Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Reminder that nothing will come of this

Explain to me, without morality, why drugs are bad.

Why can't I sell my kidney to you. You are dying. You need one. I have no desire to part with it for free, but I will for money. So this benefits us both. I get money, you get to live. OOOOHHHHH! Feds think it's immoral. The horrors.

It's not immoral, just risky and unsafe. It's immoral in the sense that not having a stoplight at an intersection is immoral.

I've argued my case insanely well thank you. Which is why you fools keep bringing up points I made pages ago to try and trip me up...and then are surprised when I say "No Shit Sherlock. Just figured that out didja? I pointed that out two weeks ago!"

Well seeing as you still believe in an objective morality, not quite.

And now I stop being nice. No one gives a fuck about what you think.

Well seeing as abortion is still legal, I'd say the same of your opinions.

You are certainly less important than any of the Asians (many of which had no Japanese connection) that we shipped off to camps. I doubt you are any more useful than any Jew that was put in an oven or a gas chamber. You certainly have less to offer the world than those on the Trail of Tears.

You're funny when you lose your temper.

People suck and kill each other all the time. Without setting a right and wrong standard that transcends people, rights do not exist.

Keep saying it, it's bound to come true eventually if you say it enough

And when some dude comes to rip your face off, ry and explain to him why your morality is better than his.

That's silly.

My morality is superior to yours. My morality acknowledges right and wrong, and yours doesn't. As such, mine is better.

My morality acknowledges the fallibility of human knowledge, is skeptical of authoritative claims about right and wrong based on no evidence, and tries to improve the condition of all society. I'm happy with my morality.

At 12/7/10 08:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So society gives you something, and can take it away. How can you claim a right tothat? You can't. By your own admission, you're a moron.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

Um, it's not today either. Have you not watched the news? I'm pretty sure drugs are illegal. Selling your organs is illegal. Etc. Sorry, bud, you can't make a legal claim here. You're simply not correct.

Terrible examples. Neither of those involve taking control of somebody's body for personal moral reasons.

No, actually, it's not. Sorry, I'd debate further, but I see no reason in wasting characters on someone who refuses to admit clear error on the most basic of things.

So you admit that you don't have any reason to believe what you do, ok.

Oh, sweet Jesus. Yes, if someone's opinion is idiotic, it's wrong.

No it isn't. I could believe the earth is round because I think aliens told me. Just as there's an insanely unlikely chance that abortion kills a being that is capable of feeling, and that a God exists who is against that. It wouldn't change the fact that you've argued for those two things spectacularly poorly.

People suck. They often hurt each other. Slavery, genocide, rape, murder. People will do these left to their own devices. If society defines what is right, then these are all right.

bzzt, wrong. Slavery, rape, genocide, and murder were illegal in the US last I checked.

As long as society is ok with them. So, you have only what society wants to give you. If society decides your daughter is cute and want her, they can have her. If they decide your house rocks, they can take it.

Yes, and that's happened many times throughout history. And it's generally been pretty miserable.

And you have no position to argue otherwise.

As a member of the society I'm part of, I disagree.

As I've said before, crap happens. And without an objective sense of morality, you have no frame to argue morality. You're done.

No, I have my sense of morality, and you have yours, you just pretend that yours is divinely sanctiond and "better" in some metaphysical way than mine. It's not.

At 12/5/10 09:09 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/5/10 09:02 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Also, calling abortion "the easy way out" proves to me that you have no idea what having an abortion is like. I don't need to respect the opinion of somebody who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

The one-time ordeal of an abortion is the easy way out compared to the 20 or so year task of managing another human being's life.

Yes it is difficult, for the woman, the child, and judging by how crime plummeted in the decades after Roe v Wade, society as well. You want to be make society painful and miserable for as many people as you possibly can it seems.

Also, calling abortion "the easy way out" proves to me that you have no idea what having an abortion is like. I don't need to respect the opinion of somebody who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

At 12/5/10 08:21 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/5/10 07:15 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Getting flamed and spat at are the consequences of public espousing idiotic beliefs, and nobody should be able to dodge them.

This post encapsulates my point. There's never been a gentlemanly, respectful argument in Politics. It always goes like this:

Tony: I believe in God.
Matthew: You're a fucking gullible asshole.
Tony: Why?
Matthew: Because there's no proof that god exists, dipshit
Tony: Lack of evidence doesn't discredit a theory
Matthew: Lol, you're a lower life form than me because of your beliefs.

