Virginia House Republican Wards Off the Antichrist

Weird • Views: 2,907

Satan has to wake up pretty early to put one over on Virginia Republican Delegate Mark L. Cole.

Beelzebub’s latest plot involves planting microchips in people against their will, a demonic body modification foretold in the Bible as the “mark of the Beast.”

Of course, nobody is actually inserting these devices into people without their knowledge. But they might start any day. Satan’s tricky like that.

Thankfully, Mark Cole stands ready to thwart the Horned One with his new legislation.

RICHMOND, FEB. 9 — The House of Delegates is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a bill that would protect Virginians from attempts by employers or insurance companies to implant microchips in their bodies against their will.

It might also save humanity from the antichrist, some supporters think.

Del. Mark L. Cole (R-Fredericksburg), the bill’s sponsor, said that privacy issues are the chief concern behind his attempt to criminalize the involuntary implantation of microchips. But he also said he shared concerns that the devices could someday be used as the “mark of the beast” described in the Book of Revelation.

“My understanding — I’m not a theologian — but there’s a prophecy in the Bible that says you’ll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times,” Cole said. “Some people think these computer chips might be that mark.”

Cole said that the growing use of microchips could allow employers, insurers or the government to track people against their will and that implanting a foreign object into a human being could also have adverse health effects.

I just think you should have the right to control your own body,” Cole said.

Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

Jump to bottom

756 comments
1 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:22:15am

Alex Jones wasn't available for comment.

2 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:22:21am

Oh noes! My dog has a microchip, and he goes everywhere I do.

Duped again.

3 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:22:41am

I remember hearing about this same crap as far back as the early 90s. Of course then, it included the idea that the patent number which was to be included on each chip started with 666.

Even today *facepalm*

4 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:23:01am

So, if I go in for surgery one day, and my doctor has horns and goat legs, I should rethink the surgery. Good to know!

It's also a good thing I live in MD and not VA, because MD is a bastion of sanity!

(what's that dripping I hear? oh, I know what it is!)

/

5 garhighway  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:23:26am

Quote: "“My understanding — I’m not a theologian — but there’s a prophecy in the Bible that says you’ll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times,” Cole said. “Some people think these computer chips might be that mark.”"

So is he worried about the privacy aspects of "the mark", or its effect as a restraint on trade?

6 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:24:22am

re: #2 Cato the Elder

Oh noes! My dog has a microchip, and he goes everywhere I do.

Duped again.

Heh... if I were you, I would check your Mac laptop real carefully. Dang if I know why it was turning on by itself in the middle of the night while you were sleeping in my guest room?

7 freetoken  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:24:47am

News Headlines From The Future:

House Republican caucus will introduce a bill directing the NIH to distribute garlands of garlic to battle youth obsession with vampirism.

Oklahoma State Assembly decides only American bred waterfowl, not Canadian geese, may be used to weigh witches.

8 filetandrelease  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:26:55am

My core values are conservative so my only politicaly home is the GOP. Got to vote in the primaries, but sometimes .......

9 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:27:30am

re: #1 Cannadian Club Akbar

Alex Jones wasn't available for comment.

I think even Alex Jones is probably surprised by how mainstream he's become.

10 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:28:14am
But the growing use of microchips has collided with the Book of Revelation. The biblical passage in question is in Chapter 13 and describes the rise of a satanic figure known as "the Beast": "He causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

So if they put 'em in the left hand, or the back of the neck--no problem, right? Oh, except for that "control your own body" silliness.

/

11 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:28:50am

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone. /Keyser Soze

12 garhighway  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:28:54am

re: #10 wrenchwench

"The Beast" = Google?

13 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:29:40am

Some people think the mark of το μεγα θηριον will be a microchip. Others, a bar code.

But I know it will be Sarah Palin's hooded, winking eye tattooed on your wanking hand.

14 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:30:20am

hehe. Tags - Antichrist

15 Ice-9  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:30:29am

Del. Robert H. Brink (D-Arlington) said on the House floor that he did not find many voters demanding microchip legislation when he was campaigning last fall: "I didn't hear anything about the danger of asteroids striking the Earth, about the threat posed by giant alligators in our cities' sewer systems or about the menace of forced implantation of microchips in human beings."

Not to worry; they'll all be on President Beck's agenda.

16 American-African  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:30:33am

I am not a theologian either, but I am a Christian. I do not remember reading about satan's microchip though.

This guy is just silly.

17 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:30:50am

It's not necessarily hypocritical to say you should be able to control your own body, but to oppose abortion. After all, the thing being aborted isn't a part of your body, it's a separate life form. The way he might state it is "you can control your own body, but once you have another human life growing inside you, that life also deserves consideration."

The guy's still a nut, but he's not necessarily a hypocritical nut.

18 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:30:56am

As a resident of Virginia, I apologize for this wacko's wackiness.
:/

19 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:31:30am

re: #16 American-African

I am not a theologian either, but I am a Christian. I do not remember reading about satan's microchip though.

This guy is just silly.

Its in the same section saying the earth is only 5000 years old and to kill abortionists.

20 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:31:31am

re: #12 garhighway

"The Beast" = Teh Google?

FTFY.

21 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:32:19am

re: #2 Cato the Elder

That's the secret cat overlord plan for control chips in all canines. They're to be the enforcement division in case the hu-mans ever try to get out of hand.

22 American-African  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:32:22am

re: #19 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its in the same section saying the earth is only 5000 years old and to kill abortionists.

I seem to be missing that section also...

23 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:32:41am

re: #12 garhighway

"The Beast" = Google?

Or "Da Google"

24 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:32:46am

"Tubular Bells" playing of course when chip is embedded.

Bar codes are for "Hitman".

25 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:33:04am

re: #11 lawhawk

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone. /Keyser Soze

The most embarrassing trick that pastors and priests ever pulled was convincing anyone that a document that was written sometime in the middle of the first century C.E., which was a political tract in reference to the contemporary Roman empire, could have jack shit to do with history as it unfolded over the ages.

Textual biblical critics are well aware of the metaphoric language used in The Revelation, and it is very much in keeping with other political tracts of that time.

It's political libel, written for the times, with vague references to the Roman administration, not some prediction of the future.

That's fact.

26 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:33:36am

re: #17 LotharBot

It's not necessarily hypocritical to say you should be able to control your own body, but to oppose abortion. After all, the thing being aborted isn't a part of your body, it's a separate life form. The way he might state it is "you can control your own body, but once you have another human life growing inside you, that life also deserves consideration."

The guy's still a nut, but he's not necessarily a hypocritical nut.

What if the life growing inside you is not a human being but a descendant of apes and monkeys?

27 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:34:08am

re: #13 Cato the Elder

Some people think the mark of το μεγα θηριον will be a microchip. Others, a bar code.

But I know it will be Sarah Palin's hooded, winking eye tattooed on your wanking hand.

Uh oh.....

28 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:34:21am
Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

This, sadly, is nothing new. Our laws can't force someone to donate bone marrow or give blood, even if it would save a life-- but people want to force women to bring to term a pregnancy they don't want.

29 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:35:33am

I wish someone would put one of those in me without permission. I could live well off the lawsuit I would win hands down, without new legislation. Is this guy a moron or what (am I allowed to say that)?

30 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:36:23am

We are seriously through the looking glass here. Fifty years ago, a legislator who started yammering about Satan and prophecy in reference to new legislation would have been laughed out of the House, if not led out in a straitjacket.

31 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:38:30am
RICHMOND, FEB. 9 — The House of Delegates is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a bill that would protect Virginians from attempts by employers or insurance companies to implant microchips in their bodies against their will.

It might also save humanity from the antichrist, some supporters think.

I mean, it starts off sounding reasonable......then BOOM!

32 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:38:52am
Others dismissed the legislation, calling it a sideshow as lawmakers grapple with a huge budget gap.

"We've got a $4 billion hole, and we're spending time on microchips," said Del. Albert C. Pollard Jr. (D-Northumberland). "At least when Nero fiddled, they got good music."


Lyrical.

33 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:39:03am
34 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:39:04am

re: #25 Walter L. Newton

The most embarrassing trick that pastors and priests ever pulled was convincing anyone that a document that was written sometime in the middle of the first century C.E., which was a political tract in reference to the contemporary Roman empire, could have jack shit to do with history as it unfolded over the ages.

Textual biblical critics are well aware of the metaphoric language used in The Revelation, and it is very much in keeping with other political tracts of that time.

It's political libel, written for the times, with vague references to the Roman administration, not some prediction of the future.

That's fact.

Almost, Walter, but no cigar.

Revelation is an example of the widespread genre of apocalyptic literature. The book of Daniel is another.

And for those of you keeping score, the scary, scary word "apocalypse" means nothing more, nor less, than "revelation". As in: "The extent of Sarah Palin's cellulite problem came as a revelation to everyone but her husband and Levi Johnston."

35 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:39:11am

That is still a noble bill, even if the Delegate purporting it is a weirdo. I can see both viewpoints on this. I understand that most people will see this as hypocrisy, saying you have the "right to your own body" and then being pro-life. But I can see a conservative's point of view. These chips are an intrusive to people but the Delegate believes he is protecting an unborn life. In my opinion, its just a different point of view.

36 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:40:29am
Cole said that the growing use of microchips could allow employers, insurers or the government to track people against their will and that implanting a foreign object into a human being could also have adverse health effects.

This sounds like Ron Paul's and Alex Jone's argument against the Real ID Act of 2005?

37 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:40:36am

re: #35 Mosh

So, you seriously think the gov. is gonna mandate chips for everyone???

38 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:41:24am

re: #37 Varek Raith

So, you seriously think the gov. is gonna mandate chips for everyone???

If so, can I have Salt and Vinegar?

39 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:41:38am

From near the end of the article:

As the measure moved through House committees, Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) said that lawmakers wrestled with whether the military or military contractors should be able to require that employees receive implants as a condition of employment.

"This whole end-of-days thing I just heard about through rumors," Albo said. "The fact that some people who support it are a little wacky doesn't make it a bad idea." [emphasis added]

What about if the people promulgating the idea are batsh!t insane, would that make it a bad idea?

40 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:41:49am

re: #38 Cannadian Club Akbar

If so, can I have Salt and Vinegar?

Yes, as those are my favs.
:)

41 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:41:53am

re: #37 Varek Raith

So, you seriously think the gov. is gonna mandate chips for everyone???

Chips and salsa, so we can all be assimilated into the new North American Union.

42 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:42:06am

And of course, the Number of the Beast

43 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:42:15am

re: #37 Varek Raith

So, you seriously think the gov. is gonna mandate chips for everyone???

No, I don't. That's a tin foil hat theory. I'm just saying, why not have a regulation on the books saying "employers, insurance companies, and the government cannot force people to have microchips implanted in them".

44 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:42:17am

re: #33 cliffster

Mark of the Beast

Ugh, the dog piddled on the rug, that's a mark of the beast. I'm goin' to Hell now.

45 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:42:26am

re: #35 Mosh

These chips are an intrusive to people


"These chips" don't exist. Nobody is implating chips in people against their will. It's a paranoid fantasy and has no value whatsoever.

46 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:42:34am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You rule!!

47 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:42:52am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And of course, the Number of the Beast


[Video]

My ex gf's phone number???
/cowers in corner
:)

48 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:43:11am

re: #41 Shiplord Kirel

Chips and salsa, so we can all be assimilated into the new North American Union.

A union controlled by Fed Bankers and the people who blew up the World Trade Center. ///

49 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:43:17am

re: #35 Mosh

That is still a noble bill, even if the Delegate purporting it is a weirdo. I can see both viewpoints on this. I understand that most people will see this as hypocrisy, saying you have the "right to your own body" and then being pro-life. But I can see a conservative's point of view. These chips are an intrusive to people but the Delegate believes he is protecting an unborn life. In my opinion, its just a different point of view.

Congratulations. You just packed more non-sequiturs into one paragraph than I've seen since Lewis Carroll did it on purpose.

And you might want to look up the word "purport". I don't think it means what you think it means.

50 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:43:19am

re: #46 Cannadian Club Akbar

You rule!!

Yes, I do.

51 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:43:26am

re: #34 Cato the Elder

Almost, Walter, but no cigar.

Revelation is an example of the widespread genre of apocalyptic literature. The book of Daniel is another.

And for those of you keeping score, the scary, scary word "apocalypse" means nothing more, nor less, than "revelation". As in: "The extent of Sarah Palin's cellulite problem came as a revelation to everyone but her husband and Levi Johnston."

I said it was contemporary. It was about a soon to be showdown between the Romans and the Jew/Christians.

I never said it was not apocalyptic, I said it was not predictive of our future history, as in currently (or even a 1000 years ago).

I know what the book is about.

52 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:43:41am

You guys think it's funny. Laugh all you want, yeah, real funny. When they come after you, and the put shit in your body and they follow you around with their drones that you CAN'T EVEN SEE, yeah, real funny. And they send you to the devil. Yeah, the devil is real funny.

53 freetoken  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:44:02am

re: #34 Cato the Elder

"The extent of Sarah Palin's cellulite problem came as a revelation to everyone but her husband and Levi Johnston."

The Apocalypse of The Sarah

54 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:44:17am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And of course, the Number of the Beast

667: The Neighbor of the Beast.

Cheers, Walter!

55 ckb  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:44:37am

Taking the religion completley out of it, are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge? This could very well be a grey area in the law, like some of the early cases of stealth video surveilance where the perpetrators could not be prosecuted.

The technology absolutely exists and is in use for pets. VeriChip / Positivie ID has approval from the FDA to market their implant.

56 Ice-9  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:44:52am

re: #52 cliffster

You guys think it's funny. Laugh all you want, yeah, real funny. When they come after you, and the put shit in your body and they follow you around with their drones that you CAN'T EVEN SEE, yeah, real funny. And they send you to the devil. Yeah, the devil is real funny.

Poe's law?

57 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:01am

re: #54 Cato the Elder

667: The Neighbor of the Beast.

Cheers, Walter!

668 is the Neighbor of the Beast.
667 is the Beast Across the Street.

58 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:05am

re: #54 Cato the Elder

667: The Neighbor of the Beast.

Cheers, Walter!

668 is the neighbor.

Unless you meant the guy across the street.

59 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:09am

re: #54 Cato the Elder

667: The Neighbor of the Beast.

Cheers, Walter!

Oh, you know the Leibowitzes too!

60 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:11am

re: #45 Killgore Trout

"These chips" don't exist. Nobody is implating chips in people against their will. It's a paranoid fantasy and has no value whatsoever monetary value to those like Glenn Beck who make huge profits by frightening their viewers.

FTFY.

61 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:20am

re: #17 LotharBot

The way he might state it is "you can control your own body, but once you have another human life growing inside you, that life also deserves consideration."

That is how it is usually put, pretending that there is no such consideration and that if there were, the decision is self evident.

62 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:28am

re: #54 Cato the Elder

333: I'm only half evil

63 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:45am

re: #58 Ben Hur

668 is the neighbor.

Unless you meant the guy across the street.

Its a cul de sac.

64 coscolo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:45:55am

Besides the bizarre rationale, VA delegate may have missed govt's "no expectation of privacy" in regard to cell phones the other day. You are being tracked.
/

65 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:46:17am

re: #63 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That's Good Intentions Street, is it not? And it's been recently paved?

66 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:46:31am

re: #63 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its a cul de sac.

Mine is effing freezing.

67 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:46:54am

re: #64 coscolo

Besides the bizarre rationale, VA delegate may have missed govt's "no expectation of privacy" in regard to cell phones the other day. You are being tracked.
/

100% employment, then?

68 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:46:56am

re: #62 cliffster

333: I'm only half evil

999: I'm half again as evil as the Beast.

69 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:47:36am

re: #66 Ben Hur

Mine is effing freezing.

Dip 'em in a cup of coffee.

70 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:47:38am

re: #55 ckb

Taking the religion completley out of it, are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge? This could very well be a grey area in the law, like some of the early cases of stealth video surveilance where the perpetrators could not be prosecuted.

The technology absolutely exists and is in use for pets. VeriChip / Positivie ID has approval from the FDA to market their implant.

Sure, but why stop there? I think we also need legislation to stop the Rosicrucians from beaming thought control rays into our heads and making us dance the Macarena against our will.

71 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:47:42am

re: #68 Cato the Elder

I thought that was the Beast's address in China... ;)

72 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:47:48am

re: #55 ckb

Taking the religion completley out of it, are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge? This could very well be a grey area in the law, like some of the early cases of stealth video surveilance where the perpetrators could not be prosecuted.

The technology absolutely exists and is in use for pets. VeriChip / Positivie ID has approval from the FDA to market their implant.

It's a gray area whether you can be forced to have a chip installed? In the USA? In Virginia?

73 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:48:17am

re: #45 Killgore Trout

"These chips" don't exist.

Check with your vet.

74 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:48:24am

re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist

Wisteria Lane?

75 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:48:35am

Do they really have nothing else to worry about in Virginia at the moment?

76 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:49:00am

re: #70 Charles

Oh, be serious now

77 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:49:09am

re: #75 SanFranciscoZionist

Do they really have nothing else to worry about in Virginia at the moment?

Yeah, like clearing our roads!11!!
...sigh.

78 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:49:55am

re: #49 Cato the Elder

Congratulations. You just packed more non-sequiturs into one paragraph than I've seen since Lewis Carroll did it on purpose.

And you might want to look up the word "purport". I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is nothing nonsensical about my comment. I understand a conservative's point of view. Keep the government out of your own body but protect unborn life. I do not believe it is a life yet, but it is just a difference of opinion.

79 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:50:00am

re: #75 SanFranciscoZionist

Do they really have nothing else to worry about in Virginia at the moment?

It's their blog.

80 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:50:14am

re: #70 Charles

Sure, but why stop there? I think we also need legislation to stop the Rosicrucians from beaming thought control rays into our heads and making us dance the Macarena against our will.

I want a government subsidized program mandating magic rocks which prevent tiger attacks. Everyone should have one. I've had mine for years and haven't been attacked by a tiger once.

81 Spider Mensch  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:50:18am

re: #59 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, you know the Leibowitzes too!

"... and when asked about her nieghbor, Mrs Liebowitz replied
" well, he pretty much kept to himself. he'd wave hello when we saw him going in or out of the hose, but that was about it. The beast you say? we would have never guessed, we just thought of him as an eccentric recluse! teehee!"

82 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:50:41am

re: #75 SanFranciscoZionist

Indeed. It's not like they don't have a $4 billion deficit for the biennial budget that needs fixing and they are busy playing games on how to close it.

83 Spider Mensch  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:51:19am

re: #81 Spider Mensch

"... and when asked about her nieghbor, Mrs Liebowitz replied
" well, he pretty much kept to himself. he'd wave hello when we saw him going in or out of the hose, but that was about it. The beast you say? we would have never guessed, we just thought of him as an eccentric recluse! teehee!"

pimf hose = house..)))

84 Irenicum  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:51:25am

There's one comment he made that I can heartily agree with, "I’m not a theologian."

85 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:51:29am

re: #55 ckb

Taking the religion completley out of it, are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge? This could very well be a grey area in the law, like some of the early cases of stealth video surveilance where the perpetrators could not be prosecuted.

The technology absolutely exists and is in use for pets. VeriChip / Positivie ID has approval from the FDA to market their implant.

This is why smart people don't vaccinate their kids or get flu shots. You never know what might be in that syringe.

86 freetoken  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:51:33am

re: #70 Charles

I think we also need legislation to stop the Rosicrucians from beaming thought control rays into our heads and making us dance the Macarena against our will.

This guy will be safe.

87 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:51:41am

re: #82 lawhawk

Indeed. It's not like they don't have a $4 billion deficit for the biennial budget that needs fixing and they are busy playing games on how to close it.

Heh, they thought closing all the rest stops along 95 and 66 would help with that...
lol.

88 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:52:14am

re: #85 Cato the Elder

It sure the hell ain't autism.

89 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:52:34am
Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

Women don't count.

I could probably think of 10 things more pressing than the microchip, but that's just me.

How is it exactly that they are going to implant these devices without our knowledge?

Also I thought the "Mark" was the story of Cain. He was given a mark on his head by God for the murder of his brother, Able, that everyone should know his sin.

90 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:52:52am

re: #85 Cato the Elder

This is why smart people don't vaccinate their kids or get flu shots. You never know what might be in that syringe.

Three words.
Forced. Evolutionary. Virus.

91 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:52:53am

Wow. Snow starting to come down hard here in N Georgia now.

92 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:53:22am

re: #85 Cato the Elder

This is why smart people don't vaccinate their kids or get flu shots. You never know what might be in that syringe.

You're here!!! yea!

93 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:53:30am

re: #90 Varek Raith

Three words.
Forced. Evolutionary. Virus.

President Eden has a cure for that.

94 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:53:59am

re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist

668 is the Neighbor of the Beast.
667 is the Beast Across the Street.

As in Hillary?

95 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:54:03am

re: #91 Naso Tang

The devil is claiming his due for letting New Orleans win a Super Bowl...

///

96 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:54:10am

re: #78 Mosh

There is nothing nonsensical about my comment. I understand a conservative's point of view. Keep the government out of your own body but protect unborn life. I do not believe it is a life yet, but it is just a difference of opinion.

You pile nonsense upon nonsense. "Keep the government out of your own body"?

Get your government hands off my metacarpals!

97 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:54:15am

re: #92 marjoriemoon

You're here!!! yea!

Rumors of his departure were greatly exaggerated. And I still don't have his watch.

98 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:54:21am

re: #86 freetoken

This guy will be safe.

Haha! These tinfoil hat wearing people have it all wrong! The metal actually amplifies the signal (like a satellite dish), making them more succeptable to the mind control...

...and now you know!

99 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:55:14am

re: #98 MrSilverDragon

Haha! These tinfoil hat wearing people have it all wrong! The metal actually amplifies the signal (like a satellite dish), making them more succeptable to the mind control...

...and now you know!

...What about coat hangers on the ceiling?!?!

100 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:55:40am

re: #89 marjoriemoon

Women don't count.

I could probably think of 10 things more pressing than the microchip, but that's just me.

How is it exactly that they are going to implant these devices without our knowledge?

Also I thought the "Mark" was the story of Cain. He was given a mark on his head by God for the murder of his brother, Able, that everyone should know his sin.

What's strange about using that Bible story, is that Cain was given the mark so no one would harm him.

101 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:55:44am

re: #88 badger1970

It sure the hell ain't autism.

No. They are about to issue a paper proving that autism comes from exposing your child to "Baby Einstein" videos.

Disney is going to have to shit gold bricks to pay the class-action judgment.

102 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:55:53am

re: #98 MrSilverDragon

Susceptible. Dang it. I must remember to use spellcheck.

103 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:55:54am

re: #95 oaktree

The devil is claiming his due for letting New Orleans win a Super Bowl...

///

Talking of trivia, when I was younger and it rained when the sun was shining one used to say the Devil was beating his wife.

Beats me why, but age 10 or so it sounded cool.

104 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:56:24am

re: #92 marjoriemoon

You're here!!! yea!

Not only yea! but yeah!

105 coscolo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:56:47am

re: #67 jaunte

100% employment, then?

Tracked automatically by cell phone companies -- records are retained a year or more. Pair of robbers were caught when authorities got idea of checking cell phones used in area of group of similar robberies. Same two cell numbers kept turning up, guys were arrested and convicted. Courts have decided there's no need for authorities to get a court order before looking at such records these days. To top it off, most of cell phones can be tracked by GPS. That said, I've seen suggestions that chips be placed in Alzheimer's patients so they can be found if they wander off.

106 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:57:00am

re: #89 marjoriemoon

Women don't count.

I could probably think of 10 things more pressing than the microchip, but that's just me.

How is it exactly that they are going to implant these devices without our knowledge?

Also I thought the "Mark" was the story of Cain. He was given a mark on his head by God for the murder of his brother, Able, that everyone should know his sin.

Yes, but there's something in Revelations or somewhere about the End Times and a Mark of the Beast without which no one will be allowed to engage in trade.
There've been rumours swirling the edges of fringe wingnut communities for years about that. Some say it's bar codes, some claim it's social security numbers-- the latter folks wind up in militia compounds living 'off the grid'.
You know. The GOP base this guy is appealing to.

107 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:57:28am

re: #100 Ben Hur

What's strange about using that Bible story, is that Cain was given the mark so no one would harm him.

Right... I forgot the story and it used to be one of my favorites. I guess Cole was referring to the mark of the beast? I can't comment on that since it's not our thing.

108 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:57:50am

re: #98 MrSilverDragon

And proper reception requires the proper shape. But camouflage is needed or else it is obvious that you're receiving the liberal overlord messages. Perhaps something like a fabric covering and a deceptively cute tassel.

Explains why the elitist white tower folks wear them mortarboards, doesn't it?

/(massive)

109 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:57:51am

re: #104 Cato the Elder

Not only yea! but yeah!

Yeah!! That's the ticket :)

110 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:58:15am

re: #105 coscolo

Tracked automatically by cell phone companies -- records are retained a year or more. Pair of robbers were caught when authorities got idea of checking cell phones used in area of group of similar robberies. Same two cell numbers kept turning up, guys were arrested and convicted. Courts have decided there's no need for authorities to get a court order before looking at such records these days. To top it off, most of cell phones can be tracked by GPS. That said, I've seen suggestions that chips be placed in Alzheimer's patients so they can be found if they wander off.

That's cool, but of course it would have been illegal had they been looking for Islamic terrorists./

111 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 10:59:38am

re: #107 marjoriemoon

Right... I forgot the story and it used to be one of my favorites. I guess Cole was referring to the mark of the beast? I can't comment on that since it's not our thing.

I don't know about that either.

Though you may be right. They've used the Mark of Cain to justify slavery, so they prolly could use it for anything.

And yes, I wrote prolly.

112 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:00:10am

re: #106 iceweasel

Yes, but there's something in Revelations or somewhere about the End Times and a Mark of the Beast without which no one will be allowed to engage in trade.
There've been rumours swirling the edges of fringe wingnut communities for years about that. Some say it's bar codes, some claim it's social security numbers-- the latter folks wind up in militia compounds living 'off the grid'.
You know. The GOP base this guy is appealing to.

How does 666 fit in with the mark of the beast? Is that a birth date?

113 acacia  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:00:19am

Being in favor of the right to control your own body and being opposed to abortion is hardly "monumental hypocrisy." It would be hypocrisy only if you assume that what is being aborted is not another human worthy of life - and of course that is the whole abortion debate in a nutshell. I have the right to control my body but not when I control it in a way that hurts others.

114 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:01:02am

In The Chairman (1969), Gregory Peck had a combination bomb and tracking/listening device implanted in his head. Similar concepts had appeared in science fiction for many years before that.
This makes it yet another SF concept to have been coopted by conspiracy theorists in recent years. The demonic implants are an interesting crossover between two sub-genres of conspiricism, the religious and the technological.

115 simoom  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:01:06am

Like the Virginia Delegate in the story, local reps in my state are embarrassing themselves too. Here's NH State Representative Nancy Elliott speaking at a recent Executive Session focused on repealing our Same Sex Marriage law:

Elliott: We heard in the hearing, one of the people that came to testify, and they said that this is not normal. And I had to think about it a while. You know what we're we talking about? And so, I started thinking, and we're talking about taking the penis of one man, and putting it in the rectum of another man, and wiggling it around in excrement.

I'd have to think, I'm not sure, would I allow that to be done to me? All of us, that could happen to you, would you let that happen to you? Is that normal? Is that something that we want to portray as the same as the one flesh union between a man and a woman? I don't know. Then I start to think, I remember when we were having the testimony, people were saying that, it was brought up that this would be brought into the schools ...

She then goes on to recount some "homosexual agenda" school indoctrination rumor some constituent told her about.

116 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:01:10am

re: #104 Cato the Elder

Not only yea! but yeah!

Everything OK? I think I saw something about your job recently...

117 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:01:32am

re: #100 Ben Hur

What's strange about using that Bible story, is that Cain was given the mark so no one would harm him.

Exactly. They're not talking about Cain, but about this Mark of the Beast from Revelations 13:16-17

Futurist Christian eschatology typically holds that the rise of a supranational currency could be a hallmark of the End Times.[47] Under this view, the prophetic statements in Revelation 13:16-17 are taken to imply that the one way in which the Antichrist will acquire and exercise power over the Earth during the period of the Tribulation is via hegemonic control of said supranational currency. This power would be acquired by "the Beast" (θηριον) performing miracles[48] and subsequently requiring all people to receive the Mark of the Beast (χάραγμα branded mark, character, coin or money[49]) in their right hands or foreheads (i.e. a place on the body where its absence would be conspicuous) in order to buy or sell, making survival for those on the run (i.e opposers of the religio-economic hegemony) much more difficult.[50]


[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Some fundies also believed the Euro represents the coming of a 'one world currency'. All these wacko conspiracy theories have a deep undercurrent of End Times crazy running through them-- the New World Order, One World Gov't, UN-hating types. (They believe the UN also presages the coming of the End Times).

118 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:01:40am

re: #96 Cato the Elder

Get your government hands off my metacarpals!

I will.

119 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:01:55am

Damn. Nobody liked my "metacarpals" joke. And here I thought it was my best pun so far today.

120 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:02:32am

re: #119 Cato the Elder

I get it. Hand bones. It was clever!

