February 2012 Waiting Thread (NEW POLL!!!1!)

[noleknight16]

Yeah, I mean, that's not a polarizing issue, I think we can probably reach a quick agreement on that.

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We're rational, smart people. We should be able to discuss that without it getting out of hand.

[Kit Cloudkicker]

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We don't really know when life begins. That's my only issue with it.

I mean the way it is now is fine I think. Like anytime during the first 3 months.
I'd say life begins when you can survive on your own without a host; up until they you're just a parasite. But to play it safe, I think 3/4 months is a good threshold amount of time to kill the unborn baby.

Parasites are not living things? Good to know.

I learn so much from these forums.

Lol @ how you chose this topic to jump in with your first post. Random.

[rewlor]

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We don't really know when life begins. That's my only issue with it.

Wow, really? We know when life begins. What we're squabbling over is when civil rights attach. Which is a bizarre argument coming from a gay catholic.

Personally I think the worm is a squatter on the woman's property until it is violently evicted. It takes at least 15 years until its anyone you want to spend time with b/c their too busy being assholes. But I also don't believe that children are "special" and "need to be nurtured". They need to be taught how to not be a dick. That is a parent's only job.

[LSATDecimator]

Yeah, I mean, that's not a polarizing issue, I think we can probably reach a quick agreement on that.

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We're rational, smart, bored, anxious, intoxicated, people. We should be able to discuss that without it getting out of hand.

[ampersand5]

I have no problem with religious people and "believers", I have a problem with them applying their moral structure onto me, and then claiming they are the persecuted ones...

+1

I have a problem with religious constituents who elect religious delegates who subsequently support religious-based legislation; illogical legislation in which the only justification offered is “because the bible says so.”

Because this somehow differs from someone using a non-religious ideology to inform their decisions? Give me a break.

Really??? For example: Gay Marriage.

Logical – Science has proven that being gay is not a choice. People are born that way. No different from race. No different from gender. Therefore they shouldn’t be denied that same rights as everyone else.

Illogical – Gay marriage should be banned, because the bible says, “it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

So…. You, FinallyGoing, give me a break. It’s not ideology, it’s science. It’s common sense.

I live in a country where Gay marriage is completely legal and a non-issue except when used by left-wingers and atheists to insult right wing politicians/religious people. I completely support the right for gays to get married and although this legislation will never immediately impact my life, I am happy it exists. However, it is not as simple as the fallacious one side argument you presented.

First of all - nothing is done just because the bible says. The vast majority of the religious people in support of such a proposal are not biblical literalists and do not support all passages and messages from the bible. It stems from their personal beliefs that are compatible with or were influenced by the themes they interpret to be integral to their religious philosophy.

Look at it from the other side: Do you support legalization of polygamous marriages? Would you be in favour of legislation allowing humans and animals to elope?

[noleknight16]

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We don't really know when life begins. That's my only issue with it.

Wow, really? We know when life begins. What we're squabbling over is when civil rights attach. Which is a bizarre argument coming from a gay catholic.

Personally I think the worm is a squatter on the woman's property until it is violently evicted. It takes at least 15 years until its anyone you want to spend time with b/c their too busy being assholes. But I also don't believe that children are "special" and "need to be nurtured". They need to be taught how to not be a dick. That is a parent's only job.

When does the life begin then? Is it conception? Heartbeat? Which trimester?

I must have missed the memo.

[noleknight16]

Yeah, I mean, that's not a polarizing issue, I think we can probably reach a quick agreement on that.

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We're rational, smart, bored, anxious, intoxicated, people. We should be able to discuss that without it getting out of hand.

Touche sir , touche.

[hotspur]

I mean the way it is now is fine I think. Like anytime during the first 3 months.
I'd say life begins when you can survive on your own without a host; up until they you're just a parasite. But to play it safe, I think 3/4 months is a good threshold amount of time to kill the unborn baby.

What if you go back to your parasitic ways later in life? Like, I'm hoping to cut my parents off as soon as they become worthless and needy.

[Betharl]

Yeah, I mean, that's not a polarizing issue, I think we can probably reach a quick agreement on that.

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We're rational, smart people. We should be able to discuss that without it getting out of hand.

I agree with you (and him for that matter that abortion should be legal). I just thought the way he passed it off like it wasn't a big deal was kind of funny.

[wakka!]

I mean the way it is now is fine I think. Like anytime during the first 3 months.
I'd say life begins when you can survive on your own without a host; up until they you're just a parasite. But to play it safe, I think 3/4 months is a good threshold amount of time to kill the unborn baby.

