The greatest challenge in American politics today, IMO, is to find a cure...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Good OP. I can actually buy in to the ideas of smaller government, lower taxes, and a somewhat minimalist social safety net (though I would like catastrophic health coverage for all, as well as a safety net for the elderly such as SS). I'm only a Democrat because Republicans are idiots.

Just freaking idiots. I hate that we have this giant stupid beast we have to constantly beat back with a stick.

The reason Republicans do so well on the state level is because of people like me. On local issues they have the room to be less idiotic and more practical in their application of conservative government. There is no ideological purity when it comes to the new 520 bridge.

In recent years I've come to not even be able to vote for them at the state level, though, because they've got to be stupid to associate themselves with that party. And they are probably going to do stupid things because they have their own career in mind nationally (why I voted against Rob McKenna). Example: is my Republican governor going to turn down a bunch of free federal Medicaid money so he can have a Sunday show talking point?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
That would depend on the frame of reference... Religious versus Secular. No?

More or less. Which is really my point. Liberals are the ones who seem to have a problem understanding that the conservative view on abortion is completely logical from the religious frame of reference. Which is the point I was trying to make.

The basis of that reasoning is important don't you think? As above, if seen from a secular pov it is what the law of the land currently is. If you argue that the law is wrong it don't change the law. What is is.

The problem is abortion seems to be the only "right" that as treated as absolute. As I have pointed out keeping convicted felons and the mental ill from owning guns is seen by essentially everyone as reasonable not an attack on the 2nd amendment.

From what POV is allowing 15 year old girls to be mothers reasonable? I mean I assume most people would not support allowing 15 year olds to buy guns? So it seems that most people do not have a problem violating the "rights" of teenagers.

From your pov and the pov of like minded folks perhaps. But, one person's fish seems likely to be another person's foul. Our founding is based on a Secular basis with Rights that each of us has formulated by opinion of the Courts to grant competing Rights in such a manner as to recognize the Life Course necessities of the individual[/b versus societies... It seems to me.


You do realize that I was a parodying what someone else said about conservatives?

Having a child as a teenager is not a "life course necessity". It is complete and utter stupidity. And in fact from a secular view clearly nothing more that individual selfishness.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The problem is abortion seems to be the only "right" that as treated as absolute. As I have pointed out keeping convicted felons and the mental ill from owning guns is seen by essentially everyone as reasonable not an attack on the 2nd amendment.

The gun issue is somewhat similar but that lacks the life course aspect between a male and female... both might own a gun but only one gets pregnant.

From what POV is allowing 15 year old girls to be mothers reasonable? I mean I assume most people would not support allowing 15 year olds to buy guns? So it seems that most people do not have a problem violating the "rights" of teenagers.

Well, Let's say a 15 year old does get pregnant. What comes into play here are a variety of inputs. Her parents, her faith, her mindset vis a vis the boy who has some stake in her pregnancy although not much of one, the law applicable and her own ability to decide this issue as determined by an unbiased evaluator (psychologist, psychiatrist) if warranted.



You do realize that I was a parodying what someone else said about conservatives?

No, I didn't. I was more focused on what you said...;)

Having a child as a teenager is not a "life course necessity". It is complete and utter stupidity. And in fact from a secular view clearly nothing more that individual selfishness.

It is a new decision.... the first bit was having sex... that may result or may not result in getting pregnant... If it does then the life course issue is at hand. Her body and Her decision... Stupidity began and ended with the sex bit... The pregnancy bit has far far greater significance... At least as I see it anyhow.

I understand from your prior posts how you feel about the issue from a variety of aspects. I simply don't follow analogy to pregnancy because of the enormous body of similar capabilities being pregnant along with health issues diverge from the similar path potential of boy/girl.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
So I assume then you also say believe in allowing teenagers to carry guns? After all it is a constitutionally protected right.

I don't know, what does the law say? What's the reasoning for or against it?

I also I assume you think that every man who has ever been arrested for hiring a prostitute should be let out of prison because prostitution is "her body her choice"/

Again what does the law say about it? What are the arguments for or against it?

This is an opinion. How often do you hear a pregnant woman refer to the creature growing in her as a fetus?

What does science say?

Sorry if you are so uncomfortable with your position on abortion that you have to pretend that Republicans are crazy.