121 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:02:43am

re: #105 coscolo

Tracked automatically by cell phone companies -- records are retained a year or more. Pair of robbers were caught when authorities got idea of checking cell phones used in area of group of similar robberies. Same two cell numbers kept turning up, guys were arrested and convicted. Courts have decided there's no need for authorities to get a court order before looking at such records these days. To top it off, most of cell phones can be tracked by GPS. That said, I've seen suggestions that chips be placed in Alzheimer's patients so they can be found if they wander off.

I see the prosecutors have a solution:

"One who does not wish to disclose his movements to the government need not use a cellular telephone," the prosecutors wrote. [Link: blog.newsweek.com...]
122 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:02:47am

re: #105 coscolo

I've seen suggestions that chips be placed in Alzheimer's patients so they can be found if they wander off.

Not that I'm up on the latest, but I thought that the 'active' (lo-jack type) chips were a) larger b) needed antenna c) needed power source as opposed to the 'passive' ones that can be read by a scanner (for instance, like the ones used by vets).
On the other hand, clearly they're small enough to include in cell phones..

123 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:03:02am

re: #114 Shiplord Kirel

In The Chairman (1969), Gregory Peck had a combination bomb and tracking/listening device implanted in his head. Similar concepts had appeared in science fiction for many years before that.
This makes it yet another SF concept to have been coopted by conspiracy theorists in recent years. The demonic implants are an interesting crossover between two sub-genres of conspiricism, the religious and the technological.

In the Omen, Gregory Peck had a son with the Mark of the Beast.

Connect the dots.

Gregory Peck is Satan.

124 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:03:05am

re: #116 Naso Tang

Everything OK? I think I saw something about your job recently...

I'll tell you all about it if you'll email me a beer.

125 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:03:34am

re: #112 marjoriemoon

How does 666 fit in with the mark of the beast? Is that a birth date?

Its a mistranslation of a greek mathematical formula meaning 6 to the 6th power to the 6th power.

/lets see who picks up on that reference!

126 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:04:22am

re: #117 iceweasel

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Some fundies also believed the Euro represents the coming of a 'one world currency'. All these wacko conspiracy theories have a deep undercurrent of End Times crazy running through them-- the New World Order, One World Gov't, UN-hating types. (They believe the UN also presages the coming of the End Times).

Supranational Currency?!?

Carbon Credits?!?

Al Gore is Satan?!?!?


/seriously - appreciate the info.

127 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:04:37am

re: #123 Ben Hur

In the Omen, Gregory Peck had a son with the Mark of the Beast.

Connect the dots.

Gregory Peck is Satan.

That's a relief, since he died in 2003. Or maybe that's just what they want us to think. (cue Damien's theme)

128 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:04:42am

Virginia House, meets Prison Planet. Looks like the foolishness about "mark of the Beast" was something being floated around at Prison Planet. An example from one of their commentators:

Christina Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am

[snip]

The implantable microchips will be the mark of the Beast so trust me its the other way around bro. Because once you have taken that mark (assuming you are not saved in Christ and have to live through the Tribulation) you have condemned yourself for all eternity.

Of course the idea that the government would be implanting microchips is of course pure paranoia.

129 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:04:52am

re: #125 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A horrid book. After the Brain Eater got him.

130 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:04:53am

re: #113 acacia

Being in favor of the right to control your own body and being opposed to abortion is hardly "monumental hypocrisy." It would be hypocrisy only if you assume that what is being aborted is not another human worthy of life - and of course that is the whole abortion debate in a nutshell. I have the right to control my body but not when I control it in a way that hurts others.

Well that's how you see it. That's not how everyone sees it.

It's absolutely monumental hypocrisy that raving rightwing lunatics get all "keep the government out of our lives" except when it comes to religion and sex (namely abortion and gays). Then they have every right to tell you what to do and how to act.

131 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:05:22am

re: #127 Shiplord Kirel

That's a relief, since he died in 2003. Or maybe that's just what they want us to think. (cue Damien's theme)

Sam Neill is still alive though.

132 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:05:43am

re: #123 Ben Hur

In the Omen, Gregory Peck had a son with the Mark of the Beast.

Connect the dots.

Gregory Peck is Satan.

When I was in college, Gregory Peck's son came to check out the place. I believe he ended up going to another school. But anyway, the local papers, including the school rag, made such a big deal out of it that one of my classmates got dressed up as Jesus the next day and marched around with a sign that read "Celebrity's Son Visits Campus".

133 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:05:53am

re: #129 oaktree

A horrid book. After the Brain Eater got him.

True, I dont disagree with that.

134 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:05:59am

re: #119 Cato the Elder

Damn. Nobody liked my "metacarpals" joke. And here I thought it was my best pun so far today.

Did that have something to do with hands as in Charlton Heston's comment, "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" at an NRA meeting?

135 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:06:18am

re: #117 iceweasel

Saw this at the link you provided:

# Terry Watkins supposes the mark to be a microchip and/or a tattooed barcode on the human body.[55]

There is no entry for Terry Watkins. Will check for the article.

136 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:07:11am

re: #124 Cato the Elder

I'll tell you all about it if you'll email me a beer.

Done. Look for a Fantasy Ale.

137 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:07:56am

re: #125 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its a mistranslation of a greek mathematical formula meaning 6 to the 6th power to the 6th power.

/lets see who picks up on that reference!

To the base 6?

138 jeffm70  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08:02am

When I saw this yesterday I alternated between laughing and crying. Since I left Virginia in 2006 things have become far more entertaining down there.

139 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08:25am

re: #130 marjoriemoon

Well that's how you see it. That's not how everyone sees it.

It's absolutely monumental hypocrisy that raving rightwing lunatics get all "keep the government out of our lives" except when it comes to religion and sex (namely abortion and gays). Then they have every right to tell you what to do and how to act.

I propose we quit telling anyone what to do with their body, ever.

140 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08:34am

re: #135 Ben Hur

Saw this at the link you provided:

There is no entry for Terry Watkins. Will check for the article.

[Link: www.av1611.org...]

141 wiffersnapper  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08:43am

Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them!

142 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08:53am

re: #112 marjoriemoon

How does 666 fit in with the mark of the beast? Is that a birth date?

It's the next line-- Rev 13:18:

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Wiki says most scholars take it to be a reference to Nero; some argue it's a mistranslation and is actually 616. More here.

The End Times nuts can make it mean anything they want, and often do. For example, I can remember hearing theories way back in the day that 666 referred to the number of letters in a name: Ronald Wilson Reagan. I'm not making this up!

Just pure distilled crazy. People will also add the numbers up, multiply them, subtract random numbers, just to provide a 'proof' that "the Beast" is whoever they have a hateon for at the moment.

143 coscolo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08:58am

Bye - lunch.

144 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:09:57am

re: #135 Ben Hur

Saw this at the link you provided:

There is no entry for Terry Watkins. Will check for the article.

Oh cool, I hadn't even seen that. Thanks!

145 ryannon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:10:04am

re: #114 Shiplord Kirel

In The Chairman (1969), Gregory Peck had a combination bomb and tracking/listening device implanted in his head. Similar concepts had appeared in science fiction for many years before that.
This makes it yet another SF concept to have been coopted by conspiracy theorists in recent years. The demonic implants are an interesting crossover between two sub-genres of conspiricism, the religious and the technological.

Speaking of which....

146 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:10:08am

Afternoon all!

I don't think folks here are taking this tracking chip issue seriously enough. Sure, it's easy to make jokes about it, but I personally know someone who has been championing this technology, has lobbied tech companies and political groups, has donated money to further the research, development, testing, and deployment of these devices, right down to providing data on desired tracking ranges and methods to reduce interference. This person has also volunteered to act as test coordinator for the initial beta model, and has pledged to keep a complete, accurate, and detailed test journal on how well this device tracks the test subject throughout a normal day.

You want to know who this insidious person is?

My wife.

;-)

147 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:10:15am

More fun with our ignorant citizenry. This is from last year over at Infowars whcih is linked by Drudge:

MTV Star Heidi Montag: Over My Dead Body Would I Take A Microchip

[snip]

Montag said that as a Christian she had always been aware of “the mark of the beast” and the content of the book of Revelations but over the last month she and her husband had arrived at a “new awakening” concerning what is going on in the world after one of her music producers showed them Alex Jones’ latest documentary The Obama Deception.

[snip]

“It says in the bible that it’s the mark of the beast and that is a sign of worshipping the devil – so over my dead body would I ever get a chip in my body,” said Montag, adding, “My body belongs to Jesus Christ, to God alone, and no one will ever put anything in me, I will not worship the devil, I will not be conformed to this world, that will not happen.”

[snip]

148 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:10:16am

re: #139 cliffster

I propose we quit telling anyone what to do with their body, ever.

Well unless you're married, then all bets are off.

149 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:10:44am

re: #134 Gus 802

Did that have something to do with hands as in Charlton Heston's comment, "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" at an NRA meeting?

I was thinking more of the Teabaggers at town-hall meetings about health care shouting "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

150 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:11:00am

re: #55 ckb

are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge?

I would presume it's already illegal to perform a medical procedure on someone without consent.

Do you have good reason to believe implantation of a microchip falls outside of existing law?

151 Blueheron  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:11:04am

Oh boy.

152 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:11:27am

/lets see who picks up on that reference!

Number of the Beast, Heinlien.
Pretty darned good for a sci-fi fuckfest...

153 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:11:34am

re: #142 iceweasel

Wiki says most scholars take it to be a reference to Nero; some argue it's a mistranslation and is actually 616. More here.

The End Times nuts can make it mean anything they want, and often do. For example, I can remember hearing theories way back in the day that 666 referred to the number of letters in a name: Ronald Wilson Reagan. I'm not making this up!

Just pure distilled crazy. People will also add the numbers up, multiply them, subtract random numbers, just to provide a 'proof' that "the Beast" is whoever they have a hateon for at the moment.

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me! I remember the Reagan thing. Reminds me of the same hysteria when year 2000 was approaching.

154 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:12:12am

re: #140 Ben Hur

[Link: www.av1611.org...]

Wow. Whole lotta crazy there!

One of the most popular and shocking accusations concerning the number "666" is that the number "666" is quietly "hidden" in every UPC barcode. Mary Stewart Relfe's book, "The New Money System 666", published in 1982, is the "pioneer" of the "666 in the UPC barcode" teaching. Relfe's book contains over 50 pages of excellant doumentation on the UPC barcodes. Relfe's discovery is repeated in many publications touching the mark of the beast, within the last fifteen years. Including tracts published by this author.

Here's a few samples:

Terry Cook, The Mark of the New World Order, 1996:

". . . the entire system [UPC barcode] is very deceptively designed around the infamous numerical configuration, Biblically known as 666, the mark of the Antichrist or devil (Revelation 13:16-18). . ." (Terry Cook, The Mark of the New World Order, 1996, p. 376)

Bob Fraley, The Last Days in America, 1984:

"The interpretation of the Universal Product Code marks is most revealing in that the three numbers '666' are the key working numbers for every designed Universal Product Code. Every group of Universal Product Code marks has in it three unidentified numbers. All three of these numbers are 6, making the use of the numbers '666' the key to using this identifying marking system. . .

There is no deviation. Every Universal Product Code has three unidentified marks whose number equivalent '6' encoding it with the code number '666'. " (Bob Fraley, The Last Days in America, 1984, p. 225, 228)

Here's how to "discover" the "hidden 666 in the UPC barcode".

155 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:12:56am

re: #147 Gus 802

More fun with our ignorant citizenry. This is from last year over at Infowars whcih is linked by Drudge:

MTV Star Heidi Montag: Over My Dead Body Would I Take A Microchip

Cole is taking his lead from Alex Jones?

156 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:13:26am

re: #153 marjoriemoon

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me! I remember the Reagan thing. Reminds me of the same hysteria when year 2000 was approaching.

Yes, when Dudu Topaz (Israeli entertainer that committed suicide recently) almost cause the world to come to an end.

He actually dressed up like Jesus and planned to "appear" on a white donkey in Jerusalem. Luckily the police stopped him.

157 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:14:41am

Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”


Unlike the hypocrisy of the left that wants to ban things like smoking drinking trans fats all those things that are bad for us.

I mean we don't want anyone to accept responsibility for their actions now do we?

158 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:14:52am

re: #147 Gus 802

More fun with our ignorant citizenry. This is from last year over at Infowars whcih is linked by Drudge:

MTV Star Heidi Montag: Over My Dead Body Would I Take A Microchip

You have got to be kidding me.

That chick has more plastic in her that HAL.

159 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:15:00am

re: #155 wrenchwench

Cole is taking his lead from Alex Jones?

Hard to tell these days but it wouldn't surprise me. This might be however a common theme within the more archaic demographics.

160 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:15:07am

re: #141 wiffersnapper

Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them!

Well, the last time I saw them together, they were in a terrible movie... at least the 5 minutes I was able to tolerate.

161 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:15:38am

re: #158 Ben Hur

You have got to be kidding me.

That chick has more plastic in her that HAL.

Heidi Montag: By Hasbro™

/

162 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:15:40am

Funny how these shites who are so worried about the mark of the beast would have no trouble branding "sluts" with scarlet letters.

163 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:15:49am

And yet they are very fond of tattoos.

164 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:16:06am

re: #126 Ben Hur

Supranational Currency?!?

Carbon Credits?!?

Al Gore is Satan?!?!?

/seriously - appreciate the info.

Ok ok... make up your mind. Is it Al Gore or Gregory Peck???

165 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:16:39am

re: #162 Cato the Elder

Funny how these shites who are so worried about the mark of the beast would have no trouble branding "sluts" with scarlet letters.

You might not realize it, but that book was fiction.

166 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:16:43am

re: #161 Gus 802

Heidi Montag: By Hasbro™

/

She still makes me think impure thoughts.

Maybe Heidi Montag is Satan.

167 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:17:00am

re: #147 Gus 802

More fun with our ignorant citizenry. This is from last year over at Infowars whcih is linked by Drudge:

MTV Star Heidi Montag: Over My Dead Body Would I Take A Microchip

I had never heard of this Montag person so I googled up some images. Holy guacamole! A heavenly body indeed, if not altogether a wonder of nature.

168 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:17:14am

re: #149 Cato the Elder

I was thinking more of the Teabaggers at town-hall meetings about health care shouting "Keep your government handsscrotum off my Medicare!"

I'm sorry. I seriously couldn't help myself.

169 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:17:32am

re: #165 cliffster

You might not realize it, but that book was fiction.

You don't realize it, but there are laws out there that would expose any woman who had an abortion to public review and scorn.

170 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:17:44am

re: #167 Shiplord Kirel

I had never heard of this Montag person so I googled up some images. Holy guacamole! A heavenly body indeed, if not altogether a wonder of nature.

Nature had nothing to do with it.

It's science.

171 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:18:17am

re: #157 elbarto

Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

Unlike the hypocrisy of the left that wants to ban things like smoking drinking trans fats all those things that are bad for us.

I mean we don't want anyone to accept responsibility for their actions now do we?

Well, you really shouldn't be drinking those trans fats, elB.

172 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:18:31am

Heidi Montag is a skin-job.

173 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:18:34am

A little mid-day craziness. What's it gonna be?


re: #169 Cato the Elder

You don't realize it, but there are laws out there that would expose any woman who had an abortion to public review and scorn.

Wait, did Oklahoma join the US?

174 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:18:40am

re: #166 Ben Hur

She still makes me think impure thoughts.

Maybe Heidi Montag is Satan.

Yeah, 10 plastic surgery procedures so far. Maybe they already implanted a microchip in her for her own safety.

/

175 acacia  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:18:48am

re: #130 marjoriemoon

It's not only how I see it but I would venture to say that virtually everyone agrees that if the entity being aborted is on par with an appendix, then abortion is perfectly fine because you can do what you will with your body but that on the other hand if it's on par with a human being then abortion is not fine because it is wrong to kill another. The milion dollar question of course is which is it. You obviously believe it's on par with an appendix and I'm not expressing my opinion here on that but merely point out that calling one hypocritical requires making a critical assumption.

176 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:18:50am

re: #157 elbarto

Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

Unlike the hypocrisy of the left that wants to ban things like smoking drinking trans fats all those things that are bad for us.

I mean we don't want anyone to accept responsibility for their actions now do we?

How is banning smoking hypocritical? And who wants to ban drinking?? The Left? Oh yea, all those Left religious freaks just hate drinking.

Come on, you can do better than that.

177 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:19:09am

i do not know proper punctution or speling

178 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:19:11am

re: #173 cliffster

Dammit, Cato, you screwed up my mid-day madness. Here we go again: What's it gonna be?

179 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:19:31am

re: #174 Gus 802

Yeah, 10 plastic surgery procedures so far. Maybe they already implanted a microchip in her for her own safety.

/

More than 10.

The 10 was what she did in one day.

Or so, um, I'm told by those who, um, read those sites........

180 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:19:45am

re: #170 Ben Hur

Nature had nothing to do with it.

It's science.

Er, that's why I said "not altogether a wonder of nature."

181 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:19:53am

Without my subcutaneous transponder chip how are the Asgardians going to beam me out of trouble with false diabolical gods on other worlds?

//

182 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:19:59am

176 They are laws to protect people from the consequence of choice just like abortion

183 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:20:20am

I bet ya'll have found this stuff on Alex Jones' site and David Icke's site already. Am I right?

184 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:20:38am

re: #180 Shiplord Kirel

Er, that's why I said "not altogether a wonder of nature."

Sorry. Was reading fast. It's Friday.

185 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:20:58am

re: #159 Gus 802

Hard to tell these days but it wouldn't surprise me. This might be however a common theme within the more archaic demographics.

The GOP birther bill introduced by Posey (FL) had at least one co-sponser from VA. Not Cole though, I don't think.

186 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:21:28am

re: #179 Ben Hur

Benny Youngman? *rim shot*

187 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:21:36am

re: #167 Shiplord Kirel

I had never heard of this Montag person so I googled up some images. Holy guacamole! A heavenly body indeed, if not altogether a wonder of nature.

She's 23? and has had about 10 plastic surgeries so far. It's becoming a Michael Jackson kind of addiction, I think with her. She's gonna look really scary in about 10 years. At 40, she'll be a crumbled piece of grizzle :(

188 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:21:58am

So this is how gay genes get passed along.

How gay uncles pass down their genes

189 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:22:01am

re: #182 elbarto

176 They are laws to protect people from the consequence of choice just like abortion

There are two consequences of pregnancy: a baby or an abortion.

190 Bob Dillon  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:22:02am

re: #2 Cato the Elder

Oh noes! My dog has a microchip, and he goes everywhere I do.

Duped again.

One of the first things I did with my Service Dog was to have him chipped. Were I 45 or so years younger and about to be a father I would be having serious discussions with my wife about having the kids chipped. What they did when they were 18 would be up to them.

191 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:22:32am

They protect people from getting fat and having growths inside them. Just like an abortion does.

192 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:23:01am

re: #174 Gus 802

Yeah, 10 plastic surgery procedures so far. Maybe they already implanted a microchip in her for her own safety.

/

If she's got implants (she does) she already has a 'tracking code'. Silicone implants have serial numbers on them; they've been used to identify bodies.

/random morbid fact.

193 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:23:06am

re: #191 elbarto

They protect people from getting fat and having growths inside them. Just like an abortion does.

"Growths"?

194 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:23:10am

re: #183 MandyManners

I bet ya'll have found this stuff on Alex Jones' site and David Icke's site already. Am I right?

You can also find Teh Crazy all over the Bircher and Luap Nor websites.
[Link: www.google.com...]

195 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:23:25am

re: #172 Cato the Elder

Heidi Montag is a skin-job.

You mean skin deep?

196 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:23:51am

re: #192 iceweasel

If she's got implants (she does) she already has a 'tracking code'. Silicone implants have serial numbers on them; they've been used to identify bodies.

/random morbid fact.

Good to know.....I mean...that's weird.

197 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:24:16am

re: #174 Gus 802

Yeah, 10 plastic surgery procedures so far. Maybe they already implanted a microchip in her for her own safety.

/

So? The Venus de Milo is beautiful, or at least was in her original form, and she was made out of rock by a guy who didn't know jack about media presence.

198 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:24:18am

re: #192 iceweasel

Lets hope they don't have ring tones.

199 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:24:21am

re: #193 MandyManners

"Growths"?

ESL.

Be nice.

200 Political Atheist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:24:59am

re: #174 Gus 802

I had a chat with an archaeologist. We talked about what his profession will find of our culture in 5,000 years. We talked about the shelf life of common materials. Just as a warning to fans of implanted silicone-It would be the most stable thing after you pass away and get buried. We were joking that Hollywood area cemeteries would show up as evenly spaced pairs of breast implants. Nothing else left. Headstones and implants.

201 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:25:27am

I caint spel I is a hick tea bager.

202 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:25:51am

re: #175 acacia

It's not only how I see it but I would venture to say that virtually everyone agrees that if the entity being aborted is on par with an appendix, then abortion is perfectly fine because you can do what you will with your body but that on the other hand if it's on par with a human being then abortion is not fine because it is wrong to kill another. The milion dollar question of course is which is it. You obviously believe it's on par with an appendix and I'm not expressing my opinion here on that but merely point out that calling one hypocritical requires making a critical assumption.

You would assume wrong. I do not believe it's on par with an appendix, but I do believe that in the initial stages, it is only a potential human being, not an actual human being.

The point, however, that Charles made is the giant hypocrisy of someone, curiously a male someone, who would like the government to keep their paws of his body, but to hell with women's bodies.

203 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:25:55am

re: #195 Naso Tang

You mean skin deep?

Fake / constructed person, replicant, from Blade Runner (GREAT movie, odd book)
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

204 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:25:58am

re: #194 Thanos

You can also find Teh Crazy all over the Bircher and Luap Nor websites.
[Link: www.google.com...]

I guarantee you that it started with Jones and Icke.

205 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:26:05am

re: #192 iceweasel

If she's got implants (she does) she already has a 'tracking code'. Silicone implants have serial numbers on them; they've been used to identify bodies.

/random morbid fact.

I thought they used teeth to identify bodies. Why would someone who has implants not have teeth? Oh, er...

206 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:26:30am

re: #199 Ben Hur

ESL.

Be nice.

Oh. Okay. Thanks for cluing me in, Ben.

207 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:26:32am

re: #200 Rightwingconspirator

I had a chat with an archaeologist. We talked about what his profession will find of our culture in 5,000 years. We talked about the shelf life of common materials. Just as a warning to fans of implanted silicone-It would be the most stable thing after you pass away and get buried. We were joking that Hollywood area cemeteries would show up as evenly spaced pairs of breast implants. Nothing else left. Headstones and implants.

and titanium body parts. Obviously was a race of robots.

208 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:27:08am

re: #201 elbarto

I caint spel I is a hick tea bager.

Oh, horsefeathers. I remember you from years past.

209 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:27:12am

re: #203 Pete(Detroit)

Fake / constructed person, replicant, from Blade Runner (GREAT movie, odd book)
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Ahh. I had forgotten that one.

210 Political Atheist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:27:33am

re: #207 Naso Tang

I joked with a friend that has a Corvette Zo6. Titanium exhaust. Tats is all that would be left. Just a set of dual pipes. Coincidence?

211 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:28:01am

re: #195 Naso Tang

You mean skin deep?

I mean replicant.

212 Political Atheist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:28:10am

re: #210 Rightwingconspirator

OMG
PIMF THAT's all that would be left.

213 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:28:14am

re: #204 MandyManners

I guarantee you that it started with Jones and Icke.

Actually this started way back in the antediluvian survivalist days iirc with the Ruff folks, Jones is just retreading old kookspiracy - it's how he makes his living.

214 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:29:17am

/pimf -- back in the '70's - '80's

215 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:29:27am

I am of the opinion that everyone should be free to do as they please without the government interfering. within reason of course. Let me keep my booze and trans fats and the left can keep their infanticide.

216 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:29:31am

Somewhere, a bridge is missing its troll.
;)

217 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:29:49am

re: #213 Thanos

Actually this started way back in the antediluvian survivalist days iirc with the Ruff folks, Jones is just retreading old kookspiracy - it's how he makes his living.

Pre-Internet, right?

218 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:30:06am

re: #182 elbarto

176 They are laws to protect people from the consequence of choice just like abortion

Cigarettes and drinking are not illegal. Neither is abortion, so I have no idea what you're saying.

You can't smoke cigarettes in public places. As a person trying to quit the worst thing that's every happened to me, I'm quite thankful. It helps me a great deal.

219 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:30:07am

re: #216 Varek Raith

Somewhere, a bridge is missing its troll.
;)

Which means there's no one there to run the troll booth.

220 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:30:21am

re: #196 Ben Hur

Good to know...I mean...that's weird.

re: #205 cliffster

I thought they used teeth to identify bodies. Why would someone who has implants not have teeth? Oh, er...

Yeah.

I think this story is how I knew that:

The nude body of a former swimsuit model found last weekend in Orange County was identified through her breast implants' serial number, two law enforcement sources said Friday.


The kicker: the murderer was a former reality TV contestant.

Silicone implants don't degrade like bodily tissue. I'm certain I've run across similar stories about IDing bodies, especially when they've been moved across jurisdictions. (the dental records may not be in the local law enforcement database, but there is some kind of national medical registry where you can ID people via various medical things like implants, artifical limbs, etc. I guess they all have serial numbers.)

221 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:30:50am

OK.

Maybe not ESL.

222 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:30:57am

re: #200 Rightwingconspirator

I had a chat with an archaeologist. We talked about what his profession will find of our culture in 5,000 years. We talked about the shelf life of common materials. Just as a warning to fans of implanted silicone-It would be the most stable thing after you pass away and get buried. We were joking that Hollywood area cemeteries would show up as evenly spaced pairs of breast implants. Nothing else left. Headstones and implants.

3000 years later...

"Sir we found more headstones and another one of these."

"Looks like a bag of silicone. I wonder what it could be..."

/

223 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:31:37am

re: #221 Ben Hur

OK.

Maybe not ESL.

Don't you remember him from years past?

224 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:31:47am

re: #215 elbarto

I am of the opinion that everyone should be free to do as they please without the government interfering. within reason of course. Let me keep my booze and trans fats and the left can keep their infanticide.

Even the left consider infanticide illegal. Moving goal posts makes for poor opining, as Bill O would say.

225 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:32:13am

re: #192 iceweasel

If she's got implants (she does) she already has a 'tracking code'. Silicone implants have serial numbers on them; they've been used to identify bodies.

/random morbid fact.

She's probably full of serial numbers. Including tracking numbers for her Botox shots.

226 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:32:25am

re: #220 iceweasel

Jeez. Took the fingers and teeth.

227 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:32:54am

218 I am saying both sides want control our behavior. The left is equally guilty of hypocrisy about controlling what people want to do with their bodies. That is all I am saying.

228 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:32:54am

re: #213 Thanos

Actually this started way back in the antediluvian survivalist days iirc with the Ruff folks, Jones is just retreading old kookspiracy - it's how he makes his living.

A lot of seemingly current kookspiracies go back a long way. Back in the 70s I knew several religious survivalists who were seeking to set up a "retreat" where they could go when the Tribulation started. One of their stories was tha the evil feds had stockpiled a huge number of weapons near the Texas state prison in Huntsville. The idea was that the prisoners would be allowed to escape en masse, after which they would arm themselves and spread out over the country murdering Christians. They would have lists from IRS naturally.

229 Jack Burton  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:32:59am

re: #215 elbarto

230 simoom  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:33:01am

Another Tea Party Convention article, this one from The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. It has some details that haven't been much covered elsewhere:
Revival and Revolt: Inside the Tea Party Nation Convention

At the Friday luncheon, the master of ceremonies declared, "You know, it just occurred to me, we have a good lawyer and a good judge in the house, maybe we should have a couple of treason trials while we're here. I'm just thinking out loud. Alright, in anticipating the outcome I don't see anything on the schedule for 6 o'clock tomorrow morning, so the hanging will be in the garden at 6 o'clock tomorrow." The exhortation to political violence, eerily reminiscent of the rhetoric of groups like the Posse Comitatus, was greeted with cheers from the Tea Partiers.


Tom Tancredo kicked off the convention on Thursday night with a fiery speech attacking President Obama and “the cult of multiculturalism.” Commenting on the 2008 election, Tancredo declared, “People who could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House.” Tancredo also said Obama won because "we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote."

Tancredo, an immigrant-bashing former Colorado Congressman who founded the House Immigration Reform Caucus, appeared to have missed the irony in his rant. The immigrants he despises are required to take a civics test to become citizens and earn the right to vote, while people born here, like those in the crowd, do not. He also seemed to forget the racist use of literacy tests to keep African-Americans away from the polls under Jim Crow segregation. The Tea Party crowd on hand in the ballroom enthusiastically responded to Tancredo’s racial remarks.


The pamphlet he distributed read, “We, the undersigned, and millions of other American patriots, including many who comprise the growing TEA Party movement, are no less determined than patriots of the past, who fought for our freedom. We will make any sacrifice, endure any hardship, and confront any foe to keep the flame of freedom burning bright; so help us God.”
...
Scarborough worked up the crowd in the room, and got a standing ovation when he demanded, “enough is enough!” When he finished, an older woman in the front row stood up and stated, “What we need is revival and revolt!” which also brought enthusiastic cheers from the audience.


Most Tea Partiers were pleased to hear about the birther issue. For example, Miki Booth, an Hawaiian-born woman who’s also a member of the Route 66 Tea Party, announced her candidacy for the Oklahoma 2nd District Congressional seat. She used "birtherism" to announce her candidacy to the convention floor. Holding up a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, she said “this piece of junk is what you get when you don’t have one of these,” she finished, holding up a copy of her birth certificate, to raucous applause. And when Orly Taitz, who more than anyone is associated with the birther issue, made an appearance at the convention on Saturday, she was warmly welcomed and continually stopped for autographs.
231 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:33:02am

re: #217 MandyManners

Pre-Internet, right?

