Tendo City:  The Cake Is A Lie!  

Go Back  Tendo City: The Cake Is A Lie! > Tendo City: Metropolitan District > Den of the Philociraptor
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Sat, March 3rd, 2007   #1
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default Should morality be legislated?

"My freedom to swing my fist only ends at the beginning of your nose."

Should so-called "victimless crimes" which harm no one be prohibited? (If you want to exclude hard drugs from that, feel free, but I don't under any circumstances condone the prohibition of substances which can be used moderately for the benefit of the users.) Should prostitution, gambling, and abortion be legal? How about suicide and euthanasia?

Personally, I feel that all of the above (aside from hard drugs, in which I am still undecided) should all be legal.

Prostitution: There is the argument presented that prostitution deprecates the female gender, and to an extent, I agree. However, I believe it's more deprecating to humans and their pursuit of happiness to restrict selling your own body. George Carlin had it right when he said, "Why shouldn't you be able to sell what you can give away for free?" Women should have the choice if they choose a lifestyle that's frowned upon by most of society. What if the money they would earn through performing consensual sexual activities on a person they know is disease-free would ultimately help the woman through financial troubles in which she appears to be out of options? What if it remained a skeleton in her closet? What if she knew the man? Why is "friends with benefits" perfectly legal, yet not "friends with financial benefits"?

It should be this woman's choice to hold sex on whatever emotional pedestal she chooses. If it isn't a big deal to her, or if she sleeps around to begin with, why does the added detail of money suddenly make it a moral taboo?

Gambling: I don't disagree with its legal status. I don't participate or care if people choose waste their money.

Abortion: It should be legal. Some people simply aren't ready to have children, nor should they be forced to raise it. Adoption? Sure, it's an alternative, but the child may still feel unwanted. The world is already over-populated. Why raise more god damn children when they're already too many? There's nothing beautiful about giving birth to a child. It does not make you special; mostly everyone else can do the same. Raising a child properly is special, and if there's a bad chance of this taking place, and if the parents are unfit, there's no reason to force them. I do not see the child as an independently living creature until it's birth (or perhaps by the 3rd trimester), and hence, don't see it as any more murderous than removing a tumor or parasite before then. Don't take that the wrong way.

Suicide/euthanasia: Yup. If someone really wants to die, and is in constant suffering, who am I to force him to live? He's not truly master of his own domain if I force my own self-righteousness upon him. I may disagree, but it's not my decision to make. On the other hand, someone who is mentally ill and at times DOES value life ought to be saved and helped.

There's a few ideas to mull over. What do you guys think?
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Sat, March 3rd, 2007   #2
Ryan
Tyrone Slothrop, Esq.
 
 
Join Date: 05-03-00
Location: Got a hardon in your fist? Don't be pissed. Re-enlist!
Age: 25
Posts: 4,322
Send a message via AIM to Ryan Send a message via MSN to Ryan
Default

I think a lot of these things aren't quite black and white.

For instance, hard drugs do only directly affect the user, but some of them are virulently destructive, and the thing about living in a society is that it is extremely hard to be just your own person. In the end, everything you do is going to affect someone else, and drugs do little that is good on that end. So, on that end, no.

But, I don't lump pot in here. I fully support legalization and regulation.

Abortion is certainly a black and white thing, perhaps the worst of them since there's a life at stake that has no say in the matter. I do believe life begins at conception, but then again I see so many instances of children living lives no kid should ever have to endure, born into situations that should never be. Also, there is the fact that sometimes there is a health risk for the mom. But, then again, abortion is often used as a tool of convenience, and that I hate passionately.

Sucide bothers me in the same way. There's just no good, all-encompassing right or wrong answer there.

Gambling? Hell yes. I indulge sometimes. Like many things, it's fun when used in moderation, and dangerous if abused.

Prostition should be legalized and heavily regulated. There's nothing but morals involved with its illegality, and the prostitutes that work now number in the millions, and few of them are in healthy, safe situations.
__________________
Ryan is offline  
Sat, March 3rd, 2007   #3
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
But, I don't lump pot in here. I fully support legalization and regulation.

Good to hear; I obviously agree.
Quote:
Prostition should be legalized and heavily regulated. There's nothing but morals involved with its illegality, and the prostitutes that work now number in the millions, and few of them are in healthy, safe situations.

Indeed. In Las Vegas, where prostitution has been legal for years, the women are clean and their clients are tested for venereal diseases. I think federal legislation should follow suit, bringing these women out of unsafe circumstances in the criminal market and barring police officers from arresting men who are looking for nothing wrong at all. Sex is therapeutic and consensual orgasms are nothing to be frowned upon.

[edit]

Forgot to add that I know you and I will never agree on abortion, so I won't touch on that.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine

Last edited by Sacred Jellybean : Sat, March 3rd, 2007 at 09:48 PM.
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Sat, March 3rd, 2007   #4
alien space marine
Holy Macaroni
 
 
Join Date: 02-21-03
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,918
Default

As for the case of their being to many humans abortions cool . I think economist would disagree ,as birthrates are shrinking in the developed world , The real threat is job vacancies and total lack of future labor, fewer tax payers as well. What do you think that "social sercurity issue is all about" to many old retirees to few younger tax payers to support it.

The other problem is to many babies from poorly educated 3rd world diseased religiously radical parts of world who don't much approve of our way of life.*Pakistan and Mexico* , If a place needs neutering its the 3rd world and everywhere Osama bin laden popularity rating is higher then that of their president.

Allot of the pro abortion claims about unwanted children growing up to be gangsters has already been debunked, In London if not local born kids shooting up the hood then it will be the immigrant kids from families brought in to supplement labor shortages some of which come from fucked up places were crime is prevalent that will pump up the numbers in the end the effect makes no difference on crime perhaps worse.

Countries are already handing out cash incentives for people to have children like japan Italy, Cyprus has a plan for 50,000 dollars each if people with already 2 children add a third or fourth.

I say this as someone isn't necessarily anti abortion.

The case for prostitution , If legalized have it one part of town indoors and out of sight at a specific spot, Both the hooker and the john pay a tax . Get stiffer on illegal prostitution once you do it.
__________________
"The devils Omelet"!

Last edited by alien space marine : Sat, March 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 PM.
alien space marine is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #5
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
As for the case of their being to many humans abortions cool . I think economist would disagree ,as birthrates are shrinking in the developed world , The real threat is job vacancies and total lack of future labor, fewer tax payers as well. What do you think that "social sercurity issue is all about" to many old retirees to few younger tax payers to support it.

The birth-rates are shrinking in which developed worlds? I know Japan is one of them, but as far as I know, they aren't shrinking in America. Perhaps you mean Canada? Do you have any references? I don't think it takes a great leap of faith to believe that globally, overpopulation should be more of a concern than underpopulation.
Quote:
The other problem is to many babies from poorly educated 3rd world diseased religiously radical parts of world who don't much approve of our way of life.*Pakistan and Mexico*

This sounds like a bunch of paranoia. Do you approve of the United States having invaded Iraq? And when did Mexico become a radically religious part of the world that hates our way-of-life?
Quote:
, If a place needs neutering its the 3rd world and everywhere Osama bin laden popularity rating is higher then that of their president.

Frankly, they can believe whatever they want, as long as they aren't aiding terrorists.
Quote:
Allot of the pro abortion claims about unwanted children growing up to be gangsters has already been debunked,

Right, I wouldn't have believed that. However, it just doesn't seem right for child birth to be focused solely on its emotional impact, rather than efficiency.
Quote:
In London if not local born kids shooting up the hood then it will be the immigrant kids from families brought in to supplement labor shortages some of which come from fucked up places were crime is prevalent that will pump up the numbers

Are you a xenophobic person in general?
Quote:
in the end the effect makes no difference on crime perhaps worse.

Perhaps worse? How would forcing parents to raise an unwanted child lessen crime?
Quote:
Countries are already handing out cash incentives for people to have children like japan Italy, Cyprus has a plan for 50,000 dollars each if people with already 2 children add a third or fourth.