For some reason you seem to think your opinion is more valid than others because you strongly believe in them, that's fine but that's not how our government works nor was it setup to be reliant on feelings.

Thanks for illustrating moonbeams point again;)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
The climate change thing, well... I wouldn't be surprised if there is some level of exaggeration by liberals about it. But I don't see how there couldn't be ANY human-influenced climate change. You can't just suddenly introduce billions of cars, factories, factory farms, etc that are putting gases into the atmosphere which, as a consequence of the laws of physics and their properties... DO INCREASE TEMPERATURE and then somehow, magically, have that not increase temperature.

I'd argue that if there's a human induced change in the temperature, that it is 99% a result of electricity. Heat waste itself. Does not matter how it is generated, we still "burn" energy on the consumer end.

Given the urban heat island effect, raising temps by 10+ in the middle of cities, as opposed to surrounding rural areas... just imagine the effect of that on a global scale. It's sheer madness to ignore that and proclaim a trace gas the problem.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The gun issue is somewhat similar but that lacks the life course aspect between a male and female... both might own a gun but only one gets pregnant.

Neither a teenage boy or girl would be allowed to buy a gun.

Well, Let's say a 15 year old does get pregnant. What comes into play here are a variety of inputs. Her parents, her faith, her mindset vis a vis the boy who has some stake in her pregnancy although not much of one, the law applicable and her own ability to decide this issue as determined by an unbiased evaluator (psychologist, psychiatrist) if warranted.

Ironically the only reasonable argument for a 15 year not getting an abortion is if you think abortion is murder. Of course this also happens to be the argument liberal continually dismiss as absurd.

If a fetus is just a clump of cells there is no reason not to eliminate it in the case of a pregnant 15 year old. Abortion has fewer consequences to the girl's body than a continued pregnancy.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Neither a teenage boy or girl would be allowed to buy a gun.

Why introduce 'buy' a gun.... Own a gun is not buying it.

You said, "The problem is abortion seems to be the only "right" that as treated as absolute. As I have pointed out keeping convicted felons and the mental ill from owning guns is seen by essentially everyone as reasonable not an attack on the 2nd amendment."

The topic of this para's back and forth was analogy or similarity... IOW, I don't think it is reasonable to use the gun issue as an analogy to the pregnancy issue because of the Life Course considerations.



Ironically the only reasonable argument for a 15 year not getting an abortion is if you think abortion is murder. Of course this also happens to be the argument liberal continually dismiss as absurd.

Suppose the girl is atheist but still for what ever other reasons does not want to abort does she not have that Right?

If a fetus is just a clump of cells there is no reason not to eliminate it in the case of a pregnant 15 year old. Abortion has fewer consequences to the girl's body than a continued pregnancy.

I suppose if you attempted to think like a female you might illuminate the other side of the issue... There may even be some psychological consequences that the male cannot appreciate in the abortion issue.... Do you think that is possible?
It does not seem reasonable to pronounce as fact that which may if addressed from the other side might be false...

I further suppose that your having firmly cemented your positions is fine for you and yours but I don't understand why other folks who'd disagree must be wrong or worse. More importantly, I can't see any analogy as being relative to abortion. Abortion is totally a personal and female issue so as to exclude the male population from having any opinion what so ever.... even if one is the 'father'.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Why introduce 'buy' a gun.... Own a gun is not buying it.

Because the concept of ownership is ambiguous when it relates to minors.

Suppose the girl is atheist but still for what ever other reasons does not want to abort does she not have that Right?

Beyond considering abortion to be murder the only other reason to for a teenager to not get an abortion is pure selfishness.

I suppose if you attempted to think like a female you might illuminate the other side of the issue... There may even be some psychological consequences that the male cannot appreciate in the abortion issue.... Do you think that is possible?
It does not seem reasonable to pronounce as fact that which may if addressed from the other side might be false..

From what I have read from pro-choice sources this is not true. And why would there be any deep psychological consequences from removing a ball of cells?

The liberal argument is that abortion is really no different from having a rotten tooth removed. While it may not be the most pleasant experience in the world it would not be something that one would describe as psychologically damaging.

Essentially what you are doing is exposing the essential liberal contradiction on abortion. If a pregnant 15 year old wants an abortion then the fetus is just a clump of cells. If a pregnant 15 year old doesnt want an abortion then it is a baby and we need to shower them with government benefits.

