BREAKING: Who we should "try to understand!"

TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2018

Who we should respect:
"No people are uninteresting?"

So Yevtushenko is said to have said. His poem appears in translation:
People

No people are uninteresting.
Their fate is like the chronicle of planets.

Nothing in them in not particular,
and planet is dissimilar from planet.

And if a man lived in obscurity
making his friends in that obscurity
obscurity is not uninteresting.

To each his world is private
and in that world one excellent minute.

And in that world one tragic minute
These are private...
So the fellow is said to have said. He continues along from there.

We first read "People" long ago, stumbling upon in it Ivan Illich's 1971 book, Deschooling Society. We were teaching fifth grade in Baltimore at the time.

We believed the poem then. We still believe it today.

This recent post by Kevin Drum brought the poem to mind. We think Drum's headline was poorly chosen, but we largely agree with the general viewpoint he advanced.

Drum was commenting on the latest manifestation of our own glorious tribe's angry contempt for The Others. This contempt is a very key part of our failing tribe's DNA. At present, it's helping to destroy the world, but we cling to it ever more strongly.

Drum was commenting on Sean Illing's annoyance on being told that he should try to understand the views of Other People. Poor Illing! Unmistakably brilliant as he is, he's forced to cohabit with the likes of people like this:
ILLING (6/30/18): I’m still struggling to understand what exactly these people mean when they complain about the “moral decline” of America. At one point, you interview a woman who complains about the country’s “moral decline” and then cites, as evidence, the fact that she can’t spank her children without “the government” intervening. Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Poor Illing! An admittedly brilliant man, he's constantly asked to take "these people" seriously!

Drum suggested, perhaps a bit politely, that Illing should perhaps and possibly try getting over himself. He offered several reasons for listening to the lesser breed, including this:

"It’s just generally a good idea to try to understand points of view that are held by a substantial number of people."

That's especially true, of course, if the people in question are able to vote and they live in the same country you do. That said, people like Illing have the royal impulse—an impulse which has driven so-called humankind down through the annals of time.

We do think Drum made some missteps. We mentioned the headline he wrote. That headline went like this:
We Should Try to Understand Even the People Who Hate Us
Drumster, please! The people who vote the other way don't necessarily "hate us." What makes us want to type a headline in which we imply that they do?

The Drumcat also said this. It's where our tribe goes wrong:
DRUM (6/30/18): Illing’s real complaint seems to be that even if this stuff is explicable, there’s nothing much anyone can do about it. So why bother with all the hand-wringing?

It’s a good question. There are plenty of people who are simply beyond reach for liberals. They’re either racist or sexist or they love guns or maybe they’re just plain mean. Whatever the reason, they aren’t going to vote for anyone even faintly liberal, and there’s virtually nothing that could persuade them otherwise. For myself, I’d say it’s still worthwhile understanding them...
The highlighted statement shows us the soul of all "human" tribes. If you think with the brain of the tribe, anyone who disagrees with you has to be subhuman, or at least strongly tilting that way.

In the current context, anyone who doesn't vote or think the way we vote has to be "either racist or sexist...or maybe they’re just plain mean." There's no such thing as the possibility that someone may know, or sensibly value, something we geniuses don't.

"No people are interesting," Yevtushenko once said. He hadn't seen our modern liberal tribe in action. Has any group of alleged human beings ever been so perfectly programmed for defeat?

Breaking: In this morning's column, David Brooks links to Professor Walters' Outlook piece. As he does, he calls it cartoonish:
BROOKS (7/3/18): [I]n the political showbiz sphere, Trump’s cartoonish masculinity squares off against cartoonish “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” incitements. It’s only there that we see the usual social media game of moral one-upmanship in which each tribe competes to be more victimized, more offended and more woke.
We're in the war of the all against all. Illing holds his lessers in contempt; Walters want to hate all men. Michelle won't stop this stupid shit in which she compares Ivanka to herpes.

Our team is so dumb we think this is smart. But this is the game at which Trump excels. Our glorious small-minded dumpster-class Dumb helps explain how the Trumpcat survives.

173 comments:

  1. "But this is the game at which Trump excels."

    This is not a game, Bob. No one cares about your 'tribe' being a zombie cult. Wanna belong to a cult - suit yourself.

    This is about economics. Good blue-collar jobs. Bringing industries back to the US. Preventing wage-suppression by widespread exploitation of undocumented labor. Limiting the waste on imperial ambitions. Real things affecting real people. Unlike your silly psychobabble shit.

    No one cares about Illing's phony annoyance, or Drum's phony disapproval of Illing's phony annoyance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is a liar and a thief.
      And Putin's bitch.

      Delete
    2. Mao,
      Trump will name an anti-labor judge to the Supreme Court, and the "economically anxious" Trump voter will applaud, because they can't get over Trump's bigotry.

      Delete
    3. Anybody else getting a little suspicious about Mao's ability to weigh in with this moronic tripe FIRST, every time Bob posts? Maybe whoever has him on Bob Watch might explain how this appears.

      Delete
    4. i have been looking for a way to get him back since then. i have tried many options but he did not come back, until i met a friend that darted me to Dr.gbojie a spell caster, who helped me to bring back my husband after 2 weeks. Me and my husband are living happily together today, That man is great, you can contact him via email l gbojiespiritualtemple@gmailcom Now i will advice any serious persons that found themselves in this kind of problem to contact him now a fast solution without steress.. He always hello, now i call him my father.contact him now he is always online email gbojiespiritualtemple@yahoo.com or gbojiespiritualtemple@gmail.com contact him on his whatsapp mobile line +2349066410185

      Delete
    5. Dr. Sam has really made me so much believe in him by getting me cured with his herbal treatment. i really appreciate you Dr.Sam for bringing back happiness to my life again. thanks you so much,friends join me to thank him for what he has actually done for me i pray to you all for a good life and good health, and most especially to you Dr. Sam THANKS.

      I have been suffering from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) disease for the past four years and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This disease started circulating all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few months ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information concerning the cure of this disease, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) by this Man Dr Sam and she drop the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so i wrote to Dr. Sam telling him about my (HERPES Virus) well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me. I am now here to testify that i am not longer a herpes patient, I have experience a total transformation in my life,for all herpes patients get your herbal medicine to cure your sickness. And there has being rapid improvement in my health, I no longer feel pains and I wake up each morning feeling revived. So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all,you can contact him. (Supremecurehome@gmail.com) Wbesite: http://www.supremecurehome.blogspot.com
      CANCER
      EPILEPSY.
      GENPILENCIN.
      HIV AIDS.
      DIABETICS
      STROKE.
      EXPANDS OF PENIS BREAST
      H.P.V TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 AND TYPE 4. TYPE 5.
      HUMAN PAPAILOMA VIRUS.
      HERPES.
      SYPHILIS.
      HEPATITIS A B and C.

      Email: Supremecurehome@gmail.com Or WhatsApp number +2347087462033

      Delete
    6. If your mobile carrier offers LTE, also known as the 4G network, you need to beware as your network communication can be hijacked remotely.

      A team of researchers has discovered some critical weaknesses in the ubiquitous LTE mobile device standard that could allow sophisticated hackers to spy on users' cellular networks, modify the contents of their communications, and even can re-route them to malicious or phishing websites.

      LTE, or Long Term Evolution, is the latest mobile telephony standard used by billions of people designed to bring many security improvements over the predecessor standard known as Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications.
      However, multiple security flaws have been discovered over the past few years, allowing attackers to intercept user's communications, spy on user phone calls and text messages, send fake emergency alerts, spoof location of the device and knock devices entirely offline.

      Incase you have vital informations on your cellphone, laptop or any gadget and you wouldn’t like it to leak out to the third party, it is advisable you get a hacker to help you encrypt your device and keep it safe and hassle free.

      However, you might be interested in Hacking into someone’s gadgets in order to capture some informations or to spy on what they are doing on a daily basis, I would suggest you to CONTACT compositehacks@gmail.com, We Provide ALL kinds of Hacking Services you might desire.

      Delete
    7. If you can't find it on Google, you will definitely find it on the Dark Web.

      Black markets on the Dark web are not known for just buying drugs, it is a massive hidden network where you can buy pretty much anything you can imagine—from pornography, weapon, and counterfeit currencies, to hacking tools, exploits, malware, and zero-days.

      One such type of underground marketplace on Dark Web is RDP Shop, a platform from where anyone can buy RDP access (remote desktop protocol) to thousands of hacked machines for a small fee.
      While investigating several underground RDP shops, security researchers from the McAfee's Advanced Threat Research team discovered that someone is selling remote access linked to security systems at a major International airport for as low as $10.

      Yes, that's $10, I didn't miss any zeros.

      Instead of buying RDP credential, researchers used the Shodan search engine to find the correct IP address of the hacked Windows Server machine, whose administrator account was up for sale, as shown in the screenshot.

      When researchers landed on its login screen through Windows RDP, they found two more user accounts, which were "associated with two companies specializing in airport security; one in security and building automation, the other in camera surveillance and video analytics."

      "We did not explore the full level of access of these accounts, but a compromise could offer a great foothold and lateral movement through the network using tools such as Mimikatz," the researchers write. 
      "We performed the same kind of search on the other login account and found the domain is most likely associated with the airport's automated transit system, the passenger transport system that connects terminals."

      According to the researchers, black market sellers usually gain access to RDP credentials by merely scanning the Internet for systems that accept RDP connections, and then launch brute-force attack with popular tools like Hydra, NLBrute or RDP Forcer to gain access
      And once the attackers successfully log into the remote computer, they don't do anything except putting the connection details up for sale on the Dark Web.

      Anyone who buys access to such machines can move laterally within the network, create backdoors, alter settings, install malware and steal data.

      As a solution, organizations should consider taking necessary RDP security measures, such as:

      * disabling access to RDP connections over the open Internet,
      * using complex passwords and two-factor authentication to make brute-force RDP attacks harder to succeed,
      * locking out users and blocking IPs that have too many failed login attempts

      You might be interested in Any Hacking Service Or you might be interested in Hacking into someone’s gadgets in order to capture some informations or to spy on what they are doing on a daily basis such as Calls, social Media Apps, Text, Contacts etc, I would Advice you to CONTACT compositehacks@gmail.com, We Provide ALL kinds of Hacking Services you might desire. Just Place Your Request, Then We’ll Assign Any of their Hackers To You Instantly.

      Delete
  2. That's a nice poem but everyone who has encountered the typical automaton hiveminded "resist" Democrat activist post-election of Trump knows some people are interesting only in their uninterestingness that results from brainwashing by the most vapid and ignorant people among us (celebs and perpetual victims).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Pour it on. Liberals, and only liberals, must be chastised by The Priest, Bob Somerby, despite his calls to love others and forgive human frailties. That forgiveness must only be directed at Conservatives. So, preach on , anon 2:49...you are a good Bobfollower.

      Delete
    2. I actually do talk to Trmpsters all the time. I think if Bob tried to do this he wouldn't last a week.

      Delete
    3. Greg,
      It's a waste of time.
      They will NEVER argue in good faith.
      Ask them about the ACA, and they'll act like they don't understand how insurance works. They will also have been paying home and car insurance (and probably health insurance too).

      Delete
  3. What's wonderful or terrible about Trump, depending on your POV, is that he totally rejects the concept of liberal moral superiority. He doesn't apologize for opposing political correctness and virtue signaling. On the contrary he treats liberals as moral inferiors. As a result, he has been espousing and instituting policies that IMHO are more effective at actually working to help people. YMMV

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His entire schtick is to demand "political correctness," but simply of a particular kind - no kneeling during the national anthem, etc.

      Delete
    2. God is a figment of dim-witted imaginations.

      Delete
  4. Bob (if you read the comments) - I agree with your sentiment, which I take to be that people are complex, and that it's both wrong and self-defeating to write-off anyone as beyond reach or full of hate. And it's important to try to find ways to communicate with them - to understand their viewpoints and to figure out an effective manner in which to communicate your viewpoints.

    I even agree that too many people don't make that effort, instead saying things that are taken - sometimes correctly - as condescending, disdainful, or worse.

    Where I diverge from your views are as follows:

    1. You're right that humans are tribal, and you're essentially asking liberals to be super-human by ignoring the many provocations of the right-wing. I like that idea, and think that it's a good goal to which to aspire, but way too many people simply won't be able to do it, for reasons both good and bad. (I can't think of any defense for that "Why We Should Hate Men" article, which I thought was being unfairly characterized by right-wing sites until I read it.)
    2. Moreover, the right-wing propaganda machine will find ways to gin-up outrage even when none exists. Obama and Hillary Clinton are good examples of people whose statements and actions were regularly taken out of context in an effort to portray them poorly, and who inevitably said some things that were counterproductive that gave further ammunition to their opponents.
    3. Donald Trump is a perfect example of this, because he's regularly said and done things that would have gotten Obama or Clinton crucified (or at least impeached) without losing any of his supporters, who continue to support him in spite of what he says and does.
    4. I don't pretend to understand what's going on. I have some close relatives and friends who support Trump, despite being intelligent, thoughtful, good people. I've spoken with them about various issues, and they really are incoherent. The best that can be said is that they're not paying a lot of attention and are defaulting to a Republican, or perhaps are being misled by propaganda. Unfortunately, it also appears to me that there's a stench of racism that plays an undeniable role, and Donald Trump is stoking that racism like no one else. That's why he beat the "conventional" Republican candidates for the nomination.

    Ultimately, I don't have an answer for how to proceed. I frequently wish people on "my side" were smarter or more strategic about how they approached issues. But I'm coming to the conclusion that it just doesn't matter, which is depressing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “But I'm coming to the conclusion that it just doesn't matter, which is depressing.”

      I’m with you on that Jonny. But I just bought three copies of “Manufacturing Consent,” which I intend to disburse amongst some friends. It’s about the only way I can think of, as a humble citizen, to counter Bob’s mostly well-justified observations, lo these many years, of media malfeasance. And as I’ve said repeatedly, Bob is tilting at windmills. Most people live in a dream world when it comes the idea that this country exists as a free Republic. Started in earnest in this country with Bernays, but I’m sure you’re aware of that.

      Gotta do what you can do. We’re doomed, but it doesn’t hurt to keep trying as best we can. I enjoyed your remarks, thanks.

