(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 10:13 PM
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
Posted on 04-25-06 01:46 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Silvershield - Were it not for your odd (to me anyway) insistance that anything with human DNA is automatically a full human, we'd have far less disagreement.
I don't find it an odd insistence. Scientifically, a zygote (and any advanced form of it) is alive. The requisite follow-up question is the issue of what species of life it is, and its genetic code clearly asserts its humanity. So, we know it's alive, and we know it's human - it's human life. That's my logic.

Originally posted by Jomb
If you could prove to me that a zygote is fully aware and sentient then i'd be on your side in this debate.
I tried to dismiss this as a simple difference of opinion. You believe that awareness and sentience are prerequisites for humanity, I believe my above stated criteria are. We can't argue much there, except that I'll point out how a very young child is hardly all that aware, yet you wouldn't approve of its death.

Originally posted by Jomb
As it is, i tell you i dont consider "potential humans" to be the same thing as actual humans, then you ignore that and continue on as if i just said that its ok to murder people's children in their cribs. I was never suggesting such a thing. Yes of course rescue workers go to great lengths to save one life, and rightly so, but what does that have to do with anything i said? You continually shift your argument to irrelevant points in discussions we are'nt even having. Are you suggesting that rescue workers should perform rescue missions inside vaginas? did'nt think so
You talked about how the loss of a single life from an abortion would not be such a big deal, considering the world's overpopulation. My diatribe about rescue workers and whatnot was to point out that, even in a world that is overpopulated (which is not necessarily true, depending on your source), a single life is held in great regard.

Originally posted by Jomb
If i remember my Biology correctly, its actually not an embryo yet, after zygote its a Blastula (sp?) but none of that matters to what i was saying and is just another odd distraction.
You remarked that a zygote is the epitome of mechanical process, and I pointed out that it's impossible for a zygote to satisfy that distinction because once some mechanical process actually occurs - that is, it begins to divide - it is no longer a zygote at all. I don't have enough of a familiarity with the biological terminology to be perfectly accurate at all times, but that doesn't change anything beyond the fact that the word "embryo" in one of my previous posts should be changed to "blastula."

Originally posted by Jomb
You may think you did all that, but i immediately knew you were arguing from a religious point of view due to your inflexability and strange "i want to say soul but cant so i'll say DNA instead" tapdance.
I don't mean to be incendiary when I place such emphasis on this statement, but it makes no difference what the source of my opinion is - that is not up for contention. I've said that several times, and I can no longer find a way to phrase it any differently. Whatever my motivation for my views - belief in a soul, DNA, whatever - the views themselves stay the same and would not change even if I never even mentioned that part about the soul. I could edit it out right now, and it wouldn't change a thing.

Originally posted by Jomb
If you could prove to me that a zygote has thoughts and feelings i'd switch sides in this agrument.
Thoughts and feelings have little bearing on whether a being is worth preserving. As a pointed out above, a newborn infant has neither coherent thoughts nor feelings of any consequence, yet nobody would suggest it can be killed without qualm.

Originally posted by Jomb
I think if we went and got an actual zygote and put it under a microscope and showed you it has no functioning nervous system, you'd not care in the least because you believe it has a soul.
I know that a zygote has no functioning nervous system. This isn't an issue of my limited knowledge of science. And no, I would not begin to argue on the basis of a soul; any argument I've set forth so far has not even alluded to any religious basis, and none of those arguments would change all of a sudden.

Originally posted by Jomb
So what about test-tube babies? If i take a womans egg and fertilize it in a dish, forming a zygote, am i now a murderer for failing to have a womb to stick it in?
Since that zygote cannot survive outside of the womb, I would argue that you are indeed commiting an act of murder. Just as abortion, even at an early stage, is reprehensible to me, so is that roughly equivalent act. It doesn't matter whether it's been killed while in its natural "home" or in vitro.

Originally posted by Jomb
Life, and sentience are unrelated things. We have been able to grow human organs off of mice by manipulating their genetic code (read about that in an article in Wired magazine a couple years ago). Does this mean that mouse has become human because it has some human DNA? Is a portion of the mouse protected as if a human being?
Give me a hard source before I will address this.