Take a stand. Is a fetus a clump of cells or a baby?

Abortion is totally a personal and female issue so as to exclude the male population from having any opinion what so ever.... even if one is the 'father'.

So long as we make the consequences of the choice to have or not have an abortion totally a female issue I have no objection to this. Perhaps a special female only tax to pay for government funded abortions and for welfare programs to support single mothers.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Because the concept of ownership is ambiguous when it relates to minors.



Beyond considering abortion to be murder the only other reason to for a teenager to not get an abortion is pure selfishness.



From what I have read from pro-choice sources this is not true. And why would there be any deep psychological consequences from removing a ball of cells?

The liberal argument is that abortion is really no different from having a rotten tooth removed. While it may not be the most pleasant experience in the world it would not be something that one would describe as psychologically damaging.

Essentially what you are doing is exposing the essential liberal contradiction on abortion. If a pregnant 15 year old wants an abortion then the fetus is just a clump of cells. If a pregnant 15 year old doesnt want an abortion then it is a baby and we need to shower them with government benefits.

Take a stand. Is a fetus a clump of cells or a baby?



So long as we make the consequences of the choice to have or not have an abortion totally a female issue I have no objection to this. Perhaps a special female only tax to pay for government funded abortions and for welfare programs to support single mothers.

A fetus like us all is a clump of cells... a fetus unlike us is not a living human being. At viability a fetus has almost certain probability that it will both become a living human being AND a very high probability that it could survive as a living human being outside the womb and no attempt to terminate this potential should occur unless there exists some medical reason to do so.

It seems we do tax people who might for some reason become a burden on society. It seems females can become a burden if they have a child and no job or some other means of support but some men find themselves in that condition too.

I'm not parked in one camp or another... my opinion is based on what I think is right regardless of the political or religious position. I also live my life accordingly... I raised my three grandkids and even adopted the youngest one to get him out of 'the system'... Today he's in GradSkule at UCSD... and society has not to do with it at all... I do. BUT.... Not everyone is in that situation... where it exists it should be employed and where it don't Society should bear the burden...
Now... you may feel if society has to bear any burden then abortion is the answer.... I simply disagree... I willingly pay tax to insure this occurs and would require you to pay as well... hehehehehe
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Abortion is just greed. It is killing for money. To deny this is a cop out. You can deny this fact, but it does not change what it is. Abortion is killing life to get what you want.

It may be legal, but that does not make it a good thing.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Abortion is just greed. It is killing for money. To deny this is a cop out. You can deny this fact, but it does not change what it is. Abortion is killing life to get what you want.

It may be legal, but that does not make it a good thing.

I'd wager that Nehalem might say that in some cases having a baby is greed... to live off the State or child support, etc. AND that abortion is a righteous thing in those cases.

But, end of the day and using a male thinking process my view is that IF I were a female I don't think I could have an abortion regardless of how I became pregnant... And, I can't apply that to anyone else via my vote or otherwise... We each ought to be able to decide our life course issues that are within the law as it reasonably attempts to sort the issues out.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
You are a crack pot mental case that should be hospitalized. Stay the f out of my threads please. I haven't responded to your insane drivel for at least a year. Please don't ever reply to me in any thread I start or any other post I make. Thank you.

Your shit fertilizes my garden. Thanks for throwing it.

Nice, but I'm not arguing for a geek manifesto. I'll leave that to the unibomber. I have no interest in power. I am content to die with the rest of you at your hands.

Your blindness leaves me no choice. I understand the impotence of rage. One can only forgive.

You actually sound pretty angry yourself through the whole thread.

This is because you only hear the parts that reflect who you are. musgrat- (is that so lololol) This fact, having now been revealed to you will make you angry and you will assume that was my intention. It was, but only in so far as to show you. Since you are incapable of hearing, we have to first deal with the problem with your ears, and similarly with the defect in your brain that's the root of your deafness. You are actually have hyper-acuity of hearing for insults because you expect them as a result of how you feel. I refer to this as leaving your sore toe out in the aisle and complaining about how everybody steps on it.

Oh so since I said you were angry, now I'm angry? I know this game, when I was in 2nd grade we played "I know you are, but what am I?" Let's keep playing! I see insults everywhere!!! Halp Bruce Willis!!!!!!

