Pliny Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) It's about contributing to society. We don't operate in a vacuum as individuals. There are things that we must do collectively and those things need to be funded. There's a vast difference between that and saying that it is illegal to own property or charge interest. Between that and making all banks and industry publicly owned. No, we don't operate in a vacuum as individuals - individuals working in harmonious co-operation with each other, both individually and collectively, for mutual benefit defines the term "society", The reason Government exists is because some individuals feel they can enjoy the benefits of society without harmonious mutual co-operation and when the State supports those individuals it is actively working against society. The forced confiscation of a portion of your benefits and rewards earned from your contribution to society indicates you have no entitlement to ownership of property. It appears you feel government is the sole agency of collective action and because of that the necessity for individuals to contribute to or create a society is over-ridden and the State eventually becomes its sole engineer, at which point it is called totalitarianism. At some point in the State's progressive growth you will notice it is somewhat totalitarian in nature or maybe it will have had to arrive there completely before you notice. Edited November 25, 2012 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 Maybe... but they'll also be workers who definitely are people. People who are workers and investors both - Imagine that. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Smallc Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 The "forced to have a child when they can't afford it" concerns me. Who's out there forcing people to have sex and what do we do about it!? The 1950s called. They want you to come back now. Quote
Shady Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 The 1950s called. They want you to come back now. Sacrasm called. It wants you to learn it. Quote
BubberMiley Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Exactly. Individual freedom and responsibility are being erroded, little by little by the left. Really? Is that why you advocate for control over women's bodies and for grown adults' ability to score weed? You blame it on "the Left"? That's taking responsibility! Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Really? Is that why you advocate for control over women's bodies and for grown adults' ability to score weed? You blame it on "the Left"? That's taking responsibility! I do neither of those things. You're obviously off your meds again. Quote
BubberMiley Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) I do neither of those things. You're saying you've never advocated against a woman's right to an abortion or against the decriminalization of marijuana? You are aware this forum has a searchable history, aren't you? I see this long-term shift as proof, that the pro-life position isn't just about morality, but also science. Your average non-partisan person recognizes that an unborn child, with a heart-beat etc, is more then just "a lump of cells" or "zygote" or whatever other pajorative term the anti-life crowd likes to use to try to delegitimize their existence. Those who advocate abortions under any cirumstance will eventually go the way of the slave owner, and we'll all be better off for it. But anyways, generally I'd agree with you. But we as a society tell people what they can and cannot do all the time, through laws and regulation. Why should marijuana be exempt? Because you like to get high? I guess "we as a society" are telling people what they can and cannot do all the time. It's not just "the Left" eroding personal responsibility after all. Edited November 27, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 You're saying you've never advocated against a woman's right to an abortion or against the decriminalization of marijuana? You are aware this forum has a searchable history, aren't you? As usual you're mischaracterizing my views. I have no time for you, nor am I going to start posting about abortion and pot in this thread. Troll somewhere else. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 It's not about the pot and abortion. It's about social control and how you, just like your heroes in the GOP, constantly engage in doublethink. Quote
BubberMiley Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 How is quoting a mischaracterization? More likely, you are uncomfortable being called on the hypocrisy of whining about government intervention in your personal life while saying we should sustain and increase it. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 It's not about the pot and abortion. It's about social control and how you, just like your heroes in the GOP, constantly engage in doublethink. I love hearing social control accusations from you nanny state types. Quote
BubberMiley Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) I love hearing social control accusations from you nanny state types. Edited November 27, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Bonam Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) How is this even being discussed? It's patently obvious that the modern left wants the government to have greater economic control/power and that the modern right wants the government to have greater social control/power. Neither side is anywhere close to being advocates of individual rights and responsibilities. Both are authoritarian and both stand for the continued growth of government, differing only in the kinds of things they want to dictate to their citizens. Edited November 27, 2012 by Bonam Quote
BubberMiley Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) The thing is, it's not hypocritical to advocate a role for government in keeping a stable society and economy while advocating limiting the power of the state over personal body decisions like abortion and weed use. It's very hypocritical to advocate limited government in all cases except for personal body decisions. It's also so obviously hypocritical that the right-wingers invariably scurry away angry whenever you bring it up. Edited November 27, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
