You never tire of the classics do you.

Letsgambool thinks he is upsetting me and you think it's exactly what I want. That alone counts for a huge chunk of the usual usual (AIDS). Neither of you are right though letsgambool is more impressively wrong.

Much appreciated. Cheers.

Facts about BTM2:

He's right about everything.

He always gets the last word.

He's more of a sap than he will admit.

He's not afraid to engage with bozos.

He's much more respectful than he knows.

Smarter than Sklansky.

Funnier than I.

It's mainly just that the one question from before, in the context itself and that long post:

It can probably be restated as:

How can there be an honest discussion when one "side" seems unwilling or unable to state their stance?

In regards to this thread but also to racism in general and modern american conservatism.


PROTIP:

Somebody says, "Historical and current racism has led to a lack of education opportunities, employment opportunities, and poverty along with income/wealth disparities. We both agree this is a problem, what's the solution?"

The answer can't be, "Well we should do something about getting more education opportunities, employment opportunities, and money."

To the original quote, one side doesn't "know their stance is morally bankrupt." I think it's safe to assume they'd disagree with your characterization, so I'm not sure the use of asking that question.

To your rephrasing above, Jib doesn't seem awfuly shy to take a side. He thinks today's laws are not racist, and doesn't accept a definition that involves simply looking at how the law effects one race more than another.

Many conservatives think Ayn Rand is the god of economics and socialism is evil. They might turn around make similar statements about your views with their own naive certitude.

It's not nearly as hard to grasp if you've spent much time in church. They, like many people here I suspect, believe people are inherently evil. Original sin. So, they figure it's not our place to stop god's will by killing fetuses, but once born, everyone is a sinner and suffering is our reward. Not to worry, just trust and believe and it will all be over soon, when god in his infinite wisdom says so, not a second sooner.

I'd assume otherwise, but regardless, it doesn't come down to a matter of opinion.

If he wasn't shy he might've included that in the OP, but you do know that was only the first of a dozen topics in this thread right?

He took 500 posts to say that welfare was a democratic plot to enslave black people and another 800 to mention Al Sharpton, after people repeatedly asked him if that was where he was taking it. It all seemed like it was leading to some grand unifying theory of What's Really Going On (with the modern negroid) before he left.

I can't see how anybody could read the first 1/4 of this thread and say he was being forthright.

And they're wrong, that's kinda the whole point. Any level of discussion would reveal this for a number of reasons, which is why I suspect it rarely happens.

Note we're talking about objectivism here. That **** is pretty much refuted on the grounds that it's so internally inconsistent, well before the part about its horribleness is even approached.

Jib brought up Milton Friedman and had that **** backfire horribly. There's a reason objectivsm made a comeback, as no other right-wing philosophy will support such a disregard for the underclass.

A boy can dream. Alas, we didn't see it in this thread.

Hmm. Well at least that's more consistent, even if it's more ridiculous.

Maybe that would've been a better tack, to just say, "guys I'm not a racist, it just seems that way cuz I'm an objectivist."

http://www.atlassociety.org/reparati...discrimination



http://www.atlassociety.org/charity



http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectiv...-inherited-it/

^^^that whole thing is amazing



http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/how-racist-are-we

Do you imagine most people who disagree with you politically are sitting around toasting each other at how evil they are? That seems silly to me, but I'm sure some of them imagine that of you, baby murderer.


Relevance? I don't get this infatuation with rooting out all of a persons ideals and motivations. Sure, it wasn't that difficult to see Jibs is conservative. Duffy too, at least fiscally. So what does that have to do with defining and determining which laws are racist?


I expect there could be many a thread dedicated to this subject. Maybe Steelhouse has already started one. Again, I doubt anyone enthusiastic about objectivism thinks it is horrible. I don't either. It's just too rigid and would likely fail in practice, much like communism. Maybe if we were all different those systems would work, but instead we'll have to find some sort of patchwork that does work for us now, and probably tear it all down and rebuild from time to time.