      Leroy

      Delete
  5. You'll never hear more incoherence or moral failure than listening to a Democrat try to defend elective abortion. Abortion and gun rights play the biggest role for a huge number of us, and we don't care what Democrats who defend abortion say about 'racism" or any other moral question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are also born with the right to defend ourselves and our families. We don't get it from Democrats and we don't care what kind of tantrums and slurs they throw trying to take it away from us in the name of the collective. I don't live in the best neighborhood and I care about my own family more than I care about MS 13 taking offense at labels. I'll keep my guns and I'll oppose open borders.

      Delete
    2. Well, let me give it a try, fetusaloter. In my moral universe, people are not required to put their bodies at the disposal of another at risk of their lives or their health. They may undertake such a burden voluntarily, but they must not be forced to do so. You are free to label me a moral failure for refusing to believe that a blastocyst has been imbued with a soul and therefore has rights that supersede its carrier.

      Clear enough for you?

      Delete
    3. "racism"?
      What the hell is that?

      Delete
    4. @3:59 -- as a pro-choice Republican, let me give it a try. The law gives special status to human beings. Human beings are treated very differently from collections of cells. This practice requires us to decide when a collection of cells should be treated as a human being.

      For me this is not science or religion. Science doesn't tell us when a fetus becomes a human being. Various religions do purport to direct us, but I don't follow these religions. For me, the moment a fetus becomes human is an arbitrary choice that we are free to decide on.

      IMHO for this purpose, some intermediate point in the development of the fetus is the best choice. I suppose the moment the egg is fertilized or the moment of birth are also plausible choices, but I prefer to use some intermediate point of fetal development.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous on July 3, 2018 at 4:04 PM

      Nobody is trying to take your guns away, and nobody is proposing that we have open borders.

      You have been given a moral choice. You either support a regime that employs an American Kripo to separate children from their parents as a technique to ease deportation and as a tactic to gain legislative advantage. Or you don’t.

      You must weigh your choice against the probability that less harsh measures will allow some undesirables into the country. But you may not use the excuse that the alternative is open borders and the confiscation of your weapons.

      If you’re a Christian or a Jew, then it may help to know that your holy book admonishes you not to mistreat the stranger in your land.

      Or maybe it won’t help.

      Delete
    6. Racism is much less objectionable than reproductive rights.

      Nice!



      Delete
    7. Swing and miss David in CA. We are all collections of cells every day of our lives. It is not moral to decide some humans are valuable and some are not based on any of the tests we claim a fetus fails. It's justification of killing a human.

      Delete
    8. Deadrat the issue isn't legality it's ethics and with few exceptions people who don't undertake it are performing one of the most unethical acts possible regardless of their rights. There is no reasoned argument against this position and if you don't agree with it you forfeit all credibility on ethical questions.

      Delete
    9. "Racism" is behavior that isn't racist but is labeled as such by Democrats.

      Delete
    10. "You must weigh your choice against the probability that less harsh measures will allow some undesirables into the country."

      Migration of undesirables into a stable democratic society turns it into an unstable dictatorship. That's why migration must be controlled. Obama, Hillary, Bill, Feinstein, Trump all agree on this and have done so publicly but some of them now say they don't because importing undesirables enriches them.

      Delete
    11. Deadrat, there are a lot of people (me included) who are quite willing to discuss abortion on the basis of trimester.

      The rarity of abortions past the first trimester means that such limitations wouldn’t effect many women with unwanted pregnancies.

      Such a time constraint policy might serve to increase abortions in the first-term before women had time to process life beyond a blastocyst stage, but that’s a trade off that would be on my conscious, not pro-choice folks.

      Delete
    12. A decision is unavoidable. Is each egg a human being? Is each sperm cell a human being?

      I am not saying that these things should be considered to be human beings. I am saying that there's a decision to be made that they're not human beings.

      Delete
    13. “Is each egg a human being? Is each sperm cell a human being?”

      David,

      Why not unify your political philosophy? When from shit-hole ovaries and testicles, the answer would be no. From Norwegian gonads, yeah, they all are humans.

      Delete
    14. Dude -- Sometimes liberals write racist things they imagine (or pretend to imagine) that some conservative is thinking. I wonder if that liberal gets some sort of pleasure out of making a racist statement? In other words, Dude, I wonder if you secretly harbor some degree of belief for the ugly thoughts that you just attributed to me?

      Delete
    15. Dang deadrat, you’re not playing fair. First you melt the faces of 3:59 and 4:04, same person probably, then you make me research Kripa. I even had to look up the abbreviation SA, for Sturmabteilung (German: “Assault Division”). Our current political atmosphere isn’t quite in line with the history of the Kripa, but certainly a parallel can be drawn, given the militarization of our police, misuse of SWAT teams, and ICE. Here’s where I got my info, didn’t bother perusing further past it. Quite dangerous to not do so, I agree. I mean, there might be bright side to the history.

      LINK

      As far as 3:59 goes, there are often times no arguing with people opposed to abortion. I take the radical view that the unviable fetus is merely an appendage of the woman, like a gall bladder or appendix. Things get tricky when it comes to viability. Certainly human, but a “person” whose rights precede the mantle of a mothers’ self-determination? Only if you’re religious. Though Nat Hentoff made some good arguments, with which I disagree.

      For 4:04 there’s THIS

      Good reading, thanks.

      Leroy

      Delete
    16. I forgot this for 4:04

      http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html

      Leroy

      Delete
    17. "In other words, Dude, I wonder if you secretly harbor some degree of belief for the ugly thoughts that you just attributed to me?"

      Nope. I do however harbor other thoughts you might find hateful.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous on July 3, 2018 at 6:55 PM,

      Not only can I not understand what you’re talking about, I don’t know which of my posts you’re responding to. I’m going to guess it’s my comment defending abortion rights, which doesn’t mention legality.

      In your claim “People who don’t undertake it”, what’s the antecedent to it — people who don’t undertake what?

      Whatever it is, according to you, these people “with few exceptions” are “performing one of the mot unethical acts possible.” Presumably having an abortion, but what are those exceptions again?

      I’ve given you a reasoned argument; you just don’t like the inevitable conclusion of that argument. And that’s fine, but you don’t simply get to declare yourself the victor, a tactic employed only by those losing an argument.

      If you’ve got a rational counter to my argument (i.e., one not based on your religious cult’s mythology), I’m open to hearing it. You might start on our common ground that this isn’t about “legality.”

      Delete
    19. aCecelia,

      By “discuss abortion”, I presume you mean you’d be willing to criminalize abortion past the first trimester. Such abortions aren’t rare — the CDC reports that about 10% of abortions occur after 13 weeks of pregnancy. Whatever the statistics, I still don’t see the rational argument for state intervention for forced birthing.

      I also don’t understand the mindset that agrees to immoral acts, the ones that would weigh on the conscience, because those acts didn’t happen very often. (I’m reading conscience for “conscious”.) Nor do I understand why your compromise would relieve “pro-choice folks” of their supposed malfeasance.

      Delete
    20. Anonymous on July 3, 2018 at 7:01 PM,

      Frightened people like you have always predicted disaster from “undesirables” coming into the country. From the days of “No dogs or Irish” to the Chinese Exclusion Acts to the voyage of the MS St Louis to the internment of the Japanese during World War II, we have brought shame to ourselves in our treatment of “undesirable” immigrants.

      By “undesirable”, I mean people who turn out to be harmful, e.g, criminals or otherwise burdens on society, e.g., the mentally incapacitated. No population consists only of saints, but in this case there aren’t so many so unsaintly that they will turn our society into an unstable dictatorship. Wholesale cruelty and the disregard for democratic institutions are more likely candidates.

      But all that doesn’t matter. You’ve got a moral choice to make. As Florence Reece sang back in the day, “Which side are you on?” You can choose the side of deliberate cruelty and hide behind your fear or you can say, “Not in my name.”

      So which side are you on?

      Delete
    21. Deadrat "people who undertake it" refers to undertaking the responsibilities that attach to an unwanted pregnancy. I see you specifically referred to "force." My argument involves the ethics of a parent refusing to provide a human necessary life support only she can provide, after producing that individual who will be in a position of dependence on her body.

      Killing the individual is wrong. Exceptions might include a risk to that parent's life although arguments against this as a moral choice are also valid.

      Religion is not necessary to arrive at the conclusion that purposely or negligently producing someone who will necessarily depend on the use of your body for survival, then killing that individual rather than providing the necessary physical support, is wrong.

      This kind of elective choice, not a choice that involves the parent's life at stake, accounts for the vast majority of these killings. They are ethically indistinguishable from any other deliberate killing of any innocent person. They may reasonably be judged even worse than other killings because of the younger and more helpless status of the victim.

      Delete
    22. Heh. It appears that resident dead-rat didn't study lib-zombie pro-abortion talking points well.

      As a result, dead-rat's musings on the subject are giving the strong impression of outright sociopathy. Sad.

      Delete
    23. AnonymousJuly 4, 2018 at 12:46 AM,

      Thanks for the clarification. I understand now.

      You are right that religion is not necessary to arrive at your conclusions, but if you could have produced an intellectually-honest, secular argument, then I’m assuming you would have done so without redefining the terms at the heart of the disagreement, namely individual and innocent person. You should be ashamed to have used this ploy if only because it gave our resident troll, Mao in California, the opportunity to call me a sociopath.

      You’re not talking about ethics, which is about how we treat one another, but about a private morality, which is about how you define living virtuously. (Obviously, the two fields overlap.) I have no argument with your view of the morality of abortion, just as I have no argument with my vegan friend, who defines animal husbandry as slavery and butchers as murderers. What you’ve actually done is to have defined a sin and cast me in the role of heretic (That’s someone who has “forfeit all credibility on ethical questions.”) My vegan friend calls me “unevolved.”

      I have no reason to take notice of either of your moral positions until one of you decides to weaponize the state’s criminal code in your support.

      The conditions under which women become pregnant are numerous — by mistake, carelessness, force, coercion, etc. That you can name only purposefulness and negligence leads me to believe you come by your views from the mythology of your particular cult. Forgive me if I’m wrong.

      Delete
    24. David,
      Often, the corporate-owned media say some things they imagine, or pretend to imagine that Conservatives say about war-hawkery or the rigged economy.
      I wonder if Conservatives get some kind of kick out of making believe they care about such things, just to cover-up their outright love of bigotry.
      But then you and Mao come here to try gaslighting me into thinking that Conserrvatives really do care about war-hawkery and the rigged economy despite their 100% approval of Trump's HUGE military budget incresases and the his turning the economy over to Wall Streeters.

      Delete
    25. deadrat: Nobody is trying to take your guns away, and nobody is proposing that we have open borders.

      I wish that were the case. But, there's widespread support for abolishing ICE, which amounts to open borders. There are all kinds of suggestions to disarm most citizens, such as the idea of making bullets unaffordable via exorbitant taxes.

      The idea of abolishing ICE is not radical or without merit. It's harming immigrant communities and hampering investigations, and we don't need it.
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/03/abolish-ice-end-reign-terror-latinos-immigrants-column/751742002/

      Another sharp political mind, the comedian Chris Rock, argued that the price of bullets ought to be even higher than what the senator had suggested.

      “If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders,” he said


      https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html

      Delete
    26. "forced birthing."

      There, in two words, is the pro-life argument.

      Leroy

      Delete
    27. Somewhat off topic: Regarding the idea of open borders and other radical ideas, this article wisely points out the risks and potential costs of undermining the established order.

      https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/as-trump-builds-the-resistance-shouts-destroy/

      Delete
    28. "There, in two words, is the pro-life argument"

      Whoa, you fellas don't even care for the proper talking points anymore. You are psychoes. Interesting.

      Delete
    29. But, there's widespread support for abolishing ICE, which amounts to open borders.

      And this is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with lying bastards such as DinC.

      deadrat made a simple statement of fact: nobody is proposing that we have open borders.

      So lying sack of shit DinC responds with a complete non sequitur. No intellectual honesty whatsoever on the part of this twisted old man.



      Delete
    30. deadrat -- Here's an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle in favor of taking away our guns

      Make no mistake: Implementing universal background checks; improving the quality of (and removing the barriers to) mental health care; and eliminating access to weapons made for the battlefield would likely save some lives. But as long as we continue to condone personal firearms of any shape or size, we’ll remain trapped in a brutal, heart-breaking version of “Groundhog Day.”

      https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Every-gun-is-an-assault-weapon-Opinion-13038889.php

      mm - Are you arguing that nobody supports abolishing ICE? Or are you arguing that abolishing ICE, thus ending border enforcement, would not effectively amount to open borders?

      Delete
    31. DinC: Fuck you. That is the only response you deserve, you warped lying sack of shit troll. Go troll somewhere else.

      Delete
    32. "No one is proposing open borders" sounds like "no one is proposing gay marriage" used to sound. Like a lie no one believes.

      Delete
    33. "What you’ve actually done is to have defined a sin and cast me in the role of heretic "

      If ethics you believe you adhere to do not allow the killing of other human beings except in narrow circumstances like self defense, and you excuse or minimize parents doing so after placing themselves in a position of being the only person that individual can depend on for continued life, there are some facts you are not facing squarely. Your ethics in this matter would not transfer to any other analogous circumstance. Go ahead, test it.

      You take offense at the use of "individuals" but that is what a fetus is. A human individual. This fact is not in dispute scientifically or otherwise. You were you as a fetus, a human individual dependent on another human individual for a period of your development.

      Delete
    34. "but that is what a fetus is. A human individual. This fact is not in dispute scientifically or otherwise."

      It's very much in dispute.

      According to the liberal doctrine, fetus has no self-reflection, and therefore it's not a person. It's only a potential person. That's the whole point. Although, newborn baby also isn't a person, and that's a bit of a problem.

      And so some compromise, like the first trimester (for purely selfish reasons), has to be established. It satisfies most people.

      Delete
    35. Person has a legal definition now, so it's avoided in this discussion, although the legal definition a few self justifying judges invented is as useful and valid as declaring all blacks and Jews, non-persons. A compromise on which groups of humans can be killed rather than provided life-saving assistance by their parent who produced them that satisfies a certain number of people doesn't have any ethical weight. If you select "potential" and "self awareness" as the basis for acceptable killing of others, you're including anyone in a coma, and determining that a toddler child is of less legal value than a teenager or adult. No one who has adopted that reasoning as a excuse for killing a fetus would agree with higher legal penalties for killing a teenager than a toddler child, or lesser penalties for killing someone in a coma whose self-awareness is expected to emerge.