How deeply underground do you want me to go to explain it to you. If I have to explain this to you intellectually, looks like I'll have to dig down at least 6 feet for us to have that conversation, not to mention the several mile trip up your rectum. No thanks sport. I think I'll just let you wallow in your ignorance. Come back when you can rub a couple of brain cells together.

Out of curiosity, and feel free to read your own posts, but in whatever reality you live in, does this, or any of these, ever pass for a response? Assuming you're in some sort of intellectual field, do you respond to people like this? Or is this your internet personna? Many people have their internet alter egos, especially on this site. You've certainly been around long enough.
 
Last edited:

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
The ideas we have while drinking are not always the best. Post well my friends.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Oh so since I said you were angry, now I'm angry? I know this game, when I was in 2nd grade we played "I know you are, but what am I?" Let's keep playing! I see insults everywhere!!! Halp Bruce Willis!!!!!!



Out of curiosity, and feel free to read your own posts, but in whatever reality you live in, does this, or any of these, ever pass for a response? Assuming you're in some sort of intellectual field, do you respond to people like this? Or is this your internet personna? Many people have their internet alter egos, especially on this site. You've certainly been around long enough.

Assuming I am in some sort of intellectual field. what sort of response would pass as one there that you would be qualified to judge? Consider the possibility that you are judging me from only those realities YOU can imagine and that when you started talking to me you stepped on a cliff in the night.

I set the parameters of the intellectual field I wanted to mine, how to help the blind see they are blind. So here we are, having a conversation into which you stumbled blind and are now upset because you've been confronted with it. So my question to you is, do you see any hope for yourself, or are you going to walk away as blind and miffed as you were when you came in, sanctimoniously certain you've been treated badly and pleased as punch that the blindfold you wear around your head has protected it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Assuming I am in some sort of intellectual field. what sort of response would pass as one there that you would be qualified to judge? Consider the possibility that you are judging me from only those realities YOU can imagine and that when you started talking to me you stepped on a cliff in the night.

I set the parameters of the intellectual field I wanted to mine, how to help the blind see they are blind. So here we are, having a conversation into which you stumbled blind and are now upset because you've been confronted with it. So my question to you is, do you see any hope for yourself, or are you going to walk away as blind and miffed as you were when you came in, sanctimoniously certain you've been treated badly and pleased as punch that the blindfold you wear around your head has protected it.

How do you communicate what requires sight to the blind? Is it possible to describe a color to one whose been blind since birth? They have no frame of reference. You might say Red and Yellow are warm and Blue is cold but does that convey the idea that if they'd open their eyes they CAN see?
I think folks shield their eyes from the torment of the sun's brightness and like the nocturnal creatures venture about in the comfort of darkness. They reject the process of transformation from darkness to light... It takes effort and they are not designed to function in the daylight... They are creatures of the night.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Your post is the most important one given so far, in my opinion. Last night I started a comprehensive answer to this which was accidentally deleted, one I would go crazy trying to repeat because it said everything I wanted to say exactly as I wanted to say it as it came to me. Now all the freshness and creativity has been lost and this post becomes a drudge. All I have now is sloppy seconds and you deserve more, or so goes my opinion.

I created a long essay in which I built my case, carefully laying brick after brick. Then the big bad wolf came and blew my house down. All I have left is a straw man so I'm just going to blather incoherently by jumping in with both feet. Forgive the lack of logic and reasoning that comes with careful construction, I'm going to blow some words against the wall. Forgive me, what I will write is a shadow of what I wanted to say and nothing at all like the original:

Imagine that I am enlightened, that I know deep secrets and truth you can't imagine, that I am a deeply wise man, that I have deep insights into human nature you won't be able to follow because they are beyond your experience, and I've thrown to the wind any attempt to recreate steps that could lead you there.

Your job,therefore, is to put yourself in that frame of mind. You will now be told the truth and you will accept all of it as Gospel.

What is the nature of suspicion? Why do we suspect the motives of others. Go to wiki and read up on the psychological mechanism of projection as a defense against unpleasant, unwelcome feelings, it's purpose as a means of deflection, its roots in nationalism and mass psychosis, etc.

Now that you understand this topic thoroughly, have analyzed yourself, you are now able to answer your own question. You are suspicious that I want to 'final solution' you because that's what you feel you would like to do to me, except of course, not having had a chance to spend years in psychoanalyst, you don't realize this at a personal and internal level, and thus still want to deny it at an emotional level. But what you do know is that I as a man of great perspicacity have informed you of this and you now understand it intellectually.

