated yourself about “victim”, and then did emojis. Hmm.
Dancing Bugs Bunny in drag. Hmm. |
|