Yep, Howard Ruff was the first prophet of the apocalypse and Buy Gold! camp

232 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:33:10am

re: #223 MandyManners

Don't you remember him from years past?

No.

(and don't blame the weed)

233 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:33:12am

re: #219 Cato the Elder

Which means there's no one there to run the troll booth.

Hey there! You were gone a short time; what did I miss? Things okay now?

234 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:33:55am

re: #215 elbarto

I am of the opinion that everyone should be free to do as they please without the government interfering. within reason of course. Let me keep my booze and trans fats and the left can keep their infanticide.

Wake up on the wrong side of the brain?

235 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:34:23am

re: #202 marjoriemoon

The point, however, that Charles made is the giant hypocrisy of someone, curiously a male someone, who would like the government to keep their paws of his body, but to hell with women's bodies.

I'm not aware of anyone on the pro-life side whose position is "to hell with women's bodies". Most pro-lifers I've met think it's very important for women to have control over their bodies, they just don't think women should be able to arbitrarily choose to destroy a separate human body growing inside themselves.

I understand why you, Charles, and many others would disagree with that position. But please do not misrepresent that position as "women shouldn't have control over their bodies".

236 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:34:30am

re: #229 ArchangelMichael

LOL!

Jesus, man. And I'm sober.

237 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:34:34am

re: #220 iceweasel

We call my mom Robo Grandma. She had an anuerism in her head (that luckily was found) so she had those stapled. They replaced about 1/2 her cranium with titanium plates.

Then she had breast cancer so she had the reconstruction...

I think she had dental implants...

Robo Grandma is a tough cookie :)

238 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:34:46am

re: #234 Gus 802

Wake up on the wrong side of the brain?

Nah, some jerk in a speed boat went way too fast passing his bed...

239 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:34:53am

re: #228 Shiplord Kirel

Why does that sound like the Posse Comatatis movement (northern Wisconsin area around that time period)?

240 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:34:58am

re: #233 The Sanity Inspector

Hey there! You were gone a short time; what did I miss? Things okay now?

Wangled a reprieve from the cable company to keep my internet on a while. Still need to find a way to pay the bill, but I'm here, I sneer, get used to it! ;^)

241 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:35:07am

re: #229 ArchangelMichael

I'm sorry That cracked me the f*ck up. LOL!

242 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:35:23am

re: #227 elbarto

218 I am saying both sides want control our behavior. The left is equally guilty of hypocrisy about controlling what people want to do with their bodies. That is all I am saying.

All you are saying is that everyone is guilty of something that you think they are guilty of. If it makes sense to you, be my guest.

243 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:35:27am

re: #200 Rightwingconspirator

I had a chat with an archaeologist. We talked about what his profession will find of our culture in 5,000 years. We talked about the shelf life of common materials. Just as a warning to fans of implanted silicone-It would be the most stable thing after you pass away and get buried. We were joking that Hollywood area cemeteries would show up as evenly spaced pairs of breast implants. Nothing else left. Headstones and implants.

Ask him if he's read Motel of the Mysteries.

244 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:35:35am

re: #241 Ben Hur

I'm sorry That cracked me the f*ck up. LOL!

I won't be sleeping for the remainder of 2010

245 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:35:57am

re: #227 elbarto

218 I am saying both sides want control our behavior. The left is equally guilty of hypocrisy about controlling what people want to do with their bodies. That is all I am saying.

Why use the inflamatory "infanticide"?

246 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:36:43am

re: #238 Varek Raith

Nah, some jerk in a speed boat went way too fast passing his bed...

Yeah, it was Ensign Charles Parker at the helm of the PT-73 and everyone was speaking in Esperanto.

/

247 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:36:45am

re: #245 MandyManners

Why use the inflamatory "infanticide"?

It's what trolls do when they have dictionaries.

248 donna quixote  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:36:53am

Don't forget that eastern Virginia is the home of Pat Robertson and his college. Who knows what screwy ideas he's pushing these days. These off the planet far righters deluge Republican meetings with delegates and push through their candidates.

249 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:37:02am

re: #229 ArchangelMichael

I always liked "L.A. Law"

250 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:37:12am

re: #235 LotharBot

The fact that so many children are waiting to be adopted seems to indicate that the most of the politicized concern for them ends after they are born. So it's natural to think that there is more concern for controlling what a woman does with her body than with the child.

251 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:37:19am

re: #227 elbarto

218 I am saying both sides want control our behavior. The left is equally guilty of hypocrisy about controlling what people want to do with their bodies. That is all I am saying.

I know that's what you're saying. I know it's what you think, but I don't see any evidence of the Left telling people what to do. Except for maybe the transfats which I think is only done in a handful of states if that.

252 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:38:18am

re: #231 Thanos

Yep, Howard Ruff was the first prophet of the apocalypse and Buy Gold! camp

My first exposure to that stuff came about when I heard of/learned about Cleon Skousen. I backed out very quickly. I next heard of this stuff on the Internet around 2000.

253 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:38:19am

re: #247 Cato the Elder

It's what trolls do when they have dictionaries.

They also keep a copy of Roget's Trollget's Thesaurus close by.

254 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:38:38am

I have been reborn as a troll
Back in the day when I agreed with he prevailing opinion I was never called a troll.

255 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:38:41am

I see we have a Lizard here named "Ice-9".

My dear Weasel, are you being phased out for a new model?

256 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:38:41am

re: #232 Ben Hur

No.

(and don't blame the weed)

It took a few moments for the memory to kick in.

257 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:39:18am

re: #254 elbarto

Are you trying to earn a martyr cookie?

258 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:39:41am

re: #256 MandyManners

It took a few moments for the memory to kick in.

Dude is waaay old school.

259 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:39:57am

re: #254 elbarto

I have been reborn as a troll
Back in the day when I agreed with he prevailing opinion I was never called a troll.

What "prevailing opinion" would that be?

Pro-trans-fat?

260 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:40:10am

Nope just expressing an opinion that you do not agree with.

261 Jack Burton  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:40:18am

re: #249 badger1970

I always liked "L.A. Law"

Clash of the Lawyers

262 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:40:36am

re: #235 LotharBot

I'm not aware of anyone on the pro-life side whose position is "to hell with women's bodies". Most pro-lifers I've met think it's very important for women to have control over their bodies, they just don't think women should be able to arbitrarily choose to destroy a separate human body growing inside themselves.

I understand why you, Charles, and many others would disagree with that position. But please do not misrepresent that position as "women shouldn't have control over their bodies".

Putting aside the abortion debate which we will never agree, when a man who obviously is Pro-Life makes an idiotic statement like “I just think you should have the right to control your own body" when THAT talking point is what the Pro-Choice folks keep going on about, it makes me roll on the floor and laugh out loud.

Is he so stupid he doesn't realize what comes out of his own mouth?

263 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:40:46am

re: #254 elbarto

I have been reborn as a troll
Back in the day when I agreed with he prevailing opinion I was never called a troll.

Well, dagnabit, you are acting trollish, elbarto.

264 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:41:11am

re: #254 elbarto

I don't think you're getting the remarks you are due to your position. You're getting the remarks due to the word choice you use and what appears to be an attempt to stimulate remarks via inflammatory verbiage rather than take part in a conversation where differing opinions can be exchanged in a civil manner.

265 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:41:19am

re: #255 Cato the Elder

Maybe it's a KT sock?

266 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:41:22am

re: #255 Cato the Elder

I see we have a Lizard here named "Ice-9".

My dear Weasel, are you being phased out for a new model?

We have an Ice-9? :(
I'm the I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 model, so it's possible. (Integrated Communist Enabler, WIngnut Exterminator And Simulated Empathetic Liberal).

Maybe the newer model runs faster and just enables communism.

267 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:41:26am

re: #258 Ben Hur

Dude is waaay old school.

Two days after registration kicked in.

268 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:42:04am

re: #241 Ben Hur

I'm sorry That cracked me the f*ck up. LOL!

OMG Clash of the Titans?? I love that movie.

269 swamprat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:42:12am

re: #263 MandyManners

Well, dagnabit, you are acting trollish, elbarto.

That's funny, he doesn't look trollish.

270 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:42:44am

re: #266 iceweasel

Or it simply has a higher melting point.

271 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:04am

I don't think that late-term abortions should be allowed, as the child has developed enough to feel pain, have a sense of self, and in general, be considered a baby with all the rights that go along with being human

vs

Abortion is infanticide

272 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:07am

re: #266 iceweasel

273 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:12am

re: #250 jaunte

The fact that so many children are waiting to be adopted seems to indicate that the most of the politicized concern for them ends after they are born. So it's natural to think that there is more concern for controlling what a woman does with her body than with the child.

It may be "natural" to think that, but that doesn't make it true, or fair.

There are also plenty of people waiting to adopt. It's not a simple or quick process.

re: #262 marjoriemoon

when a man who obviously is Pro-Life makes an idiotic statement like “I just think you should have the right to control your own body" when THAT talking point is what the Pro-Choice folks keep going on about, it makes me roll on the floor and laugh out loud.

I'll grant you that. Even though most pro-lifers think "keep your hands off my body" is a stupid talking point (since they don't think it's "your" body they're trying to regulate, but "your offspring's body"), they should be aware of its existence, and they should be aware of how silly they sound giving essentially the same talking point about a different subject.

274 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:16am

re: #255 Cato the Elder

I see we have a Lizard here named "Ice-9".

My dear Weasel, are you being phased out for a new model?

It's time to play NAME THAT SOCK!

275 simoom  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:21am

re: #230 simoom

As an aside, this is what bothered me most about Chris Wallace's Sarah Palin Tea Party convention wrap-up interview. Since he's the only semi-serious journalist she allows to interview her he needed to take the opportunity to ask her, point-by-crazy-point, whether she agrees with the extremism that proceeded her speech and, if not, why she chose to endorse it all by headlining the event.

276 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:26am

re: #271 cliffster

Which makes you seem more like an asshole?

277 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:43:42am

re: #264 oaktree

Also, the main attacks on booze come from the right, not the left. The dry counties are mostly GOP strongholds, as is Utah.

278 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:44:25am

"Ice-9" is quite a good nick.

Come out and play, you Vonnegutian specter!

279 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:44:34am

re: #265 Thanos

Maybe it's a KT sock?

I think I need new glasses.

280 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:44:39am

re: #274 marjoriemoon

It's time to play NAME THAT SOCK!

Shit, we had to play that just last night when some troll was ragging on me....maybe ice-9 is some kind of scifi reference.

281 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:44:57am

re: #278 Cato the Elder

But, ah, Ice-9, please don't drink from the drinking fountain.

282 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:45:02am

re: #269 swamprat

That's funny, he doesn't look trollish.

But, he's acting like a turd at times. He can express his disagreement without whipping out the flames.

283 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:45:03am

re: #269 swamprat

That's funny, he doesn't look trollish.

But we can say that! Some of our best friends are trollish.

284 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:45:16am

OK infanticide was a little over the top. I do not agree with abortion. I also believe it is a personal choice and the state should not be involved. Just like I do not think the state should be involved in my personal choices about other things in my life like food and drink etc.

My point is both sides want to pass laws to enforce their world view and both sides complain about the other side doing it. It is hypocrisy on both sides.

is that less trollish?

285 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:45:29am

re: #280 iceweasel

Shit, we had to play that just last night when some troll was ragging on me...maybe ice-9 is some kind of scifi reference.

What was up with GymSock Gumbo, anyway???

286 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:45:38am

re: #280 iceweasel

Shit, we had to play that just last night when some troll was ragging on me...maybe ice-9 is some kind of scifi reference.

Oh noz it's teh Tom Tomorrow outrage of the nite agin!

/

287 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:46:03am

re: #265 Thanos

Maybe it's a KT sock?

Not me.

288 Vambo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:46:21am

LMAO, this reminds me of when Bobby Jindal (I think?) started a bill that would stop genetic tampering and "human-animal hybrids".

Good job Republicans, hard at work on the most pressing issues facing our country.

289 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:46:37am

re: #280 iceweasel

It is. Cato and I have both alluded to it.

Wikipedia

290 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:46:57am

re: #280 iceweasel

It is. It's from a Vonnegut novel, Cat's Cradle.

291 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:47:02am

re: #220 iceweasel

The kicker: the murderer was a former reality TV contestant.

Silicone implants don't degrade like bodily tissue. I'm certain I've run across similar stories about IDing bodies, especially when they've been moved across jurisdictions. (the dental records may not be in the local law enforcement database, but there is some kind of national medical registry where you can ID people via various medical things like implants, artifical limbs, etc. I guess they all have serial numbers.)

292 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:47:42am

re: #285 Varek Raith

What was up with GymSock Gumbo, anyway???

Lobster SockPot, lol.
I dunno, but that guy was definitely someone's sockpuppet. I think he'll be back.

293 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:47:45am

re: #288 Vambo

LMAO, this reminds me of when Bobby Jindal (I think?) started a bill that would stop genetic tampering and "human-animal hybrids".

Good job Republicans, hard at work on the most pressing issues facing our country.

I swear, if the GOP prevents be from getting a cyber body...

294 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:48:11am

re: #284 elbarto

I don't think making a comparison between laws banning foods and laws banning abortion is a wise thing to do. The differences are too extreme.

295 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:48:13am

re: #284 elbarto

Much. And a much more nuanced statement of your opinion on the matter.

296 Ice-9  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:48:13am

re: #278 Cato the Elder

"Ice-9" is quite a good nick.

Come out and play, you Vonnegutian specter!

Poo-tee-weet?

297 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:48:26am

re: #289 oaktree

re: #290 lawhawk

Thanks!

298 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:49:08am

re: #284 elbarto

OK infanticide was a little over the top. I do not agree with abortion. I also believe it is a personal choice and the state should not be involved. Just like I do not think the state should be involved in my personal choices about other things in my life like food and drink etc.

My point is both sides want to pass laws to enforce their world view and both sides complain about the other side doing it. It is hypocrisy on both sides.

is that less trollish?

Yes, much less. I essentially agree with what you've posted.

299 cgn38navy  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:49:14am

re: #18 Varek Raith

I'm a resident of Virginia also, actually in Pat Robertsons back yard, and I find that often the religious right is on the "right" side of privacy and property rights. They may be a little kooky in their reasoning, but there tends to be checks and balances. After that eminent domain fiasco at the US Supreme Court, Virginia was one of the first to pass restrictions on the definition of eminent domain. Sometimes there's a downside, Virginia would have to pass a constitutional amendment to allow for a voucher system for private schools. We are a very moderate Commonwealth.

300 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:49:35am

re: #273 LotharBot


It may be "natural" to think that, but that doesn't make it true, or fair.

There are also plenty of people waiting to adopt. It's not a simple or quick process.


Here's the really unfair part. Adoption is fairly simple and quick for those who don't hold out for a healthy white infant.

301 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:49:42am

re: #293 Varek Raith

I swear, if the GOP prevents me from getting a cyber body...


Sigh...PINMF.

302 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:50:03am

re: #278 Cato the Elder

"Ice-9" is quite a good nick.

Come out and play, you Vonnegutian specter!

Damn, you're good.

303 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:50:08am

re: #273 LotharBot

I'll grant you that. Even though most pro-lifers think "keep your hands off my body" is a stupid talking point (since they don't think it's "your" body they're trying to regulate, but "your offspring's body"), they should be aware of its existence, and they should be aware of how silly they sound giving essentially the same talking point about a different subject.

Yes, Pro-lifers think "keep your hands off my body" is a stupid talking point when it comes to women and legal abortion, but they don't think it's stupid when some demented wacko is imagining people following him around trying to shove a chip into him. WTF??

304 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:50:31am

re: #296 Ice-9

So it goes.

305 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:50:40am

re: #302 Naso Tang

Damn, you're good.

Google makes everyone seem smart

306 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:51:17am

re: #303 marjoriemoon

Yes, Pro-lifers think "keep your hands off my body" is a stupid talking point when it comes to women and legal abortion, but they don't think it's stupid when some demented wacko is imagining people following him around trying to shove a chip into him. WTF??

I like, Keep Government Assigned Doctors Hands Off My Body!

307 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:51:29am

re: #303 marjoriemoon

Yes, Pro-lifers think "keep your hands off my body" is a stupid talking point when it comes to women and legal abortion, but they don't think it's stupid when some demented wacko is imagining people following him around trying to shove a chip into him. WTF??

And btw, I absolutely believe this is a sexist issue. If men had children, none of this would be an issue, ever. And the human race would not have survived past the 1st century. You would have aborted every baby.

308 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:51:29am

re: #294 Obdicut
In their simplest form the laws are about the state telling a person what to do with their bodies. The state has no business telling us wht to do with our bodies.

309 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:51:46am

re: #305 cliffster

Google makes everyone seem smart

I think Cato is faster than Google.

310 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:51:46am

re: #293 Varek Raith

I swear, if the GOP prevents be from getting a cyber body...

InstaPunditHack looks forward to that day, you know. Also sex with robot babes.
Not making this up. He's a fan of that whole transhumanist movement. I could find some links on his writings about it, but it's too early to start drinking.

311 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:51:54am

re: #288 Vambo

LMAO, this reminds me of when Bobby Jindal (I think?) started a bill that would stop genetic tampering and "human-animal hybrids".

Good job Republicans, hard at work on the most pressing issues facing our country.

That was also Sam Brownback and his anti "mermaid" legislation, completely unaware that the "hybrid" research he's inveighing against might someday cure genetic defects through things like Hox factor manipulation etc. (the proteins that cause insects to make compound eyes cause human genes to express as human eyes, maybe someday we will cure blindness by harvesting some stuff from dark bellied dew lovers)

312 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:52:08am

re: #300 jaunte

Here's the really unfair part. Adoption is fairly simple and quick for those who don't hold out for a healthy white infant.

I know one family that went through years of paperwork to adopt their black-hispanic mix crack baby. Watched the process from both sides, as I went to school with a girl from the adopting family, and went to church with the foster mom.

Maybe the process has streamlined some since 1997, but I've never known anyone who called it "simple" or "quick".

313 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:52:09am

re: #290 lawhawk

It is. It's from a Vonnegut novel, Cat's Cradle.

"No damn cat, no damn cradle."

314 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:53:16am

re: #313 Cato the Elder

"No damn cat, no damn cradle."

Is there a silver spoon, by any chance?

"When you comin' home, dad?
I don't know when..."

315 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:53:17am

re: #312 LotharBot

simple and quick are not words in the government handbook

316 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:53:43am

re: #296 Ice-9

Poo-tee-weet?

There you are.re: #309 Ben Hur

I think Cato is faster than Google.

That is the coolest thing anyone has ever said about me.

317 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:54:06am

re: #312 LotharBot

It took me nine months and $6,000 to adopt two girls and a boy. So yes, I don't think people are trying as hard as they could to solve that end of the problem; they'd rather think about controlling women.

318 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:54:21am

re: #299 cgn38navy

I'm a resident of Virginia also, actually in Pat Robertsons back yard, and I find that often the religious right is on the "right" side of privacy and property rights. They may be a little kooky in their reasoning, but there tends to be checks and balances. After that eminent domain fiasco at the US Supreme Court, Virginia was one of the first to pass restrictions on the definition of eminent domain. Sometimes there's a downside, Virginia would have to pass a constitutional amendment to allow for a voucher system for private schools. We are a very moderate Commonwealth.

Unless, of course, one is talking about the privacy of a uterus.

319 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:54:50am

re: #305 cliffster

Google makes everyone seem smart

Problem is I try my memory first. Bad habit.

320 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:54:50am

re: #317 jaunte

It took me nine months and $6,000 to adopt two girls and a boy. So yes, I don't think people are trying as hard as they could to solve that end of the problem; they'd rather think about controlling women.

Angelina is that you? ;^)

Respect.

321 Varek Raith  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:55:06am

re: #310 iceweasel

InstaPunditHack looks forward to that day, you know. Also sex with robot babes.
Not making this up. He's a fan of that whole transhumanist movement. I could find some links on his writings about it, but it's too early to start drinking.

Heh, though in all seriousness, I'd jump at the chance of being just about fully cyberized.
I am Varek of Borg.

322 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:55:07am

re: #320 Cato the Elder

Hah!

323 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:55:17am

re: #284 elbarto

OK infanticide was a little over the top. I do not agree with abortion. I also believe it is a personal choice and the state should not be involved. Just like I do not think the state should be involved in my personal choices about other things in my life like food and drink etc.

My point is both sides want to pass laws to enforce their world view and both sides complain about the other side doing it. It is hypocrisy on both sides.

is that less trollish?

If the state is not involved, meaning if we don't have laws keeping abortion legal, we will have women dying. It's a completely different issue than trans fats, which taken in moderation would not hurt you. If you eat at Burger King once every 3 months, you won't have an issue, but once you're pregnant, you're pregnant.

324 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:56:06am

re: #313 Cato the Elder

Schrödinger, is that you?

325 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:56:18am

re: #79 Ben Hur

It's their blog.

True.

326 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:56:21am

re: #322 jaunte

Hah!

Seriously, God bless you.

All my pets (including Haku the service dog) have been rescues. I can't imagine how great it must feel to adopt a kid.

327 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:56:36am

re: #319 Naso Tang

Problem is I try my memory first. Bad habit.

I honestly think that google is dumbing down people, at least from a memory standpoint. You don't have to work at remembering anything - just google it.

328 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:56:49am

And I'm back

329 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:56:51am

re: #321 Varek Raith

I always blamed Decker for that faux paux. // ST: TMP

330 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:57:03am

re: #321 Varek Raith

Heh, though in all seriousness, I'd jump at the chance of being just about fully cyberized.
I am Varek of Borg.

[Link: www.cyberpunkreview.com...]

331 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:57:08am

re: #317 jaunte

It took me nine months and $6,000 to adopt two girls and a boy. So yes, I don't think people are trying as hard as they could to solve that end of the problem; they'd rather think about controlling women.

$6000 for 3 children? Domestically?

332 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:57:20am

re: #326 Cato the Elder

It's a real trip.

333 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:57:22am

re: #308 elbarto

First of all, most of the food laws are about sale of it, not posession of it or consumption of it. You don't get arrested for eating trans-fats.

Second, again: Comparing laws that ban abortion with those that ban foods is, I think, unwise. The effects, the emotions, the rationale behind either are too far separated for it to make any sense to me.

Saying an overarching principle like 'the government shouldn't tell us what to do with our bodies' is something I can generally support, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that you had earlier, which was an equivalence between both democrats and republicans. I think the Republican opposition to legal abortion has had far greater effects, and is a far greater problem, than Democratic moves on food regulation-- if they really are just Democrat-supported laws.

334 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:57:30am

re: #325 SanFranciscoZionist

True.

I think I wrote that yesterday. LOL!

Catch up!

335 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:57:37am

Obama gives airport security access to more information about terrorist threats and tactics, Crazy Pam freaks out....
10,000 TSA Staff to get Secret Intelligence

Another treasonous Obama initiative. I wonder if CAIR, MSA, ISNA, ICNA, are on the distribute list as well. Who is vetting these 10,000 clowns?

How many of the unionized TSA people are unionized ..... by SEIU ? And the "Behavior Detection Officers"? Sworn L.E.O.'s......union members.

How many of the TSA people getting the classification are being screened for their loyalty to protect and defend the American people -- or is this all happening in line with the administration's agenda of anti-American rule ?
.....
Do you wonder why this happened ? I don't. I know why it happened.

Think it came out of nowhere ? It didn't. It came from the top.

Read on.........

The Classified Document Executive Order Buffet, hosted by Barack Hussein Obama, Jihadist-In-Chief. Kenny adds, There's no way he wrote these exec. orders - not possible. Exec. orders are supposed to be short, simple, direct and to the point - and written by POTUS

336 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:58:03am

re: #331 marjoriemoon

$6000 for 3 children? Domestically?


(1991 dollars)

337 ckb  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:58:03am

re: #150 LotharBot

I would presume it's already illegal to perform a medical procedure on someone without consent.

Do you have good reason to believe implantation of a microchip falls outside of existing law?

I would certainly think so, but apparently the legislator backing this bill does not.

I would also have thought that putting a camera in an apartment or hotel or dressing room to spy on the tenant was illegal, but in many states it wasn't. Until someone got away with it and the laws were changed.

I certainly don't mind seeing it be explicitly against the law. I could have done without the 666 (actually, it's 616 but who's counting) stuff, and the fact that the congressman couldn't hold his tongue on that topic is disappointing. Cause now it's just one big joke.

338 Lidane  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:58:05am

re: #147 Gus 802

More fun with our ignorant citizenry. This is from last year over at Infowars whcih is linked by Drudge:

MTV Star Heidi Montag: Over My Dead Body Would I Take A Microchip

How does she know she doesn't have one now? She had ten plastic surgery procedures in one day. For all she knows, the doctors could have implanted her with a microchip at the same time they were giving her new boobs.

/

339 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:58:33am

A moment of silence, please. The inventor of the Frisbee has passed away.

340 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:58:54am

re: #321 Varek Raith

Heh, though in all seriousness, I'd jump at the chance of being just about fully cyberized.
I am Varek of Borg.

I'll be back later and will pop some fun InstaHack info about this in an open thread or on the late night on something.

There are many photoshops out there of Glenn Reynolds head on various borg bodies. Bad, rude, lefty bloggers! :)

341 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:58:58am

re: #339 SixDegrees

A moment of silence, please. The inventor of the Frisbee has passed away.

Millions of dogs are very sad.

342 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:59:09am

re: #339 SixDegrees

A moment of silence, please. The inventor of the Frisbee has passed away.

Memorial services will be held on rooftops all across suburbia

343 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:59:29am

re: #339 SixDegrees

Has his soul gotten stuck up on a roof somewhere?

(Frisbeetarianism)

344 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:59:32am

re: #335 Killgore Trout

If it happened three years ago under Bush she would have been cheering.

/what a difference an election makes .... Change!

345 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:59:37am

re: #331 marjoriemoon

$6000 for 3 children? Domestically?

Early-model replicants, obviously! ;^)

346 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:59:45am

re: #303 marjoriemoon

Yes, Pro-lifers think "keep your hands off my body" is a stupid talking point when it comes to women and legal abortion, but they don't think it's stupid when some demented wacko is imagining people following him around trying to shove a chip into him. WTF??

They think it's a stupid point regarding abortion for a specific reason:

they don't think the WOMAN'S BODY is the most important body in question. They think the body growing inside her is more important.

When it comes to pretty much any medical procedure other than abortion, your own body IS the most important, and thus, the objection is not valid. (The point is stupid for an entirely different reason in this case, namely that it's paranoid and delusional.)

re: #317 jaunte

It took me nine months and $6,000 to adopt two girls and a boy. So yes, I don't think people are trying as hard as they could to solve that end of the problem; they'd rather think about controlling women.

I'm proud of you. (No sarcasm. Congrats.)

Still, I don't think you're being fair to the pro-life side here. I grew up inside the movement, and the meetings and rallies were about 70% women. I never heard anyone speak in terms of trying to control other women's bodies; what I heard repeatedly was concern for the unborn. I also typically heard concern for foster children and adoption, support for adoption agencies, and quite a few adoptions. Your statement that "they'd rather think about controlling women" is, quite frankly, insulting to the many fine people in that movement. (It may be appropriate for the assholes in that movement, though.)

347 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:59:50am

re: #331 marjoriemoon

The wards of the State of Texas cost nothing but bureaucratic hassle; the private adoption fee paid for medical costs.

348 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:00:11pm

re: #321 Varek Raith

Heh, though in all seriousness, I'd jump at the chance of being just about fully cyberized.
I am Varek of Borg.

But you're not helping it, Leon! Why aren't you helping it?

349 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:00:15pm

re: #321 Varek Raith

Heh, though in all seriousness, I'd jump at the chance of being just about fully cyberized.
I am Varek of Borg.

Borgs were wimps. I'd go Iron Hands.

350 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:00:27pm

re: #345 Cato the Elder

Early-model replicants, obviously! ;^)

Nexus 1

351 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:00:52pm

re: #333 Obdicut

First of all, most of the food laws are about sale of it, not posession of it or consumption of it. You don't get arrested for eating trans-fats.

Second, again: Comparing laws that ban abortion with those that ban foods is, I think, unwise. The effects, the emotions, the rationale behind either are too far separated for it to make any sense to me.

Saying an overarching principle like 'the government shouldn't tell us what to do with our bodies' is something I can generally support, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that you had earlier, which was an equivalence between both democrats and republicans. I think the Republican opposition to legal abortion has had far greater effects, and is a far greater problem, than Democratic moves on food regulation-- if they really are just Democrat-supported laws.

More people are affected by the laws to ban certain foods/food substances.

352 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:00:55pm

re: #113 acacia

Being in favor of the right to control your own body and being opposed to abortion is hardly "monumental hypocrisy." It would be hypocrisy only if you assume that what is being aborted is not another human worthy of life - and of course that is the whole abortion debate in a nutshell. I have the right to control my body but not when I control it in a way that hurts others.

As someone pointed out above, you cannot be made to, say, donate blood, even if someone is dying at your feet for want of it.

The idea that one's right to control one's body ends with pregnancy is not as completely obvious as it might seem.

353 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:00:57pm

re: #289 oaktree

It is. Cato and I have both alluded to it.