Originally posted by Jomb
If (or maybe when?) we encounter other sentient forms of life in the galaxy, will you consider them morally acceptable to slaughter because they lack human DNA?
In that inarguably distant, perhaps even impossible, circumstance, I would hardly encourage that other sentient beings be "slaughtered" but I would not afford them the same protection of humans. But I'm not really sure it's a valid topic for debate, considering that it's a distant and unimaginable hypothetical that has no real world precedent.

Originally posted by Usernoname
That's assuming she willingly involved herself in a sexual act. There is that famous rape scenario usually involved in the abortion debate. That does not mean I'm only for abortion in the case of rape.
For the entirety of this debate, I've been discounting the rape circumstance as a statistically small portion that should not be used as if it is a significant influence. In those few cases in which the woman is not personally responsible for her own pregnancy, one most keep in mind that the child developing within her is hardly culpable either. To exact punishment on the distinct human life that is completely innocent is a wrongful act.

Originally posted by Usernoname
Until there is that perfect condom or perfect pill I think abortion should be an option for those who protected themselves. To continue with the previous scenario; it's like someone holding loaded gun in a persons face, that person being protected by a bulletproof shield with a 99% chance of breaking. That's just being plain unlucky.
Skydude addressed this before I got to it, and with sufficient quality.

Edit:
Originally posted by Skydude
OK, well, I was somewhat wrong about "select few" but it tends to be less than 1/2, and as little as 1/3 of a typical cycle.
I don't see how that makes any difference in the validity of your argument.

(edited by Silvershield on 04-25-06 12:51 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 01:57 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
* zygote - from fertilization until second cell division

So once it divides into more cells it becomes an embryo.

Blastula/blastospheres and blastocysts are quite different.
Thank you for providing basic knowledge that a quick Wikipedia-ing would've yielded.

Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 02:01 AM, in Sexual orientation. What a load of bull. Link
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
Grow up.
Hey, you're the one who made me out to be a gay-hating bigot.

I'll bow out now before I get banned...
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 10:13 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
It wasn't exactly vital to the content of the discussion...
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 11:57 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
What nobody bothered to look up was the proper terminology for a zygote that's begun cell division. I originally called it an embryo, somebody remarked that it's a blastula, and then Ziff arrived with the more precise answer. It's a matter of semantics, and has no impact whatsoever on the discussion aside from influencing which specific term a person uses, which changes nothing.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 04:07 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Tarale
Well, I would have thought it does, as traditionally a lot of arguments argue when it might be OKAY to abort something during this process.

IE, at what point does it become human / attain a soul / whatever?

Is it right from the get-go when it divides into two cells? Or exactly when ?

Is there EVER a point after sperm meets egg that it's okay to terminate that mass of cell structure?
I think you're missing what I'm saying. The only thing missing from the discussion was the exactly correct terminology for what was being discussed. But, it's completely arbitrary, so it changes nothing. A rose by any other name, and all that.

Originally posted by Rom Manic
The criminal code is on the internet, why not look it up?
Is that in reference to my remark that a law exists, but that I wouldn't know how to find it?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 05:56 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
In any case, I don't see why anyone would require concrete documenation for a law that is so widely known. A parent abuses his child, either physically or through failure to provide food, clothing, etc., and he can be prosecuted. Nobody is aware of that?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 08:14 PM, in The death penalty and injustices... Link
I won't draw this out any more than by saying that, as has been well established, I believe in the sanctity of human life. So, no abortion, no war, no death penalty.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 08:57 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Jomb
This comes down to our difference of opinion on when meaningful life begins. To you it is immediately at the single-cell stage, to me it is after thoughts and feelings develop. By your definition other forms of sentient life are'nt worth protecting, in my definition they are.
If by "other forms of sentient life" you mean animals, then you're right, I don't believe in affording them the protection given to humans. That shouldn't be construed as the right to slaughter them without prejudice, though.

