magekillr

I probably would have been a loyalist. In general, the people complaining about the taxes were just a bunch of rich people, like usual. I mean, for all the harping about "no taxation without representation," they weren't very principled. They were just rich people who didn't want to pay taxes, and it showed when they wrote the Articles of Confederation. I doubt I'd have had money in the first place, and going to war over taxes is silly. Most people were loyalists themselves, and there wasn't even an urgency to go to war until Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

Lol, you're living up to your forum name, my friend: I'm not pro-life, but I think you could argue for the exception and not be logically inconsistent (I don't think they are being logically consistent, but you could argue it). A woman has a right to life, but she also has a right to good health. She has a right to be free from mental anguish, which is a component of good health. She has a right to privacy. With the exception of the most radical, the debate is over what the balance should be within the law between these rights that all potential mothers enjoy and any presumptive rights that a embryo or fetus should enjoy. As a moral question, this is obviously one of the most difficult questions to answer. As a legal matter, the courts basically say that the mother's life and health (including mental health) has the higher claim. However, her privacy right moves on a continuum, weakening as the pregnancy progresses until, eventually, the privacy right has the weaker claim. It's this last issue that is the most contentious, as most pro-life politicians concede the first two points, but fervently dispute any privacy right. This is why it is much more radical to take the position that the embryo's rights trump every right the mother has, including her right not to suffer the mental anguish of mothering her rapist's child. So, in conclusion, it's not really the case that there is some logical fallacy in being anti-choice with exceptions. It's actually a mirror image of Roe, which is pro-choice with exceptions. ^^Keep in mind that this argument isn't one I'd make because I disagree with it, but if you asked me in Debate Class to argue that it's not logically inconsistent to make exceptions for rape and incest, this would be my argument. On the flip side of that, which is ultimately my own argument, people who make this exception are just exposing why they're against abortion in the first place: to control a woman's sex life and her body. People who make exceptions are like Puritans placing Scarlet Letters on women and shaming them: "Oh, you weren't raped? You [bleep], you can't have an abortion." Still, to say that a woman must carry a rapist's baby to term is beyond your average pro-lifer; it's outright obscene, and even most abortion ban laws don't take it that far (Brazil, for example, makes these exceptions). However, what do we have running for the Senate this year? Extreme pro-rape child Republicans with Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle of Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell of Delaware all holding this position. Lulz, no. It'a a fetus. It doesn't even know it exists. However, even if you argue that it has a right to life, I argue that a mother's right to privacy trumps its right to life. Any reason the mother chooses is okay with me during the first and second trimesters; it's her damn body. I'd say that beyond 24 weeks is only ok if there is a complication with the mother's mental or physical health, the baby is going to die, the baby won't live long once it's born, if the baby will be severely physically or mentally handicapped, or if the fetus is already dead. However, though I draw those lines, I don't like the government regulating it because I don't trust America's politicians. They're extremely right-wing, and will do anything they can to limit a woman's choice or make it extremely difficult to get an abortion. Not to mention the fact that there's so few abortion providers in many of the red states (in some of them, there's ONE in the entire state). So I don't support the government making any laws regarding it. It's a decision between the doctor and the woman, period, and the government can get its hands out of it totally.

Depends which kind of animal you're talking about. I'd say most mammals have a "moral code" among their species. In any case, I don't really believe in morality because my sense of right and wrong is different than a religious person's sense of right and wrong. I don't think it's wrong to take drugs or drink, a religious person might. However, those activities do become "immoral" when others are suffering because of it, especially children who have no control over the situation. So I think rather than asking if animals have morals it'd be more apt to question the idea of morality in the first place.

How about now? Arctic Ice in Death Spiral, dated September 20th, 2010

I don't plan on having children, but this attitude could change in the future. I don't think not having children is selfish at all. We're already overpopulated as it is, so I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that you're selfish for having kids at all (it's not one I'd make, but I think it's a reasonable position to have). I don't have a problem with using artificial insemination, as adoptions are probably just as expensive if not even more, but I do question people who can afford either or and they choose artificial insemination rather than adoption. If I do have children, I'll probably choose to adopt, or be a foster care house.