Wikipedia

This could be a trend. Maybe some other new lizardoids could name themselves Ice Station Zebra, Ice Pirate, The Iceman Cometh, Ice Age II, and etc.

354 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:01:05pm

re: #350 Guanxi88

Nexus 1

That was before they put in the auto-termination code, thank God.

355 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:01:15pm

re: #323 marjoriemoon

If there are not laws against abortion you would not need to have laws to have abortion.
Because we allow abortions does not mean we should for Doctors to provide them either. There are enough that are willing to do it.
In most cases of abortion, no one is forcing the woman to have sex. There are unfortunately those instances but that is a small percentage of the instances of abortion.

As for tans fats, you are right in moderation they are fine. In quantities they are not. But it should not be the state deciding that.

356 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:01:22pm

re: #333 Obdicut

Just out of curiosity, I found this
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Another Blow Against Trans Fats in Foods

In Connecticut last year, two state senators, John McKinney of Fairfield and Andrew W. Roraback of Goshen, both Republicans, sponsored a bill to ban trans fats, but it never made it to the House. Although the two legislators had hoped to reintroduce the bill this year, the issue is unlikely to attract much attention while Connecticut is wrestling with a projected $8.7 billion deficit over the next two fiscal years, said Brett R. Cody, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans.

357 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:01:38pm

re: #336 jaunte

(1991 dollars)

Ah otay... thanks.

And bless you :)

358 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:01:49pm

re: #327 cliffster

I honestly think that google is dumbing down people, at least from a memory standpoint. You don't have to work at remembering anything - just google it.

Actually, the implant I want is a chip in my brain with WiFi and thought control to the internet. Now that would be cool.

359 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:02:29pm

re: #353 The Sanity Inspector

But "Ice Ice Baby" is right out. ;)

360 jaunte  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:02:33pm

re: #346 LotharBot

Still, I don't think you're being fair to the pro-life side here. I grew up inside the movement, and the meetings and rallies were about 70% women. I never heard anyone speak in terms of trying to control other women's bodies; what I heard repeatedly was concern for the unborn. I also typically heard concern for foster children and adoption, support for adoption agencies, and quite a few adoptions. Your statement that "they'd rather think about controlling women" is, quite frankly, insulting to the many fine people in that movement. (It may be appropriate for the assholes in that movement, though.)

It's a broad brush and unfair to many who do adopt, I admit. I just think we can do better.

361 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:03:01pm

re: #333 Obdicut

They are both laws about control. If you remove the emotion and look at the bare facts, both sides want some control over other people. It is control that the state should not have.

362 cliffster  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:03:48pm

I'm out. almost movietime.

l8r loosers

363 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:03:50pm

re: #147 Gus 802

More fun with our ignorant citizenry. This is from last year over at Infowars whcih is linked by Drudge:

MTV Star Heidi Montag: Over My Dead Body Would I Take A Microchip

Didn't Heidi Montag just go through a TON of plastic surgery? Why does she think she knows what's in her body?

364 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:03:52pm

re: #355 elbarto

If there are not laws against abortion you would not need to have laws to have abortion.
Because we allow abortions does not mean we should for Doctors to provide them either. There are enough that are willing to do it.
In most cases of abortion, no one is forcing the woman to have sex. There are unfortunately those instances but that is a small percentage of the instances of abortion.

As for tans fats, you are right in moderation they are fine. In quantities they are not. But it should not be the state deciding that.

Don't have sex, ladies, so you don't have to worry about an abortion!! Has it ever occurred to you that the baby might be endangering the life of the mother or it may be severely disabled?

Of for goodness sakes, I'm out of this ridiculous conversation. It's Friday, a 3 day weekend and I want to leave here happy.

365 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:04:08pm

re: #321 Varek Raith

I believe Kevin Warwick is the guy you're looking for.

366 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:04:20pm

re: #358 Naso Tang

Actually, the implant I want is a chip in my brain with WiFi and thought control to the internet. Now that would be cool.

But you have to get the "Intel Inside" tatoo, worry about virus scanning, have downtime for upgrades, and then find out the hard way what hacks work the other way. "In Soviet Russia chip control you!"

367 Ice-9  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:04:24pm

re: #359 oaktree

But Fargin Icehole is still available.

368 What, me worry?  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:04:28pm

I'll be back.

369 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:05:04pm

re: #308 elbarto

In their simplest form the laws are about the state telling a person what to do with their bodies. The state has no business telling us wht to do with our bodies.

Abortion is one of the mercifully few issues where our ideals of liberty and morality are in direct conflict. I don't understand pro-lifers who don't see the injustice in their position, nor do I understand pro-choicers who don't see the implicit horror in theirs. "Legal, safe, and rare" is about the best we can hope for in the actual world, I guess.

370 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:05:44pm

re: #345 Cato the Elder

The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human - sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him.

371 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:05:52pm

re: #356 marjoriemoon

With the war against childhood obesity starting, would one suspect that this type of legislation would get more consideration?

372 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:06:34pm

re: #366 oaktree

But you have to get the "Intel Inside" tatoo, worry about virus scanning, have downtime for upgrades, and then find out the hard way what hacks work the other way. "In Soviet Russia chip control you!"

You have your nightmares, I'll have my fantasies.

373 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:07:01pm

re: #351 MandyManners

Sure. More people are affected by laws banning jaywalking than laws banning driving across train tracks while the barrier is down, too, but that doesn't mean that jaywalking is the bigger deal.

374 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:07:15pm

re: #371 badger1970

With the war against childhood obesity starting, would one suspect that this type of legislation would get more consideration?

If you eat trans-fat, the terrorists win?

375 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:07:37pm

re: #296 Ice-9

Poo-tee-weet?

Glad to have lured you out of lurkerdom.

We don't bite.

Well, I do. But you'll soon learn to love the night and the blood and you'll never want to sleep in anything but a satin-lined coffin again. Heh.

376 elbarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:07:44pm

re: #364 marjoriemoon

You are arguing against something that I am not saying.

let me be clear. If a woman wants to have sex get pregnant and have an abortion, that is her choice. I do not agree with that choice, I think it is a bad choice and I would advise against it. But it is her choice. It should not be te state telling her what to do. I do not think we disagree here.

377 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:08:41pm

re: #200 Rightwingconspirator

I had a chat with an archaeologist. We talked about what his profession will find of our culture in 5,000 years. We talked about the shelf life of common materials. Just as a warning to fans of implanted silicone-It would be the most stable thing after you pass away and get buried. We were joking that Hollywood area cemeteries would show up as evenly spaced pairs of breast implants. Nothing else left. Headstones and implants.

That's actually pretty funny.

I have been told that those metal bras you see Valkryries wear in opera costumes are based on an early archaeologist's misunderstanding about the circular decorative brooches Viking women wore to fasten their dresses.

378 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:08:42pm

re: #43 Mosh

No, I don't. That's a tin foil hat theory. I'm just saying, why not have a regulation on the books saying "employers, insurance companies, and the government cannot force people to have microchips implanted in them".

Because it's a pointless law, given that that the idea of implanting chips into someone without their permission already violates several others on the books.

I'm pretty sure anything this invasive against your will would be "battery" at the very least.

379 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:09:02pm

re: #353 The Sanity Inspector

This could be a trend. Maybe some other new lizardoids could name themselves Ice Station Zebra, Ice Pirate, The Iceman Cometh, Ice Age II, and etc.

Ice Fishing!

380 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:10:01pm

re: #281 Obdicut

But, ah, Ice-9, please don't drink from the drinking fountain.

Yeah. Look what it did to Obdicut. ;^)

381 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:10:03pm

re: #359 oaktree

But "Ice Ice Baby" is right out. ;)

382 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:10:05pm

re: #374 Ben Hur

I guess the DQ triple hunger buster could be considered a weapon of mass . //

383 Lidane  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:10:26pm

re: #355 elbarto

Here's a thought-- maybe if those who call themselves"pro-life" spent less time trying to control and judge the sex lives of others and more time trying to get real, comprehensive sex ed into schools, and to make birth control cheaper, easier to come by, and covered by insurance, there'd be a lower abortion rate in this country.

384 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:10:38pm

re: #55 ckb

Taking the religion completley out of it, are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge? This could very well be a grey area in the law, like some of the early cases of stealth video surveilance where the perpetrators could not be prosecuted.

The technology absolutely exists and is in use for pets. VeriChip / Positivie ID has approval from the FDA to market their implant.

No it isn't a grey area of the law, because the implantation requires surgery powerful enough to need anesthetic.


Doing that to someone against their will is battery at the very least....

385 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:10:40pm

re: #371 badger1970

With the war against childhood obesity starting, would one suspect that this type of legislation would get more consideration?

It's for the CHIIILLLDRENNN!

386 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:11:06pm

re: #228 Shiplord Kirel

A lot of seemingly current kookspiracies go back a long way. Back in the 70s I knew several religious survivalists who were seeking to set up a "retreat" where they could go when the Tribulation started. One of their stories was tha the evil feds had stockpiled a huge number of weapons near the Texas state prison in Huntsville. The idea was that the prisoners would be allowed to escape en masse, after which they would arm themselves and spread out over the country murdering Christians. They would have lists from IRS naturally.

Meanwhile, Zombie was fretting back during the election that phone banking would provide Obama with lists of people who said they wouldn't vote for him.

387 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:11:17pm

Remember in the 80's when Antichrist humor was sort of at its zenith? Tina Yothers was the Antichrist, Scott Baio was the Antichrist. I remember Bobcat Goldthwait making a lot of Antichrist comedy. Because I never went to church, and was essentially clueless about Protestantism, I just sort of figured the Antichrist was a reverse-Jesus with evil superpowers that eventually Jesus had to fight, like in the Highlander. I was like 7 years old, you think a lot about people with superpowers when you're 7. And I kept wondering if Satan was giving orders to the Antichrist. Or vice versa.

Also, is it pronounced ANTI-CHRIST? Emphasis on the Anti? Or is it more "Antechrist"?

388 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:11:22pm

re: #373 Obdicut

Sure. More people are affected by laws banning jaywalking than laws banning driving across train tracks while the barrier is down, too, but that doesn't mean that jaywalking is the bigger deal.

I'm inclined to go along with elbarto's No. 361.

389 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:11:34pm

re: #266 iceweasel

We have an Ice-9? :(
I'm the I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 model, so it's possible. (Integrated Communist Enabler, WIngnut Exterminator And Simulated Empathetic Liberal).

Maybe the newer model runs faster and just enables communism.

Umm...you gonna call me before I pass out? I've been up since this time yesterday. Water dripping through your walls from an ice-mass clinging to the outside of the building will do that to you.

390 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:11:57pm

re: #80 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I want a government subsidized program mandating magic rocks which prevent tiger attacks. Everyone should have one. I've had mine for years and haven't been attacked by a tiger once.

I would like to buy your rock!

391 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:12:26pm

re: #351 MandyManners

More people are affected by the laws to ban certain foods/food substances.

Banning of transfats is silly. The government's role should be limited to collecting and disseminating knowledge, and the citizenry ought to be left to decide what's best for them.

That's what happened with lard. A couple decades ago, lard was an extremely common ingredient, in everything from deep-fried foods to pastries; there was hardly a pie crust made that didn't incorporate lard.

Then the government began issuing reports on the dangers of excess saturated fats in the diet. Without so much as a regulation or even a punitive tax, lard practically disappeared from general consumption, and is often difficult to locate even at well-stocked grocery stores today. Demand sank.

It's still available, of course; on Monday, I'll be picking up paczkis for the office, from a traditional Polish bakery that deep-fries them in lard. But what was once common is now rare.

Interestingly, without lard a great many foodstuffs suffered in quality. Unsaturated fats, like vegetable oils, simply don't behave the same way in cooking as saturated fats do. After much tinkering, food scientists came up with a solution. You could add the hydrogen back into unsaturated fats that saturated fats were loaded with. Through the miracle of hydrogenation, vegetable oils could be transformed into a more perfect substitute for vilified lard.

And those hydrogenated vegetable oils? They're called transfats. And the unpleasant side effects they generate? Exactly the same as those caused by lard, except even more so, thanks to the uber-saturation possible through processing.

Transfats, however, are candidates for outright regulation and bans, while lard was shoved off marketplace shelves simply through education.

Maybe we're just more stupid than we were in the past?

392 Gus  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:13:07pm

Hasta later.

393 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:13:55pm

re: #369 The Sanity Inspector

Abortion is one of the mercifully few issues where our ideals of liberty and morality are in direct conflict. I don't understand pro-lifers who don't see the injustice in their position, nor do I understand pro-choicers who don't see the implicit horror in theirs. "Legal, safe, and rare" is about the best we can hope for in the actual world, I guess.

can we hope for "extremely rare, only when necessary, adopt otherwise"? How about "fewer unwanted pregnancies due to better availability and education regarding birth control"? I think both of those would be real possibilities if both sides weren't so afraid of compromise.

394 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:13:59pm

re: #89 marjoriemoon

Women don't count.

I could probably think of 10 things more pressing than the microchip, but that's just me.

How is it exactly that they are going to implant these devices without our knowledge?

Also I thought the "Mark" was the story of Cain. He was given a mark on his head by God for the murder of his brother, Able, that everyone should know his sin.

Also if you do anything bad to him, seven times worse happens to you, because God doesn't stand for anybody else beating up his red headed step child!

395 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:14:10pm

re: #383 Lidane

Here's a thought-- maybe if those who call themselves"pro-life" spent less time trying to control and judge the sex lives of others and more time trying to get real, comprehensive sex ed into schools, and to make birth control cheaper, easier to come by, and covered by insurance, there'd be a lower abortion rate in this country.

FREE THE CONDOMS!

396 Clemente  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:14:42pm

re: #358 Naso Tang

Actually, the implant I want is a chip in my brain with WiFi and thought control to the internet. Now that would be cool.

Hold on a sec. Think of what the Inyernet can do to a PC. Do you really want a PC AntiVirus 2010 pop-up very few seconds, in your head? "You have 468 virus infections!! Blink twice NOW to protect your brain!"

397 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:14:46pm

re: #305 cliffster

Google makes everyone seem smart

It's true, Google can be abused that way in arguments. I'm sort of paranoid about busting out facts I'm not 100% sure of, I use google to "trust but verify." I'm pretty sure something's right, I'm going to make sure. If I know something's right, I'll just say it.

I really don't care if it screws up people's memory. Every advancement that makes life easier for people reduces a person's reliance on themselves. Cars probably screwed up peoples' endurance for walking, and they can pry my car from my cold dead hands. :D

398 cgn38navy  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:14:53pm

re: #318 MandyManners

399 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:15:07pm

re: #390 jamesfirecat

I would like to buy your rock!

My rock is not for sale.

400 badger1970  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:15:18pm

re: #391 SixDegrees

Mexican imported cookies (with lard) are damn good (along with real sugar Dr. Pepper).

401 Lidane  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:15:24pm

re: #395 MandyManners

FREE THE CONDOMS!

And the Pill, too. Heh.

It's ludicrous that Viagra is covered by insurance but birth control isn't. IMO, anyway.

402 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:15:46pm

re: #391 SixDegrees

Maybe we're just more stupid than we were in the past?

I think you're on to something.

403 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:16:17pm

re: #399 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

My rock is not for sale.

Mine is.


Oh. Wait.

404 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:16:19pm

re: #342 Guanxi88

Memorial services will be held on rooftops all across suburbia

A friend of mine identifies as a "Frisbeeterian". They believe that when you die your soul comes to rest on the roof of the church, and can't be gotten down again.

405 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:16:24pm

re: #113 acacia

Being in favor of the right to control your own body and being opposed to abortion is hardly "monumental hypocrisy." It would be hypocrisy only if you assume that what is being aborted is not another human worthy of life - and of course that is the whole abortion debate in a nutshell. I have the right to control my body but not when I control it in a way that hurts others.

If you're hooked up to someone who needs your kidney's to survive against your will do you just have to lay there and let him use your organs?

406 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:16:37pm

re: #387 WindUpBird

Remember in the 80's when Antichrist humor was sort of at its zenith? Tina Yothers was the Antichrist, Scott Baio was the Antichrist. I remember Bobcat Goldthwait making a lot of Antichrist comedy. Because I never went to church, and was essentially clueless about Protestantism, I just sort of figured the Antichrist was a reverse-Jesus with evil superpowers that eventually Jesus had to fight, like in the Highlander. I was like 7 years old, you think a lot about people with superpowers when you're 7. And I kept wondering if Satan was giving orders to the Antichrist. Or vice versa.

Also, is it pronounced ANTI-CHRIST? Emphasis on the Anti? Or is it more "Antechrist"?

The latter.

407 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:16:46pm

re: #391 SixDegrees

Maybe we're just more stupid than we were in the past?

Lazier, perhaps. More demanding, maybe.

408 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:17:07pm

re: #403 Ben Hur

Mine is.


Oh. Wait.

ROCK BEN HUR! WE SAID ROCK!

409 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:17:11pm

re: #396 Clemente

Hold on a sec. Think of what the Inyernet can do to a PC. Do you really want a PC AntiVirus 2010 pop-up very few seconds, in your head? "You have 468 virus infections!! Blink twice NOW to protect your brain!"

ahahahahaha and then your cerebral cortex gets taken over by GREASYTEENMERMAIDS DOT COM and you just start shouting random porn ads to hapless passersby in the middle of the street until someone cloroforms you. :D

The dark future!

410 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:17:17pm

re: #405 jamesfirecat

If you're hooked up to someone who needs your kidney's to survive against your will do you just have to lay there and let him use your organs?

how'd you get hooked in the first place?

411 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:17:25pm

re: #388 MandyManners

I'm fine with that. I just think it's looking at it from a rather obtuse position. The laws are conceptually related, as are the laws regarding murdering someone and the laws regarding throwing a small pebble at them: in both cases, the state has the obligation to defend your person from such an attack, and prosecute the one who did it.

I just feel like ignoring the actual effects ignores the magnitude of difference between banning trans-fats and banning abortion.

412 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:17:39pm

re: #407 MandyManners

Lazier, perhaps. More demanding, maybe.

TELEVISION.

413 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:18:16pm

re: #404 SanFranciscoZionist

A friend of mine identifies as a "Frisbeeterian". They believe that when you die your soul comes to rest on the roof of the church, and can't be gotten down again.

Hindus are boomerangians.

Buddhists try to throw the thing so it keeps on going, never comes back, and lands nowhere.

414 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:18:22pm

re: #404 SanFranciscoZionist

A friend of mine identifies as a "Frisbeeterian". They believe that when you die your soul comes to rest on the roof of the church, and can't be gotten down again.

Oh my God I LOLED.

still giggling. Okay, that's going out to my friends.

415 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:18:28pm

re: #391 SixDegrees

Banning of transfats is silly. The government's role should be limited to collecting and disseminating knowledge, and the citizenry ought to be left to decide what's best for them.[snippage]

If we're going to turn over responsibility for paying for our healthcare to the government, we needn't be shocked if the government starts deciding what we can and can't put into our mouths.

416 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:18:38pm

re: #383 Lidane

maybe.
even if it is available, will it be used?
I think sex ed should include abstinence in addition to the rest of it. I mean the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is not having sex.

417 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:19:01pm

re: #391 SixDegrees

I'm still working out the kinks of making pie crust with butter instead of lard. I switched because of the trans fats in the lard. Why'd they do that?

418 William of Orange  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:19:05pm

It is such a pity that this all is comedy fudder. The only ones who walk away with it are the likes of Jon Stewart etc. I boggs the mind that the MSM don't pick stuff like this up.

419 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:19:13pm

re: #400 badger1970

Mexican imported cookies (with lard) are damn good (along with real sugar Dr. Pepper).

I've had paczkis from the grocery store, mass produced using something like Crisco for shortening, and the aforementioned Real Deal made with lard. There is no comparison; they are like two entirely different products.

I eat these once a year, on Fat Tuesday. I'm really not worried about the consequences of such infrequent indulgence.

420 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:19:31pm

re: #412 Ben Hur

TELEVISION.

"This is television, that's all it is. It has nothing to do with people, it's to do with ratings! For fifty years, we've told them what to eat, what to drink, what to wear... for Christ's sake, Ben, don't you understand? Americans love television. They wean their kids on it. Listen. They love game shows, they love wrestling, they love sports and violence. So what do we do? We give 'em *what they want*! We're number one, Ben, that's all that counts, believe me. I've been in the business for thirty years."

-Damon Killian, "The Running Man"

421 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:19:48pm

re: #401 Lidane

And the Pill, too. Heh.

It's ludicrous that Viagra is covered by insurance but birth control isn't. IMO, anyway.

I still cannot wrap my mind around that. It's as if a stiff dick is the be-all and end-all.

422 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:20:03pm

re: #413 Cato the Elder

Hindus are boomerangians.

Buddhists try to throw the thing so it keeps on going, never comes back, and lands nowhere.

Buddhists have nothing to throw.

423 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:20:17pm

re: #412 Ben Hur

TELEVISION.

High-speed Internet connections.

424 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:20:18pm

re: #401 Lidane

And the Pill, too. Heh.

It's ludicrous that Viagra is covered by insurance but birth control isn't. IMO, anyway.

I have never had insurance that has not covered the pill. But my current insurance does not cover viagra or cialis.

425 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:20:31pm

re: #398 cgn38navy

Yes?

426 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:20:43pm

Recommended reading:
Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right

Published in 1988, this presents a very good history of survivalism and its eventual alliance and merger with the crazy right. It didn't start out that way. Survivalism as such originated during the initial stage of the Cold War nuclear standoff in the 50s. Many people realized that the government's own civil defense measures were wholly inadequate, if not absurd, and started to research the prospect of surviving a widespread catastrophe on their own.
This received a mighty boost from the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the brief fad for building individual fallout shelters. People who were interested in this tended to be fairly conservative politically but there was no real political component to it until later in the 1960s.

Right wing extremism, especially conspiracism, developed along a separate track at first. The founding of the Birch Society in 1958 and the passage of comprehensive civil rights legislation in the mid 60s were major milestones. The former provided the conspiracist narrative, while the latter solidified the idea among even casual racists that the feds were The Enemy. By a not very gradual process, the federal government replaced the Soviets as the source of the threat and ravening black mobs replaced nuclear warheads as the primary tactical threat. The rise of televangelism in the 70s, and its ability to popularize the notion of literal prophecy, added a new element, providing a religious rationale for the extremist school of the survival culture.

Today, there are still "old-school" survivalists, that is, the ones who really understand the subject and who are not conspiracist wingnuts, but they naturally tend to keep a very low profile.
By the late 80s, the extreme right had largely reached its current form, a witch's brew of Cold War anxiety, the backlash against social change, and the media-driven revival of fundamentalist religion.

427 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:21:12pm

re: #420 WindUpBird

"This is television, that's all it is. It has nothing to do with people, it's to do with ratings! For fifty years, we've told them what to eat, what to drink, what to wear... for Christ's sake, Ben, don't you understand? Americans love television. They wean their kids on it. Listen. They love game shows, they love wrestling, they love sports and violence. So what do we do? We give 'em *what they want*! We're number one, Ben, that's all that counts, believe me. I've been in the business for thirty years."

-Damon Killian, "The Running Man"

Exactly!

I tell friends that we've become a mix of Blade Runner, Total Recall and Running Man!

428 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:21:40pm

re: #418 William of Orange

It is such a pity that this all is comedy fudder. The only ones who walk away with it are the likes of Jon Stewart etc. I boggs the mind that the MSM don't pick stuff like this up.

It's just very hard to take a politician seriously when they say things like this. Especially when they're in a part of the country I will probably never ever visit. He might as well be in Greenland.

429 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:21:41pm

re: #411 Obdicut

I'm fine with that. I just think it's looking at it from a rather obtuse position. The laws are conceptually related, as are the laws regarding murdering someone and the laws regarding throwing a small pebble at them: in both cases, the state has the obligation to defend your person from such an attack, and prosecute the one who did it.

I just feel like ignoring the actual effects ignores the magnitude of difference between banning trans-fats and banning abortion.

I agree but, when you cut away all the fat, the bone is still about control.

430 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:21:42pm

re: #400 badger1970

Mexican imported cookies (with lard) are damn good (along with real sugar Dr. Pepper).

There's a YA novel set in Southern California I read a while ago. The main character's father owns a chain of Mexican bakeries, and keeps experimenting with lardless versions of things. They all taste terrible, but he keeps trying.

431 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:21:58pm

re: #427 Ben Hur

Exactly!

I tell friends that we've become a mix of Blade Runner, Total Recall and Running Man!

Total Recall - that's a documentary about Toyota, right?

432 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:22:04pm

re: #410 LotharBot

how'd you get hooked in the first place?

Why does it matter?

If you're a woman, and you don't want to allow a child growing in your uterus to make use of your organs to survive you don't have to anymore than you do a fully grown human being.


Consent to have sex and consent to carry a child are two different things in my book.

433 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:22:18pm

re: #416 elBarto

maybe.
even if it is available, will it be used?
I think sex ed should include abstinence in addition to the rest of it. I mean the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is not having sex.

Yes but, is it realistic nowadays?

434 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:22:33pm

re: #421 MandyManners

I still cannot wrap my mind around that. It's as if a stiff dick is the be-all and end-all.

There's a reason toys are made out of hard plastic, Mandy.

435 Lidane  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:22:49pm

re: #416 elBarto

I mean the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is not having sex.

Obviously. It's also the most unrealistic option overall. People are going to have sex. That's just the way it is.

With that in mind, people should at least be equipped with solid information about sex, and have cheap, readily available ways of preventing pregnancy if they don't want kids. That would go a lot farther towards lowering the abortion rate in this country than all the bloody "pro-life" videos and arguments ever could.

436 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:22:50pm

re: #401 Lidane

And the Pill, too. Heh.

It's ludicrous that Viagra is covered by insurance but birth control isn't. IMO, anyway.

I work for a Catholic school. They won't cover my birth control. I don't think there's a reason for them not to pay for Viagra though, at least for married men.

(In general, I agree.)

437 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:23:02pm

re: #415 The Sanity Inspector

If we're going to turn over responsibility for paying for our healthcare to the government, we needn't be shocked if the government starts deciding what we can and can't put into our mouths.

Has that happened in any other countries with government healthcare?

438 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:23:47pm

re: #410 LotharBot

how'd you get hooked in the first place?

Would it matter from a legal perspective?

439 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:24:03pm

re: #434 Ben Hur

*snicker*

440 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:24:40pm

re: #417 wrenchwench

I'm still working out the kinks of making pie crust with butter instead of lard. I switched because of the trans fats in the lard. Why'd they do that?

I've never seen that. Lard is pretty much as saturated as natural fat can be; I've never seen any with transfats added.

Here's the label from the standby Armor Lard. No transfats at all. The same would be true for lard from your butcher - if you can locate a butcher who still renders their own.

441 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:24:48pm

re: #433 MandyManners

What do you mean? Are you saying that people are no longer able to have self control? In that case we better ban all things that may be bad for you. If we hold kids to a higher standard they will live up to it. Kids live up to their expectations and if you set it low that is what they will live up to.

442 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:25:04pm

re: #437 jamesfirecat

Has that happened in any other countries with government healthcare?

In England, government nutritionists can gain admittance to your home and inspect what's in your fridge and cupboard.

443 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:25:28pm

re: #416 elBarto

I mean the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is not having sex.

Said like a true man.

You probably don't even know how many women you may have knocked up in your life. I doubt any intelligent one would even tell you, no matter what she decided to do about it.

444 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:25:31pm

re: #401 Lidane

And the Pill, too. Heh.

It's ludicrous that Viagra is covered by insurance but birth control isn't. IMO, anyway.

Generally, you could argue that one is a pre existing condition; the other is not.

445 Political Atheist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:26:05pm

re: #442 MandyManners

Kidding?

446 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:26:37pm

re: #442 MandyManners

In England, government nutritionists can gain admittance to your home and inspect what's in your fridge and cupboard.

Can I have links?

447 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:26:39pm

re: #427 Ben Hur

Exactly!

I tell friends that we've become a mix of Blade Runner, Total Recall and Running Man!

YES. Three of my FAVORITE MOVIES OF ALL TIME. :D

I joke with my partner all the time about indiciations of the Dark Future. Dark Future as proposed in those films, and also some heavyhanded sci-fi from the 70's like Soylent Green.

We're starting to see more Running Man stuff, as game shows like Solitary are becoming more popular. We've got the x-ray machines from Total Recall, but we don't have old lady robot heads with bombs in them yet.

And designer pets...Blade Runner!

448 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:26:47pm

re: #437 jamesfirecat

Has that happened in any other countries with government healthcare?

I don't know.

449 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:26:53pm

re: #442 MandyManners

In England, government nutritionists can gain admittance to your home and inspect what's in your fridge and cupboard.

Really? I lived in England for a year, and they never came by.

We had a lot of sugar-free snacks, because the landlady was diabetic.

450 Lidane  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:27:01pm

re: #436 SanFranciscoZionist

I work for a Catholic school. They won't cover my birth control. I don't think there's a reason for them not to pay for Viagra though, at least for married men.

(In general, I agree.)

I can understand the Church not covering birth control in their insurance policies, since they oppose birth control as it is. I could easily see them covering Viagra, though, since anything to aid in procreation would be seen as a positive thing.

I just don't care for that hypocrisy overall, though. Covering pills to help men get erections, but not covering medications that could help a woman avoid an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy makes no sense, at least to me.

451 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:27:18pm

re: #441 elBarto

What do you mean? Are you saying that people are no longer able to have self control? In that case we better ban all things that may be bad for you. If we hold kids to a higher standard they will live up to it. Kids live up to their expectations and if you set it low that is what they will live up to.

