@SCOTUSblog



  • Assuming you're going down the religious route, fairly sure only the suicide part is a one-way-ticket-to-hell, because there's an opt-out of the others. And if you're going to argue about mutilation, isn't amputation due to an accident just as much of a mutilation (especially if it's amputation due to self-stupidity)? and just as get-out-of-jail-free as anything else 'if you accept God into your heart'?


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade said:

    What I compared is the argument that you are allowed to do anything with your bodies, including removing flesh, is wrong.

    You don't have the right to do anything to your body.

    You can remove your own flesh.... cut yourself... whatever....
    A doctor can not do it for you.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    Not exactly.


    Filed Under: WTF


  • :belt_onion:

    Ha. Or maybe a doctor CAN do it for you.
    I didn't bother to look it up because it seems stupid for a doctor to cut things off just because you want it off and unnecessary to argue about because it's entirely besides the point, but @xaade might want to look those sort of things up before he argues about them I guess.

    Some of these summaries are... entertaining....

    Where are the Prochoice on Elective Amputation? ... The most common scenario involving amputation of a healthy limb is a psychotic patient who is convinced ...
    I tried to follow to read more, but the site is blocked at work... Probably hit the block-list as amputeeporn or something 😦


  • @darkmatter said:

    I tried to follow to read more, but the site is blocked at work.

    This is all of the article that relates to that provocative question, and it really doesn't even try to answer it. It's more of a challenge to the pro-choice advocates to put their money where their mouths are:

    But if the prochoice movement is to be consistent -- to say that anybody has a right to do whatever he or she chooses with his or her body -- shouldn't they be advocating safe and legal amputations for psychotic folks who think their legs are evil, or for folks with BIID who think they'd be happier without their arms? After all, elective amputation, unlike abortion, really does only impact the patient's body, not the body of an innocent bystander. Elective amputation really is only removing an unwanted part of one's own body, whereas abortion involves the destruction of the body of one's unborn offspring.

    So! Where do the prochoice stand? Is the right to one's body absolute? Does the right to control one's body supersede the right to bodily integrity? Does it supersede the right to avoid harm? Does it trump all other cards? Or does it only trump the life of the fetus?



  • This is the same concept I was trying to get across.

    If elective amputation disturbs you, then I can tell you that abortion disturbs me in the same manner.



  • This conversation makes me want to go read YouTube comments for sanity.



  • At least we're CIVILISED here.


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade said:

    you that abortion disturbs me in the same manner.

    Abortion disturbs me too (and I mean actual abortion, not the redefinition of abortion that the rightwing uses to include IUDs and other anti-implantation methods of birth control).
    The part I just can't agree with is that extreme circumstances such as rape pregnancies require the woman to carry to term even if she knew within days. I understand the no-tolerance religious moral view, but I can't support it in that situation.

    /me stabs @arantor with a rusty screwdriver.
    Screw Civilized Discourse.



  • Fuck you @darkmatter, you're no @morbiuswilters


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    #Tomorrow's <sub>Topic:

    Why FGM is not at all like MGM, and why the former must be banned as a barbaric act and the latter celebrated as a protected religious rite.

    Feel free to get some pre-emptive strikes in now.....



  • You're in the wrong topic. You want this one.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Bother.. Maybe if I simply move one of the topics into the other since it fits right into both of them...



  • HOW VERY DARE YOU


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Arantor said:

    HOW VERY DARE YOU

    <Jeff />

  • :belt_onion:

    If this topic catches the good topic, I blame you personally.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Hmmm? 😇


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    I'm saying that any statement about god relies on faith. Including nonexistence. That seems pretty basic. I'm confused why you think it isn't.

    So it takes faith to disbelieve in something for which there is absolutely no proof of? Sorry, your argument is completely flawed. If I have faith in Bertrand's teapot as he posited it, and you do not believe in it, then you are doing so entirely on faith?

    This belief that if a person has faith in something, or even an opinion about something, making it unimpeachable is just fucking ludicrous. Just because you are entitled to your faith or your opinion about something, does not make it ignorant, misinformed or bigoted.

    I am starting to think your avatar is a self-portrait.



  • Big difference between "I believe in no god" vs "I don't believe in a god". Absence of something is not proof of nothing.