Just a knock at the Atkins diet. 65-70% of my calories come from carbs, 10-15% comes from fat, and 20-25% comes from protein. Carbs are bad for you if you're drinking soda and not eating pasta, or if you're eating 4,000 calories a day without exercise and proper eating habits (4,000 calories per day should never be consumed in three meals, as your body won't burn them and they'll turn to fat). About meat causing cancer, that's prolly true about the increased vegetable intake, but coincidentally the link to cancer and heart disease goes away when cows are fed through fields and grass rather than feed. So if they're on a "natural" diet, the link seems to go away. I don't have a link on me regarding that, sadly (and surprisingly!). So I think it has more to do with what the animals are being fed than an increase in vegetables. Meat is a luxury, really, so it's no wonder that the richer your country, the more meat that is consumed. I don't have a problem with meat eaters, but I do have a problem with America's excess consumption of meat, and the attitude that a lot of meat eaters have towards me. Time and time again during meals people shove it in your face acting like you want it really really bad, and how much you're missing out. Or they say "Well I'll eat two steaks instead of one to make up for you." That attitude pisses me off.

I'm a vegetarian for two reasons: 1.) Climate change. The meat industry contributes to a good percentage of our global warming gases, so I dropped meat for this reason alone. 2.) It takes more land to raise meat. So world hunger could be easier to alleviate if everyone else gave up meat. edit: Heh, looks like Myweponsg00d hit these points already. Also, if anyone needs nutrition help, I know a lot about diet and nutrition. I'm not a professional bodybuilder, but I can also give you diet plans if you wish to be a vegetarian who lifts weights. Meat isn't needed.

Ha, your criticisms against pro-gun statistics sound exactly the same as mine against anti-gun statistics. Can we all agree to stop using statistics and outlandish scenarios from now on? It becomes a stalemate for both sides. He wasn't criticizing statistics, but the use of them without any context. Statistics are certainly not useless, only if they're used improperly or without any context. When used by people who know wtf they're talking about, they're very useful. However, it is a dumb thing to say without any source. Who made this claim? What study? Who funded it? Can it be independently repeated using the same tools? Etc. It'd be useful if people would use links more frequently in their posts... I do question the number to a T, though, considering guns aren't even a factor in other countries, and yet here is the Netherlands shutting down prisons because they don't have enough crime to house people in them: http://media.www.jsons.org/media/storage/paper139/news/2009/05/31/EmersonNews/Netherlands.To.Shut.Down.Prisons.Due.To.Lack.Of.Criminals-3748334.shtml

I don't see how because France has typically tried to keep their country "French" that it excuses their racism; it just indicts their government as hostile to The Other, which was my original premise. Lenticular_J, I don't know how I lost you talking about sexism and the Russian invasion, but it's quite clear that these hijabs are meant to keep women from view, making it a sexist symbol. And here are pictures of Afghanistan before the Russians invaded, which opened up a power vacuum for extremists to take over (The Northern Alliance and the Taliban): Just some samples.

This isn't the first time you've voiced your outright opposition to Muslims, Joe. On the mosque thread you supposedly opposed it for the location, but just as most people can reasonably suspect, there's underlying feelings. If it's not racism, then what is it? Moreover, a country such as France doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to tolerance of The Other. Just look at their recent treatment of the Roma people: E.U. Calls Frances Roma Expulsions a Disgrace None of this is adding up to you? Do the math, mate, or are your prejudices just too hot to look in the face? French leaders are participating in a pissing contest of who can keep "France for the French." It's bigoted and racist.

Well said, lizzy. Especially the last part, because it will clear up a lot of cloudiness that for some reason people think all forms of birth control are full-proof, and the people who do choose abortion are nothing but lazy [bleep]s. And btw, do not feel shame in moving in with your parents. Moving out of your parents' house at a young age is quite a new phenomenon, and it wasn't that long ago that children stayed home with their parents until they were much older. Don't let society bring you down into thinking you're some loser for moving back in with your parents at 25. It's nonsense. Good article on this: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/adulthood_lack_of_jobs_and_slippery_definitions/ You'll be fine, you seem like a strong-willed and independent woman.

