I知 not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; I知 Pro-Eviction!

[jmervyn]

You cannot cherry-pick Stalin's morality-set and then unfavourably compare someone else's moral stand on those same issues, in isolation from all other criteria. It's like making the statement that ants are stronger than human beings, without specifying their relative sizes.

Sure I can. The point is, Stalin KNEW he was a malevolent SoB, killing off rivals for the sake of pure power, yet he understood that slaughtering babies for nothing better than the sake of comfort and expediency was so wrong that it should not stand. Modern Leftists apparently don't, or are at least unwilling to admit it.

I'm not knocking the US. It's an imperfect world and the US attempts to fix it with imperfect solutions.

TL/DR: I tend not to get drawn on discussions of US foreign policy.

No prob, and I don't blame you. I'm not even trying to pretend that U.S. foreign policy is pure as the driven snow (initially typed 'snot') - just that we go the extra mile trying to NOT slaughter the proles in the bargain. The 'other' guys generally do.

I guess that's why western civilization, over the previous half millennium, has shifted dramatically more towards freedom and enlightenment, not to mention all of the scientific and medical advancements that have been made (even prior to the oil/energy boom of the last century), at roughly the same degree and speed that the stranglehold of religion over the populace and politics has waned. [/sarcasm]

There never was a stranglehold of religion over the populace; the assorted Catholic Churches were temporal powers with claims of Holy authority, much on the order of the "Divine Right of Kings". To claim that there was a monolithic entity in absolute charge of daily life is to play the fool; the reason excommunication was so extreme was that your friends would no longer be able to openly buy and sell to you, not because you were really thinking your eternal soul was damned for all eternity. Didn'tja at least watch "The Name of the Rose"?

The vast majority of "Beasts" I've known were not the product of faithless upbringings, but the loss of faith after an upbringing built on little but faith.

Sampling error at best, deliberate self-delusion more probably.

When all is based on punishment and negative reinforcement, hilarity will ensue when the whip disappears.

What you consider hilarity is actually a scramble for the whip handle. The point I'm defending is that while brutality as child development is an obvious fallacy, so is the current "ribbon for participation" excessive ungrounded self-esteem model. If it's not obvious by now, I find some Malthusian theory quite valid and I'm an ardent supporter of the "thin veneer of Civilization" claim since I've seen it in action on multiple occasions.

When your at the top, and kill innocents to inspire fear to stay on top, please don't tell me about your morals, I can see your actions.

Who you talking to this time, Bob? Are you stating that the U.S. goes out of it's way to off the school kiddies?

OK, so we don't have religion because there's really a god, but as a means to have a picture or model of the meaning of life and the world? As long as it makes us satisfied and keeps them from going mad or committing suicide, it doesn't matter if it's accurate, doesn't meet our state of knowledge or is complete BS?

That's the atheist view which I endorse, correct. PERSONALLY I am confident of an active Deity (as opposed to the "Blind Watchmaker") though I also believe the Deity might regard us as we would our ant farm.

Anyway, I agree that if people don't have a religion or aren't allowed to have one, they will turn to some nonsense or invent their own "Lord of the Flies" pseudoreligion.

So what about modern Leftist mumbo-jumbo doesn't have all the trappings of religion? Assuming we're talking mainstream liberal militant Atheism and not about the "Reformed Druids", Scientologists, Soros Sojourners, or Wicca/Satanism punks?

[jmervyn]

Not being christian does not make me anti-christian.

No, but being anti-Christian does.

I'm not going to measure e-peens about scripture with you,

A wise move, I expect.

Furthermore, I never said Hawthorne was a biblical scholar. I merely used the very well known story to exemplify the danger of shaming.

Why bother, then, if not for a simple throw-away line as I'm accused of using? The Scarlet Letter is a work of interpretive FICTION, since you apparently weren't aware. Documentary it ain't, any more than Lord of the Flies is.

he quotes several biblical passages, sure,

More accurately than you have been shown able to, I might add...