That's fine for places where underpopulation is a problem (I don't know if that's actually the case for Italy and Cyprus). It's acceptable to give financial aid to those low on the economic ladder for having a child, but it shouldn't be made into an incentive to pop out baby after baby. Personally, I'm against parents having big families (I'm talking 4+ children) by principle. This would vary in a case-by-case survey, of course, but generally, it seems the more kids parents have, the less attention can be given to each individual child.
Quote:
The case for prostitution , If legalized have it one part of town indoors and out of sight at a specific spot, Both the hooker and the john pay a tax . Get stiffer on illegal prostitution once you do it.

That sounds about right, depending on how you define "illegal prostitution." Let's say a secretary is in dire need of some extra cash, as she is a struggling, single mother (boy, does this sound like a build-up to a porn, or what?). Her boss offers her a financial supplement in exchange for sex. Should that be illegal, since she is not undergoing the typical avenues of exchanging sex for money (which, in this case, would be to enlist in the proper place and go through set procedures)? I doubt you'd disagree with that, since it seems your main gripe is keeping it off the streets and out of sight, so perhaps my example is superfluous.

I don't think one designated spot in one part of town is necessary. Keeping it behind-closed-doors is fine, as long as there's a someone at the door to ask customers for identification if they look too young.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #6
A Black Falcon
Defender of the Realm
 
A Black Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-99
Location: Maine, USA
Age: 25
Posts: 22,291
Send a message via AIM to A Black Falcon Send a message via MSN to A Black Falcon
Default

Quote:
The birth-rates are shrinking in which developed worlds? I know Japan is one of them, but as far as I know, they aren't shrinking in America. Perhaps you mean Canada? Do you have any references? I don't think it takes a great leap of faith to believe that globally, overpopulation should be more of a concern than underpopulation.

In the developed world, actually, populations are at best stagnant and most are dropping. The only exceptions are because of immigration. The US is in much better shape than most -- the US birthrate is about 2.0 or so (2.1 is replacement), meaning the population is about even, but because we allow in many immigrants, the national population is increasing. Most European nations and the developed nations of Asia (South Korea and Japan), though, are not so lucky, and some are facing serious problems over the next century -- since most of those nations do not like immigration because they have a sense of national identity that is tied to race, and not just 'anyone who lives here is an American eventually' like America, even Koreans who have lived in Japan for fifty years or longer are 'Korean', not Japanese. With very low to almost no immigration and some incredibly low birthrates (what is Japan, 1.3 or something?), Japan's population is currently expected to go from 125 million or so now to at most 100 million in just fifty years, and keep steeply dropping unless they can do something about the birthrate -- Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world and that slows down the rate of decline somewhat)

In Europe, Spain and Italy aren't much better off (I think Spain and Italy have two of the lowest birthrates in Europe, and I don't know if any of the Western or even Central European countries reach 2.1... maybe some in cental or eastern Europe. Maybe.)... France and England are doing a bit better, and England does allow more immigration, but other parts of Europe have trouble. Russia also has a dropping population, though there a relatively low birthrate is only part of the problem... Russia also has a very low life expectancy and some big public health problems.

As for the third world, that is where the nations with growing populations are. While much of sub-Saharan Africa has been decimated by AIDS, some African nations are growing rapidly, and South and Southeast Asia is exploding... in short, there is a looming population shortage in many of the nations that could use at least a stable population and can afford to deal with the problems of having more people, and a huge population crisis in nations that can't. It really is a big problem, and will get larger with time.
Quote:
That sounds about right, depending on how you define "illegal prostitution." Let's say a secretary is in dire need of some extra cash, as she is a struggling, single mother (boy, does this sound like a build-up to a porn, or what?). Her boss offers her a financial supplement in exchange for sex. Should that be illegal, since she is not undergoing the typical avenues of exchanging sex for money (which, in this case, would be to enlist in the proper place and go through set procedures)? I doubt you'd disagree with that, since it seems your main gripe is keeping it off the streets and out of sight, so perhaps my example is superfluous.

In that situation, of course, it should be illegal, like how it's illegal for teachers to have sex with their students even after they reach the local age of consent -- there's a clear inequity in the relationship there, and expectations of favoritism or something would be impossible to avoid.

One of the main problems with legalized prostitution is that even legalized, I would expect that unfairness would continue to be a huge problem. I know it's legal in Nevada and don't know how well it works there, but it just seems like it's such as easy way to exploit people in, that making it legal would likely not help that much... perhaps it could, but I'm very, very sceptical.
Quote:
Gambling: I don't disagree with its legal status. I don't participate or care if people choose waste their money.

Gambling is a tax on people who can't afford to pay it (lower-income people, that is). As such there are major moral problems with gambling... still, as a major source of state revenues all over the country, it's going nowhere, that's for sure.
Quote:
Abortion: It should be legal. Some people simply aren't ready to have children, nor should they be forced to raise it. Adoption? Sure, it's an alternative, but the child may still feel unwanted. The world is already over-populated. Why raise more god damn children when they're already too many? There's nothing beautiful about giving birth to a child. It does not make you special; mostly everyone else can do the same. Raising a child properly is special, and if there's a bad chance of this taking place, and if the parents are unfit, there's no reason to force them. I do not see the child as an independently living creature until it's birth (or perhaps by the 3rd trimester), and hence, don't see it as any more murderous than removing a tumor or parasite before then. Don't take that the wrong way.

I'd say that abortion isn't really a moral issue anymore, it's a political one. As such morality or what is right really doesn't have much to do with it... (I, of course, support the right to choose)
Quote:
Suicide/euthanasia: Yup. If someone really wants to die, and is in constant suffering, who am I to force him to live? He's not truly master of his own domain if I force my own self-righteousness upon him. I may disagree, but it's not my decision to make. On the other hand, someone who is mentally ill and at times DOES value life ought to be saved and helped.

Suicide isn't like euthanasia... there is no justification for suicide. Euthanasia? That's a little trickier, but I'm sceptical. What if sometime soon after some new treatment is developed that would have helped? Maybe that's unlikely, but if there's a chance...
Quote:
Personally, I feel that all of the above (aside from hard drugs, in which I am still undecided) should all be legal.

My opinion on this hasn't changed. I oppose the legalization of any illegal drugs and wish that we could make tobacco illegal too.

Maybe more studies should look into whether marijuana actually makes a difference for specific cases of terminal illnesses that no other drugs will help alleviate, but beyond that, absolutely not. (And even in that case, it would be incredibly hard to manage that... sell it how, pharmacies? As if the number of places robbed for their OxyContin isn't enough... those ridiculous 'medicinal marijuana' laws that just say 'you can have it' without having a system for getting it beyond illegal means that help drug traffickers are bad laws, something else would have to be done. But first there would actually need to be proof that it helps and nothing else can in those cases, and I'm not so sure that that proof actually exists or could, so it's all hypothetical anyway. The controls for making sure that it's actually a legitimate incurable illness that has no better option would also be quite difficult to maintain I'd think.) No, just keeping it illegal is best.
__________________
My Games Collection My Webpage!
Currently Playing: Guild Wars (with expansions) (PC), Donkey Kong Country series (SNES), Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2 (GBA), sometimes Warcraft III or Starcraft (PC) Mega Turrican and Universal Soldier (Genesis), various other stuff
A Black Falcon is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #7
Ryan
Tyrone Slothrop, Esq.
 
 
Join Date: 05-03-00
Location: Got a hardon in your fist? Don't be pissed. Re-enlist!
Age: 25
Posts: 4,322
Send a message via AIM to Ryan Send a message via MSN to Ryan
Default

Quote:
Gambling is a tax on people who can't afford to pay it (lower-income people, that is). As such there are major moral problems with gambling... still, as a major source of state revenues all over the country, it's going nowhere, that's for sure.