That's the gist of every debate ever in the history of the Politics forums, and I'm sick of it. It's a kill or be killed mentality exaggerated by people who think that in order to validate their own beliefs, they have to decimate everyone else's.

Fuck this.

Actually, all I ever said prior to that post was that your logic was unconvincing. Which, as a matter of fact, it was. Your entire argument rested on the strange assumption that when people do things you don't agree with, they should be legally prevented from trying to fix their mistakes. Do you think that people who walk around barefoot outside and get hookworm should be legally prohibited from getting treatment as well?

At 12/5/10 05:18 PM, LaForge wrote: This argument has reminded me how useless the Politics section of the BBS is. Has a mind ever been changed in the history of this section? I'm going back to hanging out in the audio lounge. At least there you don't get flamed and spat at for your beliefs like you do around here.

Getting flamed and spat at are the consequences of public espousing idiotic beliefs, and nobody should be able to dodge them.

I think it would be a good idea to stop using it in a derogatory sense

At 12/4/10 09:09 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/4/10 08:42 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I did. Medical peril is sometimes a result of underage sex. Your logic is unimpressive

Your logic is non-existent. "In the case of medical peril" encases anything that puts a person at risk, even if under age.

Like pregnancy

At 12/4/10 06:27 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 12/4/10 05:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

The consequence is having the baby, and if they're too young to have it taken away from them, given to the parents or grandparents of either the mother or father. Apparently you didn't read when I wrote "I don't support abortions except in cases of rape or medical peril".

I did. Medical peril is sometimes a result of underage sex. Your logic is unimpressive

At 12/4/10 03:34 PM, LaForge wrote: Abortion is the easy way out. I hear about rich kids having sex at young ages because they've been pampered so much they've run out of shit to do, and then 15 year olds end up pregnant. Whether they want the baby or not, she should HAVE to go through with the birth, because that's the consequence of having unprotected sex.

So I presume you want to make it illegal for doctors to give patients medication for venereal diseases contracted during unprotected sex as well too I assume?

Bottom line for me: there are consequences to sex, and no one should have the right to dodge them.

Right, having to arrange to get an abortion is a consequence of having underage sex, glad we agree.

At 12/4/10 02:40 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/3/10 02:43 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Provided the literature isn't biased toward a particular point-of-view

what if one carries less risks than another option; that would be a bias. would we have to censor this risk in order to avoid bias?

bias n: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

learn what bias means

At 12/4/10 04:07 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/4/10 02:11 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

Can you elaborate why?

Care to elaborate why it's ok to notify the parents of every other aspect of their child's condition/behavior except abortion?

When did I say that?

At 12/3/10 06:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

if i had to chose one, i would hit the grey zone and make it so that you HAD to kill babies, and the woman would have NO choice in the matter.

Ur so edgy

At 12/3/10 10:33 PM, LaForge wrote: The only cause for an abortion should be rape or medical complications. 14 year old girls having unprotected sex should go through with the birth and immediately have their child taken away to live with the girl's parents or grandparents.

Can you elaborate why?

At 12/3/10 01:40 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

i read about a few states having a 24 hour waiting period with provided literature on alternatives. that seemed to be a fairly responsible way of addressing the issue of minimizing abortions.

Provided the literature isn't biased toward a particular point-of-view

At 12/2/10 05:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Um, actually yes you did. I really am lazy and hate to go back and look stuff up. But I hate being called a liar worse. So here's the quote:

You still don't know what rights are.

"Rights are whatever society give you."

Ok, maybe you do

So, um. Yea. You did just say that rights don't exist. Because society can just say you don't have them anymore.

That doesn't mean rights don't exist, learn to read. I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying you're not smart enough to actually look up the word "right" in the dictionary. Rights don't have to be inalienable to be rights, they can and have been given and taken away by societies at different times throughout history.

Preference is fine. But you STILL have no room to call me an extremist. Because if both of our views are equally valid, then neither one is wrong. And it's simply a matter of preference. Which is a bit like saying that I'm a Nazi because I like spaghetti and you like Ravioli.

Taking control of someone else's body for your own moral reasons is an extreme view in our society. Maybe if you lived 500 years ago it wouldn't be extreme, but it is now.

Moreover, Chuckles, what world do you think we live in? The government already tells you tens of thousands of things you can and cannot do with your body.

Aside from drug laws, which I generally don't agree with either, not really.

using God as a justification is no more insane than following Al Gore.