And this corresponds precisely with the description given of the conservative brain by scientists, that it rationalizes instead of analyzes, that it deflects any truth that causes emotional, ego pain.

But that's only the beginning. Let me take you now where even wiki can't go, to deep and hidden psychological truth revealed only to dedicated seekers, truths that are simply unknown to almost everybody in the world. Are you ready? Hold on tight.

We create what we fear, the result of denial and suppression. Were you taught to feel that sex is dirty? You will love porn. Are you suspicious of others, you will act toward them in ways that they will come to suspect you. Do you fear domination, you will dominate others. We create what we fear.

And thus it is that if you fear the final solution you will unconsciously act in ways that are sure to bring it about. You will bring into existence the conditions that require your elimination. Just a word from the wise to somebody in deep need of it.

And remember, cows have four stomachs because grass is hard to digest. You will need to spend some serious time with this if you want to be wise like me. Good luck and much love. My aim is to save all sentient beings, one werepossum at a time with a real final solution called conscious awareness and self knowledge.
To some extent I think there's some truth in what you say. I have learned that if someone suspects I'm going to screw him over, it's because given the opportunity he'd do the same to me. On the other hand, no one has ever committed genocide on a race or a group without claiming that it's that race's or group's fault. Claiming that conservatives will bring into existence the conditions that require our elimination is no different from what is claimed by every psychopath or sociopath to gain power, whether on an individual level or numbering millions. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao - they all blamed those they murdered for forcing the leader to murder them. No one ever says let's kill all the Jews because I just flat out don't like them. No one ever says let's kill all the capitalists because they think differently. It's always "we MUST kill" because that group's actions or inherent characteristics force us to kill them.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'd argue that if there's a human induced change in the temperature, that it is 99% a result of electricity. Heat waste itself. Does not matter how it is generated, we still "burn" energy on the consumer end.

Given the urban heat island effect, raising temps by 10+ in the middle of cities, as opposed to surrounding rural areas... just imagine the effect of that on a global scale. It's sheer madness to ignore that and proclaim a trace gas the problem.
You may have something there; all the work we do (not just electricity) inevitably raises global temperatures. However, I really don't worry about temperatures, for not only does the Earth have myriad marvelous feedback systems to keep temperatures within reasonable limits, Western civilization flourishes during warmer climates. The Medieval Warm Period was a very successful time for humanity (including South America and at least parts of Asia), and unless snow now melts at different temperatures it was significantly warmer then than now. For instance, we're still discovering Alpine villages and mines covered by snow and ice since the fourteenth century.

However, CO2 has direct adverse effects and the feedback systems to control excess CO2 are quite slow. I'm not saying that losing the reef ecosystems would be catastrophic for mankind - although given the amount of pelagic filter feeders dining on reef-borne larva I'm not prepared to totally rule it out either - but the world would certainly be a less magical place. We've been given stewardship of an incredible planet and I for one do not wish to face G-d and be asked why I did nothing to save the reefs.

How do you communicate what requires sight to the blind? Is it possible to describe a color to one whose been blind since birth? They have no frame of reference. You might say Red and Yellow are warm and Blue is cold but does that convey the idea that if they'd open their eyes they CAN see?
I think folks shield their eyes from the torment of the sun's brightness and like the nocturnal creatures venture about in the comfort of darkness. They reject the process of transformation from darkness to light... It takes effort and they are not designed to function in the daylight... They are creatures of the night.
It is truly amazing that liberals are so incredibly much smarter than are conservatives - practically a different species - and yet so fear providing their own health care, day care, education, broad band . . .

Perhaps we're evolving into obsolescence, a species that is rapidly losing the ability to stand on its hind legs and do for itself. Are we seeing the dodofication of Homo sapiens? When we've been completely replaced by Homo liberalus, who's going to build our homes and kill the spiders?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
To some extent I think there's some truth in what you say. I have learned that if someone suspects I'm going to screw him over, it's because given the opportunity he'd do the same to me. On the other hand, no one has ever committed genocide on a race or a group without claiming that it's that race's or group's fault. Claiming that conservatives will bring into existence the conditions that require our elimination is no different from what is claimed by every psychopath or sociopath to gain power, whether on an individual level or numbering millions. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao - they all blamed those they murdered for forcing the leader to murder them. No one ever says let's kill all the Jews because I just flat out don't like them. No one ever says let's kill all the capitalists because they think differently. It's always "we MUST kill" because that group's actions or inherent characteristics force us to kill them.