But it is a tax that is completely voluntary. Lottery ticket sales aren't mandatory. It's probably the clearest-cut case of where morality should not be legislated.
__________________
Ryan is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #8
Dark Jaguar
Resident Schizophrenic
 
Dark Jaguar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-12-99
Location: Huh, guess I'll be walking this way now...
Posts: 12,950
Default

Gambling isn't a tax on the poor, it's a tax on people who are bad at math. Idiots, in other words, rich and poor. I've got a hard time making it illegal (freedom to do as one will), but I'd certainly want to give better math education and a little skepticism so people don't throw away their livelihoods on the stupidity. I say make it die because no one is interested.
__________________
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
Dark Jaguar is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #9
alien space marine
Holy Macaroni
 
 
Join Date: 02-21-03
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,918
Default

Quote:
This sounds like a bunch of paranoia. Do you approve of the United States having invaded Iraq? And when did Mexico become a radically religious part of the world that hates our way-of-life?

No , I don't approve of the U.S invasion , Is Iraq better off now with sectarian ethnic cleansing everywhere? Having loads of people being blown to shreds everyday with little certainty that any kind of democracy will emerge?

http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-0...trical_war.html

This pretty much sums up why the war in Iraq is fucked up.

The Mexico thing is a joke SJB , They don't wanna speak any English.
Quote:
The birth-rates are shrinking in which developed worlds? I know Japan is one of them, but as far as I know, they aren't shrinking in America. Perhaps you mean Canada? Do you have any references? I don't think it takes a great leap of faith to believe that globally, overpopulation should be more of a concern than underpopulation.

The U.S is spared thanks to illegal Mexicans and immigrants , If it waist for that fact Latin Americans are like Bunnie rabbits copulating in bulk.

Its not a *underpopulation* more of a lack of replacement for current aging work force , You cant have reliance on immigration alone , emigrant workers bring their families older ones etc.. who is gonna pay for them? The big concern is having majority of the country being seasoned and leeching off a system that has Imbalance of younger tax payers to support it. The case being in Europe the rest of world we have all socialized tax payer funded programs universal health care etc.

Immigrants namely from the Islamic world are not brought up in western values when they arrive,The other concern is for newcomers to not embrace nationally accepted beliefs, Like equality for women democracy secularism tolerance.

The case of Immigrant from the middle east is those who have lived in the west for the past 40's-30's and their children as well are better adjusted to our way of life then the New guard of recent, they come from places were there is morality police to enforce religious code, The is a general strong belief God Allah mandated laws to be followed and penalties for breaking them , Many outspoken individuals will say *democracy goes against sharia Islamic law* since it offers one the possibility of amending *Allah's laws*.

Sacred jellybean hasn't the Cartoon outrage and the Pope backlash made it pretty clear something wrong over there, People being murdered in retaliation for danish cartoonist drawing pictures of the prophet Mohamed riding camels.



I am not saying deport Muslims or whatever , Lets just make sure we don't end up losers being bred of existence.
__________________
"The devils Omelet"!
alien space marine is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #10
Ryan
Tyrone Slothrop, Esq.
 
 
Join Date: 05-03-00
Location: Got a hardon in your fist? Don't be pissed. Re-enlist!
Age: 25
Posts: 4,322
Send a message via AIM to Ryan Send a message via MSN to Ryan
Default

That's generalizing every lottery player as obsessive and self-destructive. When I had a job selling the things, I'd see some people who did that. We also had a bunch of old guys who retired with tons of money and nothing better to do. They didn't even really care much whether they won or lost, it was an activity to do while they socialized together. And, a vast majority of the people who played were pretty moderate about it, buying only a ticket or two for fun. Why dismantle the whole process just because some people can't be healthy about it? There will always be people who do anything to dangerous excess, no matter what the activity is.

Besides, if that avenue of tax income disappears, they'll just milk more out of everyone else.
__________________
Ryan is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #11
A Black Falcon
Defender of the Realm
 
A Black Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-99
Location: Maine, USA
Age: 25
Posts: 22,291
Send a message via AIM to A Black Falcon Send a message via MSN to A Black Falcon
Default

Quote:

But it is a tax that is completely voluntary. Lottery ticket sales aren't mandatory. It's probably the clearest-cut case of where morality should not be legislated.

True, but on the other hand, some people become addicted to gambling, and waste large amounts (or even small amounts, when they have even less) of money on gambling which they really can't afford... a ban isn't the answer, probably, but it is a real problem, and one which, while recognized, is probably a bit ignored...
Quote:
Gambling isn't a tax on the poor, it's a tax on people who are bad at math. Idiots, in other words, rich and poor. I've got a hard time making it illegal (freedom to do as one will), but I'd certainly want to give better math education and a little skepticism so people don't throw away their livelihoods on the stupidity. I say make it die because no one is interested.

Yeah, I thought about calling it a tax on the stupid, which it also is (as you say)... it's both, really.
Quote:
Immigrants namely from the Islamic world are not brought up in western values when they arrive,The other concern is for newcomers to not embrace nationally accepted beliefs, Like equality for women democracy secularism tolerance.

You have to have at least some basic understanding of American values in order to become a citizen... this goes too far. If they truly were that hardline in their beliefs, I'm not exactly convinced that they would want to come here on a long-term basis...

First, I have to say that this has almost nothing to do with the topic of this thread...

... that said, I'm writing a long post about it anyway... erm, yeah.
Quote:
The case of Immigrant from the middle east is those who have lived in the west for the past 40's-30's and their children as well are better adjusted to our way of life then the New guard of recent, they come from places were there is morality police to enforce religious code, The is a general strong belief God Allah mandated laws to be followed and penalties for breaking them , Many outspoken individuals will say *democracy goes against sharia Islamic law* since it offers one the possibility of amending *Allah's laws*.

Most Sharia law doesn't actually come from the Koran itsself, you know, but from laws written later... some of the bases do ('modesty'), but then the laws greatly expand on that and push it a lot farther into the realm of "this is obviously wrong" than the Koran alone says. There's nothing in the Koran about women having to wear veils as far as I know, for instance... Of course, expanding well beyond the bounds of the basic text is something that happens in every religion; Christian practice and what is written in the New Testament are often virutally opposite in a lot of ways, for instance... the problem is the amount of radicalism in the religion; moderate Islam is (or can/could be) no better or worse than moderate Christianity... really though, that's not the issue. The issue is about political culture more than anything -- as much as some in some religions don't like it (see the Pope's regular comments about how European society needs to go back to being more religious), in the West we have a concept of political culture -- the idea that politics and religion are separate, and that that is a good thing. That idea doesn't really exist in most Islamic nations, or if it does it has almost no influence.

However, in North America at least, most Muslims are more moderate; "the Muslims here are all (or mostly) potential terrorists or supporters of Sharia law" is simply not a valid statement and leads to a huge amout of unjustified persecution.

This is why simply having an election in Iraq doesn't work. They vote, but they have no real concept of why voting should be a right or what the right to vote truly means and why they should want it, so they vote for people from their group, and politics polarize on the same Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd lines as the general population.

It is true that the West and the Islamic world have a great divide between them, and politically and mentally the Islamic world is far behind the West in political development. The Islamic church is like Christianity would be if there had been no Reformation or Enlightenment, essentially. The Reformation and the Enlightenment were incredibly important events, and without any equivilant, Muslims do not see the need for a separation of church and state like we do, for the most part.

Of course, say anything that general and you will be proven wrong in a dozen ways -- "Turkey", or "Indonesia", etc. And those complaints would be correct; the issue is not the entire religion of Islam, but the lack of balance between church and state and the ignorance of the populations (the education level of most Islamic countries is well below Western education levels; large amounts of unemployment in some Middle Eastern countries also creates a problem as it creates a large class of people easy for radicals to convince; similarly for Arabs, American support for Israel is a, and perhaps the, central factor in raising the level of anger...) is the problem. Turkey shows that it is possible to balance Islam and democracy; the Bush administration was, among other things, thinking of making Iraq into another Turkey (more for the 'friend to the US' thing than the 'democracy' thing, though). Of course, Iraq is a nation with no sense of national unity beyond that of a strongman forcing people to conform, and they should have known that, but that's another issue...

