Liberals?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Something-something, Burt Ward
Well then, my apologies. I allowed your comment to be tinted by your prior fluff job on behalf of conservatism.
Oh, come now. It's not every. After all, some of them are simply too self-involved to actually worry about the fact that liberals exist.
In the meantime, though, it's getting to be Pavlovian. Every time I let my guard down, I quickly regret it. Admittedly, though, the last several years have been stunning for their sharp excess.
Ashura said:
Well then, my apologies. I allowed your comment to be tinted by your prior fluff job on behalf of conservatism.
Oh, come now. It's not every. After all, some of them are simply too self-involved to actually worry about the fact that liberals exist.
In the meantime, though, it's getting to be Pavlovian. Every time I let my guard down, I quickly regret it. Admittedly, though, the last several years have been stunning for their sharp excess.
Abortion is when a woman decides, for the most part, what she can do with her own body.
The death penalty is when others decides, due to evidence presented that could be good or bad depending on how much money you have, what will happen to anothers persons life that has no control over the verdict in most instances.
The death penalty is when others decides, due to evidence presented that could be good or bad depending on how much money you have, what will happen to anothers persons life that has no control over the verdict in most instances.
You didn't win the argument you quote, getting the last word doesn't mean you were right, like I said, your distinction is arbitrary, you still haven't explained how it isn't.
Defining "independent existence" as not being physically attached 24/7 is a peculiar and illogical cut off point given the weight of the consequences at hand. It doesn't change a baby in any way beyond the mechanics of it's anatomy.
How this could make it more deserving of death defies rational reasoning.
Maybe if we were reptiles you could argue that it's no longer the mother's responsibility what happens to a baby after it is born, but still I would wonder why this seperation from mother would make the baby less deserving of life.
And we are mammals, specifically humans, which means we happen to be dependent on our parents long after birth. It's how we've evolved- relying on parental care in order to develop into the correct adult form of the human.
Our development continues after birth. For all intents and purposes birth is not a particularly important milestone in the lifecycle of the homo sapien. It was at one time in our distant history, when we were squat den digging dinosaurs with unusually warm blood, but not anymore.
Get with the times, we are rather advanced vertebrates these days.
You can point out how there is a difference between a post-birth baby and a pre-birth baby, good work, you pass a biology exam, but this sub forum is about ethics and morality and you can't explain how this arbitrary difference in stage of development is significant in relation to one's "right to life".
Consistency demands those against the murder of children are against abortion. The fact you can't look into a fetus' sad eyes while they dig at it with a coathanger really falls short of legitamising your pro-abortion/anti-murder stance.
The "women's rights" argument insultingly trivialises the whole thing and makes it obvious those who push it are failing to understand that we are talking about a small person being destroyed.
It follows they'd be happy to wear a blindfold and stomp on a meaty lump on the ground, but would be appauled if they could see it was a baby. The latter is unethical to them but the former inexplicably isn't. I'm sure these people hide from seekers by covering their eyes. Their views indicate an amusing level of cartoonishly buffoonish stupidity.
Defining "independent existence" as not being physically attached 24/7 is a peculiar and illogical cut off point given the weight of the consequences at hand. It doesn't change a baby in any way beyond the mechanics of it's anatomy.
How this could make it more deserving of death defies rational reasoning.
Maybe if we were reptiles you could argue that it's no longer the mother's responsibility what happens to a baby after it is born, but still I would wonder why this seperation from mother would make the baby less deserving of life.
And we are mammals, specifically humans, which means we happen to be dependent on our parents long after birth. It's how we've evolved- relying on parental care in order to develop into the correct adult form of the human.
Our development continues after birth. For all intents and purposes birth is not a particularly important milestone in the lifecycle of the homo sapien. It was at one time in our distant history, when we were squat den digging dinosaurs with unusually warm blood, but not anymore.
Get with the times, we are rather advanced vertebrates these days.
You can point out how there is a difference between a post-birth baby and a pre-birth baby, good work, you pass a biology exam, but this sub forum is about ethics and morality and you can't explain how this arbitrary difference in stage of development is significant in relation to one's "right to life".
Consistency demands those against the murder of children are against abortion. The fact you can't look into a fetus' sad eyes while they dig at it with a coathanger really falls short of legitamising your pro-abortion/anti-murder stance.
The "women's rights" argument insultingly trivialises the whole thing and makes it obvious those who push it are failing to understand that we are talking about a small person being destroyed.
It follows they'd be happy to wear a blindfold and stomp on a meaty lump on the ground, but would be appauled if they could see it was a baby. The latter is unethical to them but the former inexplicably isn't. I'm sure these people hide from seekers by covering their eyes. Their views indicate an amusing level of cartoonishly buffoonish stupidity.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Don't you realize that liberals are often told they are goody two shoes telling everyone to care about the poor and being general guilt trips. Apart from poorly framing the debate you seem unaware of how the split is actually looked at by conservatives. You are also blurring social and economic conservatives. Neo-conservatives, who have tremendous power in the world, want their freedoms as much as any liberal.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I think Hitler would have agreed with this.