      The only justification for abortion rights is the woman's ownership of her body, but there is no ethical justification for the overwhelming majority of these killings. Some invent them in order to avoid grappling with the issue. Individuals and political parties with no ethical qualms about some groups killing members of other groups they deemed non-valuable have been around forever and have always been evil.

      Delete
    36. Humans kill humans routinely, often for humane reasons, with no judicial or ethical consequence. Humans sentenced to death by court, those involved in assaults reasonably viewed as deadly, those in unviable or unrecoverable medical states such as comas, those with terminal illnesses, those involved with military conflict, those who live in areas involved in military conflict yet are not involved directly with the conflict.

      Humans kill other life forms routinely as well, for food or comfort.

      The main issue with abortion is that life form such as it is, is unwanted. A free and healthy society does seem to function better with abortion available as a choice, The only justification for being opposed to abortion is limited to a personal scope, going beyond requires eliminating the killing of any life form.

      If a condom breaks, if a dad has incurable cancer and is no longer lucid, it is reasonable and good to have a choice in how those life forms end. It seems less reasonable that there is a choice available to cause death as a form of punishment.

      Delete
    37. Anonymous on July 5, 2018 at 2:19 PM,

      There is an intellectually honest way to argue the moral case against abortion. It involves investing the gestational stages of human embryos with intrinsic value, value that most of us agree accrue to living persons who survived birth.

      Then there’s the way you argue, which is to extend the definition of individuals to embryonic forms and expect your idiosyncratic use of language to make your case for you. This is as lazy as it is intellectually dishonest. When a woman has an abortion, she isn’t the parent of her fetus just because you want to call her a murderer.

      I have tested my ethics and they transfer just fine to other analogous circumstances. Let’s take the case of a child who needs an organ transplant to survive, and the child’s mother is the only possible organ donor, i.e., she is in “a position of being the only person” that the child can depend on for continued life. I would not require the woman to donate an organ to her child. And that’s for a being we both agree is an actual individual human or individual or person or whatever term you like. For a collection of cells that an anatomist couldn’t identify as human, I have even less regard. If we go back earlier in gestation, that would be a collection of cells an embryologist couldn’t identify as human without a genetic test.

      At no time during my fetal development was I anything like me. I certainly had the potential to be me because for good or ill, I actually turned out to be me. That potential should not have overridden by mother’s right to bodily integrity. The same statements can be made about you and your mother, and those are facts that you seem not to be facing at all, let alone “squarely.”

      I have no problem with your simply having a moral system that extends to fetuses and embryos all the considerations we have for the born, just as I have no problem with those who extend those considerations to animals.
      I don’t agree with vegetarians or forced birthers like yourself.

      The difference is that I don’t know any vegetarians who claim that my carnivorous habits disqualify me from making any ethical judgments.

      What I do have a problem with is the habit of forced birthers using the state’s criminal code to impose their views on society.

      Delete
    38. Anonymous on July 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM,

      Arguments by analogy are tricky. You have to make sure that the cases you compare are parallel. I doubt you’re up to showing that “open borders” and “gay marriage” are comparable political issues.

      In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v Hodges that states must allow and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. This was the culmination of 45 years of people “proposing gay marriage” and making their cases through legislative proposals, court actions, and referenda. In 1970, two gay Minnesotans applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. When they were refused, the went to state district court, lost there and appealed to the state Supreme Court, lost there and appealed to the US Supreme Court where they lost in Baker v Nelson in 1972.

      Most years until 1990 saw legislation banning same-sex marriage to block the increasing demands of sex-same couples. In 1990, three same-sex couples in Hawaii applied for marriage licenses from the Hawaii Department of Health. They were denied, went to state court for relief, lost there and appealed to the state Supreme Court, where they won in 1993 in Baehr v Miike, only to see the state constitution amended to overturn their victory.

      The same pattern of denial of rights continued through the 1990s, including the disgraceful 1996 federal law, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the tide began to turn in 1999 when the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v Vermont that the state could not deny equal rights to same sex couples.

      The ensuing years see a stream of state and federal legislative and judicial decisions on both sides of the issue until the Supreme Court settled things in 2015. Not only is “no one is proposing gay marriage” false, it’s the case that people wouldn’t stop proposing gay marriage.

      I don’t know where you got the idea that people used to say “no one is proposing gay marriage.” They’ve been saying the opposite since about the time the Supreme Court ruled that opposite-race marriages could not be banned.

      Delete
    39. deadrat - you make some convincing points about the history of gay marriage. I do think a narrower point may be valid: past court decisions in favor of gay behavior did not contemplate that gay marriage might be a Constitutional right. E.g., Lawrence v. Texas, (rightly IMHO) declared sodomy bans unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote: “The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”

      When the SC declared gay marriage a Constitutional right the Court followed the trend of Lawrence, but they used opposite reasoning. They threw out privacy as the justification for their decision. I don’t think that many people contemplated that this decision would lead to gay marriage being ruled a Constitutional right.

      Delete
    40. "Let’s take the case of a child who needs an organ transplant to survive, and the child’s mother is the only possible organ donor, i.e., she is in “a position of being the only person” that the child can depend on for continued life. I would not require the woman to donate an organ to her child."

      We're discussing the ethics of abortion, not its legality. In your scenario, you forgot the element of a person knowing that if a person produces a child, he or she will require let's say a bone marrow extraction from that parent. There will be valid disagreement on whether the government should force the donation but NO question it is unethical for the parent not to provide this necessary assistance to the child he produced after making the choice not to avoid creating the situation. Would you admit to even considering withholding that life saving treatment from someone dependent on it for life as a result of your actions?

      The analogy is incomplete because it is more passive than abortion. Let's assume the procedure has started and suppose it is a transmission requiring the connection of the parent and child, and the father declares he produced this child by accident, this procedure is a hassle and why should anyone tell him what to do with his body, and summons a doctor to kill the individual he produced.

      Almost all abortions are analogous to this and when they are they are always wrong. It isn't even complicated. Unthinking people have decided the evil of killing is legitimate personal empowerment. It's happened before. No ethical humanist supports it.

      Delete
    41. "At no time during my fetal development was I anything like me. "

      Who were you like? Nothing like you except for the small matter of the DNA combination that comprised that being (you). I guess it's not as important to identifying someone as an individual as their physical form is, according to feminist science.

      Delete
    42. "A free and healthy society does seem to function better with abortion available as a choice,"

      Other societies have made similar decisions that they would function better if only certain groups of humans could be legally eliminated by other groups they inconvenience.

      If you really think, you could come up with groups we could eliminate right here in this country to make it "function" better than it does by eliminating those who haven't even achieved a potential to harm it.

      Delete
    43. If you need the precision, then you may demand it. When I say I wouldn’t require a woman to donate an organ to her child, I mean that my ethical framework wouldn’t dictate otherwise.

      As for foreknowledge, in the real world not every couple having sex knowingly produces a resulting pregnancy, and it would be a rarity that such a couple would know ahead of time that the child would need their organs. But once again, you’ve simply declared yourself the superior actor in a stark black and white morality play. Before I would make a judgment, I would need to know the circumstances — the dangers of the procedure, the likelihood of success, the other members of the family, etc. And that’s for an actual child. For an embryo, I don’t see any ethical considerations. And in any case, I wouldn’t involve the state, which is all I really care about. Apparently you think there’s some “valid disagreement” on this last point, which means you’re not only a forced birther but an enforcer of organ donations.

      Consequently, I decline to be lectured by you on my moral and ethical failings.

      Please forgive me for ignoring your absurd thought experiment about interrupted medical procedures. It’s simply a fantasy that once again involves a parent and a child so that you can make the unsupported claim that “[a]lmost all abortions are analogous to this.”

      As fascinating as I find your personal ethical code, the only question that interests me in this discussion is by what ethical rule do we involve the state in enforcing personal convictions.

      Your last paragraph is telling: Embryos and children are the same; killing either is always wrong; this isn’t even a complicated decision; those who disagree are at the same time unthinking and deliberately evil; abortion is like historical genocides; anyone who supports the right to bodily integrity has abdicated all ethical responsibility and carries no regard for humanity.

      I’ve extrapolated a bit in that last, but I don’t think I’m far off. This has all the hallmarks of a true believer in a cult of fetusolatry. I decline to be lectured on morality by cultists. If I’m wrong about your religious influences, I apologize, but if I’m right, you might declare them openly.

      Bottom line: the ethical decision I consider important here is the one that considers the action of the state to coerce behavior. Is the only thing at stake here your personal condemnation of those who have abortions and those who support their right to obtain the procedure?

      I’m guessing not, but again, if I’m wrong, I apologize.

      Delete
    44. Who was I like during my fetal development? Are you serious? I don’t know, but certainly nothing like I was in any stage of my life from childhood to adulthood to my current dotage.

      Do you think that if I sent you my DNA profile, you would have any idea about what I was like as a person? My DNA serves to distinguish me from others in the sense that different people have different profiles, but do you think DNA tells who I am?

      I have no idea what you’re talking about with “physical form” and “feminist science.”

      Do you think your DNA profile even dictates your physical form? Look up epigenetics. It’s the expression of that profile that’s important. I know identical twins who are so different in outlook and personality that i wouldn’t think they were related if they didn’t look so much alike.

      Have you spent any time with the demented or those whose memories have left them? Their DNA profiles are unchanged, but they are no longer the persons they used to be. Don’t believe me? Ask their families.

      I’m me because of the memories of my experiences, my personality, my knowledge, my interactions with others, my life decisions. Those are what is “important to identifying someone as an individual.”

      Again, I have to ask whether you’re serious.

      Delete
    45. AnonymousJuly 6, 2018 at 12:21 PM

      "if only certain groups of humans could be legally eliminated"

      You are not describing abortion.

      "If you really think, you could come up with groups we could eliminate"

      Again, not abortion, and no I could not and neither could you.

      Delete
    46. "Your last paragraph is telling: Embryos and children are the same; killing either is always wrong; this isn’t even a complicated decision; those who disagree are at the same time unthinking and deliberately evil; abortion is like historical genocides; anyone who supports the right to bodily integrity has abdicated all ethical responsibility and carries no regard for humanity."

      That's a fair summary except it appears you deliberately keep reintroducing abortion rights into the discussion which I put aside to discuss the ethics of the act.

      Your odd term "fetusolatry" is superflous as we already have a term for those who do not believe it is ethical for one type of human being to kill another type of human beings based on a determination that because of their appearance or location they are somehow not really truly valid human beings. "Humanists."

      Assuming the law allowed it, you're good with the ethics of parents deciding to kill their children who are comatose but are expected to emerge from that level of consciousness at some future point?

      Delete
    47. "Have you spent any time with the demented or those whose memories have left them? Their DNA profiles are unchanged, but they are no longer the persons they used to be. "

      If a citizen leaves the country and begins to suffer from dementia, should they be identified as an immigrant upon returning?

      Should decisions affecting a person with dementia be left to the state since as new persons who no longer remember their former spouse and family those relationships and assumed rights are null?
      If they are alone and their costs burdensome to taxpayers, should we kill them when they fall asleep? They would have little consciousness while sleeping, and all of those qualities that you said make you an individual ("memories of my experiences, my personality, my knowledge, my interactions with others, my life decisions. Those are what is “important to identifying someone as an individual") would be absent when they woke up.

      Anesthetized or sleeping people with dementia and fetuses are human beings who will emerge in time from that unconscious status. They are both valuable human beings whether anyone knows them or not and it is unethical to kill them based on their temporary level of consciousness, experiences had or remembered, or level of value assigned by others.

      Delete
    48. Physical form was addressing your suggestion that the size and appearance of the human being determines its value (your argument that at certain stages it would be difficult for researchers to identify the human as human).

      Delete
    49. Dang, I think I might have to bookmark this page.

      “Their DNA profiles are unchanged…”

      That’s the only disagreement I’ve had so far. Telomeres popped to mind. Every life “evolves” even within its own lifetime, despite the dire consequences. That was quite a marathon, and perfectly suited to this forum. A bit off topic (my pedantry on remaining on so has nearly evaporated, of course), but you ran away at the gate.

      Leroy

      Delete
    50. The giveaway in my fair summary is the word evil. This is a religious term, for all your bleating about “ethics.” And like most religious dogma, yours has led you to cast heretics beyond the pale of redemption.

      It’s kinduva reverse analogy: abortion isn’t to genocide because embryos aren’t to children. Tell me why I should have ethical concerns for a collection of undifferentiated cells.

      Don’t be coy here and “put aside” the issue of abortion rights. Given your position, which you say I’ve summarized fairly, where do you stand on the ethical question of authorizing the state stop an evil that is clearly and uncomplicatedly the equivalent of murder and genocide?

      Fetusolatry is my etymologically-incorrect term parallel to idolatry to indicate someone who worships fetuses and other gestational forms of human beings.

      There aren’t different “types” of human beings; there aren’t “truly valid” human being and invalid human beings. The distinction is between human beings (i.e., those who have been born) and those stages of human embryogenesis (i.e., the unborn, by definition), which go by various technical names.

      I understand that your cult requires no ethical distinction between the two. For me, the important ethical question is how to determine the state’s role in adjudicating the conflict between the two. For most fetusolators, our duty lies in requiring the mother to bring her fetus to term. For others our duty lies in respecting the mother’s bodily integrity even so far as to allow her to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy.

      It’s odd that you should ask my ethical judgment about parents killing children since you’ve already decided that I’ve “forfeit all credibility on ethical questions.” But I’ll assume you ask for rhetorical purposes. I’m not OK with parents killing children whether the law allows it or not. That’s because they’re children.

      Fair’s fair, so answer my questions:

      What’s your basis for making no ethical distinction between children and blastocysts?

      Are you good with the ethics of the state enforcing your ethical considerations through it criminal code?

      Delete
    51. If a citizen leaves the country and begins to suffer from dementia, should they be identified as an immigrant upon returning?