... yeah, I'm not saying much of anything am I... erm... a point, I need to make an actual point...

-Treating Muslims badly (in the US) simply because of their religion is wrong; harass people too much and they WILL turn against you, even if they wouldn't have before. Of course security matters too, but we need to uphold our principles, and we are doing many things which break those principles. You can have security and equality; now we are sacrificing equality for an impossible "security" which we can never achieve, and it is wrong.

-The path towards democracy in the Middle East will be long and hard. We need to somehow build up the idea of political culture in those nations, but that is something that is pretty much impossible to impose from the outside. America did not become a nation because democracy was forced on it. It became a democracy because its people decided that nothing less than democracy (or a democratic republic, to be more precise) would do. Until this happens in the Middle East, it will not turn lastingly democratic in a meaningful way.

-We have to accept the consequences of having elections in nations like Palestine and Iraq. When the population is angry, they will elect angry leaders, hence the victories of the hardline Shi'ites and Hezbollah. This will not change as long as the people feel threatened or oppressed. The first key to this is somehow solving the Israel-Arab problem, something that after sixty years seems virtually impossible... it has caused an almost incalcuable amount of hatred and tension... but finding ways to deal with Arab poverty, unemployment, etc. are also crucial. It is not that no one in Gaza, the West Bank, or Iraq has any idea of what is the right thing to do; it is that the radicals have more support because of conditions.

-Iraq needs to be partitioned three ways. I don't see any other way of getting them to stop killing eachother. Baghdad will be a big problem for a long time though...

-We need to realize the consequences of our actions. We supported Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan; he destroyed or silenced all opponents to his rule that he could; the few moderates there were were destroyed. Result? All that was left were the hardy ones, the radical Islamists in fringe tribal lands the Pakistani army cannot control. Great. What do we do now? We continue to support a dictator, knowing that if he died or if an election was held radical extremists would win, and they would have nuclear weapons... but how do you deal with the situation? It seems almost too far gone to fix at this point... I don't know, but we need to realize that dictators are not exactly always the best solution -- in some senses, an elected antiamerican government is in the long run maybe less of a threat than a friendly dictator who tries to crush all opposition but only manages to grow the radicals within the nation...

-We need to stop looking like the enemy to the Islamic world! Even Indonesia is seeing a growth of radical Islam these days, and a large part of that is because America is seen as anti-Islamic; if we change that perception and act sincerely towards fostering an understanding between moderate Islamic states and the US, we can definitely help the situation. (This will never, ever happen with this administration in office, though, that's for sure...)

On the other hand, we do need to recognize the dangers -- the way Islamic states treat women is horrible, and the way that they get deluded (or convinced) into believing that something bad for them is good for them... I approved of France's move last year (or the year before?) to ban headscarves from public schools. That is one of the most obvious symbols even here of that oppression... perhaps it is seen by Muslims as only a sign of modesty, but it is more than that. It is a symbol of old ways of thinking that should change; that's part of why when Ataturk founded Turkey he banned headscarves and turbans, I think (to struggle against Islamic religious rule in government; the two are kept separate).

Oh yes, and as an aside, if you look at the actual opinions of the general populations, Iran is probably a lot more pro-American than any of the Arab nations... the governments are different, but governments and popu
lations often have different messages. Military action by us there would destroy this and unite them behind their leaders, as it would for almost any nation when under attack.

... erm... I think this was a failed attempt at a post... oh well, I'm not rewriting it now into something that actually makes sense.
__________________
My Games Collection My Webpage!
Currently Playing: Guild Wars (with expansions) (PC), Donkey Kong Country series (SNES), Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2 (GBA), sometimes Warcraft III or Starcraft (PC) Mega Turrican and Universal Soldier (Genesis), various other stuff
A Black Falcon is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #12
Dark Jaguar
Resident Schizophrenic
 
Dark Jaguar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-12-99
Location: Huh, guess I'll be walking this way now...
Posts: 12,950
Default

*clap* and I'm out.

Suffice it to say my viewpoint is simple. Laws should only be there to prevent people from hurting each other, basically the big three are physical harm, stealing, and deception. In fact, I'd say deception has the potential to lead to both of the other two so it should probably actually be higher on the list. People who are lied to may think that certain harmful actions are good for people, like blowing up buildings.
__________________
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
Dark Jaguar is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #13
Ryan
Tyrone Slothrop, Esq.
 
 
Join Date: 05-03-00
Location: Got a hardon in your fist? Don't be pissed. Re-enlist!
Age: 25
Posts: 4,322
Send a message via AIM to Ryan Send a message via MSN to Ryan
Default

Quote:
True, but on the other hand, some people become addicted to gambling, and waste large amounts (or even small amounts, when they have even less) of money on gambling which they really can't afford... a ban isn't the answer, probably, but it is a real problem, and one which, while recognized, is probably a bit ignored...

There are people addicted to video games. There are people addicted to MMORPGS, the internet in general, addicted to cars, addicted to porn, addicted to chocolate, addicted to exercise, addicted to work, addicted to mountain-climbing, addicted to debates, addicted to computers, addicted to origami, addicted to Sudoku, addicted to reading, addicted to writing, addicted to watching sports, addicted to animals.

EVERYTHING has the potential to foster addiction, and many of those up there are as dangerous as being addicted to lottery tickets. We should ban all of those activities to be safe.
__________________
Ryan is offline  
Sun, March 4th, 2007   #14
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
In the developed world, actually, populations are at best stagnant and most are dropping. The only exceptions are because of immigration. The US is in much better shape than most -- the US birthrate is about 2.0 or so (2.1 is replacement), meaning the population is about even, but because we allow in many immigrants, the national population is increasing. Most European nations and the developed nations of Asia (South Korea and Japan), though, are not so lucky, and some are facing serious problems over the next century -- since most of those nations do not like immigration because they have a sense of national identity that is tied to race, and not just 'anyone who lives here is an American eventually' like America, even Koreans who have lived in Japan for fifty years or longer are 'Korean', not Japanese. With very low to almost no immigration and some incredibly low birthrates (what is Japan, 1.3 or something?), Japan's population is currently expected to go from 125 million or so now to at most 100 million in just fifty years, and keep steeply dropping unless they can do something about the birthrate -- Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world and that slows down the rate of decline somewhat)

In Europe, Spain and Italy aren't much better off (I think Spain and Italy have two of the lowest birthrates in Europe, and I don't know if any of the Western or even Central European countries reach 2.1... maybe some in cental or eastern Europe. Maybe.)... France and England are doing a bit better, and England does allow more immigration, but other parts of Europe have trouble. Russia also has a dropping population, though there a relatively low birthrate is only part of the problem... Russia also has a very low life expectancy and some big public health problems.

As for the third world, that is where the nations with growing populations are. While much of sub-Saharan Africa has been decimated by AIDS, some African nations are growing rapidly, and South and Southeast Asia is exploding... in short, there is a looming population shortage in many of the nations that could use at least a stable population and can afford to deal with the problems of having more people, and a huge population crisis in nations that can't. It really is a big problem, and will get larger with time.

Interesting. Thank you for the information.
Quote:
In that situation, of course, it should be illegal, like how it's illegal for teachers to have sex with their students even after they reach the local age of consent -- there's a clear inequity in the relationship there, and expectations of favoritism or something would be impossible to avoid.

That's a good point - I hadn't thought of that. Let me alter my example - a man proposes sex to a woman in a bar for cash. Should that be illegal? What if it were a place designated to meeting people to have sex?

I believe it shouldn't be illegal, but it should be considered harassment if the man doesn't take "no" for an answer and keeps bothering the woman. Establishments should be free on whether to prohibit sexual solicitation (and most would).
Quote:
One of the main problems with legalized prostitution is that even legalized, I would expect that unfairness would continue to be a huge problem. I know it's legal in Nevada and don't know how well it works there, but it just seems like it's such as easy way to exploit people in, that making it legal would likely not help that much... perhaps it could, but I'm very, very sceptical.