Well, I don't claim that Al Gore talks to me and tells me to make pregnant women have babies, so yeah, it actually is.

See how that works? The guy who cannot assert he is right over his opponent is, by his very admission. inferior.

Just because your argument is idiotic, incorrect, poorly-informed, and guaranteed to make people miserable doesn't mean it's necessarily "wrong". It just means it's idiotic, poorly-informed, and guaranteed to make people miserable. My position that a fetus isn't a person is neither inferior nor superior to your position that a fetus is, it's just not retarded and guaranteed to make people suffer.

Infanticide was practiced in nearly every society throughout antiquity. It's still considered moral in some societies even today.

So is slavery. And rape. And cannibalism.

Yeah exactly, for somebody who believes that rights are inalienable and given by God, you don't seem to have a problem admitting that they've only actually existed for .0001 percent of human history. Your God sucks at protecting people's rights. If you had any intellectual rigor, you should actually be claiming that rights don't exist period.

Does the fact that it is practiced make it right?

Right by whose standard?

So if someone tries, and fails, in quoting scripture, and I correct them, I'm a bible thumper?

That would have to happen first. You seem to know less about the bible than you do about how rights function in a society, and that's saying a lot.

And for someone as stupid as you, I'd shy away from trying to tell people to "only talk about what they know", cause I'll still be speaking tomorrow, and you will not. Now screw off.

Better luck next time.

At 12/1/10 11:04 PM, Memorize wrote:

I'm just wondering why so many pro-choice organizations and individuals crusade against anything that would reduce abortion numbers.

Even if when it's something as simple as showing an ultra-sound.

My mistake, I should've checked your usernames.

Simply put, I think we can all agree that ceteris paribus, the rarer abortion is, the better. What I don't agree with is using coercive, forceful, or other under-handed ways of going about it that hurt women and/or make them feel like criminals for doing something that's lawful and protected as a constitutional right.

To use an admittedly extreme example, the guy who posted earlier had a point, if we removed the ovaries of every woman who had multiple abortions, we'd cut down on abortions dramatically. However, I don't think any sane pro-lifer is actually in favor of that. That doesn't mean that pro-lifers are hypocrites, it's just that they don't approve of doing nazi-esque medical procedures on unwilling women.

I believe in limiting abortion not for the benefit of a fetus, but for the benefit of the women who undergo them. I believe that education, contraception, and sometimes even just delivering the baby in some cases are all better alternatives than having to undergo a painful, emotionally draining, and stigmatised medical procedure. But no matter what, it should be the woman's decision, free of coercion, free of legal caveats, and free of the moral judgements of others.

At 12/1/10 05:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/1/10 05:05 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 12/1/10 04:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: about we have a system?

if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm

How about no?

For a group of people who claim to want "as few abortions as possible', could you give me a good reason on how an individual could have a legitimate claim to several abortions?

I want as few abortions as possible. Having a solution as insane as yours doesn't fit into "possible"

At 12/1/10 04:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: about we have a system?

if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm

How about no?

At 12/1/10 04:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/30/10 02:20 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It's telling that you can't respond to anything anyone here says that doesn't directly involve the bible.

I responded to a biblical claim with the Bible. Fuck you're a stupid tit aren't you?

"Bible thumpers always respond to biblical arguments with Biblical responses!"

Imbecile.

Actually, I was commenting on how it seemed that you'd withdrawn from the debate and had stopped answering any questions unless they were related to the bible. Now granted, given the quality of your new responses, It probably would be better for you to stick to the one thing it seems you're not completely ignorant about.

At 11/27/10 04:57 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Um, why? You've already admitted rights don't exist above.

I haven't said that once.

:You simply have no grounds to call me an extremist because there is no real morality, rights or anything else. We simply have two different worldviews that you admit are equally valid and I say are not.

Equally valid doesn't mean I can't prefer one over the other. I don't want to live in a society where the government can control what people do to their bodies because of what they believe God wants them to do, you do. Both those positions are equally valid, I just think that yours would lead to a miserable and awful society.

So by even your pathetic argumentative attempts, I have a point that I stand behind and you think all cultures are equal...so I am right. Next?

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strongpoints

So a woman can decide if a baby can live or die. It's really that simple.

Infanticide was practiced in nearly every society throughout antiquity. It's still considered moral in some societies even today.

It's telling that you can't respond to anything anyone here says that doesn't directly involve the bible.