      This is a legal question, and the answer is no because illness does not abrogate citizenship. Of what relevance is this question?

      Should decisions affecting a person with dementia be left to the state since as new persons who no longer remember their former spouse and family those relationships and assumed rights are null?

      This is a legal question. The mentally impaired often have no rights, even if they can articulate their preferences. It’s called guardianship. The decisions affecting such persons are often left to the state. It’s called public guardianship. Of what relevance is this question?

      If they are alone and their costs burdensome to taxpayers, should we kill them when they fall asleep? They would have little consciousness while sleeping, and all of those qualities that you said make you an individual

      Why would you assume that the demented have less consciousness when they fall asleep than you do?

      and all of those qualities that you said make you an individual would be absent when they woke up.

      I said those qualities that make me the individual that I am. As distinct from my fetal form. Try to focus.

      What makes you think that the demented have no functioning that makes them individuals? I’m confident that such functioning requires a developed nervous system, however.

      As disturbing as it is, I know that your cult requires you to make no distinction between sleeping people and fetuses. Sleeping people have had consciousness and usually demonstrate that they recover that consciousness when they awake. I thus have ethical duties to them.

      Fetuses, not so much; blastocysts, not at all. Fetuses are not the same as sleeping people, and birth is not waking up from a nap. No matter what your cult says.

      My ethical obligations are to pregnant women, including respect for their bodily integrity. Just as I respect the bodily integrity of sleeping people.

      Delete
    52. Leroy,

      I’m the last person to decry pedantry. In fact, I love it.

      I would drop the term evolves, even in scare quotes. Populations evolve; individuals change genetically when one considers the entire chromosomal structure. I think that “DNA profile” is generally understood as the sequence of inherited codons that when expressed. dictate how we’re formed. Even this is no absolute. Mutations popped to mind.

      Delete
    53. Physical form was addressing your suggestion that the size and appearance of the human being determines its value (your argument that at certain stages it would be difficult for researchers to identify the human as human).

      If you think that “size and appearance” is what distinguishes the various embryonic stages of human development from a baby, then I suggest you brush up on your embryology. When you’ve figured out neurulation and organogenesis, get back to me. That way we don’t have to waste time arguing about preformationism and homunculi.

      Delete
    54. deadrat, what I badly expressed was that I used to be pedantic about respondents straying from Bob’s particular topic of the day. It was kind of dumb to think that way. Almost any essay by Bob is bound to result in divergent conversations, and that’s a great thing, as you’ve just shown. Btw, wonder how Bob is doing.

      You’re right, strictly speaking of course re the entire genome. Does the genome remain the same from birth until death? Morphologically, yes, aside from senescence and cancer. But cancer, as described in the link, seems to me a form of genetic mutation during one’s lifetime. After all, the cells in a multicellular organism seem to reproduce as bacteria do, asexually, which is where the mutations occur in that organism. That’s the reason I used “evolve,” technically incorrect as it may be. We’re all of us “evolving” towards our mortal end.

      Unless I’m mistaken, the mutations (some good, some bad) you allude to occur at conception. Unless there are genetic mutations that manifest later in life, aside from cancer. I’ll look it up. Because I’m practically talking out my ass anyway.

      Leroy

      Delete
    55. As Scarecrow said: some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't you think?

      Delete
    56. "Sleeping people have had consciousness and usually demonstrate that they recover that consciousness when they awake"

      So the distinction of an experience of "having had" consciousness (a fetus will acquire consciousness) is what permits you to regard their killing as ethical?

      At the point of gestation when the fetus experiences consciousness if any does consciousness affect your ethical calculations about the rightness or wrongness of killing him or her?

      Do you believe that respecting someone's bodily integrity also means you must respect their decision to kill someone rather than offer the assistance only they can provide, even if she placed that individual in his or her predicament?

      Does that sound ethical in any analogous situation?

      Are there any human behaviors you call "evil" and if you do, is there anything religious behind it? If you avoid the word, what word would you use for the most objectionable of conscious and informed human behaviors including the taking of an innocent life?

      Delete
    57. Leroy,

      I think we might as well discuss something interesting while I’m waiting around for Anonymous crypto-christianists to lecture me on my moral failings. I assume that as long as Bob doesn’t read his commentary section, he’s doing fine.

      Asking whether our entire genome remains the same from birth to death assumes that our genome is uniform and static, so that every cheek swab would result in identical sequencing. But there are some mechanisms that provide exceptions.

      The first is somatic mutations, changes that occur in cells other than gametes (i.e., cells other than sperm and egg cells). These don’t get passed on to the next generation of offspring, but they can get passed on to the next generation of cells. As you note, some cancers arise this way, but given the redundant nature of the genetic code, some changes to genes might not result in a different protein transcription. Some changes to genes not expressed in the tested cell (e.g., an epithelial cell from the cheek) wouldn’t matter.

      If this kind of mutation happens to one of the undifferentiated daughter cells of a fertilized egg, then the descendants of the mutated cell will all have the changed genome, and the descendants of the other, non-mutated cells won’t. The resulting person is a mosaic of cells of differing genome.

      In checking my facts, I found that twinning can go awry, and two separately fertilized eggs can fuse. What would have been fraternal twins becomes what’s called a chimera, someone with two separate original genomes. Such a person might have two blood types. This is my current theory of Mao and David. “They” are a chimera, genomically a troll, but with two different genomes, which explains why “their” posts can differ.

      Some mutations can occur at conception since a fertilized egg is just a cell and subject to the same mutagenic forces as other types of cells. But other genetic disorders result from mutated germ cells. Human cells have a slight tendency to duplicate chromosome 21, and both sperm and eggs can end up with the duplicated 21 giving them twenty-four chromosomes. When such a gamete meets a normal twenty-three-chromosome gamete, the result is a genome with forty-seven chromosomes and a person with Down Syndrome. The change manifests at conception, but the change took place before.

      Delete
    58. "where do you stand on the ethical question of authorizing the state stop an evil that is clearly and uncomplicatedly the equivalent of murder and genocide?"

      I come down on the side of abortion rights. In most of the cases it is committed there is no distinction from any other killing of an innocent person.

      The problem is the extent to which government in a free society can scrutinize the decision to determine which cases are exceptions, and render a penalty for its unethical application.

      It isn't hard to imagine the difficulty in treating the killing like any other even in cases where it is the moral equivalent.

      If there were a way to avoid violating certain fundamental freedoms yet distinguish those cases in which a person behaves negligently and then refuses their responsibility to the individual they produced, from other cases mitigated by certain risks or absence of negligence, I would not have an ethical issue with prevention of these killings under those circumstances. It is partially analogous to conscripted soldiers, although they have a better argument, not having started the war they are expected to fight in. An outcome of curbed freedoms for a would-be killer of an innocent person that includes saving the life of the innocent is preferable to preserving all of her freedoms and killing the innocent she endangered.

      There is no way of enforcing the expectation without an unacceptable cost to the fundamental freedoms of others.

      Many lives are lost but we justifiably make this bargain in a free country including by accepting a nearly absolute right to self-defense with guns even though the outcome is the killing of many thousands of innocents.

      It is always wrong to utilize your self defense and bodily integrity rights to kill innocents.
      Attacks based on suspected motives of religion only weaken your defense. Motives are not important to the ethical question which we've addressed only in humanist grounds. By focusing on them you convey that you've run out of arguments on those grounds.

      Delete
    59. So the distinction of an experience of "having had" consciousness … is what permits you to regard their killing as ethical?

      Partly. Ethics is the art of balancing conflicting claims of right action. Sentient beings have the strongest claims.

      a fetus will acquire consciousness

      Sure. After it’s born.

      At the point of gestation when the fetus experiences consciousness if any does consciousness affect your ethical calculations about the rightness or wrongness of killing him or her?

      If any When you can demonstrate fetal consciousness, get back to me. Until then, can we agree that aborting an embryo without a developed nervous system is ethical?

      I didn’t think so. Why not?

      Do you believe that respecting someone's bodily integrity also means you must respect their decision to kill someone….

      No, I don’t believe that a pregnant woman’s right to bodily integrity permits her to kill random individuals regardless of their predicament.

      Oh, you meant abortion. The answer is still no. Unlike you, I have absolutely no ethical rules about what others must respect.

      Does that sound ethical in any analogous situation?

      I can’t answer that until you provide me with an analogous situation. Remember my reverse analogy: Abortion is not to murder as embryo is not to person.

      Are there any human behaviors you call "evil”….?

      I don’t want to be dogmatic about a semantic issue. I’ve used the word evil in a metaphoric, collective sense. I tend to avoid it because of its religious meaning, i.e., an offense against some mythological being or that being’s supposed code of conduct. There are numerous secular synonyms — heinous, inhuman, harmful, immoral, etc. I may be wrong in my application of these labels, but there’s nothing religious behind my choices.

      How about you answer some of my questions?

      Delete
    60. these two commenters debating abortion have limited skills at presenting coherent counter arguments.

      Delete
    61. Fetuses are conscious at a certain point. "If any" refers to "at what point" which I mistakenly typed "at the point." There is no disputing birth does not initiate consciousness and normal fetuses are conscious about mid way through gestation.

      A developed nervous system is important to you, but not the fact that each human lived through undeveloped stages before becoming more developed as fetus is expected to? Why is previous consciousness and a previously functioning nervous system important? Is it more ethical to kill a newborn infant than an older one, or an older, smarter chimpanzee?

      You don't believe bodily integrity permits a woman to ethically kill random individuals regardless of their predicament but you do believe bodily integrity permits a woman to ethically kill an individual she negligently produced who requires the use of her physiology for a period of time for survival?

      You don't need religion to make a humanist argument against killing innocent humans. Not all who oppose perfectly rationalized genocides do so on religious grounds. Some argue an atheist or secular humanist is always open to genocide under the right conditions but I would disagree, even if a reasoned ethical argument cannot be made on humanist grounds in defense of most abortions.

      Delete
    62. “The change manifests at conception, but the change took place before.”

      I understand that. And certainly, that’s one of the driving forces behind the evolution of species. Down Syndrome brings up the question of genetic variability brought about by environmental factors, such as lead poisoning. It has immediate effects, but what of the long-term? There is so much crap in our air, soil and water that one might wonder if those factors have play in our genetic legacy, just as with Asperger’s or autism. Hell, I might be an agent were I to reproduce.

      I read once that DNA had to compete with other forms of self-replicating molecules to become successful.

      You might be right about DinC and Mao, but what about you and Cmike? Your cadence is remarkably similar. But I suppose that’s how it goes with human evolution. A dandelion will always be a dandelion when it reiterates itself. You may not be the same person. Personally: I don’t care. I ignore the glimmer twins and enjoy the writing you, Cmike, Dave (the guitar player), Caesar, mm, Dude and many others, whom I can’t remember at the moment, contribute. They almost always give you something meaningful to think about.

      But then again, we can’t ignore the foils against which we pitch ourselves. That’s where the good stuff happens. May be going to hell in a bucket, but at least I’m enjoying the ride.

      Heartless powers try to tell us what to think
      If the spirit's sleeping then the flesh is ink
      History's page will be neatly carved in stone
      The future's here, we are it, we are on our own
      On our own, on our own, we are on our own
      - John Barlow

      Sorry, been drinking again.

      Leroy

      Delete
    63. Fetuses are conscious at a certain point.

      Because you say so? At some point fetuses have nervous systems that support neuroelectrical activity, but I’m not taking your word for it that this means fetuses are conscious. Some say that a soul enters the fertilized egg at conception. I don’t believe them either without evidence.

      A developed nervous system is important to me because I see my strongest ethical duties to the sentient. When it comes to a blastocyst and a pregnant woman, the latter’s wishes take precedence over yours in the matter of the blastocyst, which doesn’t have wishes.

      You don't need religion to make a humanist argument against killing innocent humans.

      In fact, you need religion to make the argument for killing innocent humans.

      Some argue an atheist or secular humanist is always open to genocide under the right conditions but I would disagree

      C’mon, isn’t that what you really want to argue? Go ahead; you’ll feel better. You’re pretty much there anyway, having accused me of being complicit in genocide.

      You don’t need theism to make an intellectually-honest argument against abortion. A Jain would say that all violence to anything living damages us in our karmic journey. A vegetarian might reason that if taking animal life is wrong, then how much worse is taking human life in any form. A secular humanist might say that it’s ethical to protect the potential created at conception even at the expense of the freedom of action of the woman who has conceived.

      What you won’t hear in these cases is an argument by verbal slight of hand. That because we can talk about an individual fetus (meaning a particular one), that makes all fetuses the same as individuals (meaning the ones who have been born). What you won’t hear is the attribution of “innocence” to aborted fetuses or the accusations of genocide thrown at those who support the right of pregnant women to the control of their bodies.

      So you should probably stop doing those things.

      Delete
    64. An outcome of curbed freedoms for a would-be killer of an innocent person that includes saving the life of the innocent is preferable to preserving all of her freedoms and killing the innocent she endangered.

      (For those not following the libretto, “curbed freedoms” means forced birth, “innocent person” means fetus or earlier phase of human gestation, and “would-be killer” means a woman exercising her right to control her own body.)

      And yet in an act of mental contortion, you “come down on the side of abortion rights.” I don’t know how you managed to stick that landing, but you deserve 10’s across the board.

      If there were a way to avoid violating certain fundamental freedoms yet distinguish those cases in which a person behaves negligently and then refuses their responsibility to the individual they produced, from other cases mitigated by certain risks or absence of negligence,….

      Replace “individual they produced” with “individual they harmed”; replace “mitigated by certain risks” with “mitigated by certain conditions.” Now you have a text-book case describing defamation. The fundamental freedom is freedom of speech, and the courts have no trouble handling things.

      With defamation, reputations are ruined and lives disrupted, but no one ever dies. Still we’re up to handling the difficulties of such cases. But in the face of the genocide of innocents, you throw up your hands.

      Why can’t we apportion your “responsibility” for pregnancy? It’s easy enough when it comes to adults having sex with the underaged. That’s a strict liability crime: no excuses allowed. Sexual exploitation exacts a terrible price without killing many of its victims, but you’re squeamish about applying that rule to pregnancy while a host of innocents is slaughtered?

