Holy crap!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've had kids your age try to threaten me with knives and so on, I just kept coming
If they were serious you wouldn't be so bold.
To be honest, my judgement of them was that they were just kids and I wasn't going to stopped by them. However, the point is, I'll fight if I need to, and if things were that bad, I'd be armed from the start, and ready to defend myself.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
To be honest, my judgement of them was that they were just kids and I wasn't going to stopped by them. However, the point is, I'll fight if I need to, and if things were that bad, I'd be armed from the start, and ready to defend myself.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd be armed from the start, and ready to defend myself.
That's a change. You used to be appalled at the idea.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You really don't know ?
Actually, I am quite perplexed by it. And I always have been. It is the original question that began turning me into a conservative.
Christian Graus wrote:
What would they have to promote in order to be on the 'right', in your view ?
I don't know. I hardly see how someone saying that life should be protected even when it is in the womb ends up on the same side of the political spectrum as Adolph Hitler. I don't necessarily agree with that fundamentalist perspective, but I'm stumped as to how anyone could catalog it politically along side Nazism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hardly see how someone saying that life should be protected even when it is in the womb ends up on the same side of the political spectrum as Adolph Hitler.
I can see how someone who thinks life should be protected in the womb, but the state should kill people, being on the same spectrum as Hitler, although obviously being on the same spectrum, and being the same, are two different things.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but I'm stumped as to how anyone could catalog it politically along side Nazism.
Cataloguing anything as Nazism is a cheap shot, and largely meaningless. That the Nazis were an extreme does not mean that anyone less extreme, is not on the right.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd be armed from the start, and ready to defend myself.
That's a change. You used to be appalled at the idea.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
so I am on the fence in his case, but overall against any nut job who gives their kids NO vaccinations.
As am I sure most AMericans are. I suppose we don't tend to be as intellectually monolithic as Australians.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I suppose we don't tend to be as intellectually monolithic as Australians.
*grin* I'm not sure what that means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As am I sure most AMericans are
No doubt. I explicitly stated I knew of one person who held this view, and that while I consider him intelligent, I am not sure about his case, because I've not been able to examine alternative viewpoints to what he told me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
You cant defend yourself though. Your government won't let you. Maybe someday you will be ready for a Wake Up Call[^]
-
You cant defend yourself though. Your government won't let you. Maybe someday you will be ready for a Wake Up Call[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You cant defend yourself though. Your government won't let you
What a pile of ignorant BS
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Maybe someday you will be ready for a Wake Up Call[^]
Yeah, if I suffer a brain injury, I may start to buy into this stuff. Or if I lose my job, my family and my money, AND my self will, then I'd be ripe pickings for these people. Just like you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hardly see how someone saying that life should be protected even when it is in the womb ends up on the same side of the political spectrum as Adolph Hitler.
I can see how someone who thinks life should be protected in the womb, but the state should kill people, being on the same spectrum as Hitler, although obviously being on the same spectrum, and being the same, are two different things.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but I'm stumped as to how anyone could catalog it politically along side Nazism.
Cataloguing anything as Nazism is a cheap shot, and largely meaningless. That the Nazis were an extreme does not mean that anyone less extreme, is not on the right.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
can see how someone who thinks life should be protected in the womb, but the state should kill people, being on the same spectrum as Hitler, although obviously being on the same spectrum, and being the same, are two different things.
That still makes no sense. You are saying that someone who believes that the innocent should be spared, but the guilty should be executed according to a carefully defined system of laws is equivalent to extermination of millions in death camps with no access to justice of any kind. I see no political similarities between those two things at all. Not even remotely. What I do see, however, is an attempt to associat the things you disagree with with the most extreme examples of babarism in the modern world, and I think that is for purely political reasons. That is precisely what 'the right' is - a place to catalog those the self styled 'left' disagrees with. Everyone who dares challange any aspect of collectivism ends up in the same smelly little place.
Christian Graus wrote:
Cataloguing anything as Nazism is a cheap shot, and largely meaningless. That the Nazis were an extreme does not mean that anyone less extreme, is not on the right.