    Belief in non-existence in a god is belief. It is an opinion held aloft on the scale somewhere between a personal truth but somewhat short of a fact.



  • I'm split on anti-implantation.

    And also, in the extreme case of rape, I have to defer to the most innocent, who is the unborn. There are two victims to a rape that ends in pregnancy. I don't need to ask her to carry to term, just until the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. At the same time, I want to support the girl/woman in the most ways possible to encourage this decision.

    But laws aside.

    If we really want to limit abortion, we'd be better off doing it by caring for pregnant women better. If there's a woman in distress, we take care of all her needs and offer to adopt the child in a way that she is comfortable.

    I don't want to force continued pregnancy, I want it to be desirable and rewarding, even if the woman is going to give up the child.

    And we can do these things whether abortion is legal or not.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @PJH said:

    Why FGM is not at all like MGM

    That's easy. One is a movie studio / casino / theme park.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @xaade said:

    And also, in the extreme case of rape, I have to defer to the most innocent, who is the unborn. There are two victims to a rape that ends in pregnancy.

    Indeed.

    @xaade said:

    I'm split on anti-implantation.

    It's kind of a fuzzy metric for me, but basically the further along, the worse it is. It's pretty bad that the Court pretty much took away the possibility of working this out in the political realm. Now we have extreme sides where any destruction of an embryo is murder and protecting a 20 week old fetus (which IIRC is a fairly common limit in parts of Europe) is enslaving women.



  • @PJH said:

    Why FGM is not at all like MGM

    French gay marriage and Mexican gay marriage?



  • But, that's what I don't get.

    Why don't we take all this lobby money and put it toward trying to make incubation a real possibility. If we could incubate outside the womb at 12 weeks, abortion would be obsolete.



  • @darkmatter, why do you want to kill babies?

    [/right-wing trolling]


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @xaade said:

    If we could incubate outside the womb at 12 weeks, abortion would be obsolete.

    D00d...abortion is what makes a woman a woman.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Arantor said:

    Big difference between "I believe in no god" vs "I don't believe in a god". Absence of something is not proof of nothing.

    Belief in non-existence in a god is belief. It is an opinion held aloft on the scale somewhere between a personal truth but somewhat short of a fact.

    Straw man argument. There is no proof in Bertrand's teapot, yet no one believes in it except as proof of the fallacy in the arguments of the bullshit arguments like you just posited. Lack of belief is not a belief. Lack of faith is not faith.



  • @Intercourse said:

    @Arantor said:
    Big difference between "I believe in no god" vs "I don't believe in a god". Absence of something is not proof of nothing.

    Belief in non-existence in a god is belief. It is an opinion held aloft on the scale somewhere between a personal truth but somewhat short of a fact.

    Straw man argument. There is no proof in Bertrand's teapot, yet no one believes in it except as proof of the fallacy in the arguments of the bullshit arguments like you just posited. Lack of belief is not a belief. Lack of faith is not faith.

    That's exactly what @Arantor just said. Try a little harder next time.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said:

    That's exactly what @Arantor just said. Try a little harder next time.

    No, it was the antithesis of what he said. Let us show the contrast for those who are barely literate:

    @ben_lubar said:

    Absence of something is not proof of nothing.Belief in non-existence in a god is belief. It is an opinion held aloft on the scale somewhere between a personal truth but somewhat short of a fact.

    He is saying that the absence of faith is faith, and that non-belief is religion is a religion. Let us contrast, for those who cannot fucking read past a second grade level.

    @ben_lubar said:

    Straw man argument. There is no proof in Bertrand's teapot, yet no one believes in it except as proof of the fallacy in the arguments of the bullshit arguments like you just posited. Lack of belief is not a belief. Lack of faith is not faith.

    In this, I said that everything he said was wrong. Absence of a thing is not that thing, lack of proof is not proof, his whole argument was fucking retarded, lack of something is not something.

    Illiteracy is a barrier to reading. Jesus fuck, perhaps @codinghorror could add a "crayons and construction paper" type of way for us to illustrate our points to those who apparently cannot fucking read?



  • Okay, since you seem to be incapable of understanding words, let's try a picture.

    The red portion is belief. The blue portion is disbelief. The green portion is non-belief. Both the red and the blue sections are faith. The green section is not.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said:

    Okay, since you seem to be incapable of understanding words, let's try a picture.