Basically, not one of the passages he quotes says anything about people judging people (Cor. 5 is close, people with holy spirit are judging people), but about God judging people. Judging is God's job, not that of people.

The point being, a Christian MUST judge, aka be discerning, while ensuring that they are not being hypocritical. You'll note throughout Jesus' ministry, He reserves most of his shaming and anger for religious hypocrites, yet you're trying to pretend he never finds fault with them or any other sinners. You claim that the chance there might be a log in my own eye means never recognizing that there's a speck in other people's.

Interesting, Leland here does not advocate shaming or judging, but trying to help others to be better people. Which of these people does that sound like?

Me, obviously. He's not advocating that people continue to sin as you are, particularly such as having deliberately murdered their own child. What grounds are sinners supposed to correct themselves upon in your fantasy?

Now you're just playing games.

At least I've almost finished Skyrim, you n00b.

I never said murder isn't wrong, nor do I advocate some moral subjectivism.

You inherently have, by demanding (IIRC) that abortion is not murder. IF you were as fair minded as you claim, you would concede that it can be considered murder depending upon when life begins. You refuse to do so, instead ascribing horrible motivations to those who believe it.

This is more than a pattern, this is your modus operandi.

Rather, I'm attacking where your positions inevitably lead, and mocking you for not liking where they go.

Just stop this. You just extrapolated freethinking to anarchy.

No. Freethinking DOES extrapolate to anarchy, if there is no recognized moral or legal code restricting it.

Now he goes personal...

Pish, that's not personal, even though you've said as much in the past.

Guilt is one thing. Shame is another. Shame is not internal. Shame is society ostracizing someone because they disapprove. Shame is the the town in the scarlett letter, shame is you hanging outside the abortion clinic calling women names. Yes, some shame needs to exist, but what you are advocating is wrong.

NO FECKIN' WAY do you get away with that. You make numerous absolute statement about how HOOORIIBLLE a monster I was for stating how stupidly wrong you are, then spin 180 and admit my point while pretending I'm still a HOOORRIBGBLE monster. Douchebag, thy name is Stevinator. I have seen and felt the crap you are trying to pretend I'm advocating since childhood (a divorced Mom credibly accused of interracial adultery in small-town 1950's America used to be no small potatoes), but what you're really about is not admitting your own bottom-line disregard for decency and morality or the result thereof.

I think we differ on pre-marital sex because we see it very differently. I see sex as a healthy part of a relationship, you see sex as something that you need to trick out of women. So yes, if you were to try to bed as many women as possible, that would also be douchy.

Again, IIRC you have made statements to that effect previously. I view that as worse than reprehensible, but then I don't view scraping the little blighter off as any more valid than smashing a baby's head against the wall when it comes to being "punished with a baby". Yes, we differ massively, but not just on pre-marital sex. Plus, seeing how I've both lived and witnessed the ramifications of same, I know where YOU want to go and what you cause on your way there. So how many little Stevinators am I feeding currently? Or were they all scraped? Are you sure?

Oh so try's right, let's just stone them. that's how they did it thousands of years ago. Change is bad!

Nice strawman. So why is abortion bad, again? Why not just eliminate the entire Western population? See, I can strawman too.

You misunderstood. If i shamed women for getting an abortion I would feel guilty. Then I would feel bad. Therefore I don't shame women for getting abortions. Guilt is internal, shame is external.

So you think a woman should slaughter your mutual out of hand, rather than risk making you feel bad? Particularly if you wouldn't like having to support her? I strongly believe you'd be like far too many people I know, and pressure her against her will into aborting the baby.

Usually, after you say this, you stop talking.

You wish. This is multi-thread, baybee.

I haven't advocated death or destruction.

Now who's not reading the other person's posts clearly?

On this issue, the only ones advocating death and destruction are the kooky pro-lifers that bombed the abortion clinics.

Well, them and the cast of the Democrat Party including the President. Hey, the British NHS managed to off 130K old sticks, I'm sure you can do better!

I haven't read lord of the flies,

Color me shocked. Animal Farm too, I'm guessing.