At 11/23/10 11:22 AM, Ericho wrote: I heard that argument used before, but the thing is that a baby (or a fetus) is not considered a parasite, because the woman serves her evolutionary purpose of reproducing.

So what?

At 11/23/10 01:19 PM, sharpnova wrote: You stupid stupid people. You embarrass the hell out of me.

It's not obvious to you that this issue was designed to spark debate because it's essentially unanswerable. You can't be staunch about it in either direction without turning part of your brain off. It, like the facade that we must all work 9-5 for the bulk of our lives is just a part of government control of the masses.

That's completely untrue. You can be completely intelligent, acknowledge and understand the points of view of both sides, and still be staunchly for one particular side.

At 11/23/10 07:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I actually addressed that. Without an objective morality to define my actions, you don't have rights.

You still don't know what rights are.

Rights are whatever society give you.

Ok, maybe you do

So if society decides that slavery or rape or murder is ok...then it's ok.

By society's definition it would be. It personally wouldn't be ok by my standards however.

Bottom line. I know that's uncomfortable for many people, but that's the logical consequence of your argument. Society can simply decide away (as it repeatedly has) your rights away. And, while we can argue from today's morality that this is wrong...that morality could shift tomorrow. Slavery could come back into chiq. Or genocide. And without some final athority to appeal to, it is simply impossible to claim any moral basis on ANY of this.

Well now you're getting it.

Simply claiming "we have rights because we do" is nonsense.

Not any more nonsensical than claiming that we do because God gives them to us. (I disagree with both statements)

Slavery may be illegal today, but it was legal for millenia. Rape is now recognized inmarriage, bt that wasn't true before the 50s. Genocide was the norm, and in many parts of the world still is. If your money, your roperty, even your life, is beter used by the majority than yourself, then so be it. Majority rules and all.

Absolutely. Which is why I, unlike most Americans, take the threat of religious extremists like you who want to criminalize abortion seriously.

At 11/23/10 03:02 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Almost immediately out of the gate, you tell me my philosophy would be logically coherent if I were to stop using mouthwash. That suggests a somewhat particular flaw.

Maybe to you

Then, you continuously ask for clarification of my position, which you are sure abounds with flaws. And in fact, you use that prediction (that my position abounds with flaws) explicitly to make the case that my position does not stand up to scrutiny.

I made the case that you seemed to want to talk about anything (well, actually judging by the length of your posts, everything) except your feelings on abortion seemed to indicate that you had nothing useful to contribute.

Some things I can and have tackled with brevity. Such things you've cut out and chosen not to respond to anyway, or have, in the past, rejected as valid statements - leading further defense to be more involved, and subsequent summary to be more involved.

words breeding like rabbits

And again I'll ask, what does it matter that you never thought the implications of your personal beliefs were required to be pro-choice?

Because there are people who are pro-choice and not vegetarian. Want to try disproving that with your high school logic?

At 11/23/10 02:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Look who's back, I thought you'd been scared out of the topic for good.

At 11/22/10 09:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

What I accused you of doing is nothing uncommon or unnatural to debate. When someone sees a position they disagree with, they may and often do ask about it to expose flaws they generally expect to find. From the beginning you made it clear that you thought my position was flawed, and a little further down the road made it clear you expected to find flaws.

not really

Honestly. Is this suppose to discourage me or are you just venting?

As if anyone could discourage you from writing these walls of text.
As If I could actually discourage you from writings these walls of text. Brevity is a virtue

At 11/22/10 01:48 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/22/10 01:16 AM, The-General-Public wrote: In case you didn't notice, this is a topic about abortion, not alligators. Seriously, I'm really not sure you noticed.

Re-read my posts. All I ever asked was for you to explain why a fetus deserved more consideration than a microbe. You're the one that went off the rails and thought I was part of some conspiracy to prove that you were an idiot. Granted, you've only proved that you're a slightly paranoid and unhinged pseudo-intellectual, so I guess you win.

So you understanding what I was trying to explain doesn't mean I succeeded in explaining it. Fair enough.

I think that 1+1=2 despite the fact that you probably would need 10 pages worth of explanation to teach that to a kindergartner(while intermittently complaining that you didn't want to talk about why 2 plus 2 equals 4)

You still haven't answered why it matters that you "never thought they were." It's kind of odd that you should drop the tangent most related to the thread while berating me for going off topic

I wanted to explain your opinion so I could discern why you believed what you did, not have you writhe and wiggle your way out of some imaginary logical trap.

and turning essentially anything you can into an insult.

You make it so easy.