 |
| 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 Silvershield |
| 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 |
| User | Post | ||
Silvershield   580                  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TaraleI'm jumping down people's throats because I'm incensed over what I take as a great indignation from Ziff. You weren't my target, and I didn't intend to snap at you. Originally posted by TaraleOf course it doesn't mean that smoking pot or having a beer will cause you to go out and commit a crime. I never said something like that. Originally posted by TaraleThen you're a better person than many. Of the people I know who drink or smoke, a significant and frightening number of them have driven while under the influence. I know only one person who's been caught for it, and none of them have been in an accident because of it, but that certainly doesn't make it alright. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TaraleIt's common enough knowledge that alcohol lowers one's inhibitions; a sober person would rationally decide not to drive while drunk, but could very well make the opposite choice once he is actually under the influence, because rational thought is impaired. In that way, alcohol could certainly cause a person to do something dangerous. In my experience, people get in more fights and have more unprotected or promiscuous sex while drunk, also. Originally posted by TaraleEnter the embarassingly American habit of sueing everyone for everything. "I know I spilled the scalding coffee on myself, but McDonald's should give me millions of dollars even though it is purely common sense to not drive while holding a boiling beverage in my hand!" Originally posted by TaralePot is not as commonly responsible, I think, for the accidents alcohol so often brings. Mainly because a person who is high is not usually interested in going out and doing things, whereas a drunk person is usually quite intent on continuing the party, even if it means getting in the car and driving to a new venue because the current one is dying down. But, in cases when a person who has smoked is given reason to get behind the wheel, it's just as dangerous as a drunk person doing so. My roommate jokes about how, when he's high and he needs to drive, a little stuffed frog named Filmore helps him navigate. Which I find hilarious, though I wonder how much of it is a joke...  |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsAn overwhelming majority of abortions are not in response to a rape or to save the life of the mother. An overwhelming majority. And, even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro-lifer who would deny a woman an abortion if the chilldbirth would kill her. Despite how uncommon (and effectively nonexistent) circumstance that is. The rape case is a bit more of an issue although, if I were in the position, I would like to think that I'd have the presence of mind and strength of spirit to bring the child to full term and then possibly surrender it for adoption. Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsThen you're saying an aborted fetus was alive? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by RydainYou'll probably get mad if I say this, but I sincerely think that if you ever have a child you will drift, at least slightly, in the direction of pro-life. That's the nature of the discussion - it's based significantly on emotional arguments. Like the whole God argument, if either side could support its point sufficiently to label it "correct," the argument wouldn't happen anymore. That doesn't change the fact that I am rabidly pro-life  . |
|||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsIn case you're having reading comprehension issues, let me spell it out: I was using your comments as a springboard for a rebuttal of certain points; whether exp Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsAnd anyone who says abstaining or using contraceptives is a comparable crime to abortion needs to seriously reevaluate what they're saying. (See, I just agreed with you there! Just because I don't pat you on the back and say "good point, Junior" doesn't mean we're not on the same page.) Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsOf course not. There are essentially three options: abortion, adoption, or the personal rearing of the child. My own choice would be the third, I would like to think, but certainly many people will vehemently reject the idea of raising a child that is half the rapist's. So, I put forth an acceptable alternative in adoption. Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsCertainly the Church would rather the child be raised by its true parent(s). But I'm not talking about a choice between raising the child oneself and setting it for adoption, but instead the choice between adoption and abortion. It's pretty hard to imagine many women being enthusiastic about raising the child of a rape, and so I'd think that most women have only two options in mind, those being the abortion or the adoption of the child. We're not talking about an ideal, happy childbirth to two married parents here; in that case, of course adoption is a less favorable choice. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| I wonder what the psychological effects are on a woman who, years later, comes to terms with the fact that she has murdered her own child.