Unless you raise your kids completely isolated from the MFM and the entertainment media, and from those kids who are not so isolated, they are being raised in a vastly different era than one in which even I was raised.

Standards are necessary but, pernicious influences abound.

452 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:27:33pm

re: #442 MandyManners

In England, government nutritionists can gain admittance to your home and inspect what's in your fridge and cupboard.

Prove that.

453 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:28:04pm

re: #146 subsailor68

Afternoon all!

I don't think folks here are taking this tracking chip issue seriously enough. Sure, it's easy to make jokes about it, but I personally know someone who has been championing this technology, has lobbied tech companies and political groups, has donated money to further the research, development, testing, and deployment of these devices, right down to providing data on desired tracking ranges and methods to reduce interference. This person has also volunteered to act as test coordinator for the initial beta model, and has pledged to keep a complete, accurate, and detailed test journal on how well this device tracks the test subject throughout a normal day.

You want to know who this insidious person is?

My wife.

;-)

How 'bout having her come up with a tracking chip for my car keys?

454 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:28:07pm

re: #448 The Sanity Inspector

I don't know.

Well maybe you should check to see if in other countries

A really does lead to B

Before we start worrying that it might happen here....

455 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:28:21pm

re: #432 jamesfirecat

If you're a woman, and you don't want to allow a child growing in your uterus to make use of your organs to survive you don't have to anymore than you do a fully grown human being.

To turn the question around: if it was your fault the fully-grown human being was hooked to your kidney, why wouldn't you have to let them keep using it?

re: #438 SanFranciscoZionist

Would it matter from a legal perspective?

I don't know. Would it? It's a bizarre hypothetical.

456 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:28:37pm

re: #446 jamesfirecat

Can I have links?

I read quite a bit about it here, back in either 2007 or 2008. I have no way to do a search on the engine here.

457 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:28:46pm

re: #416 elBarto

maybe.
even if it is available, will it be used?
I think sex ed should include abstinence in addition to the rest of it. I mean the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is not having sex.

there's no education in abstinence sex ed beyond saying sex=pregnancy.

The education part is how to avoid pregnancy when and if you have sex.

458 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:29:00pm

re: #449 SanFranciscoZionist

Really? I lived in England for a year, and they never came by.

We had a lot of sugar-free snacks, because the landlady was diabetic.

See No. 456, please.

459 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:29:20pm

re: #452 Cato the Elder

Prove that.

No. 459.

460 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:29:44pm

re: #455 LotharBot

I don't know. Would it? It's a bizarre hypothetical.

A bit, but as has been pointed out, there are real limits on this kind of thing. Can you be made to donate bone marrow, say, to your children, against your will?

461 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:29:45pm

Lemme' see what I can find with Google.

462 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:30:05pm

re: #456 MandyManners

I read quite a bit about it here, back in either 2007 or 2008. I have no way to do a search on the engine here.

I never heard that, but DCF could do so here.

463 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:30:18pm

In general, there has been a trend, at least in the more therapeutic segments of the industrial west, to attempt to make the world into a more or less realized version of Michelis (The Ticket of Leave Apostle) vision of a universal hospital.

Hence, the ever-growing restrictions on the sale, use, possession, etc., of devices and substances that were an accepted fact of life for people two or three generations ago.

Case in point:

Up until about 1920 one could walk down to post office and pick up a fully automatic thompson sub-machine gun, ordered by mail. With this package tucked under your arm, you could toddle down to the pharmacy for a bottle of laudanum, swing by the hardware store for a couple sticks of dynamite, and then stroll back home, all without breaking any laws.

464 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:31:02pm

All right, lunchtime!

465 Vambo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:31:06pm

re: #311 Thanos

That was also Sam Brownback and his anti "mermaid" legislation, completely unaware that the "hybrid" research he's inveighing against might someday cure genetic defects through things like Hox factor manipulation etc. (the proteins that cause insects to make compound eyes cause human genes to express as human eyes, maybe someday we will cure blindness by harvesting some stuff from dark bellied dew lovers)

ah! it was Sam Brownback, not Jindal.

466 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:31:24pm

re: #456 MandyManners

I read quite a bit about it here, back in either 2007 or 2008. I have no way to do a search on the engine here.

That was around the time that most everyone here thought Obama was a seekrit Muslim and Sarah Palin had a brain.

The notion that British nutritionists are forcing their way into people's fridges is about as credible.

467 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:31:28pm

re: #443 Cato the Elder

I mean I might not be as smart as you but I remember high school biology.

Whats your problem? why all the personal attacks?

468 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:31:37pm

re: #361 elbarto

They are both laws about control. If you remove the emotion and look at the bare facts, both sides want some control over other people. It is control that the state should not have.

Banning abortion is an invasive, life-changing law. Food regulations are not. Food regulations are an aggregate of very small laws that affect your health. They're just not remotely the same thing.

469 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:31:55pm

re: #459 MandyManners

No. 459.

Not good enough.

470 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:32:13pm

re: #443 Cato the Elder

Said like a true man.

You probably don't even know how many women you may have knocked up in your life. I doubt any intelligent one would even tell you, no matter what she decided to do about it.

I'm sure that I know!

*badabing*

471 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:32:14pm

re: #455 LotharBot

I don't know. Would it? It's a bizarre hypothetical.

Because it's your body? What gives them the right to make use of your organs if you don't want them to?


We aren't even allowed to take the organs from people who aren't using them anyone more (once they're dead) unless we've got their permission.

Is it okay for A diabetic to follow heathly people around jabbing them with needles so that they can do dialysis for them?

472 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:32:24pm

re: #463 Guanxi88


Case in point:

Up until about 1920 one could walk down to post office and pick up a fully automatic thompson sub-machine gun, ordered by mail. With this package tucked under your arm, you could toddle down to the pharmacy for a bottle of laudanum, swing by the hardware store for a couple sticks of dynamite, and then stroll back home, all without breaking any laws.

Ahhh, paradise.
///

473 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:32:57pm

re: #463 Guanxi88

In general, there has been a trend, at least in the more therapeutic segments of the industrial west, to attempt to make the world into a more or less realized version of Michelis (The Ticket of Leave Apostle) vision of a universal hospital.

Hence, the ever-growing restrictions on the sale, use, possession, etc., of devices and substances that were an accepted fact of life for people two or three generations ago.

Case in point:

Up until about 1920 one could walk down to post office and pick up a fully automatic thompson sub-machine gun, ordered by mail. With this package tucked under your arm, you could toddle down to the pharmacy for a bottle of laudanum, swing by the hardware store for a couple sticks of dynamite, and then stroll back home, all without breaking any laws.

but you couldn't buy a bottle of gin.

474 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:33:09pm

re: #457 Naso Tang

That is why I said IN ADDITION to.

475 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:33:21pm

re: #463 Guanxi88

In general, there has been a trend, at least in the more therapeutic segments of the industrial west, to attempt to make the world into a more or less realized version of Michelis (The Ticket of Leave Apostle) vision of a universal hospital.

Hence, the ever-growing restrictions on the sale, use, possession, etc., of devices and substances that were an accepted fact of life for people two or three generations ago.

Case in point:

Up until about 1920 one could walk down to post office and pick up a fully automatic thompson sub-machine gun, ordered by mail. With this package tucked under your arm, you could toddle down to the pharmacy for a bottle of laudanum, swing by the hardware store for a couple sticks of dynamite, and then stroll back home, all without breaking any laws.

Hell, I used to be able to by dynamite at the hardware stores around here as recently as 30 years ago. And 15 to 20 years ago, any outdoor center would happily sell you 50 pound bags of ammonium nitrate for use as fertilizer.

You had to sign for the dynamite. But not the fertilizer.

476 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:33:46pm

I ain't finding zip. Back to hunting.

477 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:33:53pm

re: #442 MandyManners

In England, government nutritionists can gain admittance to your home and inspect what's in your fridge and cupboard.

if true (and I don't believe this is true) this would be both hilarious, terrifying, and very Monty Python.

I want a link to some evidence so I can fire it out to my email list.

478 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:06pm

re: #473 Naso Tang

but you couldn't buy a bottle of gin.

Well, I dunno about you, but if I got a tommy gun, a bottle of laudanum, and a couple sticks of dynamite, I daresay the gin problem could be addressed in short order.

479 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:13pm

re: #468 WindUpBird

Both are laws telling you what you can/cannot do with your body.

480 Vambo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:13pm

re: #311 Thanos

maybe someday we will cure blindness by harvesting some stuff from dark bellied dew lovers)

481 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:31pm

re: #467 elBarto

I mean I might not be as smart as you but I remember high school biology.

Whats your problem? why all the personal attacks?

First, I have a problem with missing apostrophes. Second, I have one with men who tell women "if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex" while fucking their way through all their sisters' friends and the cheerleading squad. I suspect you may be one of them.

Or do you only screw after you have a signed agreement about the potential outcomes?

482 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:40pm

re: #441 elBarto

What do you mean? Are you saying that people are no longer able to have self control? In that case we better ban all things that may be bad for you. If we hold kids to a higher standard they will live up to it. Kids live up to their expectations and if you set it low that is what they will live up to.

ahem.
Not always.

483 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:45pm

re: #440 SixDegrees

I've never seen that. Lard is pretty much as saturated as natural fat can be; I've never seen any with transfats added.

Here's the label from the standby Armor Lard. No transfats at all. The same would be true for lard from your butcher - if you can locate a butcher who still renders their own.

That says "Lard and hydrogenated lard." The trans fats are in the hydrogenated lard. Just because it says "0g trans fats per serving" doesn't mean there's no trans fats. Just means it's below half a gram (or whatever they use for the cutoff) per serving, which in this case is 13 grams. If I'm not mistaken, they don't have to put trans fats on the label at all if there are none, but they do if there's some, even if it's so little that it's less than a gram per serving.

484 syrius  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:34:50pm

“I just think you should have the right to control your own body,” Cole said.
Probably according to his beliefs- being the good Republican Christian- women and children are chattel. He wants to make sure men- those born here and have been proven to be qualified as true tax paying American Patriots of Caucasian European Decent- to be protected from the unwashed masses, their scary microchips and socialized wealth redistribution programs. Oh yeah, the re-education camps and the...Gosh I could just go on and on...

485 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:35:01pm

re: #452 Cato the Elder

Prove that.

I recall an article about that recently. I will search.

486 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:35:34pm

re: #463 Guanxi88

Case in point:

Up until about 1920 one could walk down to post office and pick up a fully automatic thompson sub-machine gun, ordered by mail. With this package tucked under your arm, you could toddle down to the pharmacy for a bottle of laudanum, swing by the hardware store for a couple sticks of dynamite, and then stroll back home, all without breaking any laws.

Opiates everywhere you looked!

Nobody would really go all small government about the sale of opiates over the counter. Or the fact that government regulations got rid of opiates and patent medicine (well, some of it) But that's how we used to do things.

487 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:35:43pm

re: #455 LotharBot

I don't know. Would it? It's a bizarre hypothetical.

By the way it works like this.

A: No one can use anyone else's organs without their permission.

B: Permission must be granted explicitly, consent to have sex does not equal consent to have someone use your organs against your will.

C: Even if we grant that a fetus has all the rights as a fully grown human being, a fully grown human being doesn't have the rights to sponge off someone else's organs without their permission.

Ergo

D: Women have a right to cut of an unborn child's connection to their (the mother's) organs even if this results in the fetus' death.

Argue with points A B C or D please....

488 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:36:17pm
489 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:36:20pm

re: #478 Guanxi88

Well, I dunno about you, but if I got a tommy gun, a bottle of laudanum, and a couple sticks of dynamite, I daresay the gin problem could be addressed in short order.

A guy could have a helluva weekend in Vegas with that stuff.

490 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:36:56pm

re: #426 Shiplord Kirel

And then...
"Food for five years, a thousand gallons of gas, air filtration, water filtration, Geiger counter. Bomb shelter! Underground... God damn monsters. "

491 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:37:15pm

re: #487 jamesfirecat

By the way it works like this.

A: No one can use anyone else's organs without their permission.

B: Permission must be granted explicitly, consent to have sex does not equal consent to have someone use your organs against your will.

C: Even if we grant that a fetus has all the rights as a fully grown human being, a fully grown human being doesn't have the rights to sponge off someone else's organs without their permission.

Ergo

D: Women have a right to cut of an unborn child's connection to their (the mother's) organs even if this results in the fetus' death.

Argue with points A B C or D please...

There was an episode of House MD about that topic.

492 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:37:16pm

re: #486 WindUpBird

Opiates everywhere you looked!

Nobody would really go all small government about the sale of opiates over the counter. Or the fact that government regulations got rid of opiates and patent medicine (well, some of it) But that's how we used to do things.

Hey, I'm just sayin' - our society's dealt with some pretty dangerous and deadly stuff in the hands of - or available to - the masses in the past.

I think the trend is to sort of set the bar at the lowest possible level. In the attempt to idiot-proof society, all we've done is improved the environment for idiots.

(And I was a paregoric baby, for the record!)

493 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:37:22pm

re: #472 Shiplord Kirel

Ahhh, paradise.
///

Truly our forefathers lived in a simpler, better time...

494 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:37:37pm

UNCLE! Maybe someone with better Google skills would have better results.

495 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:38:08pm

re: #490 oaktree

And then...
"Food for five years, a thousand gallons of gas, air filtration, water filtration, Geiger counter. Bomb shelter! Underground... God damn monsters. "

Thanks dad from Family Ties!

496 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:38:10pm

re: #494 MandyManners

UNCLE! Maybe someone with better Google skills would have better results.

I know! Let's just ask Jimmah.

497 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:38:25pm

re: #479 elBarto

Both are laws telling you what you can/cannot do with your body.

Sure. And the law governing how far away the firewall in my Volkswagen's engine compartment has to be from the engne block, and what angle the GPS unit has to be at from the factory, it's also like the law that says that I can't drive 130 up I-205 and do a TOTALLY GNARLY e-brake slide right before the 4th Plain Vancouver exit like I'm Ken Block.

I mean, really dude? really ????

498 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:38:40pm

re: #489 Cato the Elder

A guy could have a helluva weekend in Vegas with that stuff.

Or Dallas if something bad hadn't happened their recently....

499 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:38:43pm

re: #488 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Speaking of the good ole days:

8 Terrifying Instruments Old-Time Doctors Used on Your Junk

Hot.

500 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:39:03pm

re: #491 Alouette

There was an episode of House MD about that topic.

Their conclusion was?

501 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:39:06pm

re: #484 syrius

“I just think you should have the right to control your own body,” Cole said.
Probably according to his beliefs- being the good Republican Christian- women and children are chattel. He wants to make sure men- those born here and have been proven to be qualified as true tax paying American Patriots of Caucasian European Decent- to be protected from the unwashed masses, their scary microchips and socialized wealth redistribution programs. Oh yeah, the re-education camps and the...Gosh I could just go on and on...

Are you serious?

502 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:39:38pm

re: #481 Cato the Elder

It seems to me you may suffer from the inferiority complex of your name sake. Are you feeling like a novus homo? Is your defense mechanism to point out others spelling mistakes? You are an ass that knows nothing about me and has made assumptions based on a couple posts on a blog.

503 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:40:06pm

re: #466 Cato the Elder

That was around the time that most everyone here thought Obama was a seekrit Muslim and Sarah Palin had a brain.

The notion that British nutritionists are forcing their way into people's fridges is about as credible.

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

Don't throw away leftovers, warn 'food police'
Householders are to be visited by officials offering advice on cooking with leftovers, in a Government initiative to reduce the amount of food that gets thrown away.


[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]


When you are preparing a meal, the last thing you need is an unwanted caller at the door - especially one armed with advice about what to do with the leftovers.

But in a Government initiative to reduce the amount of food that is thrown away, officials are quizzing householders on their doorsteps about food consumption and how best to make use of their freezers.

The 'food champions' also offer home cooks advice on what portion sizes to prepare as well as recipe ideas to use up leftover scraps.
Food police

Officials plan to visit people at home at dinner time to 'advise' them on meal sizes, what to do with leftovers and how to minimise waste

But the officials, who will also explain the difference between 'best before', 'use by' and 'sell by' dates, have been dismissed as 'food police' by campaigners who said the scheme was the latest example of Government 'nannying'.

In a trial in six local authorities across Herefordshire and Worcestershire, the officials have been recruited on full-time contracts to visit an estimated 24,500 homes dispensing dietary advice and tips on how best to reduce the estimated one-third of all food bought which is thrown away.

They will call at homes throughout the day, including lunchtimes and in the early evening, when many people will be busy preparing dinner.

If successful, the eightweek trial could be rolled out to other authorities around the country.

I was thinking of something else, actually.

504 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:40:44pm

re: #482 reine.de.tout

OK so lets just give up and not have high standards.

505 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:40:48pm

re: #478 Guanxi88

Well, I dunno about you, but if I got a tommy gun, a bottle of laudanum, and a couple sticks of dynamite, I daresay the gin problem could be addressed in short order.

Actually, I am wrong. I should have googled first. Prohibition wasn't until 1920.

506 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:40:53pm

re: #502 elBarto

It seems to me you may suffer from the inferiority complex of your name sake. Are you feeling like a novus homo? Is your defense mechanism to point out others spelling mistakes? You are an ass that knows nothing about me and has made assumptions based on a couple posts on a blog.

Trying...not...to....make...novus...homo...joke...

507 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:40:59pm

re: #483 wrenchwench

That says "Lard and hydrogenated lard." The trans fats are in the hydrogenated lard. Just because it says "0g trans fats per serving" doesn't mean there's no trans fats. Just means it's below half a gram (or whatever they use for the cutoff) per serving, which in this case is 13 grams. If I'm not mistaken, they don't have to put trans fats on the label at all if there are none, but they do if there's some, even if it's so little that it's less than a gram per serving.

I wouldn't worry about it. As noted earlier, transfats are essentially hydrogenated unsaturated fats created from vegetable oils. Same as plain old saturated fats, and carrying the same risks as those do. I believe the degree of saturation can range around two to three times that found in natural products, but the totals in plain old lard don't even register. It's not like transfats are plutonium or something, where even the tiniest amount will cause harm.

I suspect hydrogenation is a natural result of the rendering process, which involved slowly simmering the fat with water until melted and then evaporating the water. If so, there's no such thing as lard without transfats, although I'm uncertain on this point.

508 Kragar  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:41:01pm

re: #499 WindUpBird

Hot.

A metal band lined with razor sharp plades to strap around my jolly goodfellow? Why yes, I'll take one, my good man, along with a bottle of that fine snake oil tonic.

509 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:41:17pm

going to play in the snow. later.

510 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:41:17pm

re: #495 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And he was prepared for being pestered by elephants as well! :)

511 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:41:24pm

re: #457 Naso Tang

there's no education in abstinence sex ed beyond saying sex=pregnancy.

The education part is how to avoid pregnancy when and if you have sex.

The education part should include both "how to avoid pregnancy if/when you have sex" and "you really can't 100% avoid it if/when you have sex".

In an ideal world, sex ed would also include elements of human psychology -- understanding what it means to different people, the sort of emotional traumas you might subject yourself to and how to avoid them, etc.

Kids shouldn't come out of sex ed thinking "as long as I use a condom I'm 100% safe". They should be given a reasonable understanding of the risks (pregnancy, disease, emotional distress, etc.) and ways to minimize those risks or mitigate their effects. Abstinence, of course, minimizes those risks quite nicely.

re: #460 SanFranciscoZionist

A bit, but as has been pointed out, there are real limits on this kind of thing. Can you be made to donate bone marrow, say, to your children, against your will?

I don't know.

I do know that if I quit taking care of the 7-week-old firmly attached to my lap, I can be charged with some pretty severe crimes. Even if I decided "caring for him" was against my will. (The big difference being, he could be firmly attached to someone else's lap without much difficulty.)

re: #471 jamesfirecat

What gives them the right to make use of your organs if you don't want them to?

What if you gave them permission to attach to your body in the first place, and only once they were dependent on you for life did you decide you wanted your kidney back? What if you performed the attachment yourself? Would it matter if you were drunk at the time and could claim you hadn't really consented?

There are no easy answers here. There is no "checkmate" solution that forces the other side to admit defeat. There's just a complicated and bizarre scenario that shares just enough attributes with abortion to be interesting without sharing enough attributes to be prescriptive.

512 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:41:24pm

Birth Control... yawn... The should add it to alcohol... But really...

Make the mother responsible for raising the child, and not the state... you may get people making more responsible decisions... Religion aside... I am against abortion for one reason only -- It does not provide equal protection under the law.

There should be a period where the man can essentially 'abort' his responsibility to the child, giving the woman a fair choice on what to do with the unborn child. As it is right now, the woman can abort her bad decision, but the man can not. No equal protection as far as im concerned.

Alright, im being a bit sarcastic, and Ill use the president's term: Im agnostic on abortion. But i think it is worth a little thought.

513 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:41:54pm

re: #503 Ben Hur

I was thinking of something else, actually.

While I'll agree that is a bit foolish/invasive, it also sounds like something that could be done in a much less "big brother is watching you" kind of way through a PSA, or a great big seminar at every government office.....

514 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:42:09pm

re: #491 Alouette

C: Even if we grant that a fetus has all the rights as a fully grown human being, a fully grown human being doesn't have the rights to sponge off someone else's organs without their permission.

In the scenario you presented someone is gonna have their rights violated. In your scenario the fetus has all the rights of a full grown baby, either the mother doesn't have the right to her own organs or the full grown human baby doesn't have the right to live.

515 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:42:12pm

re: #505 Naso Tang

Actually, I am wrong. I should have googled first. Prohibition wasn't until 1920.

You were thinkin' of Utah. Just say that, and it all works!

516 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:42:30pm

re: #454 jamesfirecat

Well maybe you should check to see if in other countries

A really does lead to B

Before we start worrying that it might happen here...

I should, probably. But it's really the job of the proponents of these schemes, to show that they won't lead to those kinds of abuses.

517 Vambo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:42:48pm

re: #479 elBarto

Both are laws telling you what you can/cannot do with your body.

it is not that cut and dry. re: #503 Ben Hur

I was thinking of something else, actually.

that sounds very silly. Wouldn't a series of PSA's work just as well? At least they're staying on the doorstep...

518 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:43:05pm

re: #504 elBarto

OK so lets just give up and not have high standards.

Oh, puh-leeze.

Please show me where I said anything like that.

519 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:43:12pm

re: #511 LotharBot

What if you gave them permission to attach to your body in the first place, and only once they were dependent on you for life did you decide you wanted your kidney back? What if you performed the attachment yourself? Would it matter if you were drunk at the time and could claim you hadn't really consented?

There are no easy answers here. There is no "checkmate" solution that forces the other side to admit defeat. There's just a complicated and bizarre scenario that shares just enough attributes with abortion to be interesting without sharing enough attributes to be prescriptive.

How does agreeing to have sex equal agreeing to carry a child?

520 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:43:34pm

re: #494 MandyManners

UNCLE! Maybe someone with better Google skills would have better results.

I didn't find anything in a google news archive search. It might have been something from the Too Good To Check file, back when.

521 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:44:13pm

re: #503 Ben Hur

This is a far cry from "They'll break in without a warrant and steal all the Marmite in my fridge, and then leap out through an open window into a waiting Ford Mondeo."

It's silly, and seems like a crazy waste of resources, but it doesn't really raise Big Brother alarms so much as it raises "this is stupid and will be made fun of by Jeremy Clarkson" alarms.

522 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:44:13pm

re: #497 WindUpBird

I am not saying we should live in anarchy. I am saying that not all laws are necessary. There are some that are more about controlling people and enforcing a sort of morality. That is how I see those types of laws.

In a perfect world we would not need laws to regulate safety in cars and such. We would do it solely because it is the right thing to do.

523 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:44:20pm

re: #504 elBarto

OK so lets just give up and not have high standards.

You can have the highest imaginable standards but, reality has a way of knocking them down. Parents are not perfect. When cannot control everything our kids hear and see.

524 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:44:43pm

re: #514 Mosh

In the scenario you presented someone is gonna have their rights violated. In your scenario the fetus has all the rights of a full grown baby, either the mother doesn't have the right to her own organs or the full grown human baby doesn't have the right to live.

The fully grown baby doesn't have the right to the mother's organs.

If this kills the child then that's a shame, but its not murder any more than you murder someone by refusing to give them one of your kidneys if both of yours are fine.

Does that make it clear enough?

525 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:44:50pm

re: #508 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A metal band lined with razor sharp plades to strap around my jolly goodfellow? Why yes, I'll take one, my good man, along with a bottle of that fine snake oil tonic.

I want Pinhead as my primary care physician! :D

WE HAVE SUCH SIGHTS TO SHOW YOUR CROTCH

526 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:44:54pm

re: #519 jamesfirecat

How does agreeing to have sex equal agreeing to carry a child?

Because the primary function of sex is to have children. Even if you use condoms and birth control there is a small .1% chance of pregnancy.

527 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:14pm

re: #502 elBarto

You are an ass that knows nothing about me and has made assumptions based on a couple posts on a blog.

Actually I deducted a single thing from numerous posts of yours here today.

Refute it.

528 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:17pm

re: #512 jeremy0114

Birth Control... yawn... The should add it to alcohol... But really...

Make the mother responsible for raising the child, and not the state... you may get people making more responsible decisions... Religion aside... I am against abortion for one reason only -- It does not provide equal protection under the law.

There should be a period where the man can essentially 'abort' his responsibility to the child, giving the woman a fair choice on what to do with the unborn child. As it is right now, the woman can abort her bad decision, but the man can not. No equal protection as far as im concerned.

Alright, im being a bit sarcastic, and Ill use the president's term: Im agnostic on abortion. But i think it is worth a little thought.

He gets his say when he inserts his un-clad penis.

529 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:21pm

re: #523 MandyManners

You can have the highest imaginable standards but, reality has a way of knocking them down. Parents are not perfect. When cannot control everything our kids hear and see.

Nor everything they do.
And teens are just plain emotionally (and hormonally) stupid.

530 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:29pm

re: #523 MandyManners

You are right but we should try.

531 palomino  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:36pm

Thanks, gop. For protecting us from the antichrist. And from the specter of Hitler.

532 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:47pm

re: #520 The Sanity Inspector

I didn't find anything in a google news archive search. It might have been something from the Too Good To Check file, back when.

I saw it here several times.

533 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:51pm

psssssssssssssssst!

new threadification

534 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:45:53pm

re: #526 Mosh

Because the primary function of sex is to have children. Even if you use condoms and birth control there is a small .1% chance of pregnancy.

So what?

Do you want to take us to a moral land where you can't have sex for fun?

535 wrenchwench  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:46:02pm

re: #512 jeremy0114

Birth Control... yawn... The should add it to alcohol... But really...

Make the mother responsible for raising the child, and not the state... you may get people making more responsible decisions... Religion aside... I am against abortion for one reason only -- It does not provide equal protection under the law.

There should be a period where the man can essentially 'abort' his responsibility to the child, giving the woman a fair choice on what to do with the unborn child. As it is right now, the woman can abort her bad decision, but the man can not. No equal protection as far as im concerned.

Alright, im being a bit sarcastic, and Ill use the president's term: Im agnostic on abortion. But i think it is worth a little thought.

It's not worth so little thought as you gave it.

536 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:46:08pm

re: #488 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Speaking of the good ole days:

8 Terrifying Instruments Old-Time Doctors Used on Your Junk

I always thought "Rusty Speculum" would be a great name for a punk rock musician.

537 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:46:16pm

re: #504 elBarto

OK so lets just give up and not have high standards.

Have any standards you like. Just don't ram them down my throat when it comes time for me to have may own.

538 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:46:43pm

re: #527 Cato the Elder

Well Sherlock Holmes, if you deduced I am a bad speller, then you are right. Thats about it though.

539 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:46:59pm

re: #529 reine.de.tout

Nor everything they do.
And teens are just plain emotionally (and hormonally) stupid.

At times I wanna' go find that cave and lock The Kid in it for the next nine years.

540 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:47:08pm

re: #524 jamesfirecat

The fully grown baby doesn't have the right to the mother's organs.

If this kills the child then that's a shame, but its not murder any more than you murder someone by refusing to give them one of your kidneys if both of yours are fine.

Does that make it clear enough?

So let me get this straight. The fetus has all the rights of a full grown baby but if the mother wills it, the fetus can be killed. I explained in my earlier post. In your scenario either the baby will lose its right to live or the mother will lose the right to her own organs. Someone is gonna have their rights violated.

541 Vambo  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:47:09pm

re: #531 palomino

Thanks, gop. For protecting us from the antichrist. And from the specter of Hitler.

crazy! here I thought the Nazis killed and tortured people, not cured them with stem cells.

542 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:47:09pm

re: #536 The Sanity Inspector

I always thought "Rusty Speculum" would be a great name for a punk rock musician.

Rusty Speculum and the Violet Rays!

Now playing at the Day's Inn Airport Lounge (parking lot)

543 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:47:22pm

re: #539 MandyManners

At times I wanna' go find that cave and lock The Kid in it for the next nine years.

heh.
I know exactly what you mean.
But you can't.

544 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:47:31pm

re: #530 elBarto

You are right but we should try.

Who says we don't try?!

545 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:47:57pm

re: #537 SixDegrees

I am not that is my whole argument. No one should be telling anyone what to do with their bodies.