And it's a reality. There are other, less ridiculous arguments. Can you not concede that if a fetus is considered to be a living human being, then it is consistent to call intentionally killing it murder, and that our laws currently do call it murder under some curcumstances (killing a pregnant woman)? Now, explain to me exactly why you believe a fetus isn't alive? The morality if suicide can also be debated outside of the wacky religious arena. What's important to remember is that morality is ultimately based on the subjective, and when beliefs are at odds, such as the right to self determination vs the right to kill, it now becomes a question of priorities. Good people can disagree for all sorts of bad reasons.

Wetoldthemitwouldtrickledown.jpg

No, I don't, and that's the entire point!

If they were it would make the "agree-to-disagree" impasse easier to stomach.

Like,

"Hey."
"Hi, what are you up to?"
"I'm looking for my checkbook, gonna make a donation to my local soup kitchen. What about you?"
"Just sitting around, drinking a tall glass of orphan's tears. On the rocks, of course. The usual."
"Ok, well, ttyl."
"Cya."

Instead, we get the insidious self-delusion. That's why this thread went the way it did, otherwise the cognitive dissonance taken to a quasi-logical conclusion would crash the internet.

I mean, I think Jib quit 2p2 behind this ****. I'm not sure what he expected, but I'm guessing he considered himself a good and kind christian citizen who just, you know, didn't like paying taxes, before all the words starting falling out of his head. Obviously a rampantly, uh, inconsistent worldview was going to be noticed by people much more worldly, intelligent, knowledgeable and insightful than himself.

Maybe he was just thinking, "well, I never personally called the president a n****r, so I'm in the clear."

Again, a boy can dream. Not everybody plays the game like I do, but if an objectivist tells me he likes the cut of my jib, I know I've made some wrong turns somewhere.

Fetucide. I get you trying to make the point that name-calling shuts down a discussion, but it's a myth. If being labeling pro-choice as pro-baby-murder helps somebody deal with being wrong, I'm gracious enough to grant them that little succor and continue the conversation.

Chezlaw has 50000 posts here saying Jib wasn't inhibiting discussion. You have a couple. Jib's last post is the smoking gun.

I'll assume at this point you just didn't read the thread. Maybe the first page and skipped ahead. That's actually fine. It went like this:

1. Jib makes thread.
2. People suspect that it's in no way serious.
3. Well Named engages and thoroughly discusses the topic. Most people indirectly +1/cosign/qft the whole thing.
4. Jib doesn't concede to any of the general ideas, and while doing so alludes to beliefs that mirror those I quoted from the objectivist website.
5. People engage him on these beliefs as they are very much related topics.
6. Honest discourse does not ensue.

I mean, it's so far beyond disingenuous that you act as if the whole thing was a big non sequitur, like we were discussing our favorite colors, Jib says his is purple, and everybody accuses him of being a neo-nazi.

That's what we were trying to find out! They must be related somehow.

At this point, though I'm open to a mind-change, I'm just going with all modern conservatives are racist. I've been fighting against this for awhile and maybe some hearty conservative thoroughbred can pull me back from the edge.

Fine. But it's clearly not consistent with a person saying they have concern for the minority underclass and want to help.

Please refer to my ENTER THE PIT analogy from earlier:

Giving somebody directions to the pit isn't help.

I'm gonna answer this in another post, but please notice the difference here, between how lively this part is compared to some other parts. There's a clear difference between being engaging and being evasive.

And abortion IS a non sequitur.

Beg Pardon?

A sperm is alive.
An egg is alive.
A fetus is alive.
A viable fetus is alive.
A wanted fetus is alive
A woman with human rights is alive.
A baby with human rights is alive.

It's not all that subjective and there is no need for belief when simple reason is sufficient. I question if a person put's their 'belief's' in higher priority than simple reason and another person's existing human rights is actually an all together good person.

Now one can say in response that human rights are subjective beliefs, and I'll let them stand on the edge of that cliff all they want.

Good post, 5.

c'mon 5 million at least.

He sure wasn't having the discussion required by you lot, don't need to be a genius to spot that. There remains the question of: then what?

That's a good point, maybe human is a better distinction. When do we become human? Is there something about exposure to light that turns us from living cells okay to kill into living cells not okay to kill? Like I said, I don't really know where that line is exactly, or how to judge it, so I put more weight into other factors I can better measure.