Yet oh so convenient.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
can see how someone who thinks life should be protected in the womb, but the state should kill people, being on the same spectrum as Hitler, although obviously being on the same spectrum, and being the same, are two different things.
That still makes no sense. You are saying that someone who believes that the innocent should be spared, but the guilty should be executed according to a carefully defined system of laws is equivalent to extermination of millions in death camps with no access to justice of any kind. I see no political similarities between those two things at all. Not even remotely. What I do see, however, is an attempt to associat the things you disagree with with the most extreme examples of babarism in the modern world, and I think that is for purely political reasons. That is precisely what 'the right' is - a place to catalog those the self styled 'left' disagrees with. Everyone who dares challange any aspect of collectivism ends up in the same smelly little place.
Christian Graus wrote:
Cataloguing anything as Nazism is a cheap shot, and largely meaningless. That the Nazis were an extreme does not mean that anyone less extreme, is not on the right.
Yet oh so convenient.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are saying that someone who believes that the innocent should be spared, but the guilty should be executed according to a carefully defined system of laws is equivalent to extermination of millions in death camps with no access to justice of any kind
No, I didn't say that. I said it was on the same scale.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What I do see, however, is an attempt to associat the things you disagree with with the most extreme examples of babarism in the modern world, and I think that is for purely political reasons.
I thought I was careful to differentiate between saying they were on the same side of the political spectrum, and saying they were equal, which they plainly are not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is precisely what 'the right' is - a place to catalog those the self styled 'left' disagrees with.
One suspects that the brutalism of the right is probably what society started with, and in that sense, it's probably true that the left defines the right, until there is opposition, the one view that exists, does not need to be categorised.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet oh so convenient.
Ah - see, I did say that. And, it's true. The idea that the state can decide who lives and dies, is still a common thread between nazism and the right. And, in both cases, innocents die.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You cant defend yourself though. Your government won't let you
What a pile of ignorant BS
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Maybe someday you will be ready for a Wake Up Call[^]
Yeah, if I suffer a brain injury, I may start to buy into this stuff. Or if I lose my job, my family and my money, AND my self will, then I'd be ripe pickings for these people. Just like you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
What a pile of ignorant BS
:laugh:
Christian Graus wrote:
Yeah, if I suffer a brain injury, I may start to buy into this stuff. Or if I lose my job, my family and my money, AND my self will, then I'd be ripe pickings for these people. Just like you.
So as long as you have your own little world to live in, nothing else matters. I know how that is, back when I had money I didn't give a shit about the who what when where how, as long as I could buy my happiness wrapped in plastic made in china.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are saying that someone who believes that the innocent should be spared, but the guilty should be executed according to a carefully defined system of laws is equivalent to extermination of millions in death camps with no access to justice of any kind
No, I didn't say that. I said it was on the same scale.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What I do see, however, is an attempt to associat the things you disagree with with the most extreme examples of babarism in the modern world, and I think that is for purely political reasons.
I thought I was careful to differentiate between saying they were on the same side of the political spectrum, and saying they were equal, which they plainly are not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is precisely what 'the right' is - a place to catalog those the self styled 'left' disagrees with.
One suspects that the brutalism of the right is probably what society started with, and in that sense, it's probably true that the left defines the right, until there is opposition, the one view that exists, does not need to be categorised.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet oh so convenient.
Ah - see, I did say that. And, it's true. The idea that the state can decide who lives and dies, is still a common thread between nazism and the right. And, in both cases, innocents die.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
Ah - see, I did say that. And, it's true. The idea that the state can decide who lives and dies, is still a common thread between nazism and the right. And, in both cases, innocents die.
So, to you then, being 'right wing' is merely an issue of capital punishment?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
But it sure is nice that you cite statistics from 1987 when it's 22 years later (
So none of wehat i said had any validity? You were in diapers when the study was published - maybe you're operating out of survivor's guilt? Well in 2007 the U.S. had 1,206,200 abortions, which if the percentage holds steady - and given the reasons cited in the original study, technology woul not have an impact - 214,240 late term abortions were performed. All of them according to you, from fetal abnormalities. Sooner or later you're going to realise that it's easier and less painful to say "Whoops, I was wrong," than to emulate Troy and maintain that you and only you know the truth. Why someone might end up saying: Fisti Has Spoken: * A Moment of Silence *
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Well in 2007 the U.S. had 1,206,200 abortions, which if the percentage holds steady - and given the reasons cited in the original study, technology woul not have an impact - 214,240 late term abortions were performed. All of them according to you, from fetal abnormalities.