Exploitation of women is wrong, but they will be exploited anyway by pornography. It's their choice to be exploited. Each woman is different - some want to be recognized for their intelligence, productivity, work ethic, etc., but others don't mind being recognized as sex symbols (Paris Hilton). Women are living contradictions sometimes; they want to be recognized for their beauty and sex appeal (especially younger women - look at this whole myspace debacle), but they also demand respect and equality (which they should have, but the brains of men and women work differently and will never be completely equal).
Quote:
I'd say that abortion isn't really a moral issue anymore, it's a political one. As such morality or what is right really doesn't have much to do with it... (I, of course, support the right to choose)

It's a political issue rooted into morality.
Quote:
Suicide isn't like euthanasia...

They're both death-by-choice.
Quote:
there is no justification for suicide.

You could argue that, but I would personally never jump to be so presumptuous. Death-by-choice is appealing to those under extremely crestfallen circumstances, people who are constantly miserable and under emotional turmoil. It's depressing to think about, but I simply can't discount the idea that sometimes, nothing can help to alleviate a person's suffering.
Quote:
Euthanasia? That's a little trickier, but I'm sceptical. What if sometime soon after some new treatment is developed that would have helped? Maybe that's unlikely, but if there's a chance...

Would you still want to live if you were blind, deaf, crippled, handless, etc.? Most people, I'm assuming, have a threshold for what they consider to be acceptable living conditions. It's another morbid topic, but I think that it's simply another personal choice that shouldn't be taken away from every person.
Quote:
My opinion on this hasn't changed. I oppose the legalization of any illegal drugs and wish that we could make tobacco illegal too.

You're staunchly conservative (though it isn't the true conservative ideal for less government) when it comes to this, so I won't even argue with it (like Rtan with abortion).
Quote:
Maybe more studies should look into whether marijuana actually makes a difference for specific cases of terminal illnesses that no other drugs will help alleviate, but beyond that, absolutely not.

There have already been countless studies proving marijuana's therapeutic properties. They conducted a study in the 70s that's still going on. Our federal government still distributes marijuana to 5 or so people in the United States for personal usage (as a medicine). That isn't a strong argument for medical marijuana legalization, but the fact that "studies must still be conducted proving marijuana's benefits as a medicine" is simply another myth. Marijuana has proven to be a useful medication, mostly by alleviating pain and giving people an appetite. If their illness or treatment (as in cancer) induces hard bouts of nausea, this person will have trouble keeping down things they eat. There are a few ways to get around this, IV and smoking being a couple of them. There are also sprays available, such as Sativex, the spray released in the UK based on THC, marijuana's psychoactive component. However, some may prefer smoking or vaporizing their medicine ("vaporization" turns the marijuana into a vapor without combusting it, relieving the user from any irritation of the bronchial tubes that may come from smoking).
Quote:
Marijuana is frequently beneficial in the treatment of the following conditions:

* AIDS. Marijuana can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by various AIDS medications.

* Glaucoma. Marijuana can reduce interlobular pressure, thereby alleviating the pain and slowing -- and sometimes stopping -- the progress of the condition. (Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. It damages vision by increasing eye pressure over time.)

* Cancer. Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment.

* Multiple Sclerosis. Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)

* Epilepsy. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.

* Chronic Pain. Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by myriad disorders and injuries.

Each of these applications has been deemed legitimate by at least one court, legislature, and/or government agency in the United States.

From WAMM, and a few testimonials. Admittedly, that's a site dedicated to medical marijuana advocacy, but the facts still stand.

From http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/s...esestates.html:
Quote:
Cannabis has been recognized for centuries as a valuable therapeutic agent. Folk uses of Cannabis include treatment of insomnia, inflammation, various psychoses, digestive disorders, depression, rheumatism, migraine, neuralgia, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, parasites, appetite disorders and it has also been employed by women to facilitate childbirth, stimulate lactation, and relieve menstrual cramping (Mechoulam 1986). These traditions continue in every region where Cannabis is available. Modern Wester n Cannabis users also frequently claim relief from many of these same medical complaints.

Cannabis or THC have been used experimentally to effectively lower the elevated intraocular pressure of glaucoma (Adler and Geller 1986) and have shown potential for the treatment of alcoholism (Rosenburg 1976) and drug dependence (Hine et al. 1975). THC has been used as a bronchodilator for the relief of asthma symptoms (Graham 1986) and may also be effectively used as an analgesic for pain relief (Segal 1986). It has even been shown to have antibacterial properties (Van Klingeren and Ten Ham 1976).

Cannabis has been used for millennia:
Quote:
The complex interplay of cannabis use with physiology and psychology challenges research. Outcomes are combinations of pharmacology, expectations, setting, personal and social forces. The contemporary ambiguity, a product of ignorance from deprivation of contemporary clinical experience, may be somewhat assuaged by two facts: Firstly, cannabis has been used for millennia by numerous cultures without serious adverse consequences. Secondly, neither the composition of cannabis nor the physiology of humans have changed since the drug was taken from the armementarium of medicine.

Here's an actual marijuana timeline.

This is written by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a physician and medical marijuana advocate:
Quote:
In every life there occur seminal events that modify the seemingly established trajectory of one's personal history. For me, three of the four big ones were, in chronological order, the decision to go to medical school, the extraordinary good fortune of meeting the woman I married, and the gift of children. The fourth was my improbable encounter with cannabis, an event that divided my life into two eras; the before cannabis era, and the cannabis era (my son David refers to these phases of my life as BC and AD for before cannabis and after dope). My cannabis era began to unfold in 1967. As the senior author of a book on schizophrenia, I found myself with what I estimated would be two to three relatively free months before my co-authors would finish their chapters. Because I had become concerned that so many young people were using the terribly dangerous drug marijuana, I decided to use the time to review the medical literature so that I could write a reasonably objective and scientifically sound paper on the harmfulness of this substance. Young people were ignoring the warnings of the government, but perhaps some would seriously consider a well-documented review of the available data. So I began my systematic review of the medical and scientific literature bearing on the toxicity -- mental and physical -- of marijuana. It never occurred to me then that there were other dimensions of this drug that warranted exploration.

During my initial foray into this literature I discovered, to my astonishment, that I had to seriously question what I believed I knew about cannabis. As I began to appreciate that what I thought I understood was largely based on myths, old and new, I realized how little my training in science and medicine had protected me against this misinformation. I had become not just a victim of a disinformation campaign, but because I was a physician, one of its agents as well.

Marijuana may block Alzheimer's (ironic, huh?)
Quote:
(And even in that case, it would be incredibly hard to manage that... sell it how, pharmacies? As if the number of places robbed for their OxyContin isn't enough...

The answer to stop the spread of drugs is NOT to restrict it from those who need it. That's not very compassionate, for a liberal.
Quote:
those ridiculous 'medicinal marijuana' laws that just say 'you can have it' without having a system for getting it beyond illegal means that help drug traffickers are bad laws, something else would have to be done.

No system? What are you talking about? Marijuana is prescribed through physicians. It's not like anyone can just walk up to a generic government building and get a card. What if the patient received multiple opinions? Would you still be willing to be a hard-ass about it?
Quote:
But first there would actually need to be proof that it helps and nothing else can in those cases, and I'm not so sure that that proof actually exists or could, so it's all hypothetical anyway.

You've never heard of the story of Montel Williams? Marijuana is the only drug that effectively alleviates the pain from his multiple sclerosis of the feet and legs, and doesn't turn him into a zombie. This case isn't exactly isolated, either... I would guess there are hundreds, if not thousands of people in this country who, if ill, would get the best results from marijuana. If it works, why argue with it? Also, as far as I know, patients who smoke marijuana on enough of a regular basis reportedly stop getting high. As someone with experience with cannabis, I can safely say that if I smoke it too much, it becomes boring, and my desire to smoke dwindles. Usually, at that point, I'll quit for a week (or longer, if I'm too busy from school to smoke).
Quote:
The controls for making sure that it's actually a legitimate incurable illness that has no better option would also be quite difficult to maintain I'd think.) No, just keeping it illegal is best.