Huh? Sperm cells and eggs are no more alive than white blood cells or any other type of "living" tissue. Is this really the definition you want to use for "life"?

Hey man, if you get a tumor cut out of you, you are basically a murderer.

Living tissue is alive. But so are atoms from one perspective. This has nothing to do with a woman's human rights being taken away and given to a fetus, which is the practical crux of the issue.

touche



I guess just post some more bible scripture, implying Jesus weeps at the thought of Jib, and call it a night.

Just what the politics forum needs. Try the book of cyril.

They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.
- Psalm 72, verse 9. KJV

"Highwater - For Charlie Patton", by Bob Dylan


Highwater risin', rising night and day
All the gold and silver are being stolen away
Big Joe Turner looking east and west from the dark room of his mind
He made it to Kansas City, Twelfth Street and Vine
Nothin' standing there
Highwater everywhere

Highwater rising the shacks are sliding down
Folks lose their possessions, the folks are leaving town
Reformation shook it, broke it, then she hung it on the wall
Say you dance with whom they tell you to or you don't dance at all
It's tough out there
Highwater everywhere

I got a cravin' love for blazin' speed
I got a hopped up Mustang Ford
Jump into the wagon, love
Throw your panties overboard
I can write you poems, make a strong man lose his mind
I'm no pig without a wig, I hope you treat me kind
Things are breakin' up out there
Highwater everywhere

Highwater rising, six inches above my head
Coffin's dropping in the street like balloons made out of lead
Water poured into Vicksburg, don't know what I'm gonna do
Don't reach out for me, she said, can't you see I'm drowning too
It's rough out there
Highwater everywhere

Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew
You can't open up your mind, boys, to every conceivable point of view
They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway 5
Judge says to the high sheriff, I want him dead or alive
Either one, I don't care
Highwater everywhere

Well, the cuckoo is a pretty bird, she warbles as she flies
I'm preachin' the word of God, I'm puttin' out your eyes
I asked Fat Nancy for someth'n' to eat, she said take it off the shelf
As great as you are man, you'll never be greater than yourself
I told her I didn't really care
Highwater everywhere

I get up in the mornin', I believe I'll dust my broom
Keepin' away from the women, I'm givin' them lots of room
Thunder rollin' over Clarksdale, everythin' a lookin' blue
I just can't be happy, love, unless you're happy too
It's bad out there
Highwater everywhere

This was my basic answer to the below, but I could add a bit.

This case addressed the concept of how a fetus has "the right to be a murder victim" while at the same time saying abortion does not equal murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster...ealth_Services

It's nowhere near as famous as Roe vs. Wade but equally controversial. One way to look at it is "murder is always killing somebody, but killing somebody isn't always murder." Many would disagree with that interpretation but that's what I meant by controversial.

In regards to Spank's post, this is why the opposite of pro-life is pro-CHOICE and not pro-death or pro-abortion. If I were taking a pro-death stance (I said earlier I did, but surprise, that was a joke) then I suspect the question of why I believe a fetus isn't "alive" would be more relevant. We say pro-choice because we believe certain rights easily supersede certain other rights.

p.s. You might've thought Wookie was joking with mentioning a tumor, but the amount of "life" a teratoma can have is amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

Maybe there's a universal theme in all of this, as related to the thread, that people who want to debate about "life" don't reeaally want to do so.

Maybe that's why it was ignored... We might be kinda approaching some sorta Law Of The Internet.

You're missing the point that I was making, and the broader point of why I was trying to make the point in the first place. The point of bringing up the controversial topic of abortion was to show that both sides can be right depending on the definitions they are using. Since we don't and may never actually have a sound, scientifically certain definition of what is a human life, or rather, when a fetus becomes a baby, good and intelligent people on both sides can disagree. The broader point was to show this is true of many controversial topics where good, intelligent people disagree on the definitions. Take racism, for example.

It wasn't ignored. I didn't respond because it was so large, I didn't wish to tackle it. Some of it I agreed with, some of it was missing the point, some of it I disagree with. Basically, your post showed that the points I was trying to make weren't hitting the mark, I was tired of trying to clarify, and I'll be damned if I will try and parse out a gargantuan post like that.