What if you go back to your parasitic ways later in life? Like, I'm hoping to cut my parents off as soon as they become worthless and needy.

Being a physical parasite and being financially dependent are two different things. Fallacy of equivocation me thinks.

[rewlor]

How about abortion? Can we agree that should be legal.

We don't really know when life begins. That's my only issue with it.

Wow, really? We know when life begins. What we're squabbling over is when civil rights attach. Which is a bizarre argument coming from a gay catholic.

Personally I think the worm is a squatter on the woman's property until it is violently evicted. It takes at least 15 years until its anyone you want to spend time with b/c their too busy being assholes. But I also don't believe that children are "special" and "need to be nurtured". They need to be taught how to not be a dick. That is a parent's only job.

When does the life begin then? Is it conception? Heartbeat? Which trimester?

I must have missed the memo.

Let's agree to conception? As that is the first moment when all of the required elements are first present at the same time.

It doesn't matter. The state sanctions murder in a lot of ways, abortion in this scenario is just one more.

[Kit Cloudkicker]

I live in a country where Gay marriage is completely legal and a non-issue except when used by left-wingers and atheists to insult right wing politicians/religious people. I completely support the right for gays to get married and although this legislation will never immediately impact my life, I am happy it exists. However, it is not as simple as the fallacious one side argument you presented.

First of all - nothing is done just because the bible says. The vast majority of the religious people in support of such a proposal are not biblical literalists and do not support all passages and messages from the bible. It stems from their personal beliefs that are compatible with or were influenced by the themes they interpret to be integral to their religious philosophy.

Look at it from the other side: Do you support legalization of polygamous marriages? Would you be in favour of legislation allowing humans and animals to elope?

polygamous marriages? Sure. I guess. If that's your thing.

humans and animals to elope? This isn't relevant. In gay/straight/polygamous marriages we're talking about consenting adults with constitutional rights. Animals obviously can’t give consent, therefore I wouldn’t support it.

[rewlor]

I live in a country where Gay marriage is completely legal and a non-issue except when used by left-wingers and atheists to insult right wing politicians/religious people. I completely support the right for gays to get married and although this legislation will never immediately impact my life, I am happy it exists. However, it is not as simple as the fallacious one side argument you presented.

First of all - nothing is done just because the bible says. The vast majority of the religious people in support of such a proposal are not biblical literalists and do not support all passages and messages from the bible. It stems from their personal beliefs that are compatible with or were influenced by the themes they interpret to be integral to their religious philosophy.

Look at it from the other side: Do you support legalization of polygamous marriages? Would you be in favour of legislation allowing humans and animals to elope?

polygamous marriages? Sure. I guess. If that's your thing.

humans and animals to elope? This isn't relevant. In gay/straight/polygamous marriages we're talking about consenting adults with constitutional rights. Animals obviously can’t give consent, therefore I wouldn’t support it.

THIS.

[Jsa725]

.

[wakka!]

I live in a country where Gay marriage is completely legal and a non-issue except when used by left-wingers and atheists to insult right wing politicians/religious people. I completely support the right for gays to get married and although this legislation will never immediately impact my life, I am happy it exists. However, it is not as simple as the fallacious one side argument you presented.

First of all - nothing is done just because the bible says. The vast majority of the religious people in support of such a proposal are not biblical literalists and do not support all passages and messages from the bible. It stems from their personal beliefs that are compatible with or were influenced by the themes they interpret to be integral to their religious philosophy.

Look at it from the other side: Do you support legalization of polygamous marriages? Would you be in favour of legislation allowing humans and animals to elope?

polygamous marriages? Sure. I guess. If that's your thing.

humans and animals to elope? This isn't relevant. In gay/straight/polygamous marriages we're talking about consenting adults with constitutional rights. Animals obviously can’t give consent, therefore I wouldn’t support it.

+1 that "whats to stop someone from marrying their dog" argument is retarded. And polygamy isn't as great as it sounds; I mean having one women bitch at you for the rest of your life is bad enough. Imagine having that x4 because you married four women? The suicide rates would skyrocket!

[Betharl]

Big problems with making abortion straight-up illegal are:

1. There are certain times when it is very unlikely the baby is going to survive child birth and the mother may also die unless an abortion is performed.
2. People would still try to get abortions on the black market/perform them on their own, which leads to a whole host of other problems.