      For individual killings, the criminal courts parse responsibility to a very fine degree. Back in Territorial days, New Mexico had five degrees of culpable homicide. (As a state, NM has four — two of murder, two of manslaughter). But for the wholesale slaughter of innocents, you don’t think we’re up to the task.

      The religious fetusolator who kills abortion doctors is logically consistent. You’re borderline incoherent. Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy you’ve landed where you have, but here’s the problem with your approach — it makes you a sophist or coward or a murderer.

      No way to go through life, son.

      BTW, the saner parts of the country do not accept “a nearly absolute right to self-defense with guns.” Many places have the concept of the duty to retreat. You must be thinking of Florida with its “stand your ground” law, which you’ll be relieved to hear doesn’t apply to black people.

      Delete
    65. You think not opposing legal abortion is inconsistent with a belief that it is ethically indistinguishable from any other killing of any other innocent human being?

      It isn't but that's for you to work out.

      A nearly absolute right to self defense with guns refers to rights to gun ownership upheld by the Supreme Court. Nearly absolute means we enjoy the right to protect ourselves with guns and there are few exceptions. We accept the consequence of that liberal point of view because we view the alternative a government that prohibits that form of self-defense as less acceptable.

      Opposing gun control because of greater weight given an individual's right to protect himself is not inconsistent with opposing the killing of innocent human beings. Opposing eliminating abortion rights because of the unacceptable level of government intrusion required to determine which are ethical is not the same as supporting the killing of innocent human beings.

      A fetus is potential as is an infant. Both are also human beings. You claim the infant magically attains consciousness upon birth. That's simply false.

      I don't think you're a secular humanist open to genocide. You seem like a nice enough fellow. I think you're someone who avoids fully considering the issue because you're emotionally charged having been brainwashed by feminist dogma and rage that doesn't permit fully considering the issue if you hope to retain your good boy status in the church of abortion. I'm willing to bet you don't even think you have a right to an opinion other than the one required by its orthodoxy because you're not female.

      Delete
    66. "The religious fetusolator who kills abortion doctors is logically consistent. "

      If you mean the religious person who understands the fact that fetuses are human beings and believes they should be protected, he isn't consistent in killing a doctor if he also believes in any exceptions, since he has no way of knowing which violations if any that doctor is committing. If such a person doesn't kill abortion doctors, he is not being inconsistent if he holds other moral views that prohibit killing the doctor.

      That isn't really difficult is it?

      Delete
    67. "What you won’t hear is the attribution of “innocence” to aborted fetuses"

      Why do you take offense to that term, when it clearly applies. "Innocent: not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences."

      "or the accusations of genocide thrown at those who support the right of pregnant women to the control of their bodies."

      The exercise of a right is not always ethical and is often evil or whatever term you would choose from your list for the most extreme acts of wrongdoing.

      Delete
    68. You think not opposing legal abortion is inconsistent with a belief that it is ethically indistinguishable from any other killing of any other innocent human being?

      This isn’t a matter of what I think. It’s a matter of what ethics means and logic dictates. If you oppose the killing of innocent human beings, and you believe that fetuses are as innocent human beings as any humans who have been born, then you cannot be consistent and not oppose abortion.

      But that’s for you to work out.

      The exceptions and restrictions laid out by Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago belie your claim of plenary rights to “protect ourselves with guns.” Hellerbasically says that the gov can’t stop you from owing a gun for self-protection in your home, and if you own one, the gov can’t require that you disable it.

      You seem sure of so many things that aren’t so.

      Delete
    69. That isn't really difficult is it?

      Um, yeah. In fact your 10:55P post is nearly impossible to parse.

      I think what you’re saying is that the religious opponent of abortion isn’t inconsistent if doesn’t kill doctors who perform abortions because those doctors may perform “acceptable” abortions.

      But this is backwards. The religious opponent of abortions is certainly justified in believing that the doctors in question perform at least some “unacceptable” abortions.

      First of all, there are certainly those who don’t believe in exceptions. For those who accept only the exception of dire necessity (i.e., the imminent death of the mother absent a termination of her pregnancy) can be sure that such abortions are not performed in clinics.

      If you believe in the ethical rule that deadly force is acceptable to prevent the taking of innocent life, there is nothing inconsistent about killing doctors who perform abortions in clinics.

      Delete
    70. Why do you take offense to that term, when it clearly applies.

      I’m not offended by anything you write. What makes you think I am?

      My objection is to your argumentation, an appeal to emotion so as to sneak in your claim that fetuses et al. are the same as born persons.

      The exercise of a right is not always ethical and is often evil….

      So you claim, but it’s an odd set of ethics that doesn’t oppose the exercise of rights that amount to “the most extreme acts of wrongdoing.”

      Just sayin’.

      Delete
    71. I don't think you're a secular humanist open to genocide.

      Thanks, I guess. But I don’t see how you can logically avoid that conclusion.

      You seem like a nice enough fellow.

      How do our exchanges lead you to that conclusion? Because I’m not. The general feeling is that I’m a terrible individual in person and my online persona is even worse.

      I think you're someone who avoids fully considering the issue….

      After all I’ve written, you don’t think I’ve fully considered the issue? What do think I haven’t considered? This is different from not agreeing with you.

      you're emotionally charged

      How on earth would you know my emotional state from my comments here? Even if I told you, which I haven’t.

      having been brainwashed by feminist dogma and rage

      How on earth would you know how I came to conclusions? Even if I told you, which I haven’t. What does “feminist dogma and rage” have to do with anything I’ve written? My views on abortion pre-date modern-day feminism. Those views were roughly concurrent with so-called second-wave feminism, which in the US was (no surprise) concerned with reproductive rights. I don’t recall much “rage”.

      if you hope to retain your good boy status in the church of abortion.

      I don’t belong to any “church”, and certainly not one that’s a figment of your fevered imagination. I don’t care about my “status” in the eyes of anyone not close to me. What have I written that would make you think otherwise?

      I'm willing to bet you don't even think you have a right to an opinion other than the one required by its orthodoxy because you're not female.

      Don’t bet the farm. I think all people have a right to any opinion they reach and by any means they reach it. I’m not sure how to prove that, but I think that pornography isn’t oppression, that safe spaces on campus are antithetical to learning, and that when #metoo collides with due process, the latter should win.

      And how do you know I’m not female?

      Delete
    72. "I'm willing to bet you don't even think you have a right to an opinion other than the one required by its orthodoxy because you're not female."

      Meh. The "liberal guilt" phenomenon you're implying here is a thing of the past (if it ever was real).

      These days, they're simply a hysterical hate-spewing zombie cult.

      Delete
    73. "If you oppose the killing of innocent human beings, and you believe that fetuses are as innocent human beings as any humans who have been born, then you cannot be consistent and not oppose abortion."

      Correct but I said legal abortion. You can consistently oppose abortion without opposing legal abortion.

      "Hellerbasically says that the gov can’t stop you from owing a gun for self-protection in your home, and if you own one, the gov can’t require that you disable it."

      As I said, a near absolute right to protect oneself with a gun in spite of an outcome of more killings of innocents people than in self-defense.

      "So you claim, but it’s an odd set of ethics that doesn’t oppose the exercise of rights that amount to “the most extreme acts of wrongdoing.”"

      I oppose the exercise of rights that amount to the most extreme acts of wrongdoing such as most abortions. I could think of thousands more. We have rights founded in reasoning intended to protect certain freedoms. Those rights permit acts that are both legal and evil. You can think of thousands if you put your mind to it.

      "After all I’ve written, you don’t think I’ve fully considered the issue? What do think I haven’t considered? This is different from not agreeing with you"

      Someone who has fully considered the issue will not conclude the act is not unethical if he subscribes to an ethic that it is wrong for a person not to sustain a dependent human being's life to the extent of a pregnancy, particularly if they are the cause of that individual's predicament and dependence.

      "How on earth would you know my emotional state from my comments here?"

      Speculating based on insults thrown around and a preoccupation with the fact that religion informs the opinions of some on the issue.

      "What does “feminist dogma and rage” have to do with anything I’ve written? "

      Raging feminists have created an atmosphere that forces a choice between avoiding the issue and being hectored and nagged unmercifully for noticing abortion is wrong in most instances. Most people who support legal abortion don't think further consideration or debate is necessary once that position is taken and are satisfied keeping their mouth and mind shut.

      I don't know you're not female but it wouldn't matter to the validity of your point of view.

      Delete
    74. (To clarify, you can consistently oppose abortion without opposing the legality of abortion)

      Delete
    75. 2:45
      “Does that sound ethical in any analogous situation?”

      One of the things not considered in this long back-and-forth is the phenomenon of spontaneous abortion (I may have missed it.) In the animal world, mammals are known to spontaneously abort in order to save their own lives when they are in mortal peril. The evolutionary logic? In sacrificing the life of the fetus, the adult will live on to reproduce once again.

      Humans spontaneously abort as well, often for medical reasons, such as Listeria infections, which has the same effect of saving the mother’s life. But we also have something animals don’t have, which is the ability to decide if abortion is necessary for the well-being of the mother. That is a personal decision, and by definition, a natural phenomenon. Thank dog the legal right to make such a decision is still hanging on by a thread in this country. Anything to the contrary would be utterly, completely unethical.

      Delete
    76. I don't find any of Leroy's comment objectionable. Some abortions are ethical on humanistic grounds.

      The fact of spontaneous death doesn't change the ethics in most instances. Infants die spontaneously in their sleep and it doesn't affect the ethics of killing them.

      The argument that prohibiting legal abortion would be unethical is valid as are some arguments in favor of restrictions.

      The current trend in some quarters is to attempt to convince people there is nothing wrong with these killings in any case. There is no logic behind that unethical position that differs from any other historical episode of genocide and it is not a more humane but a sick society that promotes it.

      With birth control widely available and women's equality, it can be argued the act has become an even less, not more ethical one. It takes a special kind of negligence and lack of conscience for a person to abdicate the responsibility of not killing someone they placed in a position of dependence. Even worse to try to sell it as a moral good, but all genocides are sold as good especially by the group that benefits most from the killing of the group of human beings they've worked to devalue and define as less than human.

      Delete
    77. Jeezus, you're an idiot. I didn't say "spontaneous death" you fucking moron, and the rest of your arguments, which have already been dismantled, one by one, over days, by the good dr, find you still plodding along over worn-out territory. Let’s call it a day. You haven’t won any converts here, nor will you.

      Leroy

      Delete
    78. deadrat, you might find this amusing. I was re-reading a book from my teenage years last night, “The Unreasoning Mask,” by Philip José Farmer, and ran accrost this:

      “He realized that the glyfa was, in some ways, just like him. It questioned the inexact use of a word or term; it liked to demonstrate that the other did not know exactly what he, she or it was saying. Was this characteristic a means of putting down the other and so showing his own superiority? Or was it his personal requirement, quite justified, for the precise use of a word? Or both?”

      One little paragraph, a description of pedantry from a 300 page science fiction novel!

      Leroy

      Delete
    79. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    80. You can consistently oppose abortion without opposing legal abortion.

      You can do this only if you regard the status of the embryo as a personal moral choice, one that perhaps you strive to convince others of, but which has no binding on those who continue to disagree with you.

      What you cannot do is oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the equivalent of first-degree murder and collectively the equivalent of any historical genocide, but then decide that you support legal abortion.

      At least not without the sort of sophistry that you’ve displayed in this discussion.

      We have rights founded in reasoning [that] permit acts that are both legal and evil. You can think of thousands if you put your mind to it.

      I can think of situations in which the conflict of reasonable rights leads to outcomes that I think are unjust. I can’t think of a single one, let alone thousands, in which those rights lead to “evil”. And I doubt you can either.

      Someone who has fully considered the issue will not conclude the act is not unethical if he subscribes to an ethic that it is wrong for a person not to sustain a dependent human being's life to the extent of a pregnancy, particularly if they are the cause of that individual's predicament and dependence.

      My full consideration includes understanding that an embryo is not the equivalent of “a dependent human being’s life”, even though the collection of cells is dependent on a womb and that the cells are genomically human. Now I may be wrong in that judgment, and you may have facts that you haven’t yet deployed to demonstrate my error. But that’s different from the claim that I haven’t considered the issue, and to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest. So you should stop that.

      "How on earth would you know my emotional state from my comments here?"

      Speculating based on insults thrown around and a preoccupation with the fact that religion informs the opinions of some on the issue.


      It’s clear I’m contemptuous of your reasoning, and if you call that insulting, then so be it. I did speculate that you have a religious basis for your claims, but it’s hardly been a “preoccupation”, and to be fair, your (dare I say) apocalyptic language does lead to that view. But neither of those things tells you anything at all about my emotional state. So you should probably drop the speculation.

      Raging feminists have created an atmosphere that forces a choice between avoiding the issue and being hectored and nagged

      Where are these “raging feminists” outside your fevered imagination? On YouTube? Do what I do with Trump channels run by Russian bots — block them. Do they follow you home? Do they call your cell phone? I don’t believe for a moment that you (or anyone else) is being “hectored and nagged” about abortion. Unless it’s the forced birthers yelling at women going into abortion clinics

      I don't know you're not female but it wouldn't matter to the validity of your point of view.

      That’s right, but you assumed my sex anyway, just as you assumed that contemporary “raging feminists” dictated my views on abortion when it’s likely none of those were even born when I made up my mind.

      You should probably stop doing that.

      Delete
    81. Leroy,

      Was this characteristic a means of putting down the other and so showing his own superiority? Or was it his personal requirement, quite justified, for the precise use of a word?

      Put me down for the former. I’m not proud of it, but the truth shall set me free.

      Delete
    82. " I can’t think of a single one, let alone thousands, in which those rights lead to “evil”. And I doubt you can either."

      White supremacist rallies are both legal and evil. You know they are legal, so I guess we can assume you believe they are not evil, or whatever term you choose for heinous acts? There are thousands more acts that are both justifiably legal and evil.

      Delete
    83. "a dependent human being’s life”, even though the collection of cells is dependent on a womb and that the cells are genomically human"

      You're a collection of cells that is human. You haven't offered a reason for identifying the other humans as less human that also wouldn't apply to adults in a coma, etc.

      "(dare I say) apocalyptic language does lead to that view."

      "Evil" is routinely thrown around by every stripe of activist and partisan.