CPCFTW Posted November 28, 2012 Author Report Posted November 28, 2012 The thin is, it's not hypocritical to advocate a role for government in keeping a stable society and economy while advocating limiting the power of the state over personal body decisions like abortion and weed use. It's very hypocritical to advocate limited government in all cases except for personal body decisions. It's also so obvious that the right-wingers invariably scurry away angry whenever you bring it up. I don't see how it's any less hypocritical but, fwiw, I don't advocate either of those things... However, the abortion thing is pretty easy to argue.. The freedom of an unborn fetus from being killed supercedes the freedom of a woman from being pregnant. Quote
dre Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 I don't see how it's any less hypocritical but, fwiw, I don't advocate either of those things... However, the abortion thing is pretty easy to argue.. The freedom of an unborn fetus from being killed supercedes the freedom of a woman from being pregnant. The problem is that puts the government in the aburd position of having to protect millions of fetuses from negative consequences through actions of the mother. Remember abortion isnt the only way a mother can harm an unborn child. Should the government stop her from drinking alcohol and smoking ciggarettes as well? Maybe they should enforce a healthy diet too? The reality is that women have defacto control in this situation, and the government has no real control at all. And that is the REAL answer to why the government assigns rights to a child at birth not conception. Birth is the point at which the government can actually sieze that child and provide for its care through some other surrogate. And thats why anti abortionists have been losing this fight in pretty much the entire modern world... common sense. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Shady Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 The problem is that puts the government in the aburd position of having to protect millions of fetuses from negative consequences through actions of the mother. Remember abortion isnt the only way a mother can harm an unborn child. Should the government stop her from drinking alcohol and smoking ciggarettes as well? Maybe they should enforce a healthy diet too? No to all of those. The reality is that women have defacto control in this situation, and the government has no real control at all. The mother can do whatever she wishes. But when you ask somebody else to do it for you, on other people's dime, in becomes an entirely different matter. And that is the REAL answer to why the government assigns rights to a child at birth not conception. Birth is the point at which the government can actually sieze that child and provide for its care through some other surrogate. And thats why anti abortionists have been losing this fight in pretty much the entire modern world... common sense. No, actually, the number of people that consider themselves pro-life keeps rising. The pro-abortion crowd is on the wrong side of history. Right beside those against same-sex marriage, and civil rights. The only way the pro-abortionist can logically cling to their beliefs, is to completely ignore science. Their war on science in this regard is somewhat confusing, considering their usual claim to be the most open to science. Quote
dre Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 No, actually, the number of people that consider themselves pro-life keeps rising. Actually last time I looked only about 20% of people in the west favor banning abortion., and about another 20% of people favor it being legal in all circumstances. The majority favor it "sometimes" and if inquire further it usually depends on whether it happens very early or later on. My guess is you saw this poll here, and liked the headline, but didnt bother to read it. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-23/us/us_gallup-poll-abortion_1_abortion-rights-anti-abortion-groups-carol-tobias?_s=PM:US The pro-abortion crowd is on the wrong side of history. Right beside those against same-sex marriage, and civil rights. The only way the pro-abortionist can logically cling to their beliefs, is to completely ignore science. Their war on science in this regard is somewhat confusing, considering their usual claim to be the most open to science. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 The pro-abortion crowd Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. For that matter, pro-life is only pro-birth. After that you and the rest of the social conservatives out there could give a crap less what happens to the mother and child. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Of course...nothing says one cares so much for baby than a legal, safe abortion. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Except maybe cutting child tax benefits and doing next to nothing to help mothers in poverty. That certainly says pro-life to me. You must have that baby, but piss off if you're looking for any help providing for it. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Better to be aborted than to live in "poverty" ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Better to have control of your reproductive life than to be forced to have a child that you cannot provide for. That's why places that have the best access to contraceptives and birth control have the least abortions. Edited November 28, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 I get it....better to kill the unborn so they won't live in poverty like more than 15% of the world's population. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
blueblood Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 The problem is that puts the government in the aburd position of having to protect millions of fetuses from negative consequences through actions of the mother. Remember abortion isnt the only way a mother can harm an unborn child. Should the government stop her from drinking alcohol and smoking ciggarettes as well? Maybe they should enforce a healthy diet too? The reality is that women have defacto control in this situation, and the government has no real control at all. And that is the REAL answer to why the government assigns rights to a child at birth not conception. Birth is the point at which the government can actually sieze that child and provide for its care through some other surrogate. And thats why anti abortionists have been losing this fight in pretty much the entire modern world... common sense. If women have defacto control in the situation, does that not get the guy who knocks said girl off the hook if she goes through with the pregnancy. After all she could have had an abortion Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.