546 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:00pm

re: #540 Mosh

So let me get this straight. The fetus has all the rights of a full grown baby but if the mother wills it, the fetus can be killed. I explained in my earlier post. In your scenario either the baby will lose its right to live or the mother will lose the right to her own organs. Someone is gonna have their rights violated.

Do any of us have the right to use another organs against their will?

547 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:03pm

Tea Parties decide to throw racist leader under the bus.....
Dale Robertson, No Friend of Ours

1. He is NOT a member of our Leadership team.

2. He owns a website with which we have never been affiliated.

3. He has never been a part of organizing any of the Tea Party rallies in the Houston area, or any other area that we can find.

I little late. What took so long? Brietbart, who's always demanding corrections from other people, is also repeating the lie that Robertson was never a leader of the Tea Parties despite the fact that he's pictured holding a raciost sign while standing in an area for coodinators only at a Tea Party

548 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:17pm

re: #528 MandyManners

I agree, but what if it breaks? the .01% or whatever it is?

oopsie!! just cost him 18 years of paying for something he didn't want to buy, unless the woman decides she doesn't want it either.

NOT EQUAL!!! MEN DEMAND EQUALITY!!!/////////x1000

549 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:27pm

re: #534 jamesfirecat

So what?

Do you want to take us to a moral land where you can't have sex for fun?

Strawman. I never advocated a puritanical land. The primary evolutionary purpose of sex is to bear a child. We enjoy it because natural selection determined that pleasurable sex is the best way to expand the human race.

550 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:32pm

re: #503 Ben Hur

I was thinking of something else, actually.

I'm thinking they may well have tried something like this, and I'm certain it got laughed out of court like any other involuntarily Monty-Pythonesque scheme.

Doesn't amount to people forcing their way into your home and denouncing you for the contents of your fridge, does it?

This is how urban legends get started. "In Britain they can tell you what to eat!" And hence, we must fear Obama.

551 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:45pm

re: #492 Guanxi88

Hey, I'm just sayin' - our society's dealt with some pretty dangerous and deadly stuff in the hands of - or available to - the masses in the past.

I think the trend is to sort of set the bar at the lowest possible level. In the attempt to idiot-proof society, all we've done is improved the environment for idiots.

(And I was a paregoric baby, for the record!)

Well, I think one of the missing ingredients about that is how much more populous the country is now, and how much faster information travels. I agree we can't idiot-proof society, but I also think it's a bad idea to pass laws at this point to be able to just send untracable machine guns and opium all over the country. ;-)

I'm no zealot, the nanny state pisses me off, too! It hits me right where I live: my car. I personally know people whose cars would be flat out illegal if they lived in California because of the mods they've done to them.

552 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:52pm

re: #545 elBarto

I am not that is my whole argument. No one should be telling anyone what to do with their bodies.

Then abortion needs to remain available. Which means it needs to remain legal. End of story.

553 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:49:19pm

re: #548 jeremy0114

I agree, but what if it breaks? the .01% or whatever it is?

oopsie!! just cost him 18 years of paying for something he didn't want to buy, unless the woman decides she doesn't want it either.

NOT EQUAL!!! MEN DEMAND EQUALITY!!!///x1000

Oh, horsefeathers. A woman pays to raise the child, too.

554 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:49:28pm

re: #546 jamesfirecat

Do any of us have the right to use another organs against their will?

They had sex. They knew that a pregnancy could be the consequence. The two tacitly agreed that a child may be conceived and thus have the ability to use the woman's organs.

555 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:49:31pm

re: #549 Mosh

Strawman. I never advocated a puritanical land. The primary evolutionary purpose of sex is to bear a child. We enjoy it because natural selection determined that pleasurable sex is the best way to expand the human race.

So should we just rely on nature as a guide?

Is there something wrong with saying "I want to have pleasurable sex for pleasure it brings me, I don't want a child to result from this, if one does, I have a right to deny it the right to my organs."?

556 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:49:46pm

re: #521 WindUpBird

I know, but I do recall some similar article.

I'm finding all kinds of good stuff though:


[Link: www.macclesfield-express.co.uk...]

557 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:49:49pm

re: #544 MandyManners

Not me. re: #552 SixDegrees

Then abortion needs to remain available. Which means it needs to remain legal. End of story.

I am not arguing that it should be illegal.

558 doubter4444  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:50:26pm

re: #55 ckb

Taking the religion completley out of it, are you for or against a bill that prohibits implantation of devices in your body without your knowledge? This could very well be a grey area in the law, like some of the early cases of stealth video surveilance where the perpetrators could not be prosecuted.

The technology absolutely exists and is in use for pets. VeriChip / Positivie ID has approval from the FDA to market their implant.

And also MOSH:

What ever happened to LESS laws and governmental regulation, not more, particularly legislation about things that haven't even happened, and whose likelihood of ever happening is remarkably slim?

WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS. Especially ones that are a joke.

559 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:50:28pm

re: #551 WindUpBird

Well, I think one of the missing ingredients about that is how much more populous the country is now, and how much faster information travels. I agree we can't idiot-proof society, but I also think it's a bad idea to pass laws at this point to be able to just send untracable machine guns and opium all over the country. ;-)

I'm no zealot, the nanny state pisses me off, too! It hits me right where I live: my car. I personally know people whose cars would be flat out illegal if they lived in California because of the mods they've done to them.

Well, while I'd never campaign on a machine-guns and opium platform, I'd certainly view the prospect with great amusement and even a certain amount of hope.

560 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:50:33pm

re: #529 reine.de.tout

Nor everything they do.
And teens are just plain emotionally (and hormonally) stupid.

I was by all appearances a tremendously well-behaved and boring teenager, with extremely attentive parents, who held me to a high standard.

I still did a lot of stupid shit. it just tended to be the sort of stupid shit that I did late at night. Like street racing. Not good for a high-school kid to have a Firebird. That was probably a misstep on their part.

561 palomino  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:02pm

re: #541 Vambo

crazy! here I thought the Nazis killed and tortured people, not cured them with stem cells.

And this guy isn't just running for some rickety state legislature. He's likely to be the next US Sen from Arkansas.

562 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:07pm

re: #504 elBarto

OK so lets just give up and not have high standards.

Keep your standards out of my face.

563 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:19pm

re: #476 MandyManners

try [Link: forums.randi.org...]

DO report your findings.

564 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:54pm

re: #556 Ben Hur

I know, but I do recall some similar article.

I'm finding all kinds of good stuff though:

[Link: www.macclesfield-express.co.uk...]

I do love reading about the British, and their fury at speed cameras and CCTV. Because I'd be furious too!

565 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:58pm

re: #555 jamesfirecat

So should we just rely on nature as a guide?

Is there something wrong with saying "I want to have pleasurable sex for pleasure it brings me, I don't want a child to result from this, if one does, I have a right to deny it the right to my organs."?

Go ahead, have sex for fun. I've done it, but in the back of my mind I knew that a pregnancy may be the result. I took precautions to try and stop the evolutionary purpose of sex, but that is it's function to produce a child, I knew it was a possibility. My girlfriend tacitly agreed that she would allow a fetus to use her organs.

566 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:52:13pm

Cato,
That is my point. I will set high standard for my family and you can do whatever you want for yours.

567 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:52:32pm

re: #530 elBarto

You are right but we should try.

Who is this "we" of which you speak?

568 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:52:35pm
569 elBarto  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:53:02pm

re: #567 Cato the Elder

the royal we

570 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:53:25pm

re: #549 Mosh

Strawman. I never advocated a puritanical land. The primary evolutionary purpose of sex is to bear a child. We enjoy it because natural selection determined that pleasurable sex is the best way to expand the human race.

Most humans would disagree.

So would all bonobos.

571 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:53:56pm

re: #553 MandyManners

I know, and I am being sarcastic.

It does remind me years ago in a sociology class in college, the prof was discussing equality of the sexes in the military. The policy at the time in the military must have been that women do not serve on the front line, as she was railing about how inequal that was, how women should get the option to serve on the front line.

Then it occurred me, men don't get a choice...

Same thing here...

572 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:53:59pm

re: #559 Guanxi88

Well, while I'd never campaign on a machine-guns and opium platform, I'd certainly view the prospect with great amusement and even a certain amount of hope.

It'd be like when Hunter Thompson ran for mayor of Aspen. I would never ever stop watching the news if that happened.

573 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:17pm

re: #554 Mosh

They had sex. They knew that a pregnancy could be the consequence. The two tacitly agreed that a child may be conceived and thus have the ability to use the woman's organs.


[Link: spot.colorado.edu...]


"If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army."

Point raised, point adressed

Consent to sex and consent to carry a child are two different things.

Can we not sue someone who runs us over if we step into the street knowing that in doing so there was a possibility we might be hit by a drunk driver?

574 palomino  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:18pm

re: #526 Mosh

Because the primary function of sex is to have children. Even if you use condoms and birth control there is a small .1% chance of pregnancy.

So says the Pope, who never has sex. The "primary function" of having sex is to have sex...you know, get laid, have orgasm and fun.

Having children is a by-product thereof, seldom the purpose; especially for the young, who have the most sex.

575 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:31pm

re: #563 negativ

try [Link:

576 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:32pm

re: #568 The Sanity Inspector

Slide it on before you slide it in.

And James considers me a puritan. ///

577 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:37pm

re: #487 jamesfirecat

B: Permission must be granted explicitly, consent to have sex does not equal consent to have someone use your organs against your will.

I would say that "permission" can be granted in a number of ways. Getting yourself pregnant should constitute permission for the unborn to attach to your insides. Take precautions if you don't want it to happen -- but if it still happens, you knew the risk going in.

So, let me ask you a question: my friend is 38 weeks pregnant. Her little boy could be born any day now, perfectly healthy. If she decided to revoke his permission to use her kidneys, could she have him killed for that? Or should he be allowed to use her kidneys for 2 more weeks, against her will?

re: #555 jamesfirecat

Is there something wrong with saying "I want to have pleasurable sex for pleasure it brings me, I don't want a child to result from this, if one does, I have a right to deny it the right to my organs."?

Just the bolded part.

Why do you have the right to take a risk, get burned, and then pass on the cost to someone else?

578 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:44pm

re: #559 Guanxi88

Well, while I'd never campaign on a machine-guns and opium platform, I'd certainly view the prospect with great amusement and even a certain amount of hope.

Actually, I retract that statement:

My platform:

1) Unregistered, untraceable automatic weapons;
2) OTC opiates;
3) Natural Selection

579 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:55:42pm

re: #566 elBarto

Cato,
That is my point. I will set high standard for my family and you can do whatever you want for yours.

Good luck telling your daughters (if you have any) what to do when they're of age.

580 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:55:51pm

re: #565 Mosh

Go ahead, have sex for fun. I've done it, but in the back of my mind I knew that a pregnancy may be the result. I took precautions to try and stop the evolutionary purpose of sex, but that is it's function to produce a child, I knew it was a possibility. My girlfriend tacitly agreed that she would allow a fetus to use her organs.

See 573 you have no right to say that someone "tacitly agrees" to have a child when they have sex then to say the "tacitly agree" to be mugged if they go for a walk on a cool night in New York City.

581 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:56:12pm

re: #573 jamesfirecat

Point raised, point adressed

inadequately.

582 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:56:23pm

re: #568 The Sanity Inspector

Slide it on before you slide it in.

Where will we go for misogynistic and hilarious 80's glam rock featuring sexy submariners now?

583 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:57:07pm

re: #503 Ben Hur

I was thinking of something else, actually.

That is kinda'/sorta' similiar to what I remember but, it was more along the lines of they'd be looking at your food and pointing out the bad stuff, such as fat.

584 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:57:07pm

re: #578 Guanxi88

I'd prefer to not be subject to the possibility of being collateral damage while some folk with those options go forth and nominate themselves for Darwin Awards.

585 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:57:23pm

re: #578 Guanxi88

Actually, I retract that statement:

My platform:

1) Unregistered, untraceable automatic weapons;
2) OTC opiates;
3) Natural Selection

And then you get that Let's Get Ready To Rumble guy to broadcast on every channel. :D

586 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:57:24pm

re: #554 Mosh

They had sex. They knew that a pregnancy could be the consequence. The two tacitly agreed that a child may be conceived and thus have the ability to use the woman's organs.

Legally, no.

587 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:11pm

re: #584 oaktree

I'd prefer to not be subject to the possibility of being collateral damage while some folk with those options go forth and nominate themselves for Darwin Awards.

That's why you'll need a tommy gun for yourself; two or three, preferably - one for the home, one for the car, and one for the office/shop.

588 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:21pm

re: #539 MandyManners

At times I wanna' go find that cave and lock The Kid in it for the next nine years.

POMPEY: Does your worship mean to geld and splay all the
youth of the city?

ESCALUS: No, Pompey.

POMPEY: Truly, sir, in my poor opinion, they will to't then.
-- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

589 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:49pm

re: #587 Guanxi88

This is beginning to sound like a Star Trek episode... ;)

590 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:49pm

Hey, Mandy - was this what you were remembering?

591 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:54pm

re: #571 jeremy0114

I know, and I am being sarcastic.

It does remind me years ago in a sociology class in college, the prof was discussing equality of the sexes in the military. The policy at the time in the military must have been that women do not serve on the front line, as she was railing about how inequal that was, how women should get the option to serve on the front line.

Then it occurred me, men don't get a choice...

Same thing here...

Men don't get a choice?

592 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:56pm

re: #565 Mosh

Go ahead, have sex for fun. I've done it, but in the back of my mind I knew that a pregnancy may be the result. I took precautions to try and stop the evolutionary purpose of sex, but that is it's function to produce a child, I knew it was a possibility. My girlfriend tacitly agreed that she would allow a fetus to use her organs.

Damn, dude. You're creepy!

593 Mosh  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:59:00pm

re: #580 jamesfirecat

See 573 you have no right to say that someone "tacitly agrees" to have a child when they have sex then to say the "tacitly agree" to be mugged if they go for a walk on a cool night in New York City.

Another strawman. You cannot stay on target can you?

Getting mugged is non-consensual. Having sex is.

BTW: I'm very pro-choice, but you're flawed logic and naiveness needs to be struck down.

594 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:59:12pm

re: #586 SanFranciscoZionist

Legally, no.

One of the questions at hand is "should it be legal"; "it is legal" amounts to circular reasoning.

595 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:59:18pm

re: #571 jeremy0114

I know, and I am being sarcastic.

It does remind me years ago in a sociology class in college, the prof was discussing equality of the sexes in the military. The policy at the time in the military must have been that women do not serve on the front line, as she was railing about how inequal that was, how women should get the option to serve on the front line.

Then it occurred me, men don't get a choice...

Same thing here...

I can see that but, the fact remains that a mother also pays to raise a child if the parents are not married. Now, seeing as how Dickhead now owes around $120,000.00 in child support, I'm a wee-bit biased.

596 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:59:26pm

re: #577 LotharBot

Just the bolded part.

Why do you have the right to take a risk, get burned, and then pass on the cost to someone else?

Lets have her deny the child her use to his organs, and then get him hooked up to an iron lung before we set him up for adoption.

Is that a reasonable compromise?

And by your logic, if someone goes for a walk at night in New York City should we blame them if they get mugged?

They only wanted to go for a walk and have a little fun (have a little sex have an orgasm), and they knew that the activity might lead to problems down the line (a child, getting mugged) so clearly its their own fault if it happens to them!

597 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:59:55pm

re: #581 LotharBot

inadequately.

What did you find inadequate about it?

598 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:00:11pm

re: #583 MandyManners

That is kinda'/sorta' similiar to what I remember but, it was more along the lines of they'd be looking at your food and pointing out the bad stuff, such as fat.

I doubt it.

Only Americans are fat.

599 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:00:11pm

re: #563 negativ

try [Link:

600 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:00:26pm

re: #587 Guanxi88

That's why you'll need a tommy gun for yourself; two or three, preferably - one for the home, one for the car, and one for the office/shop.

You'll need gunports for the car!

Me, I'll just be driving the last of the V8 Interceptors. :D

601 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:00:36pm

re: #583 MandyManners

That is kinda'/sorta' similiar to what I remember but, it was more along the lines of they'd be looking at your food and pointing out the bad stuff, such as fat.

The Englishman's home may not be quite the castle it once was, but I seriously doubt anyone is forced to open his or her door to some buffoon in a "food adviser" uniform.

Knock, knock.

"May we come in? We'd like to have a look in your ice-box."

"Shove off, you gits. There's an Ab-Flab rerun on the telly. And if you come back, I'll hit you with a frying pan full of hot lard."

602 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:01:06pm

re: #593 Mosh

Another strawman. You cannot stay on target can you?

Getting mugged is non-consensual. Having sex is.

BTW: I'm very pro-choice, but you're flawed logic and naiveness needs to be struck down.

Read 573.

You can get pregnant against your will even if you have consensual sex.

603 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:01:15pm

re: #601 Cato the Elder

The Englishman's home may not be quite the castle it once was, but I seriously doubt anyone is forced to open his or her door to some buffoon in a "food adviser" uniform.

Knock, knock.

"May we come in? We'd like to have a look in your ice-box."

"Shove off, you gits. There's an Ab-Flab rerun on the telly. And if you come back, I'll hit you with a frying pan full of hot lard."

LARD! ARREST HIM!!

604 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:01:41pm

re: #600 WindUpBird

You'll need gunports for the car!

Me, I'll just be driving the last of the V8 Interceptors. :D

What that? Hearing wonky. That sounds like an order.

Him sad - brain broken. Me explain: this MY vehicle. You- pedestrian.

605 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:01:50pm

re: #601 Cato the Elder

The Englishman's home may not be quite the castle it once was, but I seriously doubt anyone is forced to open his or her door to some buffoon in a "food adviser" uniform.

Knock, knock.

"May we come in? We'd like to have a look in your ice-box."

"Shove off, you gits. There's an Ab-Flab rerun on the telly. And if you come back, I'll hit you with a frying pan full of hot lard."

You met my London neighbors?

606 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:02:02pm

re: #573 jamesfirecat

Do you have a subscription to a metaphor service or something?

607 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:02:19pm

re: #590 SasyMomaCat

Hey, Mandy - was this what you were remembering?

No. My memory is that it was about food. But, that's chilling.

608 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:02:51pm

re: #580 jamesfirecat

I agree with you.

I tell people who want to argue the 'religious' or 'moral' implications of abortion to worry about their own salvation, not mine.

As long as the feds don't open abortion clinics and it is done with private money, I have no quarrel.

609 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:02:56pm

re: #603 Ben Hur

LARD! ARREST HIM!!

Oh, Lard, I'm in for it now.

610 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:03:06pm

re: #604 Guanxi88

What that? Hearing wonky. That sounds like an order.

Him sad - brain broken. Me explain: this MY vehicle. You- pedestrian.

I'm just saying, if you have the machine gun in the car, you don't want to have to roll down the windows and fire it without support 8-)

611 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:03:19pm

re: #607 MandyManners

No. My memory is that it was about food. But, that's chilling.

That's f*cked up.

612 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:03:24pm

re: #607 MandyManners

dang, this thread is moving SO fast . . . I'm not even sure it was you, but thought it might be. Still, food related would be almost as bad.

613 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:03:58pm

re: #606 The Sanity Inspector

Do you have a subscription to a metaphor service or something?

I didn't write the longest section of 573 someone else did.

That said, they send me a free simmaley (however you spell that) every year...

614 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:04:08pm

re: #612 SasyMomaCat

(or, at least, it seems fast as I try to catch up and have a pile of new posts each time I reach what I think is near the end)

615 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:04:08pm

re: #595 MandyManners

You have me on that one :-D

616 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:04:09pm

re: #590 SasyMomaCat

Hey, Mandy - was this what you were remembering?

Hold on. That's stirring a faint memory but, the timing doesn't fit. My memory is that it was back in 2007 or 2008.

617 Lateralis  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:04:11pm
Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

I don't think it is monumental hypocrisy. Some people do believe that a fetus is a human being and at that point you are not just talking about your own body.

618 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:04:53pm

re: #598 Ben Hur

I doubt it.

Only Americans are fat.

Speak for yourself!

619 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:03pm

re: #617 Lateralis

I don't think it is monumental hypocrisy. Some people do believe that a fetus is a human being and at that point you are not just talking about your own body.

Doesn't matter.

Do we let random fully grown people use our organs just because they would die without them?

620 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:03pm

re: #616 MandyManners

Hold on. That's stirring a faint memory but, the timing doesn't fit. My memory is that it was back in 2007 or 2008.

And so it began.

The madness and the pacing.....

621 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:22pm

re: #616 MandyManners

That would pretty much leave this one out, then, as it's much more recent.

622 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:29pm

re: #563 negativ

563 negativ
Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:19pm replyquote 0downupfavoritereport

re: #476 MandyManners

try [Link: forums.randi.org...]

DO report your findings.

*** *** ***

Is it in there?

623 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:45pm

re: #619 jamesfirecat

Doesn't matter.

Do we let random fully grown people use our organs just because they would die without them?

Image: _1949073_mouse_ear300.jpg

624 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:06:20pm

re: #611 Ben Hur

That's f*cked up.

I'd hope that we'd raise holy hell about it here.

625 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:06:40pm

re: #593 Mosh

You misread the analogy. The analogy is:

Pregnancy is SOMETIMES a result of SEX,

as

Robbery is SOMETIMES a result of LEAVING WINDOWS OPEN.

626 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:06:40pm

re: #612 SasyMomaCat

dang, this thread is moving SO fast . . . I'm not even sure it was you, but thought it might be. Still, food related would be almost as bad.

Yes, it was I.

627 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:02pm

re: #591 SanFranciscoZionist

Im sticking with Jamesfirecat's logic here... Consent to have sex is not consent to carry a child. I agree with that. The only time that would pose a problem is when you get a garnishment notice for a kid you never knew you had...

So, outside of a lot of coercion to the female carrying the unwanted unborn child to get an abortion, I would say once she is pregnant, men have no choice.

628 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:45pm

re: #615 jeremy0114

You have me on that one :-D

By any chance, are you one of those who believe that divorcing fathers should fight for 50 per cent physical custody in order to reduce paying child support?

629 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:53pm

re: #608 jeremy0114

I agree with you.

I tell people who want to argue the 'religious' or 'moral' implications of abortion to worry about their own salvation, not mine.

As long as the feds don't open abortion clinics and it is done with private money, I have no quarrel.

Federal funding for abortions for low-income women has been a sticking point in public policy for a while. Still is, as healthcare reform fights of this past autumn showed.

630 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:56pm

re: #625 Obdicut

You misread the analogy. The analogy is:

Pregnancy is SOMETIMES a result of SEX,

as

Robbery is SOMETIMES a result of LEAVING WINDOWS OPEN.


Rape is SOMETHIMES a result of UNCOVERED MEAT?

631 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:59pm

re: #627 jeremy0114

Im sticking with Jamesfirecat's logic here... Consent to have sex is not consent to carry a child. I agree with that. The only time that would pose a problem is when you get a garnishment notice for a kid you never knew you had...

So, outside of a lot of coercion to the female carrying the unwanted unborn child to get an abortion, I would say once she is pregnant, men have no choice.

I meant in regards to military service.

632 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:08:22pm

re: #619 jamesfirecat

Doesn't matter.

Do we let random fully grown people use our organs just because they would die without them?

Now THAT should be made into a movie. Probably a low-budget one, like Freejack.

633 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:08:34pm

re: #620 Ben Hur

And so it began.

The madness and the pacing...

Yes, I'm gonna' hafta' give it up. I'm a terrier when it comes to certain things and it can drive me ape-shit crazy.

634 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:08:35pm

re: #630 Ben Hur

Rape is SOMETHIMES a result of UNCOVERED MEAT?

When did that idea get brought up?

635 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:09:03pm

re: #630 Ben Hur

Rape is SOMETHIMES a result of UNCOVERED MEAT?

You left the vagina window open again!

636 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:09:06pm

re: #634 jamesfirecat

When did that idea get brought up?

In Australia.

Irrelevant. Carry on.

637 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:09:30pm

re: #621 SasyMomaCat

That would pretty much leave this one out, then, as it's much more recent.

I might be able to find something through the Telegraph.

638 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:10:23pm

re: #635 WindUpBird

again! again! again! again!

(shout out to Predator)

639 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:10:28pm

re: #625 Obdicut

You misread the analogy. The analogy is:

Pregnancy is SOMETIMES a result of SEX,

as

Robbery is SOMETIMES a result of LEAVING WINDOWS OPEN.

The analogy doesn't hold unless you equate a penis with a burglar.

640 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:10:54pm

And, with that, I'm outta' here.

641 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:11:10pm

re: #627 jeremy0114

Im sticking with Jamesfirecat's logic here... Consent to have sex is not consent to carry a child. I agree with that. The only time that would pose a problem is when you get a garnishment notice for a kid you never knew you had...

So, outside of a lot of coercion to the female carrying the unwanted unborn child to get an abortion, I would say once she is pregnant, men have no choice.

Yeah, that notion gets into the creepy hyper-social-conservative YOU DESERVE IT FOR BEING PROMISCUOUS line of reasoning.


(yes, I did spell PROMISCUOUS without spell check)

642 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:11:46pm

re: #628 MandyManners

Well Mandy, you may have found my soft spot.

My wife of 10 years left last year, because she was bored with me... offered no other explanation, outside of the guy she moved in right after I left...

I spent the next 8 months in court FIGHTING for 50% custody... Because with her new party lifestyle, I have them 4 night a week minimum.

Well congratulations to me, I get 50% custody.. and guess how I did it? I pay her child support as if I only had them every other weekend and 4 hours on Wednesday.

There a lot of shitballs out there who will fuck the women they have kids with and never see thise kids. I am not one of those people...

Okay.. happy place... happy place...

643 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:12:08pm

re: #628 MandyManners

My back brain screamed "Land Mine!" the minute I saw that comment.

Obviously a sensitive topic for you. And I concur that men should take full responsibility for the welfare of their children, especially in terms of child support since single parent raising is a difficult chore as it is.

644 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:12:42pm

re: #639 MandyManners

Sure it does. You're not leaving the window open in order to let a burglar in, and you're not having sex in order to get pregnant. In both cases, the people know it's a possible consequence.

The bars on the window makes it an even better analogy-- that'd be using a condom. You're really showing that the pregnancy is not the 'primary function' of having sex. You're trying to prevent that occurrence.

645 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:13:19pm

re: #639 MandyManners

The analogy doesn't hold unless you equate a penis with a burglar.

Or a White Supremacist.

Actually, that still doesn't work.

646 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:13:37pm

re: #636 Ben Hur

In Australia.

Irrelevant. Carry on.

I remember that. How could those shameless Aussies expect to go parading around in their customary clothes, and not get raped by immigrant youths of The One True Faith? /

647 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:14:19pm

re: #639 MandyManners

The analogy doesn't hold unless you equate a penis with a burglar.

No we equate a child with a burglar.


Just as leaving your windows open to let in a nice breeze can leave you open to unwanted theft, so can letting sperm into your body as part of a nice orgasm lead to unwanted pregnancy.


Then we go onto prove that the analogy still holds even when we remove the particular intentions of the "burglar" as seen in my 573

648 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:16:19pm

re: #642 jeremy0114

{{jeremy0114}}

649 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:17:05pm

re: #631 SanFranciscoZionist

ohhh my bad... Wrong topic :D

I guess they all get a choice when they enlist... I never researched it past that... The assumption was that men had to serve those duties and women were not allowed to, therefore women should be given the choice to. Maybe someone in the military can enlighten me on what really happens, as I do not know...

To be fair the prof of that class would find inequality in EVERYTHING, which became boorish and you just stopped listening... at least it is easy to pass classes like that in college, just tell'em what they want to hear... The military was not her only bone to pick...

650 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:17:54pm

re: #596 jamesfirecat

Lets have her deny the child her use to his organs, and then get him hooked up to an iron lung before we set him up for adoption.

So it's not OK to kill him? It's preferable to delay (keeping him hooked to her organs) during the period of time it might take you to deliver the child and hook up an iron lung or whatever else? (In the scenario posed the kid would need no special care after delivery; 38 weeks is essentially full term.)

Now that you've explicitly agreed that it's OK to allow for some delay... care to explain why it's OK to delay for a few hours but not for, say, 39 weeks? If we can "compromise" the use of her organs for a few hours, what principled reason to you have not to compromise for days or weeks?

if someone goes for a walk at night in New York City should we blame them if they get mugged?

If you get mugged, the person who mugged you is a criminal. You want to get your wallet back and put the criminal behind bars, but you don't have the right to kill the guy after the fact. It doesn't matter whether or not you were "responsible" or what precautions you took.

If you get pregnant, the person inside you is not a criminal. You'd like to get full use of your organs back, and you will 40 weeks later. Why should you have the right to kill to get full use of your organs back sooner? I don't dispute that the consequence was "unwanted", same as a mugging -- what I dispute is that "therefore, you should be able to kill them" is an appropriate response.

You're perfectly willing to force my friend to keep a baby mooching off of her organs for a few hours while you deliver him. At what point does it become OK to kill instead?

(One can fairly argue that "it's not human until such-and-such development stage", but at that point the argument isn't about a human using your organs anymore.)

re: #619 jamesfirecat

Do we let random fully grown people use our organs just because they would die without them?

"Random"? That makes the analogy not work very well. In what sense is your own offspring implanting in the uterus "random"?

651 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:18:57pm

We read here the arguments of modernity. Once the natural world and its phenomena lose their prescriptive value, and come to be viewed as irrational and defective matter, to be organized and manipulated to meet the needs of a humanity poorly and defectively provided for by the natural order, then notions of teleology lose their grip. Hence, modern arguments about sexual intercourse regard procreation - understood, from the teleological perspective, as one of the ends of the act - as a purely voluntary consequence of coition, and, indeed, one to be guarded against as assiduously as one guards against burglars and/or vampiric parasites.