I do want to highlight this though because it is so telling. You think people are naturally bad, so in order to be "civilized" we require a strong hand and a mechanism of control and suppression. Freethought outside of the mechanism (atheism) is then a threat to order. That's a pretty twisted world view, and explains a lot.

Pretty twisted, as in the dominant thinking throughout all but the most recent 20th century stupidity. Yes, it explains a lot, unlike the moronic Utopian belief you apparently subscribe to. I bet you don't know what Utopia is about, either?

The worst part of it all is not the implication that people require cowing to some mechanism, it's that you don't mind the mechanism be a religion I wonder if you even adhere to. that's the worst most cynical part of it all. What is big brother if not an all seeing, all knowing god? If you don't actually believe in the religion, but you feel it's necessary to control the populace, isn't that just as bad as the statist policies you rant against here?

This is beautiful! You would prefer Statism, as you've previously admitted in a round-about fashion, to self-regulation insipired by religion, simply because you don't like feeling guilty.

Yet you wonder why I mock you for claiming to be Libertarian?

[BobCox2]

Originally Posted by BobCox2
When your at the top, and kill innocents to inspire fear to stay on top, please don't tell me about your morals, I can see your actions.





Who you talking to this time, Bob? Are you stating that the U.S. goes out of it's way to off the school kiddies?

To 2 others who commented, one of which you quoted on BEASTS and the other mentioned Stalin.
It's not all about you.
Read back a FEW pages and look at shorter posts than yours.

[jmervyn]

To 2 others who commented, one of which you quoted on BEASTS and the other mentioned Stalin.
It's not all about you.
Read back a FEW pages and look at shorter posts than yours.

Hey, don't blame me for your inability to punctuate and source properly...

[Stevinator]

No, but being anti-Christian does.

I don't want to start that up again.

Why bother, then, if not for a simple throw-away line as I'm accused of using? The Scarlet Letter is a work of interpretive FICTION, since you apparently weren't aware. Documentary it ain't, any more than Lord of the Flies is.

I am aware that it is a work of fiction. Lessons can be learned from stories. Recall your precious parables? It's like that.

The point being, a Christian MUST judge, aka be discerning, while ensuring that they are not being hypocritical. You'll note throughout Jesus' ministry, He reserves most of his shaming and anger for religious hypocrites, yet you're trying to pretend he never finds fault with them or any other sinners. You claim that the chance there might be a log in my own eye means never recognizing that there's a speck in other people's.

Interesting reference since I'm the one advocating sympathy--or more exactly, I'm advocating NOT shunning someone because you disagree politically. You don't have to be nice and tell her how right the decision was, but at least be classy enough to leave people alone.

Me, obviously. He's not advocating that people continue to sin as you are, particularly such as having deliberately murdered their own child. What grounds are sinners supposed to correct themselves upon in your fantasy?

I can't answer that because you've gone and called her a sinner before you even understood her reasons. Nothing I could possibly say would have any effect on you. But I hope you'll at least understand that it's not a small choice and in my experience (and apparently yours since you continue to torment your friend/sister/whoever), it's not at all like you describe.

At least I've almost finished Skyrim, you n00b.

So many games, so little time. plus I spend so much time collecting crap in that game...anyway, another thread perhaps.

You inherently have, by demanding (IIRC) that abortion is not murder. IF you were as fair minded as you claim, you would concede that it can be considered murder depending upon when life begins. You refuse to do so, instead ascribing horrible motivations to those who believe it.

I understand why you would like to define it as such. I see your point of view and I understand at least the position you've taken on it being wrong. I don't understand why you think it is okay to shun people for it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, I think the women who do choose to have the procedure often feel like they are trapped (perhaps by puritan shunners), and afraid, and...well, perhaps they lack the support systems that would allow them to successfully raise a child. Perhaps they don't think themselves strong enough to do it on their own. Perhaps my words don't do justice to what is going on in their heads, because frankly, I am not sure I could fully understand the pressure, but I certainly don't think a good shunning is what that girl would need at that time in her life.

So, no, i can't quite put myself in either your nor her shoes.