Sorry, but prohibiting a medication just because there exists a subset of people who actually ENJOY the substance recreationally is no reason to drive ill people into the hands of the criminal market, where they can get ripped off or harmed.

I'll tackle your other guys' posts later.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine

Last edited by Sacred Jellybean : Mon, March 5th, 2007 at 02:19 AM.
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Mon, March 5th, 2007   #15
alien space marine
Holy Macaroni
 
 
Join Date: 02-21-03
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,918
Default

Quote:
-We need to stop looking like the enemy to the Islamic world! Even Indonesia is seeing a growth of radical Islam these days, and a large part of that is because America is seen as anti-Islamic; if we change that perception and act sincerely towards fostering an understanding between moderate Islamic states and the US, we can definitely help the situation. (This will never, ever happen with this administration in office, though, that's for sure...)

On the other hand, we do need to recognize the dangers -- the way Islamic states treat women is horrible, and the way that they get deluded (or convinced) into believing that something bad for them is good for them... I approved of France's move last year (or the year before?) to ban headscarves from public schools. That is one of the most obvious symbols even here of that oppression... perhaps it is seen by Muslims as only a sign of modesty, but it is more than that. It is a symbol of old ways of thinking that should change; that's part of why when Ataturk founded Turkey he banned headscarves and turbans, I think (to struggle against Islamic religious rule in government; the two are kept separate).

Oh yes, and as an aside, if you look at the actual opinions of the general populations, Iran is probably a lot more pro-American than any of the Arab nations... the governments are different, but governments and popu
lations often have different messages. Military action by us there would destroy this and unite them behind their leaders, as it would for almost any nation when under attack.

... erm... I think this was a failed attempt at a post... oh well, I'm not rewriting it now into something that actually makes sense.

Radical groups within the religion would hope to scare non Muslims into starting a conflict, Look at India when they bomb Hindu's the terrorist hope to cause violent backlash that would be followed by Muslim uprising in response its intentional stirrings by folks like Osama bin laden, Hezbollah is regional and centered around attacking Israel and Jews being Shite they are not in good terms with Al Qeada infact their leader Nasrallah had a Assassination attempt done on him by Osama bin Laden associates in 2000 in the hopes of planting one of their own in the group .

During the Summer Israeli Lebanon event I find myself pissed off at the number Lebanese in my own country shouting support for Hezbollah waving their flags and symbols, Some violent clashes with Israeli supporters.

Their is a high amount of anti anti semitism amongst Arabs and Muslims regardless of your view on Israel the kind of toleration of bigotry among them I find concerning, It goes against our upbringing , Fine Israel can and should be criticized but they do goes to a hole other level beyond that, Sure there is peace makers among both sides just to be fare ,but I can count more Muslims then I have fingers that tried to convince me Jews were scum in fact more then even white Aryan anti semites , Which I find sad.

The headscarf hijab thing I could adjust too most people general come to tolerate it , but those that insist on waring the full black veil were all you have is slits for eye holes, I have witnessed it in public felt very disturbed and intimidated by it, Its practically a black colored KKK cloak dress for women the Najab they call it, They admit its not necessary even under their law but some countries make it so, Its the covering the face that is what we find difficult to deal with.

Your right about changing the image and impression of the U.S being anti Islamic , Something even all the western countries whose citizens bash America never pick up on that includes mine, Muslims in the Islamic world make no distinctions between the U.S and Europe to them their all the same, Its case on the battlefield in Afghanistan all those taliban and anti coalition fighters always "state" we will drive the Americans out not the Coalition forces , When told that most coalition troops are not American their from Europe ,Canada,Australia they respond saying "all the same to us"! . Pretty much like it or not America's image effects all of us we cannot continue to have the illusion that we can separate ourselves from the U.S.

The rise of Radicalism in Indonesia for instance, I think had allot too do with the danish cartoons and the damn popes statements and agitators who are their to milk it.
__________________
"The devils Omelet"!
alien space marine is offline  
Mon, March 5th, 2007   #16
etoven
That's retarded at near genius levels!
 
 
Join Date: 03-26-04
Location: Sunnydale resort, 7th layer hell PRV.
Age: 28
Posts: 582
Send a message via MSN to etoven
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
I think a lot of these things aren't quite black and white.

But, then again, abortion is often used as a tool of convenience, and that I hate passionately.

Women who kill there unborn children for convenience sake, shout be hung up by there clit and then stabbed in the stomach with a spear, crucifiction style.

There was a girl in my high school math class who had already had 7 abortions by age 16. I wanted to sow a penis to her stomach so nobody would fuck her.
__________________
"I once dreamt that I played "cannon in D", on an electric guitar, like a fiddle, in the style of a ho down." ~ me

"You are god to us dream characters. Some of us love you and some of us hate you, and some dream characters want to be left alone." Then he paused and he said "When you are awake, you are a dream character to God. You and everyone else are what God sees when he sleeps." ~ XGM

VILLAGE OF CLONES - Latest Film
(Watch Episode Today!) - (Visit Channel)

Latest Deivant Artwork
Broken Matrimony by ~etoven on deviantART



etoven is offline  
Mon, March 5th, 2007   #17
DMiller
Infrequent Poster
 
 
Join Date: 10-01-99
Location: Illinois, USA
Age: 26
Posts: 1,899
Send a message via AIM to DMiller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etoven
There was a girl in my high school math class who had already had 7 abortions by age 16. I wanted to sow a penis to her stomach so nobody would fuck her.

I definitely agree with you there. Women should have the right to an abortion, but they shouldn't be using it as a birth-control method. 7 times by age 16 is mind-boggling.
__________________
My Games (GameSpot)
My Website (In A Constant State of Construction)
DMiller is offline  
Mon, March 5th, 2007   #18
A Black Falcon
Defender of the Realm
 
A Black Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-99
Location: Maine, USA
Age: 25
Posts: 22,291
Send a message via AIM to A Black Falcon Send a message via MSN to A Black Falcon
Default

[SJ's reply to me]

I wrote a good-sized reply to this last night, but lost the whole thing due to a Database Error... haven't gotten up the will to rewrite it yet...
__________________
My Games Collection My Webpage!
Currently Playing: Guild Wars (with expansions) (PC), Donkey Kong Country series (SNES), Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2 (GBA), sometimes Warcraft III or Starcraft (PC) Mega Turrican and Universal Soldier (Genesis), various other stuff
A Black Falcon is offline  
Mon, March 5th, 2007   #19
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alien space marine
No , I don't approve of the U.S invasion , Is Iraq better off now with sectarian ethnic cleansing everywhere? Having loads of people being blown to shreds everyday with little certainty that any kind of democracy will emerge?

http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-0...trical_war.html

This pretty much sums up why the war in Iraq is fucked up.

I don't agree with it either - I was just curious.
Quote:
The Mexico thing is a joke SJB , They don't wanna speak any English.

Sorry, sometimes sarcasm has a tendency to fly way over my head.
Quote:
Sacred jellybean hasn't the Cartoon outrage and the Pope backlash made it pretty clear something wrong over there, People being murdered in retaliation for danish cartoonist drawing pictures of the prophet Mohamed riding camels.

Of course it has, but with the way you were saying it, you sounded one to share the beliefs of one of those paranoid crackers out in Bumblefuckville with a shot-gun, muttering about how we need to get rid of all 'dem Muslim terr-rists. I wasn't assuming that upfront, but it was initially a (false) suspicion.
Quote:
There are people addicted to video games. There are people addicted to MMORPGS, the internet in general, addicted to cars, addicted to porn, addicted to chocolate, addicted to exercise, addicted to work, addicted to mountain-climbing, addicted to debates, addicted to computers, addicted to origami, addicted to Sudoku, addicted to reading, addicted to writing, addicted to watching sports, addicted to animals.