      "dictated my views on abortion when it’s likely none of those were even born when I made up my mind."

      It's possible they caused you to close it and put your efforts into defending an ossified view that you probably recognize as inconsistent with your own ethical code.

      Delete
    84. "Jeezus, you're an idiot. I didn't say "spontaneous death" you fucking moron"

      A spontaneous abortion is a spontaneous death. A fetus that dies spontaneously and an infant that dies spontaneously are both spontaneous abortions. Abortion means the end of something in process. In these cases, a life in process.

      I'm not the one deciding that the most common usage and understanding of words and phrases suddenly becomes unfairly loaded language when used to discuss something that relies on euphemism cover up the reality of it.

      It's notable proponents of genocides have always relied on euphemism to obscure them or make them more palatable to the masses.

      I'm not assuming you're genocidal maniacs. There are other explanations for insisting most abortions that take place are ethical when that position contradicts one's ethics.

      Delete
    85. “…the reality of it.”

      Oh, you must be referring to genocide. Talk about euphemisms!

      “It's notable proponents of genocides…” What is the “it” to which you refer? Satan?

      “A fetus that dies spontaneously and an infant that dies spontaneously are both spontaneous abortions.”


      A fetus is being equated with an infant, and spontaneous death is abortion. We’re in la-la land now. Where dinosaurs were ridden bareback. Or was it with saddles? My ancient history is a bit foggy.

      This has become a circular argument with no end in sight.

      dr, I'd put myself down for "both." Your patience, eloquence and perserverance have been something to behold. We’re all going to need it, since the views of anon may be those of the next SCOTUS appointment. And it will not give up. Nor should we.

      Leroy

      Delete
    86. You're a collection of cells that is human. You haven't offered a reason for identifying the other humans as less human that also wouldn't apply to adults in a coma, etc.

      I have. You just don’t want to hear it. Fetuses have nothing that makes them individuals in the way I have capacities that make me unique. Earlier stages of embryonic development have almost nothing that makes them even recognizably human. It is you who must offer a reason for thinking otherwise. There are ways to do this, but wordplay isn’t one of them.

      You don’t know much about comas. Perhaps you mean the brain dead, whom we routinely kill.

      It's possible….

      Anything is possible, Sparky, but you haven’t even demonstrated the existence of these “raging feminists.” Once you have, your work has just begun. You must demonstrate that I’ve heard what I believe are figments of your imagination, that they are capable of closing minds, and that I am susceptible to their overtures.

      Go ahead and give it a try. Start by showing me a feminist “raging” about abortion. Note that this has to be more than a woman who speaks in favor of valuing her own bodily integrity during her pregnancy.

      Delete
    87. White supremacist rallies are both legal and evil.

      White supremacist rallies are full of frightened, pathetic lunkheads who like to voice hateful ideas. But as long as they merely mill around making noise, they’re not “evil”. Thought crime and speech crime are nonsensical religious concepts:


      But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment…. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.


      Also see looking at a woman with lust as the equivalent of adultery and anything to do with blasphemy.

      I think you’re showing your true colors.

      You’re oh-for-one, and you have to get to two thousand.

      Delete
    88. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment…. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

      That's Matthew 5:22.

      Delete
    89. "Fetuses have nothing that makes them individuals in the way I have capacities that make me unique."

      Infants have less capacity than adult chimpanzees. Is killing them more ethical than killing an adult?

      "You don’t know much about comas. Perhaps you mean the brain dead, whom we routinely kill."

      The brain dead finally qualify for what you've been going for all along except you've had it backwards. The brain dead look "recognizably human" but are permanently absent consciousness, intelligence, personality unlike a fetus or someone in a coma.

      There is a religious argument that says because they are alive, their lives must be sustained because God decides. I respect the belief but those killings might be consistent with humanist ethics. Arguments could be made but they would be based on the symbolism of ending the life of that individual whether the condition happened at their fetal stage or any later stage of life.

      Ending the life of a fetus with the knowledge it is a developing human being entirely dependent on others for his or her defense, based on a judgment that their level of intelligence, capacity, personality is not valuable to observers in their current stage is ethically no different from killing an infant. You were you at that stage as were your children if you have any. It takes a special absence of empathy not to concern oneself with others at the same stage of their lives and the fact that even the mothers of those human beings not only fail to empathize but believe killing the most helpless and dependent is an act of empowerment is a sickness.

      There is less that is recognizably human in an MS 13 murderer, who Trump called "animals" than in a fetus if we entertain which individual should be valued more based on qualities we value about human beings. An innocent human fetus or infant or child with little capability is more valuable to the collective than a murderer. A consistent humanist wouldn't entertain the question in order to decide who can be killed "ethically" because the intrinsic value of the being as a human individual independent of his capabilities, developmental stage, or acts is important. Unethical leaders and parties and mobs will always get around to deciding it isn't.

      Delete
    90. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before in the likely-vain hope that you’ll pay attention. My position on abortion requires that I apportion my ethical duties between conflicting parties — a pregnant woman with the right to bodily integrity and a developing life that she carries with the right of the chance of birth.

      My ethical duties are highest to the sentient and then the conscious. In the tough cases, I err on the side of inclusion when conflict is absent. Does passage through the vaginal canal give the fetus some magical power of individuality? Of course not, but once born, the infant no longer makes the demands of the mother’s body that it did as a fetus. Is someone in a coma still an individual? In many cases no, but we don’t know for sure in which cases, and in no case do coma patients require the use of anyone else’s body.

      I’m not making a judgment on the comparison of levels of intelligence, capacity, or personality. In the easy cases, before neural development, the embryo has no intelligence, no capacity, and no personality. Thus I have no ethical duties to it.

      Empathy is not a reliable guide. I may empathize with the father who kills the man who raped his child, but it doesn’t change my judgment of his act. Value is not an issue. Are you assigning value to embryos? If so, on what basis?

      An MS13 murderer is so recognizably human that he’s archetypical. See Genesis, Chapter 4.

      I don’t think you know any consistent humanists, nor do I think you’ve tried to find out what they think. All you’ve done is classify fetuses and infants together without argument and then draw faulty and invidious parallels. Now nobody is more patient than I am. Except my wife … and some of her friends … Come to think of it, everyone is more patient than I am, so I’m going to give this just one more shot on grounds that I think you’ll understand — the nearly absolute right of self-defense, as embodied in the statutes of that paradise of self-defense, Florida.

      Florida is governed by the rule of stand-your-ground. We’ll ignore the fact that this protection is not available to black people. Pretend that the people in the example are white. We’ll also ignore the fact that the protection for white people is available at any location, and for purposes of this comparison, assume that an intrusion takes place in a home.

      If the homeowner feels that the intruder threatens her life or may cause her grave bodily harm, the homeowner may kill the intruder. It doesn’t matter if the intruder objectively poses no threat; it doesn’t matter whether a reasonable person after the fact would have concluded that the intruder posed no threat. It doesn’t matter whether the intruder is there by mistake or because he’s incapacitated (say, drunk) or by negligence (say, a mistakenly-unlocked door) or even if the homeowner had previously invited the intruder into her home. All that matters is the homeowner’s subjective judgment of her own safety at the moment she fires her gun (and it’s alway a gun). If the state wishes to prosecute the homeowner for homicide, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner’s state of mind was other than fearful.

      Pregnancy is not a risk-free venture, and if a woman feels that carrying a fetus to term is an unacceptable risk to her well being, then she may make the same judgment as the homeowner. All the more so since the intruder isn’t in her home but in her body; all the more so since the intruder in most cases isn’t anything recognizable as a human individual even if you deem it otherwise.

      Delete
    91. these two nincompoops are still at, having yet to acquire any skill at expressing good arguments.

      informationally interesting, over 90% of abortions are done at the embryo stage or earlier, the vast majority are done at the zygote stage.

      almost 20% of pregnancies end in abortion.

      ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS

      it is compelling that aborted zygotes and embryos did not experience suffering or pain, were not conscious or sentient, and most importantly were unwanted.

      this is largely true for a fetus as well although it gets more complicated the older the fetus, which is why there are restrictions on abortions starting around when a fetus is viable on its own, around week 22.

      How Late Can You Get an Abortion

      here are some well known arguments on the subject, compiled by a local university:

      The Ethics of Abortion

      Delete
    92. Nincompoop with no skill at expression. Wow, that would have hurt my feelings. If I had any. Especially coming from someone so skilled at providing pointers to other people's "compiled" arguments. I stand in awe.

      You make it look so easy, too. How do you do it?

      Delete
    93. Deadrat, your long comment emphasizes your pro choice arguments, much of which I agree with. We aren't arguing about the ethics of legalizing these killings.

      "Are you assigning value to embryos? If so, on what basis?"

      On the basis that human individuals at any stage of their lives are valuable and do not lose value by virtue of never having been seen. An infant is a boring, stupid, indistinct human being but a valuable one because he or she is a human being and we understand we all pass through that stage of development as well as earlier stages, and we are at the mercy of those around us to permit our continued existence.

      Your children were your children at that stage. They were not someone else. They were the human beings they are who undergo changes through their lives but do not become a different human being based on what they look like or whether they are temporarily knocked unconscious.

      None of us have any power as an infant. We are entirely dependent on others for our continued life and not held accountable for the inability to sustain ourselves. Others are ethically responsible for our existence until we can act on our own. If we lose consciousness we do not suddenly become valueless and the knowledge that we will be conscious prohibits ethically killing us during that period, even if it is assumed all memories would be wiped out forever.

      An easy way to check your ethics is ask yourself if you could comfortably kill a human being you produced, knowing you and everyone you love passed through that stage at the mercy of someone else who was responsible for creating you and made a decision to assist you instead of killing you.

      Could you joke about it while it was happening? I suspect you would find that distasteful because you're not a genocidal maniac.

      Delete
    94. Apologies, I did not consider one would take light-hearted ribbing to such a degree. My point was not about you or your feelings. My link is to well known arguments that are much better than yours. You may be appreciative, you may not, that is entirely your issue and not mine, regardless of your reaction.

      A main point to keep in mind with regard to abortion is that the pregnancy is unwanted.

      Delete
    95. For the following reasons, I think I’m done here:

      I don’t know what to do with your ethical system that finds itself able to draw ethical conclusions but is helpless when confronted with the law. The law, or at least those statutes that deal with crimes against persons, are embodiments of our ethics.

      I don’t know how to grapple with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of equivalence classes. If individual abortions are instances of first degree murder and collectively abortions are genocide, then logic dictates that we treat them the same.

      I don’t know how to deal with your ethical system that doesn’t consider the conflict of ethical rules. I thought my self-defense argument would resonate with you, but I should have known you’d miss the metaphor in the example and disclaim any ability to argue about legality.

      I can no longer deal with the argument that says “X is so because it’s so.” My children were my children as embryos because they were my children. Actually, I don’t have children, but if I did, they would be disgracing me by arguing at length with the incorrigible on the commentary sections of unimportant blogs. That’s something their embryonic forms could never have done. I ask you why embryos have the value you claim, and you say it’ because “their lives are valuable.”

      I don’t know what to do with someone who denies facts. Embryos aren’t children on biological grounds. In fact, at some stages they’re indistinguishable from teratomas and parasitic twins. And no one claims either that those are children or that we have ethical duties to them. This fact isn’t dispositive for the pro-choice argument, of course, but it’s nonetheless a fact.

      (This is a theme with you. You apparently haven’t read Heller v DC, you don’t understand the rules of self-defense in various jurisdictions, and you believe in mythical beings like mind-altering raging feminists. You simply ignore challenges to your claims.)

      It’s been fun, though.

      Delete
    96. Anonymous on July 9, 2018 at 11:16 PM,

      No apologies are necessary since you didn’t offend me. My point about my feelings was that, in fact, you can’t offend me.

      I was just amused that you thought that an unorganized mishmash of arguments about abortion was a useful addition to the discussion or at least superior to my peerless prose and argumentation.

      Chacun à son goût

      Delete
    97. Ah ok, sorry I misread your comment as oddly tense and defensive instead of camp. I am glad because I would not know how to deal with someone whose self image would be that out of whack with reality!

      Whether or not you get offended or amused is your issue and not mine, I have no reaction either way. Interestingly, you expressed those thoughts well, but it is unclear why you bothered, those are your concerns, not mine.

      Peerless prose indeed, ha I appreciate your style of self deprecating humor. I did notice the two of you going around in circles chasing what you thought was a heffalump but was actually yourself. I did think your arguments were an unorganized mishmash so I provided a compiling of the most well known abortion arguments. Your self defense argument is pretty similar to some of the thought experiments provided in the compilation, but not as concise or effective - you may agree or disagree, it is of no consequence to me. Take them however you like, again it is not my issue, your fellow debater may find them useful or not, either way, there they are.

      The main thing to remember is that with respect to abortion, the pregnancy is unwanted.

      Delete
    98. "If individual abortions are instances of first degree murder and collectively abortions are genocide, then logic dictates that we treat them the same."

      Killings can be mitigated by a number of considerations. Equating the epidemic to any other historical genocide is in reference to the mentality attached to a cavalier social attitude about these killings.

      "I don’t know how to deal with your ethical system that doesn’t consider the conflict of ethical rules. I thought my self-defense argument would resonate with you,"

      I already mentioned exceptions which would include a grave threat to the mother's health or life. None of these conditions exist in most abortions and they do not address the negligence of placing someone in the predicament of the fetus with the knowledge your solution to their existence will be to kill them. This deadened mass mentality and lack of empathy is anything but humanist. The killings do not become ethical under it but the ethical retardation of those who commit them is a predictable result of that cultural condition, as is the current phase that moves beyond a lack of ethical consciousness to a sickness of celebrating abortion (see Michelle Wolff) which at one time would have been recognized as evil and perverse, and disgusted the religious, non-religious, Republicans, Democrats, and even feminists.

      I appreciate the exchange.

      Delete
    99. I am not particularly religious although I was raised catholic in a very religious household. What I learned from my catholic upbringing was we are all given free will to make the choices we make, and that we need to live with the consequences of those choices after we die. I can't think of a more appropriate place for this than the abortion issue. Getting or not getting an abortion is an issue between you and your maker and no one else's business. If you think it is morally wrong, don't get one and you are good with god. If someone else gets one and you are opposed, its really none of your business, it is between them and god.