    The red portion is belief. The blue portion is disbelief. The green portion is non-belief. Both the red and the blue sections are faith. The green section is not.

    Yeah, not so much. Lack of a thing, is not that thing. Try breathing in a vacuum. Lack of faith is not faith, just as lack of air is not air. I would draw a picture to represent what you think, but these people might get upset.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place




  • Water is not air. Water is not the lack of air.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Water does displace air, and is a completely different state of matter. Perhaps if you had an IQ befitting your faith-based arrogance, you might have realized what a shitty analogy this turned out to be?



  • That's impressive, you managed to misinterpret what I said.

    Absence of belief in a god is simply that: absence of something. Agnosticism.

    Positive belief in the non-existence of something is that: belief in something. Atheism.

    At no point did I say absence of faith was faith in something. If you do not have belief in something (you don't believe in a god) it's just that, you don't have faith in that. However, if you believe there is no god, that's faith.



  • @Intercourse said:

    Water does displace air, and is a completely different state of matter. Perhaps if you had an IQ befitting your faith-based arrogance, you might have realized what a shitty analogy this turned out to be?

    Okay, since you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a vacuum and a liquid, let's try something simpler. Something more primal.

    Let's say I'm unhappy and you're not happy. Are we guaranteed to be feeling the same emotion?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    So lack of faith is faith? Gotcha. The absence of a thing, is that thing, by default.

    Fuck all! We can breathe in a vacuum. Those nifty suits the astronauts wear are SO unnecessary. Absence of air is air!



  • According to @Intercourse, these three cups are identical.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Let us only phrase things in ways that are conducive to our argument. Sure.

    So, I am not happy? I may be giddy, or curious, or speculative, or skeptical. Just because I am "not happy", does not mean that I am "unhappy". Got it?



  • Okay. Now you get it.

    Let's go back to our original concept.

    You can:

    • Believe there is a god (Theism)
    • Believe there is no god (Atheism)
    • Not have an opinion one way or the other (Agnosticism)

    Get it now?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said:

    According to @Intercourse, these three cups are identical.

    No. But what I am saying is that the part of the contents of those glasses that are liquid, are liquid. The parts that are gaseous, are gaseous. Got it? Gas is gas, liquid is liquid, solid is solid, liquid is liquid and oobleck is oobleck. We could go on. But there are clearly defined differences between the two.

    You really are retarded, aren't you?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla - are we going for DUPLICATE or WONTFIX....? ;)



  • @Intercourse said:

    part of the contents of those glasses that are liquid, are liquid. The parts that are gaseous, are gaseous


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said:

    Okay. Now you get it.

    Let's go back to our original concept.

    You can:

    Believe there is a god (Theism)
    Believe there is no god (Atheism)
    Not have an opinion one way or the other (Agnosticism)

    Get it now?

    (I am going to fucking quote-reply everything I can, because @codinghorror says that is the proper way to do things and this is his fucking cake and we shall eat it the way he says. Even if he says the way things should be eaten is to jam them up your ass.)

    No. You are just fucking wrong. Let us take this to the extreme. I do not believe that there are any purple elephants with pink polka dots roaming the Antarctic continent in bermuda shorts, and that requires no faith. Just as it requires ZERO faith to NOT have faith in the absence of a god.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @PJH said:

    are we going for DUPLICATE or WONTFIX....?

    On Discourse, isn't everything a WONTFIX? ;)



  • @Intercourse said:

    I do not believe that there are any purple elephants with pink polka dots roaming the Antarctic continent in bermuda shorts.

    Actually, that statement alone does not require faith. That is the equivalent to agnosticism. Compare it to this very similar statement:

    @Intercourse said:

    I believe that there are not any purple elephants with pink polka dots roaming the Antarctic continent in bermuda shorts.

    That one is faith.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Intercourse said:

    On Discourse, isn't everything a WONTFIX?

    Nope. In increasing order of severity they're INVALID, WONTFIX, DUPLICATE and FIXED.



  • What happens if a topic has 50 posts and it gets locked? It doesn't qualify for any of those badges.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Correct.



  • If a topic gets 1000 posts and then is locked with prejudice, does the OP get all three of the badges?


Log in to reply