EVERYTHING has the potential to foster addiction, and many of those up there are as dangerous as being addicted to lottery tickets. We should ban all of those activities to be safe.

Well said, I agree 100%.
Quote:
[SJ's reply to me]

I wrote a good-sized reply to this last night, but lost the whole thing due to a Database Error... haven't gotten up the will to rewrite it yet...

Damn... To play it safe, you should copy + paste all your long posts to a text document before posting next time.

Quote:
Women who kill there unborn children for convenience sake, shout be hung up by there clit and then stabbed in the stomach with a spear, crucifiction style.

There was a girl in my high school math class who had already had 7 abortions by age 16. I wanted to sow a penis to her stomach so nobody would fuck her.
Quote:
I definitely agree with you there. Women should have the right to an abortion, but they shouldn't be using it as a birth-control method. 7 times by age 16 is mind-boggling.

Hmm... I agree that "7 by 16" is pushing it, but at the same time, a nagging voice in my head asks, "why is it okay to go through this procedure a couple times, but not excessively?" I don't care for girls who use abortions as a contraceptive, but if it's okay to "kill" an embryo once or twice, why isn't it "okay" to do so more than 5 times? Just playing devil's advocate, here. There will be a toll taken on the woman's body (such as lowering her chances of again conceiving), but that's her decision to make. If it's not morally unsound to "kill" an embryo once, it shouldn't be morally unsound to do it more. Do you view abortion as something that should only be considered a last resort, or a "sin" that's forgivable the first couple times?

Here's another topic on legislation of morality - how do you guys feel about censorship? Personally, I consider censorship to be an abomination. Nothing should be censored everywhere, even hate speech. I don't mind television networks or websites censoring their own content, but the government should hardly ever (if at all) censor any media. It might be acceptable in some cases, but I can't think of any at the moment.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Mon, March 5th, 2007   #20
alien space marine
Holy Macaroni
 
 
Join Date: 02-21-03
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,918
Default

The big thing is what if this girl later in life like in her 30's wants a baby , But became infertile do to being a slut in high school using abortion as contraception? Is She really mature enough to make such a permanent decision now? Like many who said "bah I'll never catch lung cancer or it will be curable " when taking up smoking in their youth.
__________________
"The devils Omelet"!
alien space marine is offline  
Tue, March 6th, 2007   #21
DMiller
Infrequent Poster
 
 
Join Date: 10-01-99
Location: Illinois, USA
Age: 26
Posts: 1,899
Send a message via AIM to DMiller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacred Jellybean
Hmm... I agree that "7 by 16" is pushing it, but at the same time, a nagging voice in my head asks, "why is it okay to go through this procedure a couple times, but not excessively?" I don't care for girls who use abortions as a contraceptive, but if it's okay to "kill" an embryo once or twice, why isn't it "okay" to do so more than 5 times? Just playing devil's advocate, here. There will be a toll taken on the woman's body (such as lowering her chances of again conceiving), but that's her decision to make. If it's not morally unsound to "kill" an embryo once, it shouldn't be morally unsound to do it more. Do you view abortion as something that should only be considered a last resort, or a "sin" that's forgivable the first couple times?

It's not the number of times that's the problem, it's the fact that someone is having abortions because she is not using protection. There is no way someone can have 7 abortions by the age of 16 and they are all because the birth-control method failed.
__________________
My Games (GameSpot)
My Website (In A Constant State of Construction)
DMiller is offline  
Tue, March 6th, 2007   #22
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
It's not the number of times that's the problem, it's the fact that someone is having abortions because she is not using protection. There is no way someone can have 7 abortions by the age of 16 and they are all because the birth-control method failed.

Right, but I'm saying, why is it okay to have an abortion as a last-resort but not as a form of contraception? Is it only quasi-moral to abort a fetus, and only forgivable if kept to a minimum?
Quote:
The big thing is what if this girl later in life like in her 30's wants a baby , But became infertile do to being a slut in high school using abortion as contraception?

Yes, I've addressed that abortions may make contraception more difficult later. I've heard that the chance of conception lowers with every abortion performed. Isn't this still the girl's choice, though? If she's aware of the risks, is it not still her decision to make?
Quote:
Is She really mature enough to make such a permanent decision now? Like many who said "bah I'll never catch lung cancer or it will be curable " when taking up smoking in their youth.

What if the woman IS mature enough to make the permanent decision? Let's let go the example of the slut who attends your school for now and examine a hypothetical example of a woman in her late 20s. Where do you draw the line?
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Tue, March 6th, 2007   #23
alien space marine
Holy Macaroni
 
 
Join Date: 02-21-03
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,918
Default

Quote:

What if the woman IS mature enough to make the permanent decision? Let's let go the example of the slut who attends your school for now and examine a hypothetical example of a woman in her late 20s. Where do you draw the line?

Someone who is 16 is just so close in age to barely being able to legally consent to sex . not mention they cant in most places marry without parental approval and Cant legally buy alcohol.

Someone in their late 20's would be far more likely given being mentally psychically fully developed to make a more mature decision, Like not using Abortion for contraception given the side effects like you pointed out. I think something your not getting here as well that Dmiller keeps trying to communicate , If she can get pregnant then she can also get infected with a STD especially being sexually active with multiple partners.

I think many that are squeamish about abortion might be willing to grant emergency cases , But have trouble dealing with it when it come to frequent overuse. To Christians it violates gods plan , Its the first time in history people have the ability to control human reproduction and even plan copulation, unless you mean castration the only old method around.Smashing Gonads was a form of capital punish right up to the middle ages , In fact the word testimony comes from testicles , Giving false testimony means they take your nuts away , The bible says Eunuchs couldn't be trusted.

OK..... I may have gotten off topic in the unnecessary history lesson sorry....

but everything you talked about makes me wonder is what the near future going to be about ? Single people who have no faith in marriage no desire for family just want to knock up women all the time so they can have them riped out at a clinic later... lets all be thankful our mothers didn't abort us!

Makes me wonder if all that child sacrifice done in ancient times was some form of post birth abortion.

I think I had better stop talking now......
__________________
"The devils Omelet"!
alien space marine is offline  
Wed, March 14th, 2007   #24
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Someone in their late 20's would be far more likely given being mentally psychically fully developed to make a more mature decision, Like not using Abortion for contraception given the side effects like you pointed out. I think something your not getting here as well that Dmiller keeps trying to communicate , If she can get pregnant then she can also get infected with a STD especially being sexually active with multiple partners.

STD infection is only a risk if the partners the woman sleeps with are diseased. It's perfectly possible for her to be monogamous if her partner is clean, or polygamous if her partners are clean, and not have to worry about STDs. Of course, abortions aren't exactly practical, emotionally or financially...
Quote:
I think many that are squeamish about abortion might be willing to grant emergency cases , But have trouble dealing with it when it come to frequent overuse. To Christians it violates gods plan

I don't believe in predestination and am not religious, so this argument is somewhat lost on me. How can we be certain what "God's plan" is, though? For all we know, God wants us to utilize abortions and be masters of our own domain. Who can be presumptuous enough to truly know a deity's intent?

Hypothetically, God could also frown upon us using medication or drinking alcohol. Maybe it's in God's plan that people should live a natural life, and when a terminal illness strikes, people ought to accept that their time has come and refuse treatment.

Religious beliefs, aside from freedom of religion, should most certainly not play a hand in government.
Quote:
Its the first time in history people have the ability to control human reproduction and even plan copulation,

Technically, any contraceptive is used to that end. I, and I think most (if not all) people here don't buy into the idea that contraceptives are immoral, though.
Quote:
unless you mean castration the only old method around.Smashing Gonads was a form of capital punish right up to the middle ages , In fact the word testimony comes from testicles , Giving false testimony means they take your nuts away , The bible says Eunuchs couldn't be trusted.

Interesting... and painful to think about.
Quote:
but everything you talked about makes me wonder is what the near future going to be about ? Single people who have no faith in marriage no desire for family just want to knock up women all the time so they can have them riped out at a clinic later...