652 jeremy0114  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:21:01pm

re: #641 WindUpBird

Is that? I would have no idea...

653 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:23:39pm

re: #651 Guanxi88

And a lot of the initial biological reactions to pregnancy in the woman's body are much the same as being infected with a vampiric parasite. Sexual reproduction in mammals is a complex work, and a lot of the chemical, hormonal, and functional steps appear to be getting the offspring past the body's wired defenses and afterwards protecting said offspring using those systems while limiting exposure to them.

654 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:24:03pm

re: #650 LotharBot

"Random"? That makes the analogy not work very well. In what sense is your own offspring implanting in the uterus "random"?

As for your top most point about compramise, you know what, I'm gonna take it back. I was trying to offer you a olive branch, but now I'm gonna be a jackass.

The mother has the right to have the kid removed from her whenever she wants and put him up for adoption. If the kid dies before he can be adopted, because his own organs aren't well enough developed for the government to help keep him alive, that's not the mother's fault. No compromise the procedure can happen as soon as she wants it to happen and the kid can fend for himself.


As for you middle point, you continue to refuse to read 573, it clearly points out how that even when you take away the evil intent, you still have a right to deny that person what they want/need.

"Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army."

You don't "Know" your own offspring before they're born. They're not your college buddy who you've been drinking with several nights and no needs a new kidney while yours are working fine. You haven't met them before, I'm not saying that they isn't/can't be a connection, but they are to start with just a random collection of cells who have done nothing to help you.

655 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:25:34pm

A slightly interesting thing regarding the whole abortion debate:

Biblically speaking (Leviticus 17:1-14), life is in the blood. A developing human does not begin producing blood until around the 21st to 23rd week of pregnancy.

The medical definition of death is The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead.

If life is the opposite of death, then one could be said to be a living being with the presence of brain stem activity. Brain waves have been detected as early as eight weeks.

The irony here, to me, is that the biblical reference would put life at around the end of the second trimester while the scientific reference would put life beginning in the first.

656 acacia  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:26:06pm

re: #202 marjoriemoon

I didn't want to get into an abortion debate but .... I was using the extreme examples (appendix v. human being) merely to illustrate a point. You actually made the point by noting that you believe that the fetus is more than an appendix but less than someone deserving protection. Fine, a perfectly defensible position but it of course rests on your determination of just exactly what it is that is being aborted. Likewise, a person who believes abortion wrong also has a perfectly defensible position but it too rests on that person's determination of what it is that is being aborted. In other words, arguing about control of one's body simply begs the question and therefore it is disingenuous to label someone hypocritical by comparing the position on abortion with the position on the right to control one's body. Every issue that raises the (fill in the blank) versus the right to control one's body always must turn on the (fill in the blank) part because control of one's body is a given and thus if you are going to infringe on it, there necessarily must be a determination of the value of the (fill in the blank).

657 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:30:48pm

*sigh* - I did it again. Took so long in constructing my response that the thread had died and interested parties moved upstairs.

658 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:31:16pm

re: #657 SasyMomaCat

*sigh* - I did it again. Took so long in constructing my response that the thread had died and interested parties moved upstairs.

Well me and Lothar Bat are still here...

659 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:31:43pm

re: #511 LotharBot

Back again. It's coming down hard now.

As to abstinence as education; it doesn't work and in fact it is damaging because those who think it is their goal still have sex and are even less likely to take precautions than those who haven't taken that as literally.

Abstinence is fine as advice, but I have trouble calling it "education".

660 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:32:55pm

re: #658 jamesfirecat

Oh, good - I thought I'd messed up again :) I did that the other day when Dr. Cordell was going on and on about messianic leaders. Would hate to make it a habit.

661 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:33:44pm

re: #659 Naso Tang

Back again. It's coming down hard now.

As to abstinence as education; it doesn't work and in fact it is damaging because those who think it is their goal still have sex and are even less likely to take precautions than those who haven't taken that as literally.

Abstinence is fine as advice, but I have trouble calling it "education".

That and how much is there to really teach?

It's 1% don't do this and 99% here are all the horrible things that will happen if you do....

662 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:36:08pm

re: #659 Naso Tang

I think it depends. What is the approach of the program? Is the program providing information and equipping teens to make responsible choices based on their own well-being or being told don't do this because its eeeeevil?

A recent study had some surprising results.

For the record, I don't oppose sex ed.

663 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:42:35pm

re: #655 SasyMomaCat

I've been told by a Rabbi that Jews consider a fetus "alive" after 40 days.

664 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:44:20pm

re: #663 Ben Hur

That's interesting. I wonder on what premise they base that time frame?

665 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:46:10pm

re: #661 jamesfirecat

That and how much is there to really teach?

It's 1% don't do this and 99% here are all the horrible things that will happen if you do...

Well, one can start by saying intercourse while standing up will not prevent pregnancy, and go on from there.

Truth is, sex behavior starts at home, not school. School will never overcome the social norms that be, it can only help provide facts that may not be available elsewhere.

666 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:46:27pm

re: #664 SasyMomaCat

That's interesting. I wonder on what premise they base that time frame?

Tradition! Most likely, they heard it from a range of other teachers.

Exodus, as i recall, has a bit in it about if two men are fighting and should accidentally strike a woman who is with child and cause her to miscarry, the offending party pays a fine. This would suggest that Torah did not regard the loss of the fetus in this case as a murder or accidental homicide.

667 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:46:44pm

re: #654 jamesfirecat

the procedure can happen as soon as she wants it to happen

What if it takes longer to get the kid out of her live than dead? Is it OK to kill my friend's 38-week son simply so she isn't forced to let him keep using her kidneys through the process of labor?

I'm not trying to be a jackass here (and you should be ashamed that you are. Seriously... "Lothar Bat"? Downding for namecalling.) I'm just trying to identify what I see as a weakness in your argument.

You've argued that her organs CANNOT be used against her will. But you offered a compromise in which they would be for a short period of time, which you retracted when you were unable to offer a principled reason not to extend the compromise further. I'm trying to probe that. Why would it be OK to compromise through labor, but not longer?

If people were formed plant-style as in 573 (which I read but found unconvincing), what would you think of a person returning from vacation and finding a nearly-developed plant-person, hours from being able to leave, and killing them? Would that be a reasonable response? Or would it be more reasonable to say that once it's grown that far, it should have the right to finish the process?

You could argue, as others have, that in the early implantation stages a human embryo and/or plant person is not worthy of protection. You could argue that until it reaches some particular level of development, it is not deserving of any protection.

But the particular argument that "it has no right to use your stuff so you can kill it" is weaksauce. If someone uses my bike without permission (ie, steals it) I don't have the right to kill him. If someone is in my house without permission, I might have the right to kill him IF I have reason to believe he constitutes a threat. If someone is using my organs without my permission... it's not self-evident (as you seem to believe) that I should have the right to kill him in order to get them back. If a parasite is using my organs, sure, but if it's a human being, the question isn't so easy to answer.

668 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:48:44pm

re: #666 Guanxi88

Yes, in trying to determine my own position, I did see that Levitical law had a more "liberal" stance than most of the people within my circle of influence would have been comfortable with.

669 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:49:21pm

re: #664 SasyMomaCat

That's interesting. I wonder on what premise they base that time frame?

There can be no absolute premise, except the realization that it will always be a difficult issue. What is however not a difficult issue is the realization that the mother is alive.

670 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:49:23pm

re: #666 Guanxi88

Tradition! Most likely, they heard it from a range of other teachers.

Exodus, as i recall, has a bit in it about if two men are fighting and should accidentally strike a woman who is with child and cause her to miscarry, the offending party pays a fine. This would suggest that Torah did not regard the loss of the fetus in this case as a murder or accidental homicide.

Exodus 21:22

671 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:49:58pm

re: #666 Guanxi88

Exodus, as i recall, has a bit in it about if two men are fighting and should accidentally strike a woman who is with child and cause her to miscarry, the offending party pays a fine. This would suggest that Torah did not regard the loss of the fetus in this case as a murder or accidental homicide.

From Exodus 21 (NET Bible):

“If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The fine is for minor injury; serious injury is treated just like injury to adults, up to murder/manslaughter.

672 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:50:03pm

re: #667 LotharBot

What if it takes longer to get the kid out of her live than dead? Is it OK to kill my friend's 38-week son simply so she isn't forced to let him keep using her kidneys through the process of labor?

I'm not trying to be a jackass here (and you should be ashamed that you are. Seriously... "Lothar Bat"? Downding for namecalling.) I'm just trying to identify what I see as a weakness in your argument.

You've argued that her organs CANNOT be used against her will. But you offered a compromise in which they would be for a short period of time, which you retracted when you were unable to offer a principled reason not to extend the compromise further. I'm trying to probe that. Why would it be OK to compromise through labor, but not longer?

If people were formed plant-style as in 573 (which I read but found unconvincing), what would you think of a person returning from vacation and finding a nearly-developed plant-person, hours from being able to leave, and killing them? Would that be a reasonable response? Or would it be more reasonable to say that once it's grown that far, it should have the right to finish the process?

You could argue, as others have, that in the early implantation stages a human embryo and/or plant person is not worthy of protection. You could argue that until it reaches some particular level of development, it is not deserving of any protection.

But the particular argument that "it has no right to use your stuff so you can kill it" is weaksauce. If someone uses my bike without permission (ie, steals it) I don't have the right to kill him. If someone is in my house without permission, I might have the right to kill him IF I have reason to believe he constitutes a threat. If someone is using my organs without my permission... it's not self-evident (as you seem to believe) that I should have the right to kill him in order to get them back. If a parasite is using my organs, sure, but if it's a human being, the question isn't so easy to answer.

So you're okay with other people laying claim to your organs against your will?

673 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:50:18pm

re: #669 Naso Tang

I think you misunderstand me - I'm wondering if there is a text upon which they base the 40 day period.

674 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:53:03pm

re: #671 LotharBot

The fine is for minor injury; serious injury is treated just like injury to adults, up to murder/manslaughter.

Serious injury to the woman, true enough, but not to the fetus.

675 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:53:50pm

re: #672 jamesfirecat

So you're okay with other people laying claim to your organs against your will?

Do you have any plans to try to address the rest of what I said? I know you said a few posts ago that you were going to be a jackass, but I was hoping you'd have gotten over it by now.

I am not generally a fan of people laying claims to others' organs, including my own. I'm not OK with them laying claim to my organs, and I will generally conduct myself in a way to avoid such happenings. But in the circumstance that someone actually ends up dependent upon my organs (in a way which is not life-threatening to me), I don't see any particular reason why I should be allowed to kill them in response.

676 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:54:50pm

re: #672 jamesfirecat

So you're okay with other people laying claim to your organs against your will?

Because that's what it comes down to LotharBot (the "bat" comment was not intentional")

Either you can give up allow someone who will die without your organs to use them without having your permission to start with, or you can deny them the right and thus they will end up dieing without them.

If there is a third choice, please enlighten it to me...

677 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:55:20pm

re: #674 Guanxi88

Serious injury to the woman, true enough, but not to the fetus.

"Serious injury to the woman" would fall under the general law. This passage is quite clearly about injury to the fetus.

678 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:55:51pm

re: #671 LotharBot

Of course, the question becomes is this referring to injury to the mother or the child? Some interpretations show this as causing her to have a miscarriage, not premature birth.

679 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:56:18pm

re: #674 Guanxi88

yeah - what you said.

680 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:56:59pm

re: #675 LotharBot

Do you have any plans to try to address the rest of what I said? I know you said a few posts ago that you were going to be a jackass, but I was hoping you'd have gotten over it by now.

I am not generally a fan of people laying claims to others' organs, including my own. I'm not OK with them laying claim to my organs, and I will generally conduct myself in a way to avoid such happenings. But in the circumstance that someone actually ends up dependent upon my organs (in a way which is not life-threatening to me), I don't see any particular reason why I should be allowed to kill them in response.

So if

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."

You would allow him to stay plugged into you?

681 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:57:23pm

re: #675 LotharBot

But in the circumstance that someone actually ends up dependent upon my organs (in a way which is not life-threatening to me), I don't see any particular reason why I should be allowed to kill them in response

Why are you equating "taking away life support" with "killing"?

Also: I assume you have two kidneys. And a liver. There are lots and lots and lots of people out there who will literally die if they don't get a kidney, or a liver. I understand you not wanting to donate your kidney, since you only have two, but your liver regenerates. Like pregnancy, there is a chance of death or other harm during the procedure, but if you refuse to give up your portion of your kidney, someone will definitely die.

Are you ethically okay with that?

682 SasyMomaCat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:58:46pm

goodnight, all - have a fabulous weekend!

683 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:00:41pm

re: #666 Guanxi88

Tradition! Most likely, they heard it from a range of other teachers.

Exodus, as i recall, has a bit in it about if two men are fighting and should accidentally strike a woman who is with child and cause her to miscarry, the offending party pays a fine. This would suggest that Torah did not regard the loss of the fetus in this case as a murder or accidental homicide.

I think that in those days infant mortality was so common that there was no choice but to consider it relatively lightly, compared to the option available today.

684 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:01:17pm

re: #677 LotharBot

"Serious injury to the woman" would fall under the general law. This passage is quite clearly about injury to the fetus.

Unintentional homicide would not be expiated by payment of a fine.

There would be no reason for the Law to make a special case for the accidental striking of a woman with child, unless the intent was to address that which distinguished her from other women - her pregnancy.

As the terms for miscarriage, premature birth, and/or fetus do not appear in the text, the injured party must be presumed to be the woman.

685 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:04:39pm

re: #673 SasyMomaCat

I think you misunderstand me - I'm wondering if there is a text upon which they base the 40 day period.

I don't know, but if one has to pick a time anywhere over the point where god spontaneously aborts up to 50% of pregnancies, then 40 days is more conservative than, say, 90.

686 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:05:08pm

re: #680 jamesfirecat

Look, the people-seeds argument is every bit as weak as the kidnapped and grafted to a famous musician argument.

Both assume a set of facts - in one case, spontaneous, non-volitional reproduction of human beings as a matter of the natural order, in the other, a person drugged or otherwise incapacitated and compelled to serve as a meat-based life-support for some other person - that don't fit in with the main argument, do nothing to strengthen the case, and, in general, avoid having to draw your opponent to meet you in the arena of ideas. You can present a very strong case for your position without resort to weak arguments such as these.

687 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:06:05pm

re: #681 Obdicut

Why are you equating "taking away life support" with "killing"?

Same reason one equates "taking away air" with "suffocating"?

(I'm kidding)

688 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:06:25pm

re: #686 Guanxi88

Look, the people-seeds argument is every bit as weak as the kidnapped and grafted to a famous musician argument.

Both assume a set of facts - in one case, spontaneous, non-volitional reproduction of human beings as a matter of the natural order, in the other, a person drugged or otherwise incapacitated and compelled to serve as a meat-based life-support for some other person - that don't fit in with the main argument, do nothing to strengthen the case, and, in general, avoid having to draw your opponent to meet you in the arena of ideas. You can present a very strong case for your position without resort to weak arguments such as these.

The two argument work fine.

Do you deny that their is a difference between consent to sex and consent to have a child?

689 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:07:19pm

james,

do you have any interest in addressing what I said above? Or are you just going to keep wasting my time with more absurd scenarios, trying to catch me in some "OK, now it's absurd enough that you'd allow him to die and therefore you're a hypocrite" checkmate?

I have a baby to feed. Typing one-handed is a pain in the ass. I'll do it if I think you're honestly interested, but if you're just "being a jackass" it's not worth the effort. (See also #686 Guanxi88)

re: #681 Obdicut

Why are you equating "taking away life support" with "killing"?

Generally speaking, in the case of abortion, the act of killing is the means to detachment.

re: #684 Guanxi88

Unintentional homicide would not be expiated by payment of a fine.

The passage says that if the child is "made to come out", there is a fine but no other payment. I interpret that to mean a premature birth. The rest of the injuries listed I interpret to mean injuries to the child. But you're right that there's room to interpret it differently.

690 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:08:00pm

re: #688 jamesfirecat

The two argument work fine.

Do you deny that their is a difference between consent to sex and consent to have a child?

No, I don't. And the arguments work fine if:

1) You're talking about a world where people seeds drift on the wind and implant themselves in houses;
2) You're talking about a case of a forced meat-based life-support system.

691 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:09:33pm

re: #689 LotharBot

Generally speaking, in the case of abortion, the act of killing is the means to detachment.

You really are comfortable calling abortion a 'killing'? So doctors who perform abortions are 'killers'?

692 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:12:18pm

re: #691 Obdicut

You really are comfortable calling abortion a 'killing'? So doctors who perform abortions are 'killers'?

The Rabbis of the Conservative tradition, along with the Orthodox rabbinate, consider abortion a form of life-taking. Are you accusing them of calling doctors who perform the procedures "killers?"

One can say that an abortion takes a potential life without saying that the one who performs the act is a killer.

693 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:13:28pm

re: #691 Obdicut

You really are comfortable calling abortion a 'killing'? So doctors who perform abortions are 'killers'?

it's the ending of a life, which is what james' analogies are about. do you have a better, clearer term or are you just trying to score cheap irrelevant points on semantic grounds?

694 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:14:11pm

re: #692 Guanxi88

And taking a potential life is not a killing.

If abortion is performed through the act of killing, the one who performs that act of killing is a killer. I don't know any other way the semantics of that can dance.

695 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:15:02pm

re: #693 LotharBot

It's really not a cheap semantic point in a nation where abortion doctors are being killed by people calling them killers.

696 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:16:48pm

I'll address your points by building up to them one at a time and building my argument from the ground up since clearly you don't believe in any of it at the moment.

Its useless for me to spend time talking about the points you've raised until we've covered the bigger picture.

But fine you want it you get it.

"What if it takes longer to get the kid out of her live than dead? Is it OK to kill my friend's 38-week son simply so she isn't forced to let him keep using her kidneys through the process of labor?"

The child should be removed in such a way that the process of removal does no harm to the child in and of itself.

Your friend with the 38 week old son can if she desires insist that said "son" (who she would obviously not view as a son if she was asking for such a thing in the first place) be removed from her body and forced to fend for himself in the most humane manner, no one else can force her to do anything or harm the son inside her against her wishes.

"You've argued that her organs CANNOT be used against her will. But you offered a compromise in which they would be for a short period of time, which you retracted when you were unable to offer a principled reason not to extend the compromise further. I'm trying to probe that. Why would it be OK to compromise through labor, but not longer?"

I was offering you an emotional compromise that I couldn't defend from a logical point of view. If you want to try and use that compromise to take an inch and get a mile, I withdraw it. The compromise is now off the table, and its all or nothing.

"If people were formed plant-style as in 573 (which I read but found unconvincing), what would you think of a person returning from vacation and finding a nearly-developed plant-person, hours from being able to leave, and killing them? Would that be a reasonable response? Or would it be more reasonable to say that once it's grown that far, it should have the right to finish the process?"

I think that you would have the right to expel it from your house when you wish. However human emotion would also suggest that while this would be viable legal option, few people would embark upon it, the same way that people who find out they're pregnant typically try to get an abortion as soon as possible.


"But the particular argument that "it has no right to use your stuff so you can kill it" is weaksauce. If someone uses my bike without permission (ie, steals it) I don't have the right to kill him. If someone is in my house without permission, I might have the right to kill him IF I have reason to believe he constitutes a threat. If someone is using my organs without my permission... it's not self-evident (as you seem to believe) that I should have the right to kill him in order to get them back. If a parasite is using my organs, sure, but if it's a human being, the question isn't so easy to answer."

There is a difference between your organs and your bike.

You're not "killing them" you're taking what is yours, and their death is an regrettable side effect.


Now answer mine.

Would you accept having the violinist hooked up to you?

Would I be a murder if I didn't?

697 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:16:59pm

re: #694 Obdicut

And taking a potential life is not a killing.

If abortion is performed through the act of killing, the one who performs that act of killing is a killer. I don't know any other way the semantics of that can dance.

You can't dance the semantics of it? And yet you claim to be Jewish?

Easiest thing in the world, my friend - not all who take life are killers; not all who kill are murderers. You need to learn to draw distinctions.

Case in point - a soldier or one who takes a life in self-defense is not a killer or a murderer, from a legal perspective. Conservative - and even Orthodox- rabbinate acknowledge that there are cases in which an abortion can be a necessary act - it would therefore be a taking of life under the aspect of self-defense, and therefore not homicide.

698 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:17:08pm

re: #693 LotharBot

I do not agree that it is the ending of a life, either. We do not treat things that are potential to be something as as if they are the something else. They have potential. That means that they are, necessarily, not the thing they have the potential to become.

Especially given that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, where the embryo is barely developed, I think that equating an embryo with a human life is dishonest-- unless your belief in that equality is a religious one.

699 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:17:19pm

re: #694 Obdicut

And taking a potential life is not a killing.

james hasn't been talking about potential lives, but actual ones. i suggested he could argue the potential human angle earlier, but he seems more intent on arguing the human using you as life support angle. in that case, killing is the appropriate term.

it's a cheap semantic point in this discussion. nobody here is advocating killing abortionists, we're just discussing whether james' argument is any good. i say it's not.

700 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:18:23pm

re: #699 LotharBot

james hasn't been talking about potential lives, but actual ones. i suggested he could argue the potential human angle earlier, but he seems more intent on arguing the human using you as life support angle. in that case, killing is the appropriate term.

it's a cheap semantic point in this discussion. nobody here is advocating killing abortionists, we're just discussing whether james' argument is any good. i say it's not.

I just replied to many of your questions in my 694, but it was so long I didn't have room to make it a quote of your last post, just FYI....

701 Syrius  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:18:25pm

re: #501 MandyManners

No...I am not serious about my comment. I was joking...syriusly!

702 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:18:29pm

re: #697 Guanxi88

Easiest thing in the world, my friend - not all who take life are killers; not all who kill are murderers. You need to learn to draw distinctions.

But all who kill are killers. That's what words mean.

Case in point - a soldier or one who takes a life in self-defense is not a killer or a murderer, from a legal perspective. Conservative - and even Orthodox- rabbinate acknowledge that there are cases in which an abortion can be a necessary act - it would therefore be a taking of life under the aspect of self-defense, and therefore not homicide.

A soldier who takes a life is definitely a killer. I don't know where you get an impression otherwise. He's not a murderer. He's a killer. That's what the word means. That you killed.

703 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:18:43pm

re: #693 LotharBot

it's the ending of a life, which is what james' analogies are about. do you have a better, clearer term or are you just trying to score cheap irrelevant points on semantic grounds?

As has been stated, it is the ending of a potential life. There is a difference.

704 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:18:44pm

re: #700 jamesfirecat

I just replied to many of your questions in my 694, but it was so long I didn't have room to make it a quote of your last post, just FYI...

Sorry, my 696....

705 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:19:29pm

re: #694 Obdicut

And taking a potential life is not a killing.

You should realize that - barring the usual unforeseen circumstances - a human fetus may reasonably be expected to develop into a human being. This is an unsurprising fact of human embryology.

The fact that things can and do happen to frustrate this normal process is the reason for referring to a fetus in utero as potential life.

706 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:20:34pm

re: #699 LotharBot

James point is perfectly good; that he's treating the fetus as a full human is actually a concession to your side of the argument. He's not attempting to make that argument, he's saying "Even if we treat the fetus as though it had full human rights, there is still no ethical way to mandate that anyone give up a portion of their life to support it".

If you don't think that a fetus is a full human, than the case for forcing a woman to keep it becomes weaker, not stronger. He's showing that even if it is a full human, the case is very weak.

707 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:20:43pm

re: #702 Obdicut

Easiest thing in the world, my friend - not all who take life are killers; not all who kill are murderers. You need to learn to draw distinctions.

But all who kill are killers. That's what words mean.

A soldier who takes a life is definitely a killer. I don't know where you get an impression otherwise. He's not a murderer. He's a killer. That's what the word means. That you killed.

Then you're a literalist, and there's little to no point in trying to introduce you to the subtleties of the thing.

708 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:22:52pm

re: #695 Obdicut

It's really not a cheap semantic point in a nation where abortion doctors are being killed by people calling them killers.

No, it's a cheap rhetorical point.

709 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:24:21pm

re: #705 Guanxi88

You should realize that - barring the usual unforeseen circumstances - a human fetus may reasonably be expected to develop into a human being. This is an unsurprising fact of human embryology.

The fetus will not develop into a human being if it is, as is very often the case, spontaneously miscarried-- at a rate of 31%. The embryo may be absorbed into another embryo-- most of us start out as twins, and absorb another in the womb.

So can you explain why you think a human fetus may reasonably be expected to develop? Do you just mean it's got a better than 50%, or what, and if so, why is that significant?

710 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:25:43pm

re: #709 Obdicut

The fetus will not develop into a human being if it is, as is very often the case, spontaneously miscarried-- at a rate of 31%. The embryo may be absorbed into another embryo-- most of us start out as twins, and absorb another in the womb.

So can you explain why you think a human fetus may reasonably be expected to develop? Do you just mean it's got a better than 50%, or what, and if so, why is that significant?

Perhaps you missed the bit where I wrote "barring the usual unforeseen circumstances"? For a literalist, you surely missed some of the words.

711 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:27:45pm

re: #709 Obdicut

The fetus will not develop into a human being if it is, as is very often the case, spontaneously miscarried-- at a rate of 31%. The embryo may be absorbed into another embryo-- most of us start out as twins, and absorb another in the womb.

So can you explain why you think a human fetus may reasonably be expected to develop? Do you just mean it's got a better than 50%, or what, and if so, why is that significant?

And you're a piss-poor editor. You left off the part where I wrote:

"The fact that things can and do happen to frustrate this normal process is the reason for referring to a fetus in utero as potential life."

No wonder you can't follow or understand my argument.

712 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:28:02pm

re: #707 Guanxi88

That's not an argument. You're just asserting I'm wrong because I'm a 'literalist'. That's simply an ad hominem attack.

It is very dangerous to call abortions 'killings', as they deal with potential life. Doing so is reckless and dangerous. You're free to disagree. But it's not due to literalism that I'm making my argument.

re: #710 Guanxi88

Okay, so why bar those circumstances when considering this? Isn't that simply begging the question?

Also, how are those circumstances 'unforseen'? I think everyone kind of foresees the chance of miscarriage, given that we've known about it for several thousand years.

713 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:29:15pm

re: #712 Obdicut

think everyone kind of foresees the chance of miscarriage, given that we've known about it for several thousand years.

So, the fact that a miscarriage can happen means that miscarriages aren't unforeseen - and yet, calling you a literalist is an ad hominem attack?

714 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:29:26pm

re: #711 Guanxi88

I can understand that just fine, and I agree with it. That's why I left it off; I had no problem with it.

You're getting personal rather quickly. I don't think there's any utility in doing that.

715 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:30:20pm

re: #689 LotharBot

james,

do you have any interest in addressing what I said above? Or are you just going to keep wasting my time with more absurd scenarios, trying to catch me in some "OK, now it's absurd enough that you'd allow him to die and therefore you're a hypocrite" checkmate?

I have a baby to feed. Typing one-handed is a pain in the ass. I'll do it if I think you're honestly interested, but if you're just "being a jackass" it's not worth the effort. (See also #686 Guanxi88)

The passage says that if the child is "made to come out", there is a fine but no other payment. I interpret that to mean a premature birth. The rest of the injuries listed I interpret to mean injuries to the child. But you're right that there's room to interpret it differently.

I'm not trying to get you to admit you're a hypocrite, the point of the violinist argument is to ask you, am I a murderer?

I have s*** to do. I don't want to be hooked up to a violinist for 9 months. I yank the chord out and watch as his heart monitor goes "blip blip blip BEEEEEEP!" and he dies.

Am I a murder for doing that?

716 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:30:55pm

re: #713 Guanxi88

Dismissing my argument by calling me a literalist-- actually, dismissing me as someone capable of comprehension by calling me a literalist-- is an ad hominem attack, yes.

And yes, that we know miscarriages can happen means that miscarriages aren't an unforeseen event. Doctors prepare pregnant women for them. That means they're not unforeseen. I'm not sure how else you can look at it.

717 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:31:12pm

re: #714 Obdicut

I can understand that just fine, and I agree with it. That's why I left it off; I had no problem with it.

You're getting personal rather quickly. I don't think there's any utility in doing that.


hey, I'm not the one who says my opponent's position carries with it the implicit threat of violence. And I think you'll find we're agreeing on the gist of it, but not on how we get there.

And I'm certainly not getting personal, Obdicut. I've done that before with others, and even with you, and you're surely familiar with what my cloven hoof looks like.

718 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:33:30pm

re: #716 Obdicut

Dismissing my argument by calling me a literalist-- actually, dismissing me as someone capable of comprehension by calling me a literalist-- is an ad hominem attack, yes.

And yes, that we know miscarriages can happen means that miscarriages aren't an unforeseen event. Doctors prepare pregnant women for them. That means they're not unforeseen. I'm not sure how else you can look at it.

Death is a natural consequence of life - and yet, none of us shrug our shoulders when someone we know dies. Same principle here.

719 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:33:59pm

re: #717 Guanxi88

hey, I'm not the one who says my opponent's position carries with it the implicit threat of violence.

And neither am I. That's a ridiculous charge. I said it's reckless. I didn't say it was a threat.