Rather, I'm attacking where your positions inevitably lead, and mocking you for not liking where they go.

And ignoring where your ideas lead.

No. Freethinking DOES extrapolate to anarchy, if there is no recognized moral or legal code restricting it.

So I'm communist, socialist, progressive and now an anarchist, and apparently amoral. Fun. I learn so much about myself on the intarwebs.

Anyway, as it pertains to Abortion law, i've stated what i would support as far as a legal code. As for moral, I guess I'd like to think that we as a society would find a way to limit how often women would have to go through an abortion. I suppose the most moral choice depends on the situation. Life throws a lot at us, and we should try to do the best we can with what we're dealt. I'm not saying I don't ever judge, I certainly think people make bad decisions, but how you react to those decisions is your own choice.

It's funny, I just had to deal with something like this (not an abortion--but a brother who made bad decisions), and it reinforced that my approach is more likely to get him to make better decisions in the future. i think my approach also built some level of trust and confidence that I wanted the best for him, but also that he was going to have to deal with the consequences of his choices.

Shunning is hurtful and cruel. It does not make the person feel as though they can trust you and is more likely to drive them to worse behavior in the future. Well, in my opinion and experience anyhow.

Douchebag, thy name is Stevinator.

I see what you did there. you made it about shame in general, when i'm talking about something specific, and now everything i said looks worse, because I stumbled upon your sneakiness. Very clever trap. No, I'm referring to specifically shunning/shaming women who've had an abortion. So I'll hold to my disambiguation. Feeling guilt IS different than actively shunning someone, but that's a separate conversation.

Again, IIRC you have made statements to that effect previously. I view that as worse than reprehensible, but then I don't view scraping the little blighter off as any more valid than smashing a baby's head against the wall when it comes to being "punished with a baby". Yes, we differ massively, but not just on pre-marital sex. Plus, seeing how I've both lived and witnessed the ramifications of same, I know where YOU want to go and what you cause on your way there. So how many little Stevinators am I feeding currently? Or were they all scraped? Are you sure?

Well, I have admitted to pre-marital sex here. I'm not ashamed I'm sure you don't want a blow by blow history lesson, so I'll just say that I'm not opposed to marriage, nor settling down. I'm not perfect, and certainly there are things in my past that I would love the chance to change. There are no little Stevinators running around, and yes, I'm quite sure.

I strongly believe you'd be like far too many people I know, and pressure her against her will into aborting the baby.

After all this back and forth, what could possibly have given you the idea i would do such a thing?

Well, them and the cast of the Democrat Party including the President. Hey, the British NHS managed to off 130K old sticks, I'm sure you can do better!

I've been very clear on when and why I feel we should draw the line.

Color me shocked. Animal Farm too, I'm guessing.

I apologize, I spent so much time in my past career trying to destroy the world, I didn't get the chance to read all of the classics.

Pretty twisted, as in the dominant thinking throughout all but the most recent 20th century stupidity. Yes, it explains a lot, unlike the moronic Utopian belief you apparently subscribe to. I bet you don't know what Utopia is about, either?
This is beautiful! You would prefer Statism, as you've previously admitted in a round-about fashion, to self-regulation insipired by religion, simply because you don't like feeling guilty.

Actually, I don't see much of a difference between statist or theocractic rule.

And, yes because I don't like feeling like I did things wrong, I try not to do wrong things. Imagine that, morals from a skeptic.

Yet you wonder why I mock you for claiming to be Libertarian?

Not that again. Stop putting everyone in little boxes.

[jmervyn]

I don't want to start that up again.

Of course you don't.

Interesting reference since I'm the one advocating sympathy--or more exactly, I'm advocating NOT shunning someone because you disagree politically.

Or even MORE exactly, you're advocating irresponsibility and demanding that nobody hold someone accountable for their actions.

I can't answer that because you've gone and called her a sinner before you even understood her reasons. Nothing I could possibly say would have any effect on you.