Well, the 2004 CDC data suggests that only about 5% of those abortions are later (>= 15wks) which would actually put that number around 60,000. Secondly, because most places place legal restrictions on when and under what conditions late-term abortions can be performed, it's difficult to know for sure. But, if the States is anything like anywhere else, late-term abortions can be performed for a fetal indication (i.e. deformity) or a maternal indication (which can be interpreted tightly or loosely, (i.e. most places would consider psychological reasons an indication). One French study suggests fetal/maternal indications for late term abortion is 90%/10% (PMID: 14634970). Another study in a different country was something like 95%/5%. Data is sparse but when most professional associations (e.g. the CMA position paper)[^] generally discourage abortion beyond the date of viability (can be later but minimum 20 weeks GA because of respiratory development) it strongly suggests that it's indeed the minority of women that are getting abortions-on-demand in the later phases of pregnancy. Thirdly, don't take it out on me just because you can't keep this issue in perspective.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The number of challenges/organisms that a person's immune system encounters in a day is an order of magnitude more than the number of vaccines they'll receive over their entire life.
Sure - his point was that a lot of them were vaccinating against things that are not life threatening. He said he would ask 'what if we don't do this and he gets this disease' and the answer was 'he'll feel a bit sick for a few days'. If that is true, why vaccinate ? Like I said above, I've only heard his side, and I would default towards 'do what the doctor recommends', but if he's right, I would agree that it's silly to vaccinate for things that are not really that bad.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - his point was that a lot of them were vaccinating against things that are not life threatening. He said he would ask 'what if we don't do this and he gets this disease' and the answer was 'he'll feel a bit sick for a few days'. If that is true, why vaccinate ? Like I said above, I've only heard his side, and I would default towards 'do what the doctor recommends', but if he's right, I would agree that it's silly to vaccinate for things that are not really that bad.
I agree - but take chicken pox, for example, which I think is pretty archetypical of a disease that most people would consider pretty benign. (I missed the vaccination for that, oh goody.) Chicken pox (varicella zoster) can lead to shingles in later life (nasty, nasty - I had a family member go half-blind when it went for his eye), and the pediatricians who taught us said that before the vaccines, they would see a varicella pneumonia or a varicella encephalitis (brain inflammation leading to all sorts of nasty problems) about once a month in the pediatric emerg. Finding that out truly surprised me.
- F
-
Saul would be so proud!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
But it sure is nice that you cite statistics from 1987 when it's 22 years later (
So none of wehat i said had any validity? You were in diapers when the study was published - maybe you're operating out of survivor's guilt? Well in 2007 the U.S. had 1,206,200 abortions, which if the percentage holds steady - and given the reasons cited in the original study, technology woul not have an impact - 214,240 late term abortions were performed. All of them according to you, from fetal abnormalities. Sooner or later you're going to realise that it's easier and less painful to say "Whoops, I was wrong," than to emulate Troy and maintain that you and only you know the truth. Why someone might end up saying: Fisti Has Spoken: * A Moment of Silence *
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Well in 2007 the U.S. had 1,206,200 abortions, which if the percentage holds steady - and given the reasons cited in the original study, technology woul not have an impact - 214,240 late term abortions were performed. All of them according to you, from fetal abnormalities.
According to the 2004 study he cited: "A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.0% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks." So that is 5.4% at 16 weeks or later. Note that this is 5.4% of all abortions, not 5.4% of all pregnancies. There are over 4 million live births in the US each year, so we are talking about something like 1% of all pregnancies that are subject to late term abortion. Accoring to Fisticuffs, the "lion's share" of these (not "all of them") are for foetal abnormalities.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Ah - see, I did say that. And, it's true. The idea that the state can decide who lives and dies, is still a common thread between nazism and the right. And, in both cases, innocents die.