And I think you'll find we're agreeing on the gist of it, but not on how we get there.

I care pretty damn deeply about how we get there.

And I'm certainly not getting personal, Obdicut.

I realize you do get so personal that this doesn't, to you, seem to be getting personal, but saying things like:

And you're a piss-poor editor.

No wonder you can't follow or understand my argument.

Then you're a literalist, and there's little to no point in trying to introduce you to the subtleties of the thing.

are definitely personal attacks.


I've done that before with others, and even with you, and you're surely familiar with what my cloven hoof looks like.

Heh. Vanity.

720 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:34:15pm

I leave you fine folk to go and install laminate flooring.

721 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:34:40pm

re: #719 Obdicut

You're a good egg, Obdicut.

722 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:34:51pm

re: #718 Guanxi88

Exactly. Death is a natural consequence of life, and yet we do not treat living people as though they are corpses. Because they just have the potential to be so, not the reality. This is a point we agree on, however, so I'm not sure why we're revisiting it.

723 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:37:09pm

re: #690 Guanxi88

No, I don't. And the arguments work fine if:

1) You're talking about a world where people seeds drift on the wind and implant themselves in houses;
2) You're talking about a case of a forced meat-based life-support system.


(Too late now but)
If you don't think consent to have sex is the same as consent to have a child then why can't the mother have sex, get pregnant, then deny the unborn child the right to use her organs? Even if this ends up killing the unborn child?

724 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:38:32pm

re: #723 jamesfirecat

By the way, James, did you get a good night's sleep or hit a sweet spot on your meds or something? You're like a thousand times more eloquent and controlled than yesterday.

725 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:40:47pm

re: #724 Obdicut

By the way, James, did you get a good night's sleep or hit a sweet spot on your meds or something? You're like a thousand times more eloquent and controlled than yesterday.

Abortion is an issue that I feel VERY strongly on (even though I'm a guy) and its also an issue that I've done research papers on for college.

Abortion, and Legalizing Porno, and Legalizing Marijuana are three issues that I feel like my knowledge strides forward hand in hand with my convictions as opposed to say Tax Law, or the history of Israel.

726 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:41:44pm

re: #725 jamesfirecat

Ah, that explains it. Anyway, kudos for doing a good job with a tricky argument.

727 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:43:07pm

re: #726 Obdicut

Ah, that explains it. Anyway, kudos for doing a good job with a tricky argument.

Not tricky at all the Violinist argument is a good one because it gives those with a "moral" objection exactly what they want, recognizing the fetus as a human being, and then proceeds to demolish any claim they have for transforming their morality into law.

728 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:49:50pm

LotharBot I'm gonna go eat dinner, hopefully you'll be ready to continue this by the time I get back, hopefully my last few posts have answered your questions to a satisfactory to degree to show you I'm not just being a jackass...

729 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:52:11pm

re: #703 Naso Tang

As has been stated, it is the ending of a potential life. There is a difference.

in the analogies all of the lives are actual. in abortion the life is also actual, the question is personhood/humanity rather than life.

re: #706 Obdicut

that he's treating the fetus as a full human is actually a concession to your side of the argument.

irrelevant. the argument he's making is weak. i'm not here to declare victory for my 'side', i'm still here because i'm arguing his specific point.

re: #696 jamesfirecat

Your friend with the 38 week old son can if she desires insist that said "son"... be removed from her body.... I was offering you an emotional compromise that I couldn't defend from a logical point of view..... its all or nothing.

that's what i was going for. thank you.

you state 'their death is an regrettable side effect' is exactly the point -- that's something i'm uncomfortable writing a blank check for.

Would you accept having the violinist hooked up to you?

Would I be a murder if I didn't?

i don't recall having used the term 'murderer' in this thread.

but i don't think i have the right to just pull the plug because he's using my organs and dammit they're mine. i might have the right to pull the plug for other reasons, like a danger to my life or health. i might have the right to declare that i get to decide where we go and what we do. but just pulling the plug on him because it's my kidney and he's an inconvenience? not cool.

re: #727 jamesfirecat

the Violinist argument is a good one because it gives those with a "moral" objection exactly what they want, recognizing the fetus as a human being, and then proceeds to demolish any claim they have for transforming their morality into law.

a good rule of thumb in abortion debates... the only good arguments are the ones that say this is a tough question and it's hard to figure out how our society should balance it. if you think you have an argument that demolishes the other side, it's probably actually weaksauce.

730 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:53:32pm

re: #728 jamesfirecat

LotharBot I'm gonna go eat dinner

aww dammit, timing ftl

731 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:55:32pm

re: #729 LotharBot

His argument isn't weak, and you haven't demonstrated any weaknesses in it.

but i don't think i have the right to just pull the plug because he's using my organs and dammit they're mine. i might have the right to pull the plug for other reasons, like a danger to my life or health. i might have the right to declare that i get to decide where we go and what we do. but just pulling the plug on him because it's my kidney and he's an inconvenience? not cool.

So are you willing to give up your liver, since it will regenerate, and there are thousands of people waiting for a liver transplant? Or are you okay with doctors routinely removing half the liver of those going into surgery in order to provide those who need them with livers?

732 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:06:44pm

re: #729 LotharBot

a good rule of thumb in abortion debates... the only good arguments are the ones that say this is a tough question and it's hard to figure out how our society should balance it. if you think you have an argument that demolishes the other side, it's probably actually weaksauce.

Am I murder for killing the violinist if I wake up in that position?

Because if I'm not then its proof that there are times when it is sociatelly acceptable to kill someone for making use of your organs without your permission....

733 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:13:28pm

re: #731 Obdicut

His argument isn't weak, and you haven't demonstrated any weaknesses in it.

So are you willing to give up your liver, since it will regenerate, and there are thousands of people waiting for a liver transplant? Or are you okay with doctors routinely removing half the liver of those going into surgery in order to provide those who need them with livers?

Well said, we treat each persons internal organs as sacrosanct enough that your right to them doesn't end even when you die an no longer have a use to them (you have to agree to be an organ donor) . With that fact in mind its hard to imagine that society would punish you for defending your right for only you to make use of your organs, even if it results in someone else's death because they can't survive without help from healthy organs...

734 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:14:42pm

re: #729 LotharBot

a good rule of thumb in abortion debates... the only good arguments are the ones that say this is a tough question and it's hard to figure out how our society should balance it. if you think you have an argument that demolishes the other side, it's probably actually weaksauce.

And in case you're wondering the reason I brought up the term "Murder" is not to try and say you had said it, but to say that "murder" is what this is all about.

If I can prove to you that abortion while morally reprehensible is not murder, even giving the fetus all the rights of a fully grown human being, I'll walk away happy...

735 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:38:30pm

re: #731 Obdicut

His argument isn't weak

You say it isn't, I say it is. Meh.

I think it's a fine argument for convincing the already-convinced. But I don't think it's very good for "demolishing" the pro-life side. I suspect many pro-lifers would say exactly what I did: I don't think you should pull the plug on the guy. Then they'd wonder why you were still talking about it.

are you willing to give up your liver

Ineligible, due to a genetic condition. But I do give blood, which comes with some risk. And I think our society is kind of retarded about organ donation; once a person is really-for-sure-dead, their organs should be up for grabs.

To bring it back to the previous point: risk does matter. The risk of pregnancy matters; the risk of organ donation matters... but that's a separate argument. The violinist argument isn't about risk, it's about property rights to your organs, and I find that argument lacking.

re: #732 jamesfirecat

Am I murder for killing the violinist if I wake up in that position? ... there are times when it is sociatelly acceptable to kill someone ...

"Murder" is (a)unlawful (b)killing of (c)a human being (d)with intent.

I think we've got b, c, and d -- he's human, and you did intentionally act with the knowledge that the man would die as a direct result of your actions. I don't know the applicable laws for a. So it may or may not qualify as murder, and I don't know if society would consider it acceptable.

When it comes to abortion, we've got b and d for sure. We as a society disagree on the details of c. And the supreme court has given us plenty of rulings on a. Whether or not it's murder depends on who's "right" about c and whether there's a "higher law" to overrule SCOTUS on a.

If you want to convince people abortion is "not murder", you've got to address either c or a. The violinist argument is sort of a stab in the general direction of a -- should there be a law, or is there a higher law, regarding whether or not you can kill someone who is using your organs without your permission, and does it matter how/why they ended up using your organs?

I think it's fair to say the whole violinist argument comes down to that (multi-part) question.

736 oldegeezr  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:41:25pm
Take a moment to appreciate the monumental hypocrisy of that last sentence, as a Republican who undoubtedly wants to criminalize abortion pontificates about having the “right to control your own body.”

[Hey]...Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population.

I donnoe Charles… Alex has some other[...], very [...], actually pretty big guns goin’ with this…!

I’m gonna keep lookin’ behind the barn for missing sheep or goats. [I hear they like sheep...?] and run the Jeep ‘round the back forty, just in case there’s any mutilated cattle.

Best I can say...!

Keep ah sharp eye and yer ears… or at least one ear, pinned to the ground…!
OK…not pinned, just close…!

737 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:43:15pm

re: #735 LotharBot

"Murder" is (a)unlawful (b)killing of (c)a human being (d)with intent.

I think we've got b, c, and d -- he's human, and you did intentionally act with the knowledge that the man would die as a direct result of your actions. I don't know the applicable laws for a. So it may or may not qualify as murder, and I don't know if society would consider it acceptable.

When it comes to abortion, we've got b and d for sure. We as a society disagree on the details of c. And the supreme court has given us plenty of rulings on a. Whether or not it's murder depends on who's "right" about c and whether there's a "higher law" to overrule SCOTUS on a.

If you want to convince people abortion is "not murder", you've got to address either c or a. The violinist argument is sort of a stab in the general direction of a -- should there be a law, or is there a higher law, regarding whether or not you can kill someone who is using your organs without your permission, and does it matter how/why they ended up using your organs?

I think it's fair to say the whole violinist argument comes down to that (multi-part) question.

So you'd argue that we don't have a individual right to our own organs and can't deny other people the use of them?

The Pro Lifer can say that they wouldn't pull the plug. That's fine, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything.

Its about getting them to say that if I pull the plug then I'm a murderer and looking at the implications of that.

If I don't have the right to lawfully deny someone the use of my organs while, I'm alive how come people have to sign up to be organ donors?

Why do I have more control over my organs when I'm dead than when I'm alive?

738 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:05:20pm

re: #737 jamesfirecat

So you'd argue that we don't have a individual right to our own organs and can't deny other people the use of them?

The Pro Lifer can say that they wouldn't pull the plug. That's fine, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything.

Its about getting them to say that if I pull the plug then I'm a murderer and looking at the implications of that.

If I don't have the right to lawfully deny someone the use of my organs while, I'm alive how come people have to sign up to be organ donors?

Why do I have more control over my organs when I'm dead than when I'm alive?

Also I have trouble with your suggestion, because while you might see mine writing a blank check for a human death, your answer suggests that human beings can be reduced to living dialysis machines and if someone plugs themselves into us, disconnecting them from ourselves would be the same as if we disconnecting them from an entirely separate machine that was keeping them alive.

Can you see that problem as well?

739 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:18:54pm

re: #737 jamesfirecat

If we lived in a society where violinists regularly ended up grafted onto people's organs, I suspect the issue would be just as contentious as abortion. There would be those who'd say you have every right to pull the plug, those who'd say only if you were dragged to the violin concert against your will, those who'd say only if it's a danger to your health, those who'd say only if he had a poor quality of violin, and those who'd say the law should protect all violinists. IMO, the only thing you accomplish by making it about violinists is you add a bit of surrealism.

So you'd argue that we don't have a individual right to our own organs and can't deny other people the use of them?

I'd argue that your individual right to your own organs becomes a secondary concern once someone else is directly dependent upon them. At that point, the more pressing considerations are life, health, and livelihood for both of you. As with other rights, your right to your own organs can be superseded.

Its about getting them to say that if I pull the plug then I'm a murderer

Must be frustrating that I haven't gone there, then, huh? Whether or not you'd be a murderer comes back to the question "should there be a law, or is there a higher law, saying you can't kill someone who is using your organs without your permission, and if so, what are the conditions or exceptions?" That's pretty much the core of the abortion debate anyway, only now we're "human dialysis machines for violinists" instead of "human incubators for fetuses", which is no more or less problematic. (This isn't exactly the same as if it was a separate machine, though, because the separate machine doesn't have its own life, health, and livelihood to be considered.)

Why do I have more control over my organs when I'm dead than when I'm alive?

Because we as a society are stupid about organ donation. (Apologies for my off-the-cuff use of the "R" word when I said this last.)

740 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:26:47pm

re: #737 jamesfirecat

If I don't have the right to lawfully deny someone the use of my organs while, I'm alive how come people have to sign up to be organ donors?

Thought of one more thing here:

If you weren't signed up but some violinist ended up with one of your organs anyway, would your corpse and/or estate have the right to take your organ back from the violinist once he was already using it?

741 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:27:16pm

re: #739 LotharBot

If we lived in a society where violinists regularly ended up grafted onto people's organs, I suspect the issue would be just as contentious as abortion. There would be those who'd say you have every right to pull the plug, those who'd say only if you were dragged to the violin concert against your will, those who'd say only if it's a danger to your health, those who'd say only if he had a poor quality of violin, and those who'd say the law should protect all violinists. IMO, the only thing you accomplish by making it about violinists is you add a bit of surrealism.

Because we as a society are stupid about organ donation. (Apologies for my off-the-cuff use of the "R" word when I said this last.)

Here is the problem with your position as I see it.

It all comes down to being murder or not. Because I don't care to discuss with you if abortion is moral I want to know if we can agree that it is inarguably legal even if we assume operation RESCUE or whoever is right and that a fetus deserves the same rights as a human being.

If you aren't willing to say that unhooking the violinist is murder then all I need to prove to make abortion completely justifiable even if you consider a fetus to have all the rights a human being does.

Do you want to go down that path?

If you are willing to say that its murder then it opens up another can of worms...

If its murder to refuse your organs to someone who needs them to live, then is it murder to refuse to let someone who would freeze to death outside come into your house? You've got a big home surely there is room for one more for just a night.....

Yes it would be very nice of you to let him into your home, but how can we ever really "own" anything, be it our internal organs or our property if we must be willing to share it with those who need it in order to live?

If we're driving down the road in the desert and we come across a hitchhiker who claims he'll die out there in the desert unless we give him a ride back to civilization in our car? Is it murder if we refuse to let him into our backseat?


Do you want to go down that path?


If there's a third path that you choose please enlighten me to it.

742 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:32:50pm

re: #741 jamesfirecat

Here is the problem with your position as I see it.

It all comes down to being murder or not. Because I don't care to discuss with you if abortion is moral I want to know if we can agree that it is inarguably legal even if we assume operation RESCUE or whoever is right and that a fetus deserves the same rights as a human being.

If you aren't willing to say that unhooking the violinist is murder then all I need to prove to make abortion completely justifiable even if you consider a fetus to have all the rights a human being does.

Do you want to go down that path?

If you are willing to say that its murder then it opens up another can of worms...

If its murder to refuse your organs to someone who needs them to live, then is it murder to refuse to let someone who would freeze to death outside come into your house? You've got a big home surely there is room for one more for just a night...

Yes it would be very nice of you to let him into your home, but how can we ever really "own" anything, be it our internal organs or our property if we must be willing to share it with those who need it in order to live?

If we're driving down the road in the desert and we come across a hitchhiker who claims he'll die out there in the desert unless we give him a ride back to civilization in our car? Is it murder if we refuse to let him into our backseat?

Do you want to go down that path?

If there's a third path that you choose please enlighten me to it.

Sorry

"If you aren't willing to say that unhooking the violinist is murder then all I need to prove to make abortion completely justifiable even if you consider a fetus to have all the rights a human being does."

Should be

"If you aren't willing to say that unhooking the violinist is murder then all I need to prove to make abortion completely justifiable even if you consider a fetus to have all the rights a human being does, is that a fetus is also making use of its mother's organs without her permission."

743 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:45:17pm

re: #735 LotharBot

Ineligible, due to a genetic condition. But I do give blood, which comes with some risk. And I think our society is kind of retarded about organ donation; once a person is really-for-sure-dead, their organs should be up for grabs.

That dodged the question. The question is whether people should be forced to give up portions of their livers in order for other people to live, under some circumstances? Say we just do it to people who bear some responsibility for liver damage in others-- say, stockholders in liquor companies.

744 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 5:34:08pm

re: #741 jamesfirecat

It all comes down to being murder or not.

Given the above definition of murder and your concession of "human being" (as well as "intentional" and "killing"), the question of murder is equivalent to "is there or should there be a (higher) law against it." Congratulations, you've reduced the question of "is abortion wrong?" to "is abortion wrong?"

I think, again, there's room to disagree on the answer -- there's room to take either branch of your catch-22, or to take some other direction. There's room to say "the organs are yours, so you can kill it if you want". There's room to say "the organs are yours and killing it is reprehensible but not actually wrong." There's room to say "as long as the human is innocent, it's wrong to kill it." There's room to say "as long as the risks to your life or health are below such-and-such level, it's wrong to kill it". There's even room to say "you shouldn't kill it even if it means your death". There's room to invoke God, the Bible, Jewish tradition, freedom of religion, and so on in the way you answer. This isn't anything new; this is the same disagreements people have had over abortion for decades now.

Your series of follow-on questions are subject to the same sort of disagreement. There's room for people who agree on the first to disagree on the second, and so on. There's room for one person to say "it's murder if you don't invite the guy in to protect him from freezing and give him half your liver while you're at it" (hits close to home; my dad's homeless friend froze to death last week), and another to say "you're under no compulsion because of the risk he poses to your family", and another to say "you're under no compulsion because his life isn't your responsibility", and another to say "you're under no compulsion because you didn't know for sure he'd die."

The answers aren't so simple as "you have the rights to your organs, so it's not murder" or "it's murder and therefore so's all the other stuff, so you have no right to property". There's not merely a third way; there's every combination of every way I laid out above, and plenty more.

(I'd love to continue, but baby needs fed and changed and dinner needs made, and I have a date tonight. Sorry...)

745 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 5:40:48pm

re: #744 LotharBot

Given the above definition of murder and your concession of "human being" (as well as "intentional" and "killing"), the question of murder is equivalent to "is there or should there be a (higher) law against it." Congratulations, you've reduced the question of "is abortion wrong?" to "is abortion wrong?"

I think, again, there's room to disagree on the answer -- there's room to take either branch of your catch-22, or to take some other direction. There's room to say "the organs are yours, so you can kill it if you want". There's room to say "the organs are yours and killing it is reprehensible but not actually wrong." There's room to say "as long as the human is innocent, it's wrong to kill it." There's room to say "as long as the risks to your life or health are below such-and-such level, it's wrong to kill it". There's even room to say "you shouldn't kill it even if it means your death". There's room to invoke God, the Bible, Jewish tradition, freedom of religion, and so on in the way you answer. This isn't anything new; this is the same disagreements people have had over abortion for decades now.

Your series of follow-on questions are subject to the same sort of disagreement. There's room for people who agree on the first to disagree on the second, and so on. There's room for one person to say "it's murder if you don't invite the guy in to protect him from freezing and give him half your liver while you're at it" (hits close to home; my dad's homeless friend froze to death last week), and another to say "you're under no compulsion because of the risk he poses to your family", and another to say "you're under no compulsion because his life isn't your responsibility", and another to say "you're under no compulsion because you didn't know for sure he'd die."

The answers aren't so simple as "you have the rights to your organs, so it's not murder" or "it's murder and therefore so's all the other stuff, so you have no right to property". There's not merely a third way; there's every combination of every way I laid out above, and plenty more.

(I'd love to continue, but baby needs fed and changed and dinner needs made, and I have a date tonight. Sorry...)

My point was that there are times that even murder is allowed, hence the term "justifiable homicide"

The issue is, if someone wants to make use of your organs against your permission is it justifiable homicide if you say "no" and pull out the plug connecting the two of you.

I personally see that in America if you tried to argue that we have to give up our organs and let other people make use of them, you're probably going to get shouted down as a communist, especially if you expand it from organs to property. The violinist argument can let you turn the two sides of the right wing against itself since it truly does make it an issue of private property against religious based morals.

I'm sorry about your father by the way.

At the moment since to my eyes you refuse to take a stance on the issue and are only waffling back and forth on the various results of my suggestions I think I'm just about done here.

If you're only going to nit pick my stance while refusing to commit yourself to any position then I fail to see the reason to continue posting.

I hope you have a fun night.

746 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 6:02:47pm

1 handed, feedin baby

re: #745 jamesfirecat

there are times that even murder is allowed, hence the term "justifiable homicide"

homicide and murder are different. homicide is parts b and c from above. no intent, and may or may not be lawful/justified.

if someone wants to make use of your organs against your permission is it justifiable homicide if you say "no" and pull out the plug

exactly. is it? theres room to disagree.

The violinist argument can let you turn the two sides of the right wing against itself since it truly does make it an issue of private property against religious based morals.

conversely, the left has no problem legally enforcing charity through govt. is this a problem for 'keep your hands off my body'? it's not any worse for the right; sometimes our principles conflict but we prioritize and deal with it as best we can.

to my eyes you refuse to take a stance on the issue and are only waffling back and forth

i see no need to take a stance. only to note that many stances stand up to your reasoning. why make my point narrower than it has to be? why defend only one view when i can defend many, right and left? why do you think i even have a specific stance?

you raise some good points regarding property and the extent to which one should take their morality. if i ever settle on a stance i'll take your points into consideration.

747 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 6:49:30pm

re: #746 LotharBot

1 handed, feedin baby

i see no need to take a stance. only to note that many stances stand up to your reasoning. why make my point narrower than it has to be? why defend only one view when i can defend many, right and left? why do you think i even have a specific stance?

you raise some good points regarding property and the extent to which one should take their morality. if i ever settle on a stance i'll take your points into consideration.

The reason I ask you to take a stance is because if you don't take one you're not really arguing in my eyes, you're just nit picking my argument without bringing anything to the table yourself. Its like playing football when the other team has no endzone.

If you want to talk about points"A B C D" that you mentioned earlier I'd actually argue with point "B" "killing" in the violinist example.

His body is so warn down that it can not survive on its own, and yet am I truly "Killing him" when I pull the plug that connects us?

I am leaving him to die, but people are left to die from their problems all over America.

Are we "killing" people if we refuse to help them? If you drive by a car crash and you see someone struggling free from it covered in blood, are you "killing" them if you keep on driving and don't stop to help them?


As a leftist yes I believe in big government and I may play hard and lose with money sometimes, but I believe there is no wiggle room with organs.

As for how I can explain this it goes like this.

None of us are born with money, in the sense that we emerge from our mother's wombs gripping greenbacks.

None of us are born with any external belongings.


But we're born with our internal organs.

Our bodies should be sacrosanct, our most private of private possessions that can never under any circumstances be used by another without your permission.

I feel that there yes there should be a law that it is not illegal to deny someone your internal organs and I believe that its impossible to argue ethically otherwise, without making us HAVE to give of our bodies to every poor sod who comes to our doors, why should the fact that some lucky violinist managed to make it a Fait Accompli make a difference?

If our organs aren't ours to decide what to do with in every situation, then whose are they?

Do they belong wherever they can do the most good?

If you can't pay your taxes the government can take one of your kidneys?

If "private property" isn't private in the sense that we can defend it and deny others access to it, then don't we have to seriously rethink how society functions?

748 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 7:24:48pm

re: #747 jamesfirecat

if you don't take one you're not really arguing in my eyes, you're just nit picking my argument without bringing anything to the table

This isn't football. It's not about winning or losing, it's about learning and developing better ideas.

You've presented an argument, which you apparently believe to be the holy grail of abortion arguments. I think your argument is deeply flawed, and I've argued why I think it's deeply flawed. In particular, I've argued that regardless of what stance I might choose to take, your argument would not influence that stance. Your argument is not merely flawed in the sense that there is a possible alternative. Your argument is flawed in the sense that basically EVERY common alternative stands up well against it. In this case, I bring more to the table by not taking a position (and showing your argument's weakness against many positions) than by taking one.

His body is so warn down that it can not survive on its own, and yet am I truly "Killing him" when I pull the plug that connects us?

Yes, you're killing him, and it's intentional, and he's a human (B, C, and D). Legal precedent is on my side here, big-time. Your only out is "A" -- did you do it in a lawful way? If so, it's justifiable homicide; if not, murder.

Are we "killing" people if we refuse to help them?

That depends on the circumstances. And it depends on your particular philosophy. Similarly for "intent" and "unlawful", the other components for murder (I've assumed "human" is a given.) Like I said, your argument is not merely flawed in the sense that it allows for an alternative, it's flawed in the sense that virtually everybody's position is a viable alternative.

... our most private of private possessions that can never under any circumstances be used by another without your permission.

... I believe that its impossible to argue ethically otherwise, without making us HAVE to give of our bodies to every poor sod who comes to our doors

Yet I have just argued otherwise, time and time again, provided they already have access to those organs. I have demonstrated how people could argue otherwise from several different perspectives. I've shown how people can give principled answers to each individual question you've posed but in ways you don't expect.

If "private property" isn't private in the sense that we can defend it and deny others access to it

We can defend our bikes and deny others access to them -- but if someone steals my bike, I don't have the right to kill him. I can't kill him for trying to steal it, either (except possibly in Texas.)

Your organs are your private property. You can defend them and deny others access to them. But once someone else has access to them, you don't have a blank check to kill that person in order to regain them. The issue remains exactly as complex, controversial, and multifaceted as abortion does. Which means there are no easy answers, no magic pill to convince the other side they're wrong, just lots of people trying to do what's right based on very different understandings, ideas, and priorities.

749 LotharBot  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 7:25:15pm

OK, dinner time for real. And hopefully my wife's not too mad at me for staying on LGF too long.

750 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 8:36:40pm

re: #748 LotharBot

We can defend our bikes and deny others access to them -- but if someone steals my bike, I don't have the right to kill him. I can't kill him for trying to steal it, either (except possibly in Texas.)

Your organs are your private property. You can defend them and deny others access to them. But once someone else has access to them, you don't have a blank check to kill that person in order to regain them. The issue remains exactly as complex, controversial, and multifaceted as abortion does. Which means there are no easy answers, no magic pill to convince the other side they're wrong, just lots of people trying to do what's right based on very different understandings, ideas, and priorities.

Lets both break this here and try again the next time an abortion thread comes up so that we can have other people adding in their thoughts...

751 Fionn MacCumhaill  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 9:12:13pm

re: #39 wrenchwench

From near the end of the article:

What about if the people promulgating the idea are batsh!t insane, would that make it a bad idea?

"batsh!t insane" is not so easily defined. A century ago, similar labels were applied to people who believed that black people should have the same civil rights as white people.

Ignore the mentality of the proponents of the legislation and think about the long-term consequences of the growth and continued use of such technology. People think of such things as leading-edge, modern technology, and they are, but that is a narrow view, focused on the here-and-now. The problem is that technologies are never static. Compare Thomas Edison's original phonograph with the stereo systems available today - you see an expansion of capability that would have astonished the people of Edison's time. What can implantable biochip technology grow into in the next 100 years? It is better to think about such things beforehand than to react to abuses and failures afterwards. Imagine the consequences of a widespread human biochip use that grew up with the same lack of foresight that is embedded in today's Internet e-mail technology.

752 jamesfirecat  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 9:35:34pm

re: #751 Fionn MacCumhaill

"batsh!t insane" is not so easily defined. A century ago, similar labels were applied to people who believed that black people should have the same civil rights as white people.

Ignore the mentality of the proponents of the legislation and think about the long-term consequences of the growth and continued use of such technology. People think of such things as leading-edge, modern technology, and they are, but that is a narrow view, focused on the here-and-now. The problem is that technologies are never static. Compare Thomas Edison's original phonograph with the stereo systems available today - you see an expansion of capability that would have astonished the people of Edison's time. What can implantable biochip technology grow into in the next 100 years? It is better to think about such things beforehand than to react to abuses and failures afterwards. Imagine the consequences of a widespread human biochip use that grew up with the same lack of foresight that is embedded in today's Internet e-mail technology.

A round of applause for Necro McLurky every body, hasn't he/she just done a great job telling us all what we did wrong a few hours after the conversation ended?

753 stayfrosty  Sat, Feb 13, 2010 12:38:47am

re: #113 acacia

Being in favor of the right to control your own body and being opposed to abortion is hardly "monumental hypocrisy." It would be hypocrisy only if you assume that what is being aborted is not another human worthy of life - and of course that is the whole abortion debate in a nutshell. I have the right to control my body but not when I control it in a way that hurts others.

It amazes me how such an obvious observation gets down-dinged.

754 stayfrosty  Sat, Feb 13, 2010 12:42:30am

re: #405 jamesfirecat

If you're hooked up to someone who needs your kidney's to survive against your will do you just have to lay there and let him use your organs?

So you're comparing a baby in the mother's womb (a natural consequence of sexual reproduction) to a person illegally harvesting/using your organs? Right...

755 Sacred Plants  Sat, Feb 13, 2010 9:50:56am

re: #13 Cato the Elder

Sounds like Beck hosting Geller.

/

756 wrenchwench  Sat, Feb 13, 2010 11:19:36am

re: #752 jamesfirecat

A round of applause for Necro McLurky every body, hasn't he/she just done a great job telling us all what we did wrong a few hours after the conversation ended?

Thank you for precluding the need for me to reply to the one who addressed me!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 135 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1