Originally posted by Jomb
A child immediately after birth, and even to some degree before birth has thoughts and feelings. Fear is a common one just after birth. A zygote has none of these things and wont have them for many months.
An infant has no coherent thoughts of any consequence, and its feelings are the same instinct-driven reponses common to any lower animal. In short, any mental processes are comparable to or even less advanced than those of certain animals.

Originally posted by Jomb
No, i said the loss of a POTENTIAL life is not a big loss in a world overpopulated by humans. You immediately turned it into some thing about rescue workers as if i had said one actual life is meaningless, which i did not say. Any source that claims there are too few humans on Earth is bordering on criminal misrepresentation of the facts. You need only look around or compare the actual number of humans on Earth to the number of any other mammal.
In my response, I did make an allowance for the fact that you consider an prenatal infant "potential life" and I consider it full life. Reread my post - I wasn't trying to "turn it into" anything else.

Also, the ratio of humans to any other mammal is hardly an indication of the over- or underpopulation of either species. Like I said, depending on your source, Earth may either be nearing disaster from overpopulation, or things may be just fine.

Originally posted by Jomb
We're getting caught up in semantics here and its not important to either of our arguments. A zygote up to several months later is simply a mechanical chain of cell divisions, this is all i meant.
I agree that is was merely a semantic issue, and I've said that more than once now.

However, just because a zygote (which is not the proper term, I know) is simply a mass mechanically dividing cells doesn't compromise its value. The human body, save for the brain, is very much a mechanical being.

Also, after only a period of weeks, more commonly accepted "human" traits begin to be displayed by the embryo. Not "several months."

Originally posted by Jomb
Actually yes it does. An opinion formed on logic and reason is a flexible opinion which can change with changing facts. An opinion based on religious faith is an inflexible opinion which cannot be changed by reasoning, logic or new facts.
Your opinion is not based on religion, yet I don't recall it adapting to the changing arguments presented in this thread.

Originally posted by Jomb
Whether you realize it or not, this sort of reasoning is exactly what screams religious argument to me. If you realize a zygote has no nervous system, no thoughts, no feelings.... other than a soul what could possibly make it the equivalent of a full grown human being? You are'nt arguing the zygote's loss would be cruel to the zygote because it has no feelings, you are'nt arguing it would feel pain. So what logical reason could you have for considering its loss a capital crime? This is where i'm not following you.
I have made that exact argument - that a zygote is equivalent in worth to a full-grown human - several times over in this thread. And not one of those times have I used religion as any sort of justification for what I've said. Why do you repeatedly question my motives instead of addressing those arguments that I've put forth, each of which has been backed by non-religious rhetoric?

Originally posted by Jomb
How is this any different than a woman having her period or a man ejaculating? Those sperm and eggs each have human DNA and are potential humans, just mix them together.
Because in neither a woman's period nor a man's ejaculation is a zygote expelled. I've never tried to equate a single sperm or egg cell with a full-fledged zygote; the former two are expendable in my eyes.

Originally posted by Jomb
I'm not online at home to sit around digging for online information, but a quick search came up with this
This article mentions the very mouse i saw in Wired a couple years ago with the human ear growing on it. Is this a human now? Would killing it be murder? Its got the DNA you so treasure.
Is cutting a human's ear off considered murder? It may not be a nice thing to do, but I certainly wouldn't equate it with a legitimate killing.

The day a full human grows out of a mouse's back is the day I begin taking issue with it. I don't think the current line of experimentation is that great of an idea in the first place, but it's not murder.

Originally posted by Jomb
Thats where you are wrong. This has actually happened before here on Earth. Maybe not with aliens per se, but there was a time in the past when Homo Sapiens was not the only species which had sentience. In the distant past Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed alongside Homo Sapiens. All of which were sentient beings. Even today the great apes and dolphins are also sentient beings, though not as intelligent as man.
The great apes and dolphins are not sentient in the human sense of the word. They do not have the degree of mental complexity seen among man.

In any case, Neanderthals and Homo erectus aren't around anymore, so it's inconsequential.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 12:53 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Jomb
I'm not sure i buy this, infants i've known convincingly displayed fear, likes, dislikes, joy, sadness, etc.
Not to any more magnitude than the family dog will display those same behaviors.