Hitler also agreed that wiping one's arse was beneficial for hygienic reasons. As soon as I learned of this horrific fact I did a big shit and refused to wipe, and then I hugged as many jews as I could find.
They seemed to flare their large nostrils in approval of the sentiment, it was a spiritually gratifying day.
They seemed to flare their large nostrils in approval of the sentiment, it was a spiritually gratifying day.
what about the inverse. and no one is pro-abortion. and to talk about the unsoundness of the logic while ignoring the flaw in the conservative thinking on this makes you look like what you are; some one who doesn't give a shit and is out just to cause problems
Wow, do you realise that you and S.A.M. would make a lovely couple?
I'm glad the poll was both fair and balanced.
I think it's very difficult to disentangle the classic definitions of liberal and conservative from the economic station of any particular individual that you might be trying to put into one category or the other. If you could simulate a lab experiment, and take two individuals of roughly equal economic status but polarized ideologies, and then isolate them from whatever particular monetary forces are blowing against them, put them on a virtual island with equal bank accounts, then you might could begin to understand the particular arguments for each ideology without personal economic turmoil muddying up the waters. Does that make sense? In my experience, the personal economics of ones station in life shape/distort so many issues, the real political identity of a person gets confused with the obvious self-interest needed in order to not be flat broke, and homeless.
For all of the idealism in the teachings of Christ, we really just can't not work, and live our lives for him, or any other deity for that matter, without some artificial means of support. So must of us are forced to go out and work at something that might not be our first choice of what to do when we get out of bed in the morning, but stuff costs money, so you do whatever you can to earn money. Right there, you may have already compromised something about your politics by doing whatever it is you do. Money is just too powerful of a force against the inner altruist (assuming you have one) to turn down, and live your life strictly for your fellow man.
In short, I think it's very easy to get behind every sympathetic cause when you have unlimited means, but since most of us don't, we find our politics shaped by what we perceive will keep bringing bread to the table, and thus we're not really a true anything, but a hybrid of both liberal and conservative leanings.
I really can't identify myself anymore, because when I "take the tests", I'm all over the map. In the end, I really do believe I lean Libertarian because I really do practice the idea of minding my own business, and avoiding the business of others as much as I can. You might think of me as an Isolationist, in foreign policy terms.
For all of the idealism in the teachings of Christ, we really just can't not work, and live our lives for him, or any other deity for that matter, without some artificial means of support. So must of us are forced to go out and work at something that might not be our first choice of what to do when we get out of bed in the morning, but stuff costs money, so you do whatever you can to earn money. Right there, you may have already compromised something about your politics by doing whatever it is you do. Money is just too powerful of a force against the inner altruist (assuming you have one) to turn down, and live your life strictly for your fellow man.
In short, I think it's very easy to get behind every sympathetic cause when you have unlimited means, but since most of us don't, we find our politics shaped by what we perceive will keep bringing bread to the table, and thus we're not really a true anything, but a hybrid of both liberal and conservative leanings.
I really can't identify myself anymore, because when I "take the tests", I'm all over the map. In the end, I really do believe I lean Libertarian because I really do practice the idea of minding my own business, and avoiding the business of others as much as I can. You might think of me as an Isolationist, in foreign policy terms.
The "choice" comes BEFORE you have sex and bring someone else into the picture. Protected or not, If you can't deal with perenthood, don't have intercourse.
These days, women will abort if they don't like the gender of the child and though "IT TAKES TWO" it only takes one person to end it. Messed up.
And before all the "who carries it for 9 months?" crap starts, that is one of the things that should be thought of before you open your legs.
These days, women will abort if they don't like the gender of the child and though "IT TAKES TWO" it only takes one person to end it. Messed up.
And before all the "who carries it for 9 months?" crap starts, that is one of the things that should be thought of before you open your legs.
It must be so easy to sit up on your pedistal and preach, especially when you have no idea how difficult a choice like that can be.
Shich, you know nothing about me and my choices but I hear you loud and clear.
spoken like a cranky person with a penis
And?
just observing
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
So I take it that you hate capitalism. After all the "invisible hand" is the action that guides all of our self-interested actions to benefit society as a whole. Conservatives in the U.S. are pretty enamored with that, as well as "private property" (which is plainly a "selfish" concept.
In any event, your argument boils down to "Liberalism, taken to an absurd extreme, is worse that moderate conservatism." I agree, but let's see what happens when we reverse it. Moderate liberalism versus ultra extreme conservatism. Then we could just as easily say:
The last line is from 1984, of course, a novel entirely about single-minded obeisance to society and government (and equally absurd as the picture you paint).