Yep, they hit you pretty hard.
I started out as an Ann Arbor hippie freak and ended up as a free market economic efficiency tool spouting nonsense about pareto optimization and least cost avoiders ;)
Printable View
Yep, they hit you pretty hard.
I started out as an Ann Arbor hippie freak and ended up as a free market economic efficiency tool spouting nonsense about pareto optimization and least cost avoiders ;)
Actually, all three of them would be in favor of torture if you could argue that it leads to economic efficiency. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
Lets see.
Only the terrorists know their plans, and their plans will result in significant and expensive destruction.
torturing terrorists will result in info that prevents that destruction.
If the costs to society of torturing innocent people (admitidly, a hard to quanitfy externality) are outweighed by the cost savings resulting from stopping terrorist acts, then go for it!!!
Well, I'm convinced. You've learned well (say it ain't so!).
But it should be misleading. It does matter what positions a "Pro-lifer" takes on other issue that pertain to life. Pro-life means a person is for life as you just said. However when a majority of pro-life people are for capital punishment or the war in Iraq, both which end life how can it not be taken as hypocracy. If a person is pro-life they should be againt actions which take life period. The proper term is anti-abortion or Partial Pro-Life.Quote:
Originally Posted by pube-in-my-taco
When someone is labeled pro-abortion. That would mean the person in favor of abortion. That label is very misleading about a pro-choice person. If a person is pro-choice it does not mean they are for abortion. It just means they are for a woman's right to chose.
That being said I do believe labeling someone as anti-choice is just as wrong as labeling someone as anti-abortion.
Stop the semantic bullshit. Each side has chosen a label which is loaded with meaning for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
Example of your opposite argument:
"Pro-choice" is such bullshit. They are complete hypocrites. Their name is misleading. If they were really interested in choice, they should be in favor of ALL choice: Drugs, suicide, euthanasia, prostitution, bestiality, speeding, etc., as long as I am not hurting anyone else, I should be able to choose anything!!
The only people who equate "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Abortion" are those who don't think for themselves, merely listening to the Hannitys and Limbaughs of this world. It's absolute bullshit.
NOBODY advocates that Abortion is THE answer, but should be one of the choices available to women. Every reproductive rights organization (like NOW) advocates that abortion should be safe, legal, and above all RARE. Why do you think they distribute condoms and birthcontrol? They're trying to make the abortion issue MOOT.
Shouldn't you be listening to someone talk about nuk-u-lehr stuff right now?
Heh. They didn't let me in - stills cameras only. Go figure
They probably heard about your association with certain undesirable individuals at last summer's festivities here in NYC.
I bet the pic of myself and the chicken hangs in the Secret Service's lunchroom..... :D:D
heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
torture is rarely a successful way of getting inteligence.
Bingo -- I did a report on this a few years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Nowadays stuff like sensory deprivation is used, and if you ask any cubicle jockey, it truly works. ;)
Hey dude what is the "nuclear" option you refer to further up in the thread? Filibuster?
Actually they can stop all business in the senate through various parlimentary tactics that have nothing to do with the fillibuster. They can basically keep any business from reaching the floor. The majority leader has to get an agreement from the minority leader to bring business to the floor. that's why the nuclear option never went through on the last round of controversy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
All those examples are illegal and therefore not considered a choice. A woman has a legal choice regarding her reproductive rights. A pro-choice person wants to keep her right to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
I do agree that the labels are chose for specific reasons.
Tell that to the producers of 24.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
My pro-choice stance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Drugs - yes to marijuana, not sure about everything else
Prostitution - yes (w/regulation)
Bestiality - it's your dog/cat/horse/manitee: go for it!
Speeding - no, huge external costs
Ask any woman older than 45: before Roe v. Wade there were plenty of abortions, you just had to know the right doctor or try some seriously dangerous techniques. Many of the European countries have miniscule abortion rates b/c they're not fucking scared of health/sex-ed and contraceptives like our religious righters.
As has been mentioned: the Catholic church's stance makes sense. No death penalty, war only if attacked, and no abortions PERIOD. All these mini-exemptions (rape, incest, etc) simply prove the points from the first page about controlling women.
removing the ability to filibuster nominees is what they are now calling the nuclear option.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13
it's kind of a what goes around comes around type of thing. odds neither party will have a majority forever and the filibuster is a way for minorities to maintain some type of leverage.
and the reason they didn't already do so is they didn't have the votes. but on a judicial nominee for the SC, they will get their shit together.
if the nominee was Richard Posner we may not have to worry about it. I just don't think Bush has the sack to nominate one of the Chicago Boyz.
Gotcha, thanks. Haven't been following the Frist saga lately.
It seems to me the religious right wing has a big problem with sex in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockpow
Time for some good George Carlin quotes.
And just to be a little fair- one from ReaganQuote:
Did you ever notice that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.
Quote:
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
Yes, I'm in favor of all those things because they don't hurt anybody else. All of those things are legal somewhere in the world. Even speeding is legal on the Autobahn. You can CHOOSE not to participate in any of them. Freedom anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Ask any philosopher of science if abortion is murder and an overwhelming majority will say no. A fetus isn't "life" until about 26weeks (the 3rd trimester). That's based on science. Religious nuts can believe any fucking thing they want.
But tickling on the other hand...Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Bud Green, you have been smoking too much Green Bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bud Green
A few major flaws in your statement:
1) "Philosopher of Science" is an oxymoron (despite the fact that I have a B.S. in Philosphy).
Throughout history, there has always been a division between science and philosophy. Philosophy deals with speculation on what cannot be known, whereas science deals only with empircal and reproducable knowledge. What used to be philosophy has become science as our understanding has increased.
2) murder= death of a human life that possesses legal rights.
that is why a majority of scientists might say abortion is not murder.
3) if you ask scientists the question "when does life begin?" they have only two options.
either:
a) life begins at conception; (an amoeba is "life" and it yet it is always a single cell); or
b) life does not begin, but it is only a continuum carried over from the egg and the sperm (interesting theory, but hard to swallow since neither egg nor sperm is self-sustaining or has a full complement of genetic material);
c) there is no option (c) if you are a real scientist (I also have a B.S. in Cellular and Molecular Biology) the idea that you need more than one cell, or that that bundle of cells must differentiate before you call it "life" is crazy.
4) it is definitely not "science" that "life begins at 26 weeks". that may be the time that has been chosen by judges to decide that a womans right to an abortion is outweighed by a fetus' right not to be stabbed in the back of the skull with a pair of scissors, but it is not when "life" begins.
If you re-define "life" to be "when a fetus attains rights under the law" then you might be right, but that is just word play.
I could just as easily define "life" to be that point when human life attains ALL rights under the law. Which means life begins at 21 years of age. Which means I should be able to have all you high schoolers aborted ;)
If you wanna say life only begins at birth, try having that argument with any mother. She'll shoot you down in an instant. Particularly after the Quickening, when the mother can feel the baby kick and move, that little guy or girl is definitely alive and is "life"
P.S. - not that it matters, but I am pro-choice and anti-abortion.