      Delete
    100. human beings are a very self important species. We are just hairless apes, get over yourselves people. "we are valuable simply because we are human"?? Give me a break. I know plenty of humans that are pieces of sh*t and don't deserve the time of day. Come on, you all know a few I am sure...

      Delete
    101. I disagree that pro choice proponents have a cavalier or celebratory attitude towards abortion. More likely, the attitudes exhibited by pro choice proponents that cause you distress are related to defending the right to abortion, not to the act itself.

      In a similar manner to there being exceptions you are comfortable with, fetuses do not really play a role in abortion as it is relatively rare to abort a fetus. Typically an aborted pregnancy was not achieved through negligence weighted the way you present, generally in abortion cases the pregnancy was unexpected. It is not reasonable to expect empathy for something that has had no awareness, no personal experiences, neither pain nor ecstasy, no knowledge of anything.

      It is predicted abortion will be banned in almost half the states by 2020 due to Trump's presidency and McConnell's shenanigans.

      Delete
    102. "It is not reasonable to expect empathy for something that has had no awareness, no personal experiences, neither pain nor ecstasy, no knowledge of anything."

      A newborn infant who is anesthetized for surgery? Temporarily not conscious, no important personal experiences, little or no knowledge. We don't usually assign value to people based on their having fewer experiences or knowledge at least not to the point we excuse killing them.

      I agree it's not reasonable to expect empathy but only if you mean automatic empathy of the kind that comes easily in different circumstances. We are human beings and what we see and experience colors our view and instant reactions, and certain ethics manifest more effortlessly than others. We don't see these human beings.

      Some parents regret their abortions. It would be a hell of a thing to reason these issues out long after the fact which is why waiting periods and imaging requirements that so offend some are not only beneficial for the developing individual whose life is on the line and might be saved by them but for their parents who might be spared the remorse.

      If the images will affect the mother emotionally, more the reason. Insisting on facilitating denial is a strange and harmful position. Unethical and usually motivated by hating the caricature of a bible thumping male pointing a scolding finger, not reason or humanism.

      Delete
    103. Comparing an infant in any way to a zygote or embryo is a false equivalence.

      It being not reasonable to expect empathy is borne out by nobody feeling empathy for a zygote or embryo. Someone may claim empathy but it rings hollow and there is no way to prove it.

      Whether someone regrets an abortion or not is not dispositive of whether abortion is ethical or unethical. Abortions are not coerced and assessing regret is not simple and may not even be possible in that situation. Some parents may claim to regret their abortion but still say they would do it all over again. Some parents regret not having an abortion. Abortion is very common and generally well supported.

      Images of zygotes and embryos are unlikely to affect the mother considering abortion in a negative way.

      Delete
    104. Anonymous on July 10, 2018 at 12:07 PM

      Yeah, it’s easy to read tone into text. I’m guilty of it myself.

      I expressed those thoughts (and well! Thank you) because, as it should be clear by now, I love the sound of my own voice.

      My correspondent and I did go around in circles. The particular circle that I tried to break — and to no avail — was the argument that “X is Y because Y is what X is.” Let X=fetus and Y=an individual or let X=abortion and Y=genocide.

      As for the quest being ostensibly for a heffalump but being actually about ourselves, I’m afraid the metaphor escapes me. Most of my words were spent trying to find an acceptable ethical framework to discuss the topic, and since we never got the former, the latter pretty much went unexamined.

      Such is life in the TDH commentariat.

      Delete
  6. Powerful Effective Love Spell Get Your Ex Back About a month ago I got back to my ex(after 2 and half years separated).Everything was ok and she was the most adorable woman in the world. she spoke about wedding ceremony, how many kids we would have, said that our relationship was the most important thing in her life and she was 100% sure about it…Then he traveled to work in other country for 3 weeks. she changed his behavior completely. she disappeared every night, was saying she had to do some work and would talk to me later, but disappeared the rest of the day and night… no explanation, when I asked why she was disappearing every night, she stopped answering me. she’s ignoring me since last week, April 15. she ignored even my birthday, that was April 16. Not even a message. I wrote to her a few times trying to understand what happened, she read but just ignored me.I feel so bad cause I couldn’t stop contacting and trying to understand what happened.i loved her so much and wanted to get her back, then i was told to contact happylovespell2@gmail.com who can help out with a love spell to reunite your relationship back, so instantly do contact him and give him a try and trust me he did an urgent effective love spell for me and with in 48hours promise he made to me, my woman was back, today i testify to you all that you should seek and contact Dr happy for his spell result is genuine sure and guarantee unite and get your ex back save your marriage/relationship problem now,
    You can also know more about his spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/
    Email him now on.. happlovespell2@gmail.com
    If you want to talk for more info or consultation. Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774
    Assurance and spell guarantee, visit his website...happylovespell2.webnode.com/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Political correctness?
    Hate black people. Agonize over your inability to kill them for sport. And have them forgive you.
    Fuck you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob,
    300 years of slavery.
    100 years of subjugation.
    50 years of simmering hatred.
    And black people should apologize?
    Fuck you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think we should carry vendettas for generation after generation. It's divisive and unproductive.

      Delete
    2. It's divisive and unproductive.

      Says the former John Bircher racist prick who claims blacks were better off before those nasty Civil Rights Bills passed in the '60s.

      Delete
    3. How long are Black people allowed to carry vendettas?

      Delete
    4. "{How long are Black people allowed to carry vendettas?"

      That's a question only white people can answer, obviously

      Delete
    5. I am an old (black) man.
      I have three children. All college graduates. I have three grandsons (11, 4 and 2).
      I have a gun.
      I made a promise to myself. If anyone hurts any of them, I will hunt that person down and kill them.

      My advice to black people: Get yourself a gun.

      Delete
    6. 7:51. I'll whip your ass idiot.

      Delete
    7. 11:20,
      You spelled "wipe" wrong.

      Delete
  9. Ah, Paster Bob is back. Maybe the people in the parish in the next county did not take kindly to his making fun of Richard Painter's psychical abnormality. Only the President gets to do that.
    Here's what I'll put in the collection plate today: Drum is taken largely out of context. But if Paster Bob thinks the unreachable to not exist, one suspect it's his pious ability to stay on the no Fox News Wagon. At, least, that must help. Praise the Lord!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. i have been looking for a way to get him back since then. i have tried many options but he did not come back, until i met a friend that darted me to Dr.gbojie a spell caster, who helped me to bring back my husband after 2 weeks. Me and my husband are living happily together today, That man is great, you can contact him via email l gbojiespiritualtemple@gmailcom Now i will advice any serious persons that found themselves in this kind of problem to contact him now a fast solution without steress.. He always hello, now i call him my father.contact him now he is always online email gbojiespiritualtemple@yahoo.com or gbojiespiritualtemple@gmail.com contact him on his whatsapp mobile line +2349066410185

    ReplyDelete
  11. In November, the Democrats demise and defeat will be complete. They deserve it as has been documented here some and elsewhere. They can begin to rebuild themselves and put themselves back on the path to relevancy at that time. It will take a long time as their self inflicted damage has been extensive and severe and they have been thouroughly outwitted and trounced by their corrupt opponents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How long do you think it will take the Democrats to accept white supremacy with all their hearts, to put themselves on the path back relevancy?

      Delete
    2. Most Democrats like yourself are white supremacists. You take the black and Mexican vote for granted. Helping black people is not your real goal. You use race as an excuse to express your own hostility. In doing so you and the many Democrats actually harm black people because your race baiting intensifies race hatred. You don't care about blacks or their culture except for music. You just want them to adopt your white values. You should look at yourself first, all Democrats like you who have tanked the party need to examine the low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism that has consumed your life and the party and brought us to total annihilation. But you won't. Too dumb and too self adsorbed. I'll check back in with you after November and show you how you can win. xo

      Delete
    3. 10:23,
      I'm on-board if you want to grab the megaphone and tell the world that the GOP is REALLY the party of Black Lives Matter.
      Maybe FOX News can have that statement put on a loop 24 hours per day. I'm sure Trump's base will really lap that up. LOL

      Delete
    4. The GOP is ridiculous. The Dems don't care about blacks at all as I described schoolboy fool.

      Delete
    5. "The Dems don't care about blacks at all..."

      I thought you would check back after the November elections to provide me with a campaign slogan Dems can use to win.
      It's only July 7th.

      Delete
    6. sick burn 1049

      Delete
    7. "In November, the Democrats demise and defeat will be complete" - darth vader

      Delete
  12. Hello my name is Lauren i'm from USA i want to testify of a great and powerful spell caster my husband left me and the kids for 2 weeks when i called him he didn't pick up when he came back home the 3rd week he told me he wanted a divorce i was so sad i cried all night he left again i was so lonely the next day i was searching for something online when i found a spell caster called Priest Ade who have helped so many people with their problems so i contacted him with my problems he told me it will take 24hrs and my husband will be back to me i did every thing he told me to do and the next day my husband came back kneeling and begging he canceled the divorce we are now happy together Priest Ade can help you too Email him at

    ancientspiritspellcast@yahoo.com or ancientspiritspellcast@gmail.com

    Blogs: https://relationshipspell.blogspot.com

    Website http://ancientspiritspellcast.website2.me

    WhatsApp +2347059715465

    ReplyDelete
  13. My Dear friends online, My name is Jessica And i live in USA, New York, I have to give this miraculous testimony, which is so unbelievable until now. I had a problem with my Ex husband 2 years ago, which lead to our break up. I was not myself again, i felt so empty inside me, my love and financial situation became worst, until a close friend of mine told me about a spell caster who helped her in the same problem too his name is Doctor Landy. I email the spell caster and i told him my problem and i did what he asked of me, to cut the long story short. Before i knew what was happen, less than two days my husband gave me a call and told me that he was coming back to me i was so happy to have him back to me. The most interesting part of the story is that am pregnant. Thanks to Doctor Landy for saving my marriage and for also saving others own too. Continue your good work, If you are interested to contact the great spell caster email address: landylovespell@gmail.com or landylovespell@yahoo.com contact him on whasapp +2347053160384

    ReplyDelete
  14. My Dear friends online, My name is Jessica And i live in USA, New York, I have to give this miraculous testimony, which is so unbelievable until now. I had a problem with my Ex husband 2 years ago, which lead to our break up. I was not myself again, i felt so empty inside me, my love and financial situation became worst, until a close friend of mine told me about a spell caster who helped her in the same problem too his name is Doctor Landy. I email the spell caster and i told him my problem and i did what he asked of me, to cut the long story short. Before i knew what was happen, less than two days my husband gave me a call and told me that he was coming back to me i was so happy to have him back to me. The most interesting part of the story is that am pregnant. Thanks to Doctor Landy for saving my marriage and for also saving others own too. Continue your good work, If you are interested to contact the great spell caster email address: landylovespell@gmail.com or landylovespell@yahoo.com contact him on whasapp +2347053160384

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think you got this completely wrong. The people Kevin (and I) think are unreachable are people who cling to their authoritarian values like an alcoholic to his booze. You can't reason an alcoholic out of drinking any more than you can reason someone addicted to authoritarianism out of their beliefs. They didn't get there by reason and they won't get out by reason. For an alcoholic, the first step must be the acceptance that they have an unhealthy addiction and they must embrace change. That is a pre-condition. Kevin and I are happy to talk to anyone who wants a path out of authoritarianism. Until they embrace the need to change, discussion is futile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. Discussion with Stalinists is futile. If they attempt to encroach on your rights, they must be defeated in traditional ways. That is why we will defend the 2A.

      Delete
    2. Another big-talking gun nut. Defend the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th because without them the 2nd will be useless. If the "Stalinists" come, they'll come in force, and you'll have two choices -- cave or die. These people won't mind prying your precious gun from your cold, dead hands. Your Ramboesque fantasies notwithstanding.

      Delete
    3. 2:04,
      Stick with the gas-lighting. The threats from snowflake Conservatives, who whine because a comedian made fun of them, scare no one.

      Delete
  16. Thanks a lot for sharing and I have some special things for you.
    free spider man games
    park your car game

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kevin has it right, of course. But the inimitable Atrios does it even better:

    Do No Upset Voters Who Never Vote For Democrats
    ===============================================
    This has been the "crouch in fear" position of Democrats my whole life. Any time there's some minor lefty challenge to any status quo, especially ones which are either perceived by the Beltway types as important to Real Americans (whatever polls say), or are perceived by Beltway types as important to Beltway types (they poll their own dinner parties), the concern troll brigade comes out, telling Democrats they had better be careful or this will doooooom them. Paraphrasing Ed Koch, how are we doing?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whether or not I listen to or ignore people that believe that Adam and Eve slapped saddles on dinosaurs and rode around Eden is really beside the point. I can hate the laws they pass. And I can say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be ridiculous. They rode bareback.

      Delete
    2. 6600 Years and CountingJuly 6, 2018 at 5:09 PM

      No. They used saddles back then, praise the Lord.

      Delete
  19. Powerful Effective Love Spell Get Your Ex Back About a month ago I got back to my ex(after 2 and half years separated).Everything was ok and she was the most adorable woman in the world. she spoke about wedding ceremony, how many kids we would have, said that our relationship was the most important thing in her life and she was 100% sure about it…Then he traveled to work in other country for 3 weeks. she changed his behavior completely. she disappeared every night, was saying she had to do some work and would talk to me later, but disappeared the rest of the day and night… no explanation, when I asked why she was disappearing every night, she stopped answering me. she’s ignoring me since last week, April 15. she ignored even my birthday, that was April 16. Not even a message. I wrote to her a few times trying to understand what happened, she read but just ignored me.I feel so bad cause I couldn’t stop contacting and trying to understand what happened.i loved her so much and wanted to get her back, then i was told to contact happylovespell2@gmail.com who can help out with a love spell to reunite your relationship back, so instantly do contact him and give him a try and trust me he did an urgent effective love spell for me and with in 48hours promise he made to me, my woman was back, today i testify to you all that you should seek and contact Dr happy for his spell result is genuine sure and guarantee unite and get your ex back save your marriage/relationship problem now,
    You can also know more about his spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/
    Email him now on.. happlovespell2@gmail.com
    If you want to talk for more info or consultation. Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774
    Assurance and spell guarantee, visit his website...happylovespell2.webnode.com/

    ReplyDelete
  20. deadrat: "gun nut", "cult", "fetusolatry"?
    deadrat exudes smugness and a moral squalor.

    With him on Our Team, no wonder They hate Us.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, grow up, Sparky, and spare us your talents at reading "moral squalor" from comments on a blog.

    What do you call people who think they're defending the 2nd Amendment from Stalinists?

    What do you call theocrats who care more for embryos than they do for the women who carry them?

    If you can't think straight enough to discuss what I actually say instead of imagining the tone in which I say it, then you're not on "Our Team".

    And, Sparky? Didja bother to read what I responded to? 'Cause if you had, you'd know "They" already hate "Us" -- they think we're genocidal murderers.

    Go make nice to them for all the good it will do you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't hate you. We give you the benefit of the doubt of assuming you've not thoroughly considered the issue. If you have and still do not have an ethical issue with ending a human life for the reasons almost all abortions are committed, you become indistinguishable from others who have excused or committed genocide and the level or kind of emotion experienced in response is beside the point. There was no religious aspect in any of the reasoning in our particular exchange so "theocrats" is not altogether honest even if religion might motivate one to consider those arguments and arrive at the same conclusions.

      Delete
    2. Oh, please, spare me the “hate the sin; love the sinner” crap: I’m an unethical excuser of genocide with no regard for the taking of human life, but you mean that in the kindest and most unhateful way.

      And who’s “we”? You and the other members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

      I have issues with ending human lives, and I’m no excuser of genocide.
      And you can’t change that by redefinitions of words and faulty analogies.

      And I could do without the condescension, as well. I may be wrong, but I think it’s clear that I’ve “thoroughly considered the issue.”

      I’ve apologized in advance at least twice in this exchange if I’ve misjudged your religious inclinations. I’m not gonna do it a third time. “Theocrat” might not apply to you, but it’s perfectly suited for most fetusolators who use your same specious argumentation. I think you should at least forgive an excuser of genocide for this small misstep.

      (Do I need to mark that last as sarcasm? Because I will, if you need me to do so. It just takes the fun out these exchanges for me.)

      Delete
  22. Dr. Sam has really made me so much believe in him by getting me cured with his herbal treatment. i really appreciate you Dr.Sam for bringing back happiness to my life again. thanks you so much,friends join me to thank him for what he has actually done for me i pray to you all for a good life and good health, and most especially to you Dr. Sam THANKS.

    I have been suffering from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) disease for the past four years and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This disease started circulating all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few months ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information concerning the cure of this disease, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) by this Man Dr Sam and she drop the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so i wrote to Dr. Sam telling him about my (HERPES Virus) well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me. I am now here to testify that i am not longer a herpes patient, I have experience a total transformation in my life,for all herpes patients get your herbal medicine to cure your sickness. And there has being rapid improvement in my health, I no longer feel pains and I wake up each morning feeling revived. So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all,you can contact him. (Supremecurehome@gmail.com) Wbesite: http://www.supremecurehome.blogspot.com
    CANCER
    EPILEPSY.
    GENPILENCIN.
    HIV AIDS.
    DIABETICS
    STROKE.
    EXPANDS OF PENIS BREAST
    H.P.V TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 AND TYPE 4. TYPE 5.
    HUMAN PAPAILOMA VIRUS.
    HERPES.
    SYPHILIS.
    HEPATITIS A B and C.

    Email: Supremecurehome@gmail.com Or WhatsApp number +2347087462033

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hello viewers around the Globe, I was despondent because i had a very small penis, about 2.5 inches soft and 4 inches hard not nice enough to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the INTERNET about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to contact him on his email: Drolusolutinthome@gmail.com) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 3 week of it, i began to feel the enlargemen was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my sex and i have got a large penis. Am so happy, thanks to Dr OLU I also learn that Dr OLUalso help with Breast Enlargement Hips and Bums Enlargement etc.. If you are in any situation with a little Penis, weak ejaculation, small breast_hips_bums do get to Dr OLU now for help on his email (Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com) or add him on whatsapp line +2348140654426

    ReplyDelete
  24. best on-line help to save your marriage and relationship from breakup or divorce , he can also cure you from you illness contact dr COVENANT today on or +2349078040531 add him on watsapp on +2349057353987 or contact him on his email covenantsolutiontemple@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was diagnosed of Genital Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) in 2015 and I have tried all possible means to get cured, i even visited Some Hospital where they gave me some drugs like Famvir, Zovirax and Valtrex which are very expensive but all to no avail, until i saw a post in a health forum about a herbal doctor from West Africa who prepare herbal medicine to cure all kind of diseases including Herpes Simplex Virus, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try, when i contact this herbal doctor via his email he sent me a herbal medicine through courier service, when i received this herbal medicine, he gave me step by instructions on how to apply it, when i applied it as instructed i was totally cured of this deadly disease within 12-14 days of usage, if you are suffering of this diseases you can as well Contact this great herbal doctor via his email; drruzuherbalsolutioncentre@gmail.com or whatsapp no:+2348156962151

    ReplyDelete
  26. I like what you shared in the article, thank you for that, it has given me more experience. I would like to share with you some interesting things, if you have free time and want to find a tool for fun read it now.ngôn tình hiện đại hoàn Read and ponder the good quotes of life below, you will surely draw in life's own deep lessonsi promise to love you forever quotesOr you can go and search for the most fun games to play likegame ninja bong dem. Surely what I'm introducing to you will not disappoint you. Please click and experience. Having fun.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I was cured of HIV with the used of natural herbs. My name is celina jolly and am from US. I love herbs so much. Most times, injection and drugs are just a waste of time. I was cured 8 months ago, i suffered from HIV for 13 yrs but with the help of Dr.Ogun herbal medicine, i was cured within few weeks of drinking the herbs he sent to me through courier delivery service. This same doctor also cured my Aunty from herpes, as soon as i heard she had herpes, i quickly refer her to Dr.Ogun and she was cured too after drinking his herbs.I have referred more than 15 persons to Dr.Ogun and they were all cured from their various illness. Have you taken herbs before?. You have spent so much money on drugs,injections,surgeries etc and yet you have no good result to show for it. Contact Dr. Ogun now, he is a herbalist doctor, i assured you of a cure if you drink his natural herbs. Dr.Ogun have herbs that cures Hiv, Herpes, diabetics, asthma, hepatitis, HBP, STD, cancer, chronic, etc. Contact Dr ogun through his Email address on: drogun62@gmail.com or WHATSAPP/CALL him on+2348104991149 . Please share the good news to other people once you are cured..;

    ReplyDelete
  28. I was been suffering from HIV/AIDS since 9 years now, and i happen to have 2 kids for my husband, and now we cannot proceed to have another kids all because of my disease and now i have do all what a human like i and my husband can do just to get my disease healed, i have went to several places to seek for help not even one person could ever help, until i melt a comment on the daily news paper that was commented by Miss Marilyn about how this powerful traditional doctor help her get cured of the disease (HIV-AIDS) ” my fellow beloved” i firstly taught having a help from a spiritual traditional healer was a wrong idea, but i think of these, will i continue to stress on these disease all day when i have someone to help me save my life?” so i gather all my faiths and put in all interest to contact him through his Email address at drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com , so after i have mailed him of helping get my disease cured, i respond to me fast as possible that i should not be afraid, that he is a truthful and powerful doctor which i firstly claimed him to be. So after all set has been done, he promise me that i will be healed but on a condition that i provide him some items and obeyed all his oracle said. I did all by accepting his coloraturas fact and only to see that the following week Dr JOHN mail me on my mail box that my work is successfully done with his powers, i was first shocked and later arise to be the happiest woman on earth after i have concluded my final test on the hospital by my doctor that i am now HIV- Negative. My papers for check are with me and now i am happy and glad for his miraculous help and power.
    With these i must to everyone who might seek for any help, either for HIV cure or much more to contact him now at these following email now,
    Email: drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com
    ” sir thank you so much for your immediate cure of my disease, i must say for curing my disease, i owe you in return. Thanks and be blessed sir.
    His Email address is:
    drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com or call _+2347064365391

    ReplyDelete
  29. Good things are not easy to come by. Hi, everyone, I'm here to share my testimony all around the globe in respect to the help that Doctor Zakuza did for me. I was devastated and confused when I got divorced by my husband 2 years ago because he wanted to go back to his mistress. I searched for help from those that i knew but all was to no avail not until i was directed to Doctor Zakuza the spell caster. I contacted Doctor Zakuza and told him everything that I've been going through and he gave me full assurance that he will help me. I did everything he told me to do and I put my trust and hope on him. Could you believe that my husband came back to me pleading within 12 to 16 hours just as Doctor Zakuza told me after i contacted him and now, my husband is back home and we are living together again. I will recommend anyone in need of help to reach him now for he's also specialized in money spells, lottery spells, pregnancy spells, sickness spells E.T.C. Email: doctorzakuzaspelltemple@yahoo.com & Whats-app on +1 (845) 400-7115 or call/text +1 (516) 277-6702.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I was been suffering from HIV/AIDS since 9 years now, and i happen to have 2 kids for my husband, and now we cannot proceed to have another kids all because of my disease and now i have do all what a human like i and my husband can do just to get my disease healed, i have went to several places to seek for help not even one person could ever help, until i melt a comment on the daily news paper that was commented by Miss Marilyn about how this powerful traditional doctor help her get cured of the disease (HIV-AIDS) ” my fellow beloved” i firstly taught having a help from a spiritual traditional healer was a wrong idea, but i think of these, will i continue to stress on these disease all day when i have someone to help me save my life?” so i gather all my faiths and put in all interest to contact him through his Email address at drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com , so after i have mailed him of helping get my disease cured, i respond to me fast as possible that i should not be afraid, that he is a truthful and powerful doctor which i firstly claimed him to be. So after all set has been done, he promise me that i will be healed but on a condition that i provide him some items and obeyed all his oracle said. I did all by accepting his coloraturas fact and only to see that the following week Dr JOHN mail me on my mail box that my work is successfully done with his powers, i was first shocked and later arise to be the happiest woman on earth after i have concluded my final test on the hospital by my doctor that i am now HIV- Negative. My papers for check are with me and now i am happy and glad for his miraculous help and power.
    With these i must to everyone who might seek for any help, either for HIV cure or much more to contact him now at these following email now,
    Email: drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com
    ” sir thank you so much for your immediate cure of my disease, i must say for curing my disease, i owe you in return. Thanks and be blessed sir.
    His Email address is:
    drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com or call _+2347064365391

    ReplyDelete
  31. I was been suffering from HIV/AIDS since 9 years now, and i happen to have 2 kids for my husband, and now we cannot proceed to have another kids all because of my disease and now i have do all what a human like i and my husband can do just to get my disease healed, i have went to several places to seek for help not even one person could ever help, until i melt a comment on the daily news paper that was commented by Miss Marilyn about how this powerful traditional doctor help her get cured of the disease (HIV-AIDS) ” my fellow beloved” i firstly taught having a help from a spiritual traditional healer was a wrong idea, but i think of these, will i continue to stress on these disease all day when i have someone to help me save my life?” so i gather all my faiths and put in all interest to contact him through his Email address at drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com , so after i have mailed him of helping get my disease cured, i respond to me fast as possible that i should not be afraid, that he is a truthful and powerful doctor which i firstly claimed him to be. So after all set has been done, he promise me that i will be healed but on a condition that i provide him some items and obeyed all his oracle said. I did all by accepting his coloraturas fact and only to see that the following week Dr JOHN mail me on my mail box that my work is successfully done with his powers, i was first shocked and later arise to be the happiest woman on earth after i have concluded my final test on the hospital by my doctor that i am now HIV- Negative. My papers for check are with me and now i am happy and glad for his miraculous help and power.
    With these i must to everyone who might seek for any help, either for HIV cure or much more to contact him now at these following email now,
    Email: drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com
    ” sir thank you so much for your immediate cure of my disease, i must say for curing my disease, i owe you in return. Thanks and be blessed sir.
    His Email address is:
    drjohnhivcurehome@gmail.com or call _+2347064365391

    ReplyDelete
  32. I saw so many testimonies about Dr. Henry { permanentspellcast@yahoo.com }, a great lottery spell caster that will help you cast a lottery spell and give you the rightful numbers to win the lottery. i didn't believe it at first, but as life got harder and my aim to succeed in almost everything grew up too, i decided to take a try. I contacted Dr. Henry also and told him i wanted to win a lottery, he did a lottery spell for me which i used and i play and i won $4,000,000 (FOUR MILLION DOLLARS). I am so grateful to this man Dr. Henry and i am making this known to everyone out there who have been trying all possible to win the lottery, believe me this is the only way to hit the right meaningful amount and win the lottery. this is the real secret we all have been searching for and i'm happy i found out earlier. Do not delay your lottery success, contact him too on: permanentspellcast@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  33. Powerful Effective Love Spell Get Your Ex Back About a month ago I got back to my ex(after 2 and half years separated).Everything was ok and she was the most adorable woman in the world. she spoke about wedding ceremony, how many kids we would have, said that our relationship was the most important thing in her life and she was 100% sure about it…Then he traveled to work in other country for 3 weeks. she changed his behavior completely. she disappeared every night, was saying she had to do some work and would talk to me later, but disappeared the rest of the day and night… no explanation, when I asked why she was disappearing every night, she stopped answering me. she’s ignoring me since last week, April 15. she ignored even my birthday, that was April 16. Not even a message. I wrote to her a few times trying to understand what happened, she read but just ignored me.I feel so bad cause I couldn’t stop contacting and trying to understand what happened.i loved her so much and wanted to get her back, then i was told to contact happylovespell2@gmail.com who can help out with a love spell to reunite your relationship back, so instantly do contact him and give him a try and trust me he did an urgent effective love spell for me and with in 48hours promise he made to me, my woman was back, today i testify to you all that you should seek and contact Dr happy for his spell result is genuine sure and guarantee unite and get your ex back save your marriage/relationship problem now,
    You can also know more about his spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/
    Email him now on.. happlovespell2@gmail.com
    If you want to talk for more info or consultation. Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774
    Assurance and spell guarantee, visit his website...happylovespell2.webnode.com/

    ReplyDelete