It's racist policy, through and through. I don't see the niqab as a religious tradition, it's cultural in its origins. There's evidence of it existing before Islam was even invented. In so much as it's religious, however, Afghanistan Muslim women once wore head scarves similar to the women in Iran, or none at all! This was before the Russian invasion, of course. In any case, I do not believe in cultural relativism. Sexism is a form of violence, and I do not think it should be tolerated; I see the niqab, burqa etc as a sexist "tradition" by putting the onus of men's sexual and power trips on women, just as has been done for centuries. When it comes to basic human rights, nothing pisses me off more than arguments based on "cultural acceptance." I just don't think banning it is a good way at combating a way of thinking. Education is the most important tool, that's what we should use. Banning it will be seen as a war on them, their culture, their religion, and their people. This is the way this [cabbage] always happens and we never [bleep]ing learn from it. I understand the desire to minimize sexism (though I don't think that's what France is doing here - this is a pissing contest for the French equivalent of "real America" to show that they're going to "fight to keep France for the French"), but an outright ban is not going to be effective - it's just going to radicalize people even more. This will not be productive.

Likewise, if you aren't shot in those areas, you'll survive as well. You may be crippled, depending on where you're hit, but that goes for knives too. Ok, two, three, four shots. How quick can you fire a gun? And how close do you need to be to stab someone versus shooting them? Just stop trying to play Devil's Advocate with an argument both you and I know is ridiculous. The only time a knife is as equally dangerous as a gun is if some ninja is wielding the knife, and we both know -- or should know -- that most criminals holding knives are small-time petty people looking for a quick and desperate buck.

How is the particular implement used to commit a crime in any way relevant to a discussion of gun availability? It doesn't matter if you are shot or stabbed, you are still dead. This argument fails on its face. I have a far greater chance of surviving or even fighting off an assailant with a knife than I do if they had a gun. I can take multiple stab wounds; a shot to the chest or head and I'm probably going to die, and any quick movement of trying to disarm them and they'll shoot me. The fact is that more people in the US die of gun related crime than any other developed nation per capita. And it's not even like we're competitive. We have 5x as many deaths by guns as the Canadians do, and 20x as many deaths by guns as the British do. Again, not in favor of much gun control, but I'm evenhanded. This is a ridiculous argument. There are better ones. Use those.

Yeah, you guys can give up all your civil liberties in the name of terrorism, just like we did here in the United States! After all, your tool of a PM gave our president plenty of domestic cover to invade Iraq, I guess it's our turn to return the favor and let you know about how giving up our 4th amendment rights is totally worth feeling "safe."

No, they're shutting out ALL policies (the small business bill was their policy). This is exactly what I'm combating (notice that they're against all policies that were theirs). That's the point I'm making, and obviously people still aren't getting it. In retrospect, considering how childish and adolescent they are, you're right, though. As I said, they are ruthless, and you don't deal with bullies by placating and working with them. The reason that happens, though, is because there are conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats. It's hard to remain in unison with a Tent this Big.

Agreed, [bleep] off people who are telling her to get an abortion. It's not your body, it's hers.

Right-wing politics aren't evil. I've said time and time again I can accept and respect conservatives. I cannot and will not respect Republicans in their current state. I'm not convincing anyone of anything politically, just that the GOP is not interesting in governing. I was explicitly told on this very thread that the GOP just "has different ideas," when it's blatantly obvious that they're shutting down the government for political purposes. This isn't an argument for my ideology, but a plead for people to wake the [bleep] up to what the GOP is doing. I was told by several people that I was more or less crazy for believing the GOP was willing to shut down the government for politics.

Remember how I was soooo crazy and shrill for saying the Republicans are doing nothing on purpose? How I was being partisan and not hearing the GOP's ideas fairly? Take it away, Jim DeMint: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_39/b4196031953733.htm?chan=magazine+channel_news+-+politics+%2B+policy Complete gridlock. It's exactly what I said earlier in this thread. The Republican Party has been out of governance for so long that their ideology cannot handle actually governing the Federal government. It's absolutely against it.