[FinallyGoing]

I have no problem with religious people and "believers", I have a problem with them applying their moral structure onto me, and then claiming they are the persecuted ones...

+1

I have a problem with religious constituents who elect religious delegates who subsequently support religious-based legislation; illogical legislation in which the only justification offered is “because the bible says so.”

Because this somehow differs from someone using a non-religious ideology to inform their decisions? Give me a break.

Really??? For example: Gay Marriage.

Logical – Science has proven that being gay is not a choice. People are born that way. No different from race. No different from gender. Therefore they shouldn’t be denied that same rights as everyone else.

Illogical – Gay marriage should be banned, because the bible says, “it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

So…. You, FinallyGoing, give me a break. It’s not ideology, it’s science. It’s common sense.

Science supports gay marriage now? O.K. there partner...Not only has science NOT proven that homosexuality is not a choice, on a scientific basis it flies in the face of evolutionary theory.

Logic or no logic...using one's religion to inform your decisions is not different than using one's ideology. Sure your ideology may be predicated upon a system such as logic (or at least what you perceive logic to be) however it does nothing to change the fact that your position still rests upon beliefs....you must believe scientific laws to be immutable despite the fact that science is consistently evolving, you must believe your logic to account for everything, which it does not...so from where do you find this sense of chief superiority?

[bernaldiaz]

Yeah I have no problem with individuals using their religion to influence their own personal views. I just don't like it when the government uses religion to influence the views of others. I think that's the most level headed position.

[ampersand5]

I live in a country where Gay marriage is completely legal and a non-issue except when used by left-wingers and atheists to insult right wing politicians/religious people. I completely support the right for gays to get married and although this legislation will never immediately impact my life, I am happy it exists. However, it is not as simple as the fallacious one side argument you presented.

First of all - nothing is done just because the bible says. The vast majority of the religious people in support of such a proposal are not biblical literalists and do not support all passages and messages from the bible. It stems from their personal beliefs that are compatible with or were influenced by the themes they interpret to be integral to their religious philosophy.

Look at it from the other side: Do you support legalization of polygamous marriages? Would you be in favour of legislation allowing humans and animals to elope?

polygamous marriages? Sure. I guess. If that's your thing.

humans and animals to elope? This isn't relevant. In gay/straight/polygamous marriages we're talking about consenting adults with constitutional rights. Animals obviously can’t give consent, therefore I wouldn’t support it.

+1 that "whats to stop someone from marrying their dog" argument is retarded. And polygamy isn't as great as it sounds; I mean having one women bitch at you for the rest of your life is bad enough. Imagine having that x4 because you married four women? The suicide rates would skyrocket!

The whole point of asking those questions was to display the problem of demarcation and why it is not as simple of an argument as "the bible says so". For the most part, people are not against polygamy for religious reasons. They are against polygamy because they see it as a possible erosion of societal values. Whether or not you agree with this, do you understand why it is a reasonable thought?

[bernaldiaz]

I still want to know who said they got a 177+

[Betharl]

Oh wow. We've got a gay marriage debate, atheism debate, and abortion debate all going at once. Probably going to reach 200 pages by the end of the day.

Hey FG, Mensa sucks.

[wakka!]

The whole point of asking those questions was to display the problem of demarcation and why it is not as simple of an argument as "the bible says so". For the most part, people are not against polygamy for religious reasons. They are against polygamy because they see it as a possible erosion of societal values. Whether or not you agree with this, do you understand why it is a reasonable thought?

I think you misunderstand my position; I am a pretty hardcore libertarian. I think you should be able to do anything you want (even if it is harmful to you) as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And I mean pretty much literally hurt someone else. If something you do is "offensive to societal values" or offensive to a particular person; they should stop bitching and deal with it. I think polygamy should be legal; all drugs should be legal; alcohol should have no age restriction; people should be allowed to get abortions or married to gay people if they want; etc. If it doesn't hurt me, you should by all means be allowed to do it.

Also, the fuck is with this SOPA/PIPA/ACTA shit? The internet is fine how it is. It doesn't need any regulation.
And wtf is with this NDAA act? Indefinite detainment is now legal? I take issue with that also.

[Jsa725]

.

[Kit Cloudkicker]

I still want to know who said they got a 177+

Dude I think you’d be cool to hang out with. You seem like the type of person that always lightens the mood. In a forum full of random, raging debates… you’re just like, “no but seriously…. Who said 177+ ?”

[wakka!]

And dude "predator drones'?? There's something morally wrong about turning warfare into little more than a video game.