Exactly, and don't you forget it. I think your mistake is in assuming I'm the one who is going to give that justification when I'm actually only warning the insane they aren't the only practitioners of the art.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
werepossum: You may have something there; all the work we do (not just electricity) inevitably raises global temperatures.

M: I find this most interesting. What you find inevitable I find totally preposterous. Not interested in calling YOU that, only drawing attention to the fact of difference. I don't know who is right but I'm sure I am. Hehe. Neither of us have any real scientific proof, only supposition based on, god knows what. Maybe I'm still suffering from the bad vibes I got from guests when I invited them for dinner where I tried to flambé of elephant on a candle. At any rate I would caution against using what we think is logic in all cases. I know that when folk look for explanations they prefer over other deductions, they often wind up devoted believers.

w: However, I really don't worry about temperatures, for not only does the Earth have myriad marvelous feedback systems to keep temperatures within reasonable limits, Western civilization flourishes during warmer climates. The Medieval Warm Period was a very successful time for humanity (including South America and at least parts of Asia), and unless snow now melts at different temperatures it was significantly warmer then than now. For instance, we're still discovering Alpine villages and mines covered by snow and ice since the fourteenth century.

M: What you do here is not worry in the face of selected facts and ignorance of others. There are other places than the ones you listed. There are billions now who live at low sea level.

w: However, CO2 has direct adverse effects and the feedback systems to control excess CO2 are quite slow. I'm not saying that losing the reef ecosystems would be catastrophic for mankind - although given the amount of pelagic filter feeders dining on reef-borne larva I'm not prepared to totally rule it out either - but the world would certainly be a less magical place. We've been given stewardship of an incredible planet and I for one do not wish to face G-d and be asked why I did nothing to save the reefs.

M: According to the bible we are stewards and by intelligent design, so fear not, we can't fuck up, right. If too many people thought like that while they destroyed the world, you might be compelled to take action, no. I mean, just because Hitler rationalized killing the Jews because he was crazy doesn't mean there might not be really intelligent reasons to get rid of stewards who can't see what they are doing, or no?


w: It is truly amazing that liberals are so incredibly much smarter than are conservatives - practically a different species - and yet so fear providing their own health care, day care, education, broad band . . .

M: Huh? We want health care for everybody without exception. No need at all to fear when you nationalize it like every other nation full of takers, you know, most of the industrialized world and those places in Europe where they have lots of snow.

w: Perhaps we're evolving into obsolescence, a species that is rapidly losing the ability to stand on its hind legs and do for itself. Are we seeing the dodofication of Homo sapiens? When we've been completely replaced by Homo liberalus, who's going to build our homes and kill the spiders?

M: A lot of times what we fear we fear because it's a truth about ourselves we don't want to see. I have a jar I use to take the spiders outside. They are good for the world so I save them. I'm of the opinion you can trust your life to a person who won't kill spiders and not so much with one who will.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
It is truly amazing that liberals are so incredibly much smarter than are conservatives - practically a different species - and yet so fear providing their own health care, day care, education, broad band . . .

Perhaps we're evolving into obsolescence, a species that is rapidly losing the ability to stand on its hind legs and do for itself. Are we seeing the dodofication of Homo sapiens? When we've been completely replaced by Homo liberalus, who's going to build our homes and kill the spiders?

I don't maintain there exists an intelligence difference twixt L and C. Rather, that each uses what senses they employ to determine what they accept as truth. That they do not see the same exact thing as being the exact same thing is the issue. The question is why... Or better still, who actually is seeing reality.

If I see a blue rock and you proclaim that it is a wonderful looking turtle we can't move forward in what to do, if anything, about what we see. We have to start there though... we have to work together to find a commonality to difference. We have to want to do this and we don't.

In the best of times or things compromise never produces the ideal solution to the reality of what really is. What we have to do is try to find out which action if not taken has the greatest negative assuming truth lay along a curve of possibilities.