"We're so sorry for killing a million people with our sanctions against Iraq! We're sorry for invading Iraq, destroying your government, making the country more unstable and ready to be sucked up by the power vacuum, killing over one hundred thousand people, and continuing to occupy it! We're sorry for bombing civilians in Afghanistan! We're sorry for destroying Iran's democracy because British Petroleum asked the CIA to do it! We're sorry for favoring Israel on every single issue no matter how wrong they are, and we'll continue to do so in the future! We're sorry for funding money to brutal dictators who favor our country's interest, even if it means your people will be oppressed! We're sorry that we pushed our military onto your Holy Ground in order to enforce our brutal sanctions! We're sorry for bombing civilians in Yemen! We're sorry for our sanctions on Syria! We're sorry for saber rattling Iran! We're sorry for giving the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan defacto Taliban rule and control!" (there's lots more to "apologize" for, btw). Yeah, when's the last time you heard that apology, and when's the last time that after our apology on anything we actually seemed to learn from it (as we're still engaging in the same behavior. We haven't apologized for anything)? I've actually heard Sean Hannity say that Iraq should pay us back for what we did to their country. Or you have George Bush I "I will never apologize for the United States America."Your mentality is sickening, bigoted, and like most issues you have an opinion on lacks all empathy. Meanwhile, right here in America, the American Taliban:

These people can help: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Go to your local Planned Parenthood for advice, guidance and direction. They won't [cabbage] you, they won't force a choice on you, and they'll give you a lot of useful and helpful information on where to go from here. I wish you the best of luck. I am a believer of choice, and although I probably would have an abortion in your case, if your choice is to keep your future baby, that is no one's right to tell you otherwise or influence your decision. This has to be your choice and yours alone. Not your boyfriends', not your parents', not your friends', but yours. You can accept input (haha, you're getting it now, aren't you?), but go with how you feel, not how others feel. To everyone out there telling her she should have been more careful before, maybe that's true, maybe it's not. You're not in the position to judge. Things happen. Condoms break. Birth control fails. Morning after doesn't work as planned. That's why abortion should always be there for those who do wish to have one. Good luck to you and I wish you a safe pregnancy.

You'll have remembered from macroeconomics that people saving their money is a good thing; it allows banks to lend more. Every dollar saved is ten more banks can lend (see reserve ratio and money multiplier). But this isn't a discussion about the U.S.'s economy/government/laws, its a discussion about Cuba cutting half a million jobs from its public sector workforce. People saving their money in a recession is a good thing? What school of econ did you go to? Ludwig Von Mises Institute of Google? An economy based on consumption cannot grow with everyone saving their money. The economy grew slower than at any time in US history since the 1940's...this was during Bush's tax cuts that said we'd experience a lot of growth by giving rich people money. That was Reagonomics. It's a failure. I like how you're changing the topic. No, this is very much relevant because you said Communism fails. You say Communism fails, as though to say that government in the economy = communism. That's essentially what you're implying with this post. Thus, I say that American capitalism fails. And about earlier, Christine O'Donnell just won the Delaware Republican primary for Senate. This is your party, dude: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/christine-odonnells-1996-anti-masturbation-campaign-on-mtvs-sex-in-the-90s.php

Oh cool, I can go outside of Chicago and buy guns. See why I noted in my original post FEDERAL?

W/e, sees_all1, your model has proven to be bunk. When I see this: Wall Street Strikes Again: Sewer Hikes in Alabama At some point, people are going to figure out that our current corrupt capitalist system isn’t about the efficient allocation of capital, but straight up robbery and thieving. Not any time soon, I suspect, but some day. And then this: Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says Will Ronald Reagan's [cabbage] ever go away? If you want to have a debate about what tax rate is "fair" then fine, there is room to argue there. But the debate over what tax rates best benefit the economy is over.

This is actually false. There's a lot of debate about what it means, and I'd argue that it's not a right to individually bear arms. In the context with the law and the intent of the founders, it's clearly about the ability for an army to be raised, as Jefferson did not want a national military for fear of being involved in other country's conflicts or in the case of a tyrant imposing a police state. The Latin etymology also seems to suggest this: And how far does one take it if one believes in the individual right? Do individuals have the right to own a tank? Etc. Though I don't see it as a protected individual right, you're not going to see me argue in favor of much gun control in the US because of how Western Cowboy people are about their guns. The time to change this mentality with gun control measures has long since passed.