So, to you then, being 'right wing' is merely an issue of capital punishment?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, to you then, being 'right wing' is merely an issue of capital punishment?
Well, no, it's an obvious example of a believe that I am strongly opposed to, but it's not the only issue that defines right wing. It perhaps encapsulates all that is uncaring and judgmental about a right wing view, as I understand it, tho.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
David Alinsky?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Well in 2007 the U.S. had 1,206,200 abortions, which if the percentage holds steady - and given the reasons cited in the original study, technology woul not have an impact - 214,240 late term abortions were performed. All of them according to you, from fetal abnormalities.
Well, the 2004 CDC data suggests that only about 5% of those abortions are later (>= 15wks) which would actually put that number around 60,000. Secondly, because most places place legal restrictions on when and under what conditions late-term abortions can be performed, it's difficult to know for sure. But, if the States is anything like anywhere else, late-term abortions can be performed for a fetal indication (i.e. deformity) or a maternal indication (which can be interpreted tightly or loosely, (i.e. most places would consider psychological reasons an indication). One French study suggests fetal/maternal indications for late term abortion is 90%/10% (PMID: 14634970). Another study in a different country was something like 95%/5%. Data is sparse but when most professional associations (e.g. the CMA position paper)[^] generally discourage abortion beyond the date of viability (can be later but minimum 20 weeks GA because of respiratory development) it strongly suggests that it's indeed the minority of women that are getting abortions-on-demand in the later phases of pregnancy. Thirdly, don't take it out on me just because you can't keep this issue in perspective.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, the 2004 CDC data suggests that only about 5% of those abortions are later (>= 15wks) which would actually put that number around 60,000.
Okay. For the sake of the argument, I'll buy that figure. Further, I'll postulate that 70% of those abortions are performed on non viable fetuses. And that rather than the 70% figure that the study came up with for late abortions as a method of birth control, I'll flip the figures on their head and say 30% so that's only 5,400 viable fetuses with their heads crushed because mommy changed her mind. There were 53 executions for crimes like serial homicides, cop-killings, etc. in 2007 (last year for which full data is available.) Canada, I am told, considers this barbaric, but doesn't blink about 5,400 executions in the US of creatures that by any stretch of the imagination are living humans??? X|
Fisticuffs wrote:
don't take it out on me just because you can't keep this issue in perspec
You seem to have a propensity for realizing that you have gone too far and immediately blaming everyone you've been yelling at. Once again, i assure you that some day you'll find that saying, "I made a mistake," or "I was wrong," is a lot easier than to continue arguing when you know that you aren't making sense even to yourself. Enough. I'm bored. You can have the last word.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, to you then, being 'right wing' is merely an issue of capital punishment?
Well, no, it's an obvious example of a believe that I am strongly opposed to, but it's not the only issue that defines right wing. It perhaps encapsulates all that is uncaring and judgmental about a right wing view, as I understand it, tho.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, no, it's an obvious example of a believe that I am strongly opposed to, but it's not the only issue that defines right wing. It perhaps encapsulates all that is uncaring and judgmental about a right wing view, as I understand it, tho.
So, 'right wing' means being uncaring and judgemental? But you would hardly consider christian fundamentalists opposed to abortion as being uncaring would you? Judgemental perhaps, but then, judgemental is a matter of perspective. I mean, how do you call someone judgemental without being judgemental?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, no, it's an obvious example of a believe that I am strongly opposed to, but it's not the only issue that defines right wing. It perhaps encapsulates all that is uncaring and judgmental about a right wing view, as I understand it, tho.
So, 'right wing' means being uncaring and judgemental? But you would hardly consider christian fundamentalists opposed to abortion as being uncaring would you? Judgemental perhaps, but then, judgemental is a matter of perspective. I mean, how do you call someone judgemental without being judgemental?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But you would hardly consider christian fundamentalists opposed to abortion as being uncaring would you?
When they judge others based on their own situations, when they hurl abuse at women going in to abortion clinics, when they kill doctors, they are uncaring.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I mean, how do you call someone judgemental without being judgemental?
LOL - good point.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.