You and I may not agree with it, but I disagree even further than actions should be taken to make promiscuity and lack of so-called "family values" illegal.
Quote:
lets all be thankful our mothers didn't abort us!

Oh please, don't give me this. It's an argument that appeals entirely to emotion. Our mothers didn't abort us. It's no more relevant than saying "Let's all be thankful that our fathers weren't using condoms when we were conceived", or "let's all be thankful that the fertilized egg from which we developed wasn't wasted and washed out during her subsequent premenstrual stage" (not all fertilized eggs lead to pregnancy), or "let's all be thankful that a murderous madman didn't slaughter our mothers 3 days before we were delivered".

I simply don't believe that a potential child is as precious as an actual child. Perhaps that changes when the child is delivered, or some time during the 3rd trimester, but the definition is subjective. An embryo hasn't taken its first breath, or even existed long enough to even begin to have an idea of what you and I call life.

George Carlin makes some great points on the "Sanctity of Life" shpiel:
Quote:
But don't be giving me all this shit about the sanctity of life. I mean, even if there were such a thing, I don't think it's something you can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? 'Cuz we're alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don't see Abbott and Costello running around, talking about this shit, do you? We're not hearing a whole lot from Musolini on the subject. What's the latest from JFK? Not a goddamn thing. 'Cuz JFK, Musolini and Abbott and Costello are fucking dead. They're fucking dead. And dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It's a self serving, man-made bullshit story.

It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred. Makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this: if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. 'Cuz, I mean, even with all this stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. We don't practice it. Look at what we'd kill: Mosquitos and flies. 'Cuz they're pests. Lions and tigers. 'Cuz it's fun! Chickens and pigs. 'Cuz we're hungry. Pheasants and quails. 'Cuz it's fun. And we're hungry. And people. We kill people... 'Cuz they're pests. And it's fun!

And you might have noticed something else. The sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says "Save the tumors.". Or "I brake for advanced melanoma.". No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. Coli bacteria, the crabs. Nothing sacred about those things. So at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up!
Quote:
Makes me wonder if all that child sacrifice done in ancient times was some form of post birth abortion.

It's possible, but I find that to be more brutal than aborting an embryo.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine

Last edited by Sacred Jellybean : Thu, March 15th, 2007 at 01:44 AM. Reason: fixed a mistake, added a bit more
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Wed, March 14th, 2007   #25
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Whoops, I got so focused on my reply to ASM that I forgot to write what I originally came here to post. It also pertains to abortion.

Should only the woman be allowed to decide to abort, or should both parents have to consent? If the man wants to abort the child, but the woman wants to keep it, should the man be forced to take a huge blow in his paycheck to pay child support? Is our society sexist in that a man must be dragged kicking and screaming to raise a child when he does not wish to do so, but the woman does?

I didn't believe that it was sexist until recently... I was reading this particular debate on another forum, and those who were arguing in favor of the men brought up surprisingly good arguments. I'm still a bit on the fence with this one, though.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine
Sacred Jellybean is offline  
Wed, March 14th, 2007   #26
A Black Falcon
Defender of the Realm
 
A Black Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-99
Location: Maine, USA
Age: 25
Posts: 22,291
Send a message via AIM to A Black Falcon Send a message via MSN to A Black Falcon
Default

Quote:
Makes me wonder if all that child sacrifice done in ancient times was some form of post birth abortion.

That was more about getting rid of "inferior" children, really. For the most part, that meant girls were the main target of infanticide (in ancient Greece, at least; Sparta was the one exception, where boys were the main target, as they only wanted good warriors so smaller boy babies or crippled children (especially boys) were the ones left to die, not girls. But women had better status in Sparta than anywhere else in classical mainland Greece, that was just one part of it...)

That is called abortion by some, but it's different, as those babies were actually born before being abandoned, while abortion removes the fetus before birth, and before it is a true human being yet.
Quote:
Should only the woman be allowed to decide to abort, or should both parents have to consent?

Limititations like that are added by anti-choice legislators trying to restrict abortion any way they can, not because they actually make sense. Often the girls who most need abortions are ones who could never tell their parents without being severely punished...
Quote:
If the man wants to abort the child, but the woman wants to keep it, should the man be forced to take a huge blow in his paycheck to pay child support? Is our society sexist in that a man must be dragged kicking and screaming to raise a child when he does not wish to do so, but the woman does?

If one parent wants to keep the child, and there is no medical reason that an abortion is necessary, it does make sense to keep it... the problem, though, lies in legislating some "the father must know" law or something. What if the identity of the father isn't known for sure, or the father is out of contact and has no interest anymore for a while but comes back later and says "I would have taken care of it"? You can't just say "in every case the father must know", that would work as badly as parental-consent laws do... still though, I understand the point, and it is somewhat true that it's not fair that a baby that a father wants could still be aborted... I just don't know what could really be done legally about that, given that I am pro choice.
__________________
My Games Collection My Webpage!
Currently Playing: Guild Wars (with expansions) (PC), Donkey Kong Country series (SNES), Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2 (GBA), sometimes Warcraft III or Starcraft (PC) Mega Turrican and Universal Soldier (Genesis), various other stuff
A Black Falcon is offline  
Thu, March 15th, 2007   #27
Sacred Jellybean
The Revolution is over, and Wii won.
 
 
Join Date: 02-17-00
Location: Susan's house
Age: 23
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Limititations like that are added by anti-choice legislators trying to restrict abortion any way they can, not because they actually make sense. Often the girls who most need abortions are ones who could never tell their parents without being severely punished...

You misunderstood me. When I said "parents", I meant the father and mother of the unborn child. "Parents-to-be" would have been a better way of putting it.
Quote:
If one parent wants to keep the child, and there is no medical reason that an abortion is necessary, it does make sense to keep it... the problem, though, lies in legislating some "the father must know" law or something. What if the identity of the father isn't known for sure, or the father is out of contact and has no interest anymore for a while but comes back later and says "I would have taken care of it"?

If the father is out of the picture, then his decision becomes irrelevant and the choice of whether to keep the child lies solely with the mother. If the identity of the father isn't known, well, there are DNA tests to handle that sort of thing, so that could solve some of the cases.
Quote:
You can't just say "in every case the father must know", that would work as badly as parental-consent laws do... still though, I understand the point, and it is somewhat true that it's not fair that a baby that a father wants could still be aborted... I just don't know what could really be done legally about that, given that I am pro choice.

Indeed. I think that until a good solution is found, the choice should ultimately lie with the mother, who has to go through labor and carry the child for 9 months. However, I was talking more about the repercussions of the mother deciding to keep the child, while the father doesn't want anything to do with it. Should a father be forced to raise a child and take the emotional/financial blow (not to mention the time) when he doesn't wish to do so? Should the fact that he took part in its conception force the burden of raising it upon him? There are shades of gray, to be sure. What if he's unfit to make that kind of money while simultaneously supporting himself? Isn't it a bad idea to force him to play the part of a father to a child, if he ultimately resents it?

Here's another point about abortion: like other morality when attempted to be controlled by the government, it faces the problem that if people want to do it, they'll find ways, especially with the advent of the internet (i.e. easily and anonymously accessed information). These ways may be less healthy than going to a clinic, such as the coat-hanger method. Also, take a look at these disgusting teenage mothers who leave their babies in a dumpster, or abandon them in other cruel ways. If abortion were legal and weren't frowned upon, I don't find it hard to believe that there would be less instances of this.
__________________
"Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.
Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass."
-alien space marine
Sacred Jellybean is offline  


Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes  Rate This Thread 
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump:

Similar Threads 
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lawrence v. Texas: Discuss Nintendarse Den of the Philociraptor 46 Thu, July 17th, 2003 03:26 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Contact Us - TovenNet Solutions - Archive - Top

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.0 Release Candidate 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2006 Tendo City. All Rights Reserved. This site is not endorsed or affiliated in any way with most anyone, least of all Nintendo.
Reproduction of any material, in part or in whole, is strictly prohibited. We mean it!