For those unfamiliar with the tendency, here you're advocating situational morality. Sin is sin, no matter the reason; if there is rationale for sinning then that's between the sinner and the judge. Should a starving Arab have their hand amputated for stealing a loaf of bread? Does that ameliorate their fault for stealing? Does either question have bearing on the residents of New Orleans who acted like it was a free-for-all?

But I hope you'll at least understand that it's not a small choice and in my experience (and apparently yours since you continue to torment your friend/sister/whoever), it's not at all like you describe.

You don't get it, do you? It's NOT a small choice, yet you actually insist that it is. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too; either you're having a cyst removed or you're snuffing out your un-birthed child. There's no middle ground, and there's certainly no sliding scale.

I don't understand why you think it is okay to shun people for it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's nonsensical. Would you not understand why I think a pedophile should be lobotomized? If an act is one of horrific brutality, like chopping a baby into tiny bits and sucking it out with a vacuum cleaner, or in Obama's case yanking it out and stuffing it in a linen closet to die, then why should one endorse and support those unrepentant for supporting or performing those activities? Incidentally, since you like bringing my sister into it, she's the one who "led" me to Christianity (at least of the more hippy-Jesus-freak variety than the cold, sterile Anglican church variety) and she tortures herself more than any other person could for what she did. Thing is, God forgave her, but he can't forgive Nasty Pelosi yet.

well, perhaps they lack the support systems that would allow them to successfully raise a child. Perhaps they don't think themselves strong enough to do it on their own.

Funny that, since there's so many people who would adopt a child that the market remains massively tilted towards the "supplier" side. PP has a vested interest in peddling the puree conclusion, and you embarrass yourself by being unable to admit it.

but I certainly don't think a good shunning is what that girl would need at that time in her life.

If she's getting scraped because she doesn't like the inconvenience, sorry, but that's exactly what she needs. If you'll recall the stats, that's predominately the reason. Yet she probably had no problem "hooking up" the way you'd approve of.

And ignoring where your ideas lead.

Do tell. No, wait, let me guess - the Spanish Inquisition and Hollywood blacklists?

So I'm communist, socialist, progressive and now an anarchist, and apparently amoral. Fun. I learn so much about myself on the intarwebs.

Sheesh. *I'm* the anarchist. Do try to keep up.

i think my approach also built some level of trust and confidence that I wanted the best for him, but also that he was going to have to deal with the consequences of his choices.

So why are you so eager not only to prevent people from dealing with their actions' repercussions, but prevent others from recognizing those repercussions?

I see what you did there. you made it about shame in general, when i'm talking about something specific, and now everything i said looks worse, because I stumbled upon your sneakiness.

No feckin' way. YOU established this from the start, which is why I'm flogging you over it. You didn't want to be ashamed of your own actions, so you claimed that shame is bad. Shame, and in particular societal shame, is critical to the health of a society and yet another reason ours is so sick.

No, I'm referring to specifically shunning/shaming women who've had an abortion.

No, you're NOW trying to re-state your bullcrap claim so that you don't appear as pathologically stupid and irresponsible as such a claim shows you to be.

Feeling guilt IS different than actively shunning someone, but that's a separate conversation.

Then you should have never deliberately confused the two, as you actively did. I don't particularly like shunning, extensively familiar as I am with it, but it is simply societal shame exemplified. It can be invalid and wrong, for sure, such as the way responsibility, conservatism, faith, and virginity are shunned by you and yours.

a blow by blow history lesson,

TMI

I'm not opposed to marriage, nor settling down.

However, there's certainly no rational reason for you ever doing so, other than making a claim to get into someone's (girl's?) pants. After all, the expressed purpose of sex isn't procreation for you, it's pleasure.

After all this back and forth, what could possibly have given you the idea i would do such a thing?

Precisely because of all the back & forth.

I've been very clear on when and why I feel we should draw the line.

No, not really - you just don't like where *I* draw the line.

Imagine that, morals from a skeptic.

I'm sure you'll equivocate an excuse so that you don't have to think about it.

Stop putting everyone in little boxes.

You already spoofed your own claims in that episode with KillerAim. Plus, I have not used my chainsaw recently, so quit moaning.