 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Maybe Google knows its censorship could never be 100% effective and figures getting SOME search-freedom into China is better than NONE. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| It's a certain level of potential life, but I strongly object to the idea that four cells in a petrie dish or stuck to a womb wall is morally equivalent to either a late-term foetus or a baby. This fetishisation of raw genetic material that acts as a parasite in its host is extremely objectionable. Also objectionable is the extent to which these fetishists will go to protect these clumps of matter to the detriment of actual, walking talking breathing human beings, crusading on with no regard for how complicated and difficult this issue is. They spit on womens' rights, they spit on moral autonomy, they flee from the complicated nature of life and retreat into quirky definitional games and simple black-and-white ideas, which they try to impose on everyone else with no regard for the consequences.
Honestly, think what you want, but leave the rest of us the fuck alone and let us make our own damn decisions. Pah. Anyone who puts a zygote above the life of an actual woman is someone whose worldview I simply cannot fathom. (edited by Arwon on 04-21-06 01:30 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| "It is a woman's undeniable right to abstain from sexual intercourse. It is not her right to have her cake and eat it too, so to speak: she's involved herself in the act willingly, and must bear the consequences that she was so fully aware of beforehand."
Hah, there it is. Just as I claimed in the opening post. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Tommathy A-fucking-men. Originally posted by Skydude Huh? The whole point of the choice thing is that hey, abortion sucks, but so do other options, and it's up to each individual to make their own choice from amidst the suckiness. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| NO IT IS SURPLUS PIRATES | |||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| I say we declare Godwin 3 pages back and call it a day. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Actually no, it is simply an observation that a thread argument, as it gets older, is likely to result in one side or another resorting to a Nazi analogy. The law itself isn't a rule, it's a scientific law... as a thread lengthens the probability of someone making an analogy involving Nazis approaches 1. The "thread over" meme isn't actually a rule. It's an observation that this is a pretty good indicator that the debate is exhausted and no-longer worth paying attention to. This is because, legitimate analogy or not, Nazi analogies are always extremely lazy and speak of lack of imagination. It's a cheap debating tactic. (edited by Arwon on 04-23-06 10:23 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Two words: Precautionary principle. The problem with greenhouse emissions is there's a lot we don't know precisely, which gives polluters and vested interests large amounts of space to maneuver and push dodgy science.
Blaming volcanos, for example, sounds really good and guilt-alleviating. Volcanos pollute a lot, but they're one-off spikes, not 150 years of sustained emissions. So what do we know? 1) We know that changes in the level of CO2 and equivalent gasses in the air affects the climate dramatically. 2) We know climate shifts occur and aren't a great thing for the prosperity of human civilisation. 3) We know we're reducing the capacity of the planet to absorb these gasses and regulate the level of CO2 and equivalents, by destroying trees and fucking with the algae in the oceans. 4) We know we're producing an ever-increasing quantity of these gasses. 5) We know at some point, too much emissions will be simply too much, and while we don't know the consequences we know they won't be good. Could be warming, or cooling, or one then the other, or some other crazy shift that isn't going to be fun for anyone. What we don't know is largely the specific quantities involved in the "tipping point" and the precise nature of the consequences. So why the fuck, given these things we DO know, do we insist on conducting a massive unsupervised experiment on our only fucking biosphere? The thing that needs to be emphasised here is that we don't need to end greenhouse emissions, not by a long shot. This is because the earth does have a capacity to absobrb a certain amount of gasses. To start with, we need simply to stabilise emissions at a certain level. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Tell it to Tonga, boy. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| It shouldnt be called "global warming" but "globl climate change". It's more complex than just heating. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Excuse me for one second, but I do think we're missing something incredibly obvious here.
IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE Thankyou. A whole bunch of people need a good hard bash on the head from the Grow The Fuck Up Fairy (Maybe I need to write a fairy tale...). What do they want, to deny that gay people exist? Fairy tales are fairy tales. Let's just get a bit of perspective here... they all perpetuate massively sexist caricatures of human relationships of the sort no-one should want their kids emulating. They all peddle the idea that beauty is the most important thing ever, and usually, that ugly people are basically evil. They often promote murder and absolute monarchy. And witchcraft. Truth is, all fairy tales are probably harmful to kids self-esteems and value-formation. But really, whatever. They're god-damn fairy tales, and this point cannot be stressed enough. What difference does it make if we throw one more story into the mix, especially one which on the surface of it sounds a lot less objectionable than many of the others.... sure, fairy tales aren't that good, but it's not like the stories we hear at 5 or 6 maddively affect us in the long term. THEY'RE FAIRY TALES. (edited by Arwon on 04-25-06 11:26 PM) (edited by Arwon on 04-25-06 11:27 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| We've reached a tipping point in the last decade or two in the cultures of Anglo and European countries, where these days the only ones who support the death penalty are a few reactionary wackjobs and sizable minority of the United States' population (groups may or may not overlap). In virtually every other country any of us are from, supporting the death penalty would be political poison for the mainstream, and it's heading that way in the USA.
ACtually, I think it's an issue the Democrats can really seize on and articulate clearly, a principle-based categorical objection to the death penalty. That's the sort of thing they need to stand up for as part of liberal America. Anyways, unless we've got some folks from, like, Singapore or Indonesia here, you probably won't find many supporters of the death penalty for two reasons. Firstly it's morally reprehensible to most of us, either on "limits of state power" grounds or in some cases, on "Sanctity of life" grounds. Secondly, it has little support because it's also been so poorly executed (sorry) in the United States, so that it's been discredited on a pragmatic level. (edited by Arwon on 04-25-06 11:35 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude So? Firstly, it's not solely political, it's personal, social and cultural as well. But let's assume the teacher was trying to make a political point, instead of simply exposing kids to you know, one aspect of actual reality in their silly little stories, and trying to breed a little tolerance and understanding. Let's just assume this was solely a political exercise. So was a lot of Dr Seuss. Theodore Geisl was a filthy raving radical subversive injecting nefarious propaganda into our schools. Doesn't stop it from being a good read. Probably the best children's books ever bloody made. Seriously, go read the Lorax or the one about the Star-Bellied Sneetches sometime. OMFG IT'S POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. Even the others were often about things like peer pressure or individualism or other things designed to manipulate and brainwash the poor children. Geisl was a master propagandist. His stories, as a result, were much better than the usual brand of inane pap that passes as "Children's stories". So let's draw this back even further. Why is the idea of a story about a gay couple in a stable loving relationship so much more "obviously politically motivated" than a straight couple? Think on that for a moment. Why is homosexuality inherently "political"? Is it a good thing that everything to do with gay folk must be subjected to this absurd reactionary counter-response and politicisation? The fact that this is the case in society is precisely the problem. In an ideal society these damn stories wouldn't raise any more eyebrows than any other fairy tale. But alas, to be gay and *not* ashamed of it is apparently to be "political". To be gay and in love is seen as a politial statement in a way that cannot be the case with straight people. Is this an acceptable situation for society? Look, the point is that this is a storm in a teacup perpetuated by a bunch of cranks who have nothing better to do than try to repress all signs of confident homoexauality and acceptance of homosexuals because, for some ass-backwards reason, they think it affects them or brings the end of the world or something. Which is odd really, because I thought these psychos WANTED the end of the world, in which case they should be embracing the sinful satanist perverts as bringing about Sodom and Gommorrah mark-2 and hastening their precious Judgement Day. Unless you want to remove things like Dr Seuss from schools as well, you can't oppose this or want it banned just because "it's political". (edited by Arwon on 04-25-06 11:56 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Back to the culture of stopping sex instead of stopping abortions.
Idiot politician types object to Plan B drug because it will lead to Teenage Sex Cults Bear in mind that this is a drug that stops eggs from dropping after sex. It acts to PREVENT FERTILISATION, it's not even an abortion on the absurd "life at fertilisation" criteria many people peddle... and the abortion wingnuts are still opposing it, on the grounds that it'll encourage sex. Fun website: No Room for Contraception. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Yeah so was I. Read my first couple of paragraphs again. I was talking about teacher intentions. I think you give the teacher too little credit, but even so, even if it was purely political it is still valid.
Do you oppose Dr Seuss in schools? Finally, if you acknowledge that homosexuality is inherently political at the moment, how else is this going to change unless kids get socialised into understanding that it exists and isn't EVIL? As Rom already said, "Without being taught from a young impressionable age that this is not a bad thing to be (Gay, I mean), how do we expect change in our society?". If we take this little book as a broader example of the problems we're having with the over-politicisation of homosexuality: How else is some sort of normalisation going to happen if hysterical cultural conservatives scream bloody murder and successfully crush every free exp (edited by Arwon on 04-26-06 12:13 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Sky, the point is, that's actually WRONG and it's misinformation. It supresses a hormone that causes ovulation. Plan B gives women the ability to control, to a limited extent, when they will expel a gamete.
Read the wiki article properly, don't just skim the generic intro, as the article you're talking about speaks about many more things than just Plan B. Particularly pay attention to the "Controversy" bit:
(edited by Arwon on 04-26-06 12:24 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| They said "may" because they can't prove it doesn't, can't prove a negative and all that. Covering their asses. But as I say, it works by preventing ovulation by preventing a spike in the "Luteinizing Hormone" and nothing has shown a link to affecting the uterine wall.
And regardless, aside from the "No contraception EVAH" people I just linked to who even seem to hate the Pill, the opposition centres around the idea of promoting promiscuity, not preventing implantation. (It's probably worth noting also that the FDA, Gynacalogical associations and so forth define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, because until then it's just floating tissue) Finally I'd point out that this pill will actually CONTRIBUTE TO DECLINING ABORTION RATES. Isn't that what you people want? Let's say, for arguments' sake, that it stops implantation 1 time in a 100 and prevents ten pregancies by preventing an egg from popping at the wrong time. Haven't you just stopped ten future abortions for the cost of one fertilised egg? (edited by Arwon on 04-26-06 12:35 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| A young Spock and Kirk movie?
What could possibly go wrong? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| How the fuck does all this stuff work with people overseas? It's all well and good for idiotic American congresspeople to go oooh laws for the internet, but what about the rest of us? | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| I just wanna point out that the vast majority of prisoners are in there for much lesser crimes. It's not all murderers and rapists FFS.
Also: Ignoring the mercernary and opportunistic nature of the thing (hedging your bets on God?), Pascal's Wager falls down because there's more than one religion that says it is the exclusive path to salvation. You're actually taking a wager on one out of dozens of options, not a binary "God/No God" thing. (edited by Arwon on 04-26-06 11:16 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