Also, from what I've read, even the abortion of a child that was conceived within wedlock or through any other legitimate, non-traumatic means has an emotional and psychological effect on the mother similar to that seen in the case of a miscarriage or the death of a newborn. Just throwing that out there. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassHell yeah I'm anti-choice. If the choice is to preserve a life or to take it, I am thoroughly against anyone having the right to make that choice. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by RydainFirst off, let's differentiate between this discussion as one of philosophical standpoints versus political preferences. Surely I would prefer if abortion were illegalized or at least tightly regulated, but this thread has so far been (and should probably remain) an argument of the act itself, not its legal status. So, I'd consider your comment on the state's role in your pregnancy to be irrelevant. That said, I don't know how your comment that you're pregnant "against your will" is at all valid, except in cases of rape (which, for this particular argument, I'll let stand as an exception). You know that to have sex frequently causes pregnancy and, being the smart woman you are, you also know that very few birth control methods are realistically 100% reliable (and certainly none are billed as such). Concerning the fetus and its rights, the only reason it comes to lose those rights at birth is because the natural process of childbirth eliminates the child's ability to use those rights; it need no longer have "authority" over your body because there's to give it such power would not aid in its survival as a human animal. The rights it does have, those during gestation, are in the interest of the survival of a new human life. Originally posted by RydainYou say so yourself later, there are some methods of birth control that are completely reliable; if you'd rather forfeit that functioning uterus of yours, you are free to apply any of those methods, only with the foreknowledge that it would be a permanent decision. But that's one aspect of the decision that you'd have to come to terms with. Your "prior consent" was the act that put you in a pregnant state in the first place, and that act was fully voluntary. Originally posted by RydainWhat a silly thing to say. Of course you're "loved," at least in the legal sense of possessing rights, but just as in any legal conflict, one person's rights cannot infringe on those of another. Your right to not be pregnant cannot infringe on your unborn child's right to life. His right to life can certainly infringe on your right to not be pregnant, though, because that right was forfeited when you participated in an act that could knowingly cause pregnancy. Originally posted by RydainI saw no need to distinguish at that point in time because I had already done so in a previous post. I am personally against abortion even in cases of rape, but I've admitted to allowing it as an exception just for the sake of the argument because abortions due to rape are nearly statistically irrelevant. Originally posted by RydainYou can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to have sex but not get pregnant, and statistics prove that you have an overwhelming chance of doing just that, but unless you are fully abstinant you cannot receive the benefit of being sure you'll not conceive. Originally posted by RydainBecause the Tab A - Slot B deal is purely of your own free will, and you lose nothing (except maybe physical pleasure, which can be gained through other means) by abstaining from it. It's hardly the blackmail you make it seem, where you are forced to have sex and, in doing so, to face the consequences of the act; instead it an "extracurricular" event which is overwhelmingly safe, but the tiny chance that it will result in something undesirable is part of the package. When I'm at a mountain and going to snowboard, they make me sign a waiver saying that I could suffer physical harm or death if I engage in the activity; I could very well stay in the lodge and lose nothing but a bit of fun in doing so, but instead I take the chance because it's rather unlikely that the undesirable outcome will come to pass. If it does, though, and I am injured or killed, my survivors could certainly be angry that it happened, but they would have no legal grounds on which to take action. My participation in the initial event indicated my acceptance of its possible consequences. Originally posted by RydainI agree. Keep the terminology at what it should be, but in the same sense that "child" is emotionally loaded beyond a point that is reasonable, so is "fetus" often emotionally devoid to the same extent. Call it a fetus just for the sake of having constant, understandable terminology, but don't allow "fetus" to become interchangeable with "nonliving" as many people would like it to be. Originally posted by RydainIt's not a question of self-interest, it's a question of the being's species identity. That egg or turkey is not a human being, and as such is not subject to the considerations given to a human being. To argue that single statement is against all conventional, popular, and logical opinion. A society that sanctions abortion is a society that encourages the extermination of its own people. Originally posted by NetSplitCertainly not perfect, but overwhelmingly effective. Originally posted by NetSplitTo make a point that has already been done to death: is a child below the age of one year capable of much of anything, either? Most of the newborns I've seen just kind of lay there. Originally posted