Sort of a marriage where give and take means fully give and fully take... Who goes first... well that is the question, I suppose.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
I don't maintain there exists an intelligence difference twixt L and C. Rather, that each uses what senses they employ to determine what they accept as truth. That they do not see the same exact thing as being the exact same thing is the issue. The question is why... Or better still, who actually is seeing reality.

If I see a blue rock and you proclaim that it is a wonderful looking turtle we can't move forward in what to do, if anything, about what we see. We have to start there though... we have to work together to find a commonality to difference. We have to want to do this and we don't.

In the best of times or things compromise never produces the ideal solution to the reality of what really is. What we have to do is try to find out which action if not taken has the greatest negative assuming truth lay along a curve of possibilities.

Sort of a marriage where give and take means fully give and fully take... Who goes first... well that is the question, I suppose.

Well well well, here I was taking a shower while you typed this thinking about absolute truth and how it relates to the problem of the conservative brain defect. I mapped out a whole new tack I want to pursue in a new thread, but it has to be later because I have a date with a lady doctor friend. I saw this ad on TV that promised big things, but it said to check with my doctor to see if it's safe for me to have sex. Like the man who jumped on the MTA I'm off and away.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well well well, here I was taking a shower while you typed this thinking about absolute truth and how it relates to the problem of the conservative brain defect. I mapped out a whole new tack I want to pursue in a new thread, but it has to be later because I have a date with a lady doctor friend. I saw this ad on TV that promised big things, but it said to check with my doctor to see if it's safe for me to have sex. Like the man who jumped on the MTA I'm off and away.

I wonder why a Lady Doctor or Gynecologist might be best suited to answer your sex question... but that is for another day.;)

More importantly and possibly germane to this thread is both the Absolute Truth and the TV adds.... Does it matter more to know it is OK to have sex or to know what might enable it? Do you refrain if told it is not safe or do you gobble down the enabling substance and throw caution to the wind? Or maybe simply let nature provide the answer?
Anyhow, we come in all sizes... big, fat, small and skinny and I doubt many like broccoli even if it is good for you...
Save the bus fare and embark on the thread for a far better ride with a round trip guaranteed is the reward... ():)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
I'd argue that if there's a human induced change in the temperature, that it is 99% a result of electricity. Heat waste itself. Does not matter how it is generated, we still "burn" energy on the consumer end.

Given the urban heat island effect...

You may have something there; all the work we do (not just electricity) inevitably raises global temperatures...

A most timely update on the subject:

Energy-Guzzling Cities Changing Weather 1,000 Miles Away

The released heat is changing temperatures in areas more than 1,000 miles away (1609 kilometers). It is warming parts of North America by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) and northern Asia by as much as 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius), while cooling areas of Europe by a similar amount, scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The released heat (dubbed waste heat), it seems, is changing atmospheric circulation, including jet streams — powerful narrow currents of wind that blow from west to east and north to south in the upper atmosphere.
Not entirely what I had in mind, but certainly topical.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Because the concept of ownership is ambiguous when it relates to minors.



Beyond considering abortion to be murder the only other reason to for a teenager to not get an abortion is pure selfishness.



From what I have read from pro-choice sources this is not true. And why would there be any deep psychological consequences from removing a ball of cells?

The liberal argument is that abortion is really no different from having a rotten tooth removed. While it may not be the most pleasant experience in the world it would not be something that one would describe as psychologically damaging.

Essentially what you are doing is exposing the essential liberal contradiction on abortion. If a pregnant 15 year old wants an abortion then the fetus is just a clump of cells. If a pregnant 15 year old doesnt want an abortion then it is a baby and we need to shower them with government benefits.

Take a stand. Is a fetus a clump of cells or a baby?



So long as we make the consequences of the choice to have or not have an abortion totally a female issue I have no objection to this. Perhaps a special female only tax to pay for government funded abortions and for welfare programs to support single mothers.

You have a basic conceptual problem. In that for whatever reason you seem to be incapable of seeing this issue from the perspective of the woman or girl.

That is the issue. Does a woman or girl have a right to decide what is going to happen to and in their own body ?

And abortion isn't "absolute". Roe vs Wade makes that very clear.

Another thing, you have some sort of hangup about men's rights and responsibilites. You equate a woman's right to control her own body with a man's right to be a father who doesn't take care of his kids.

Those two things are not at all the same thing.

But there's no real reason to waste time talking to you about it because this country is never going to agree with you.
 
Last edited: