Flushing an American
-
Jargon,if that civil society consist of ignorants and pottmouths like you and your friends here then that society is never called CIVILIZED in real world
-
Jargon,if that civil society consist of ignorants and pottmouths like you and your friends here then that society is never called CIVILIZED in real world
Assnan, you don't know what the word civilized really means. For you it probably means not swearing and not beating your wife (so much). What it means for me is incomprehensible to you, so I won't even try explaining it to you. ps. No matter what you say, Muhammed was a pedophile. ds.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Hey, Adnan. You're not making much progess with learning the official language of your country so we can understand you. :laugh: I'm surprised you can even read the laws of your hell hole.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
I'm surprise dick heads could read at all! Maybe they've mutated down in camel land, due to too much exposure to nitroglycerine...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think Led Mike is an honest guy. I think he really believes this stuff, ...
The refusal to reason properly is the epitome of dishonesty.
I don't think you can ignore the brainwashing the current generation has recieved on these issues. When you have an educational insititution as well as a powerful mass media pounding away at the same inherently leftist message you have to accept that a lot of peopel are going to buy into it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Shog9 wrote:
are you saying that abortion is more complex an issue than murder
That's one way to put it but it could be twisted, you have to be careful around here don't you? More accurately, it's different, therefore not equal to murder in the sense that you can't just dismiss the issue by calling it murder due to the life/health of the mother being inseparable in the issue.
Shog9 wrote:
trying to start a fight
hmm, not sure. I was thinking more along the lines of it's not worth discussing the issue with someone that refuses to consider the aspect of the mother when discussing the issue. From experience, I guess it seems anyone that starts the discussion with "murder" is not going to consider the mother, in discussion, so that's sort of how I got there. Did that help, or just make it worse? :)
led mike
led mike wrote:
From experience, I guess it seems anyone that starts the discussion with "murder" is not going to consider the mother, in discussion, so that's sort of how I got there.
Ah, well, i understand where you're coming from now. IMHO, one of the big problems with these discussions is that a whole lot of logically disparate situations get lumped together. It's like discussing assisted suicide and bringing in random triage scenarios.
-
The only thing I would like to get to the bottom of is the history of how these bizarre notions became so widely dissiminated. I think Led Mike is an honest guy. I think he really believes this stuff, and he has been taught that it is only some kind of evil right wing junta of some kind that could possibly disagree with them. And he isn't alone. Most members of the younger generation and even many baby boomer's believe the same thing. It is as though at some point in my 54 years of life I stepped through a looking glass without being aware of it. The clear history that the bill of rights was created at the insistence of the anti-federalists who were trying to take power away from the federal government and give it to the states and the people is apparently no longer taught. They seem to have been taught that the declaration of independence was actually a legally binding contract of some kind which justifies any action the federal government might take (unless, of course, it involves defending the nation in some way)
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only thing I would like to get to the bottom of is the history of how these bizarre notions became so widely dissiminated.
I think being weaned from the teat to MTV might be a contributing factor. All joking aside, I stopped back by to see if ol' Led jumped to to deal with my "liberal knee-jerk" comment. I see he screwed up his courage and replied with a 1 vote to most everything. I commend you for cutting him some slack but I honestly think he's indicative of the evil my generation wished on the country through indulgence, slothful parenting, committed hedonism and our own rebellion against authority.
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Hey, you don't have a spreadsheet with that temperature data you directed me to, do you? Because at the moment I'm doing some Kalman filtering and I could easily do a few temperature data runs while I'm at it to check for a drift in the data. If not, then oh well, it would have been interesting since it's urban environment data, but I don't have the time to extract it from all his plots.
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
led mike wrote:
From experience, I guess it seems anyone that starts the discussion with "murder" is not going to consider the mother, in discussion, so that's sort of how I got there.
Ah, well, i understand where you're coming from now. IMHO, one of the big problems with these discussions is that a whole lot of logically disparate situations get lumped together. It's like discussing assisted suicide and bringing in random triage scenarios.
Shog9 wrote:
a whole lot of logically disparate situations get lumped together. It's like discussing assisted suicide and bringing in random triage scenarios.
Text messages makes it difficult to gain an understanding of others meaning sometimes. Are you saying in that statement that you don't think the issues involving the mothers health are part of the issue, they are logically disparate?
led mike
-
Shog9 wrote:
a whole lot of logically disparate situations get lumped together. It's like discussing assisted suicide and bringing in random triage scenarios.
Text messages makes it difficult to gain an understanding of others meaning sometimes. Are you saying in that statement that you don't think the issues involving the mothers health are part of the issue, they are logically disparate?
led mike
led mike wrote:
Are you saying in that statement that you don't think the issues involving the mothers health are part of the issue, they are logically disparate?
Depends what you mean by "mother's health". Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous times for mother and child at best; and there are plenty of scenarios where that danger increase dramatically. IMHO, there's no easy answer when it comes down to choosing between the life of child and mother, and it's more than a little disgusting to see these scenarios used to justify choices made in other scenarios. That's what i was referring to with "triage" - it's one thing for a doctor to, say, give an injured man a massive shot of morphine when he's dying, in pain, and there's no hope of treatment because of so many others also needing treatment; it's quite another to give a patient a deadly dose when he's being treated successfully and just doesn't feel like dealing with life anymore.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
led mike wrote:
Are you saying in that statement that you don't think the issues involving the mothers health are part of the issue, they are logically disparate?
Depends what you mean by "mother's health". Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous times for mother and child at best; and there are plenty of scenarios where that danger increase dramatically. IMHO, there's no easy answer when it comes down to choosing between the life of child and mother, and it's more than a little disgusting to see these scenarios used to justify choices made in other scenarios. That's what i was referring to with "triage" - it's one thing for a doctor to, say, give an injured man a massive shot of morphine when he's dying, in pain, and there's no hope of treatment because of so many others also needing treatment; it's quite another to give a patient a deadly dose when he's being treated successfully and just doesn't feel like dealing with life anymore.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
Depends what you mean by "mother's health".
Shog9 wrote:
IMHO, there's no easy answer when it comes down to choosing between the life of child and mother
Exactly my point and why everyone else needs to stay out of it. What I specifically mean by health is any scenario where a doctor informs the mother of impending risk to her health. So something like, if you carry to term you run the risk of blah blah. What I specifically mean is that in that room at that moment exactly what you said, there is no easy answer for the family involved in that situation and making laws that complicate the situation just seems retarded. Now if someone offered legislation that somehow eliminates that problem that would be a different story. From what I can tell that has not yet happened.
Shog9 wrote:
and it's more than a little disgusting to see these scenarios used to justify choices made in other scenarios.
I agree, like the new thread today, completely disgusting. I still don't understand your triage scenario in how it relates to this subject of when there is a health risk to the mother, but thats cool.
led mike
-
Shog9 wrote:
Depends what you mean by "mother's health".
Shog9 wrote:
IMHO, there's no easy answer when it comes down to choosing between the life of child and mother
Exactly my point and why everyone else needs to stay out of it. What I specifically mean by health is any scenario where a doctor informs the mother of impending risk to her health. So something like, if you carry to term you run the risk of blah blah. What I specifically mean is that in that room at that moment exactly what you said, there is no easy answer for the family involved in that situation and making laws that complicate the situation just seems retarded. Now if someone offered legislation that somehow eliminates that problem that would be a different story. From what I can tell that has not yet happened.
Shog9 wrote:
and it's more than a little disgusting to see these scenarios used to justify choices made in other scenarios.
I agree, like the new thread today, completely disgusting. I still don't understand your triage scenario in how it relates to this subject of when there is a health risk to the mother, but thats cool.
led mike
led mike wrote:
I agree, like the new thread today, completely disgusting.
Yet, it's actions like that which will probably result in over-zealous legislation. All because we (as a society) can't differentiate between degrees. Which was kinda the point i was making with this subject line - killing is killing, but we are able to distinguish between breaking into someone's house and killing them while they sleep and shooting an intruder in self-defense. IMHO, the woman in today's thread is as guilty of infanticide as the one initially mentioned in this thread. But we (the courts at any rate) see them as being completely different.
led mike wrote:
I still don't understand your triage scenario in how it relates to this subject of when there is a health risk to the mother, but thats cool.
See here[^]. There are scenarios where nothing can be done, or where attempting to treat a patient has a low chance of success and takes valuable resources away from those who have a better chance of surviving. These are special cases.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
led mike wrote:
I agree, like the new thread today, completely disgusting.
Yet, it's actions like that which will probably result in over-zealous legislation. All because we (as a society) can't differentiate between degrees. Which was kinda the point i was making with this subject line - killing is killing, but we are able to distinguish between breaking into someone's house and killing them while they sleep and shooting an intruder in self-defense. IMHO, the woman in today's thread is as guilty of infanticide as the one initially mentioned in this thread. But we (the courts at any rate) see them as being completely different.
led mike wrote:
I still don't understand your triage scenario in how it relates to this subject of when there is a health risk to the mother, but thats cool.
See here[^]. There are scenarios where nothing can be done, or where attempting to treat a patient has a low chance of success and takes valuable resources away from those who have a better chance of surviving. These are special cases.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Yes I think I see now and yes this is my objection to legislation as a remedy, at least so far. We don't have a good history of legislating successfully to deal with "special cases". I am not cemented on the side opposing abortion legislation but I will always will oppose abortion legislation that has any chance of adding a burden to the families that have to make those health risk choices. They just don't deserve the additional burden. I would have no problem with legislation that is specific to scenarios like the new thread in the SB today, I'm just not convinced it is possible.
led mike
-
The only thing I would like to get to the bottom of is the history of how these bizarre notions became so widely dissiminated. I think Led Mike is an honest guy. I think he really believes this stuff, and he has been taught that it is only some kind of evil right wing junta of some kind that could possibly disagree with them. And he isn't alone. Most members of the younger generation and even many baby boomer's believe the same thing. It is as though at some point in my 54 years of life I stepped through a looking glass without being aware of it. The clear history that the bill of rights was created at the insistence of the anti-federalists who were trying to take power away from the federal government and give it to the states and the people is apparently no longer taught. They seem to have been taught that the declaration of independence was actually a legally binding contract of some kind which justifies any action the federal government might take (unless, of course, it involves defending the nation in some way)
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think he really believes this stuff, and he has been taught that it is only some kind of evil right wing junta of some kind that could possibly disagree with them.
You may be correct for many people but you still don't understand me[^] very well. I am far more conservative than you imagine but as I have said in the past I still value our freedom in a way that I believe the founders would be proud of. I am in no way willing to so casually discard them.
led mike
-
Yes I think I see now and yes this is my objection to legislation as a remedy, at least so far. We don't have a good history of legislating successfully to deal with "special cases". I am not cemented on the side opposing abortion legislation but I will always will oppose abortion legislation that has any chance of adding a burden to the families that have to make those health risk choices. They just don't deserve the additional burden. I would have no problem with legislation that is specific to scenarios like the new thread in the SB today, I'm just not convinced it is possible.
led mike
IMHO, this is where the courts are supposed to have some value, by allowing judgment and understanding to enter the picture. Unfortunately, we have a rather sad history there as well.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'