by NetSplitObviously the child cannot make the choice itself. She said nothing of the sort. The gist of her comment is that, given a hypothetical person the choice of being adopted and being aborted, most would choose the former. If I asked you right now, which would you rather have, a life in a foster home or with adoptive parents or no life at all, which would you prefer? Originally posted by NetSplitOr, instead of taking the baby myself, how about it is given to an adoption agency that will know far better what to do with it than I will? I mean, after all, that is what they do: they deal with unwanted children. How about the woman can have the abortion, and you deal with the damage done to her cervical muscles, damage that could complicate or outright prevent subsequent pregnancies? That's probably a bit harder that fixing a woman's body after childbirth, a totally natural process. Originally posted by NetSplitYou were once a "hunk of underdeveloped flesh." So was Gandi, for that matter, and Martin Luther King and Jesus and Mother Theresa. You're oversimplifying it to the point that it's a bit ridiculous; it's more than a hunk of flesh, it's humanity in the making. Originally posted by NetSplitA single egg or sperm could eventually become a person? Good luck with that one. That is an enormous post. Wow. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Cheveyo ChowilawuNo, in the making as in... The two cases of my roommate's homemade beer sitting in my dorm room are in the process of becoming carbonated. Anyone would tell you that they are beer - hell, they'll get ya damn drunk if you were to crack one open now - but to achieve all the attributes that traditionally define beer, they'll need another week or so. They are certainly beer, they'd just be flat if opened now. You see, that liquid is beer "in the making," but who's to say it can't simultaneously be in the process of maturing fully within its identity while still being open to definition as a member of that identity? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DracoonThe qualifying factor is, of course, humanity. Neither the egg nor the insect have human DNA. But a fetus surely does. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DracoonA human child does not achieve sentience until well into its postnatal life. Do you support infanticide? (Of course, I want to say that to support abortion is to support infanticide, but in this case we'll just say that infanticide is the killing of a child that has already been born.) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by RydainNah, you were right that I'd certainly be in favor of it being illegal. It would even have been reasonable to flat out assume that about me without me saying so. I was just a bit put off by the thread veering towards legality rather than morality, which I would imagine would be a more compelling drive for discussion. No problem either way though . |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by RydainNot to single you out, Rydain, but...seriously, people need to stop doing this. It's one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. Now, before anything else, let me say that windwaker really needs to chill out. Hey pal, you'd be more well received if you didn't begin your post with a large font, bold, bright red flame. There have been plenty of times when I've been utterly disgusted by what somebody says on this board, but I know well enough that cursing at the person or attacking him directly isn't exactly the best way to solve anything. With that said...Skyon, I admire your zeal and your strong faith, but you need to be more methodical in your approach to religion. I'm not sure whether you're Catholic or Protestant - my guess is the latter, solely because, in my experience, homosexuality is a more heated and less arguable issue among Protestants than Catholics - but you're casting a poor light on your comrades in either case. Christianity is bashed fairly frequently, as you've pointed out, and while I'd argue that it is more widespread than the defamation of other religions, you have to take it for what it is. The people who put us down and ridicule our beliefs are ignorant, and don't have a knowledge of the religion for what it is. Certainly many of Christianity's followers are wildly out of hand - Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, to give a couple of recognizable examples - but the religion at its core is nothing but good. If a person fails to see that, it is he that is at fault, not those of us who strive to live up to our Lord's standards. I have no plans to see Brokeback Mountain either, and I was hardly enthused when I heard of it in the first place. The idea of a homosexual love scene repulses me, and I'm not going to try to justify that reaction in the least; quite simply, I'd rather not have to sit through it. But regarding gays as a real-world community, I'm not about to tell them what they should be doing any more than they should be telling me how to live my own life. Jesus accepted the poor, the lame, the sinners - and we're all sinners, by the way, we're just not all homosexuals or all adulterers or all thieves, of course - and it is the responsibility of you and I, as Christians, to do the same. In that sense, they have my unconditional love as human beings, even if I'd prefer to abstain from their lifestyle and, hey, probably opt not to expose myself to anything of that sort. But if they can keep themselves from slandering my religion, then I'm not about to defame their sexuality. Concerning V for Vendetta, you really shouldn't concern yourself with that too much. The movie was confusing as it is, and you really need to concentrate and read into it a bit to see that the TV personality seen at the beginning of the movie is hardly a "true" Christian. He is an instrument of the state, using religion as a tool to keep the citizens in line. It's no secret that religion has been used like that in the past, and the movie just translates it into a fictional universe. Edit for spelling because, in a several paragraphs-long post, windwaker somehow picks out the single typo. (edited by Silvershield on 04-07-06 06:02 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerIt's an impression? Oh, alright, let me reevaluate how I feel about it. Give me a second. ... Nope, it's still pretty annoying. Originally posted by windwakerYeah, cursing at somebody in enormous, bold letters qualifies as sarcasm. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsI'm still not getting it. Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsLesbianism, as it is shown in mainstream film, is not nearly as accurate as male homosexuality is within the same medium. Gay men are often very attractive (if sometimes effeminate) people, whereas lesbians, to be blunt, are frequently quite "butch." I'll not lie and say that I'd be upset over the typical Hollywood lesbian scene in a movie - though I may object to it on general principle, I'm only human, and the sight of an attractive female engaged in any sort of sexuality will appeal to most straight men - but if such scenes were more true to life and "true" lesbians were portrayed, it would probably be a different story. Hope nobody takes that the wrong way...I think it's common enough opinion that the (stereo)typical lesbian is rather masculine, which makes her less conventionally attractive, while the (stereo)typical gay man is somewhat feminine, which does not have a similar effect in reducing his allure. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationZiff, with all due respect - not that you're inherently due any sort of respect just for the color of your name, but anyhow - there was nothing wrong with the discussion whatsoever. There hadn't been any sort of flame or ill-advised remark since the thread's early posts, and each instance had since been resolved. But at least now we can all eagerly await Ziff's highly anticipated, infinitely important opinion. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Clockworkz, I don't respect any sort of authority figure who cannot pay me the same courtesy. I'll piss off Ziff all I want, as long as he continues to paint himself as the superhumanly objective, all-knowing seer who benevolently rules the forum, I'll continue to question his actions. I think that, at the very least, it's my right (and maybe even my responsbility) as a member of this board.
Ziff, I'll shut up and let you do your job when you start living up to your responsibility. You are charged with the supervision of this forum not so that you can close a topic or censure a person when the topic or person leans in a way that is distasteful to your politics, but so that you can keep flames and rampant insults at a minimum but otherwise allow discussion to flow as it may. The best discussions occur without a moderator sitting atop his perch and turning the evil eye on any poster who exp |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Though I couldn't cite an exact source, I definitely remember seeing some sort of a Discovery or History Channel examination of Judas' role in the Passion. Certainly Christian doctrine would insist that, considering how vital Jesus' death is in the grand scheme of things, somebody had to set off the whole series of events. As the show argued, why should that person be damned for effectively allowing all of mankind to be saved? | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Buy a Mach 3 razor, and just replace the blades every so often (depending on how frequently you shave and how thick your beard is on each occasion). Haven't cut myself in a long time and, when I do, it's purely due to carelessness.
I've only used one of those cheap plastic disposable razors once, and it was when I thought I could get away without shaving for a couple of days before a wrestling match. There are rules regarding facial hair - the rules, essentially, being that you can't have anything, even stubble, below the ears - and during weigh-ins the referee told me to shave before the match. So, I had to use the coach's disposable razor that he brings along for such circumstances, and I swear he must've been the same blade for the 30-something years he'd been coaching. Granted, I only had hot water and no shaving cream, but it was nonetheless one of the most painful experiences of my life. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| The prominence of pedophilia in the priesthood is a direct result of the willingness of diocese to protect clergymen who have done wrong. Becoming a priest doesn't make you a pedophile, but as long as deviants know they can act as they will and the Church will always back them up, it will continue to be a problem. Allowing priests to marry isn't the solution, the solution is to let them face the consequences of their actions instead of cloaking dire misdeeds and hurrying an offending priest off to another parish.
Just as a sidenote. |
| 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 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
Honestly, I just called it like I saw it, you were really quite rude in reply. 
I know that it's not a good idea to drive while impaired (regardless of what situation has led to me being impaired).