Originally posted by Jomb
It is when the ratio is ridiculously skewed towards man and man's own livestock. You view man as the rightful ruler and dominator of the world i'm assuming, which is again a religious conviction. I see man as one part of the natural world, when men outnumber other mammels to an absurd degree it's disturbing to me. When man extincts other animals in a need to accomodate his ever increasing mass of bodies, that it also disturbing to me.
I do view man as the ruler and dominator of the world, but it's hardly a religious conviction and more of an acknowledgement of how things are. We as humans have the greatest mental capacity, by far, of any lifeform on this planet, and we have the unique ability to devise tools with any degree of proficiency. It is the logical chain of events that the most well-suited creature should rise to a seat of absolute control. I would say that it is that creature's responsibility to harness that power and care for the natural world that surrounds him, but you can't compel all of humanity to wake up one day and just start caring about the environment...

No species becomes extinct because of the bulbous mass of manflesh is suffocating it. Unwise ecological action - sawing down rainforest and similar acts - are what adversely affect animal life, and that action is not representative of a wildly expanding human population. When wildlife in Prince William Sound was devastated in 1989, it wasn't because a bunch of humans suddenly moved in and set up camp there, it was because of a stupid error that caused a human resource to spill from a boat. Lack of responsibility in man's interaction with the environment is what hurts animals, not simply brute overpopulation.

Originally posted by Jomb
This is my point exactly, what seperates a sentient form of life from a beetle or a salmon or whatever, is that very part you mention, the brain.
What also separates a sentient form of life - namely, humans - from a lower lifeform is simply the status of "human." Surely it's something of an intangible, but it's worth considering nonetheless.

Originally posted by Jomb
The only human trait i consider to be worth preserving is the ability to think and feel, to be self-aware. Any other trait minus that is not worth fighting for to me. Would you consider a vacate human body worth saving? One without a brain other than the parts related to sustaining the mechanical processes of the body?
Babies are not self-aware, as I've said at least twice, and you think they're worth preserving.

A vacant human body, one without a brain, cannot live anyway. So, no, it's not worth saving; you can't save something that's already dead.

Originally posted by Jomb
But it COULD, that is the point. If a new study came out which convincingly showed that a very early embryo actually did have more of a mind than we thought and was thinking and dreaming, then my position would change and i'd be wanting to fight for their rights along side of you.
And if a new study came out proving, through some criterion, that a zygote is not a human being, I would change my mind in a flash. But, until that day, I'm not going to surrender any more than you will. It's not because I'm religious, it's because I have a point of view that I am able to logically and reasonably defend.

Originally posted by Jomb
The only argument i recall you making was that human DNA in any form what-so-ever (except when its inconvenient for you, like an amputated limb) is equal to a full grown human life. This is an argument which makes no sense to me and i've been trying to get you to explain it in a way i can understand. So far the only thing you've said to justify it which made any sense was that you believe in souls.
I don't recall ever stating that human DNA in any form is to be protected. Skin cells die and fall from the body every minute of every day, to the tune of several billion (or a similarly immense number) over the course of a lifetime, but I'm not taking issue with that. The only time I invoke the human DNA line is in justifying the humanity of a zygote: it is alive, so that can't be argued, and when determining what "kind" of life it is, its DNA indicates that it is human. Therefore, it is human life, and worth preserving. I haven't been fighting for the DNA argument only when it's convenient, I've brought it up under very specific circumstances.

Originally posted by Jomb
A sperm an egg and a zygote all contain human DNA, are potential human life and all have no feelings. Why do you make a distinction between them?
Good luck turning a sperm cell into a person.

Originally posted by Jomb
bravo, thats what i've been saying all along. But that ear contains human DNA. every bit as much as a zygote does, so why do you treat them differently?
See my response two quotes above this one.

Originally posted by Jomb
I agree once again, but still dont see how you fit this into your "any human DNA should be protected the same we are" world view.
As above.

Originally posted by Jomb
Are'nt they? They can recognize their reflection in a mirror, something lower animals cant do. They are self-aware. They have the same fore-thought we have to make tools. They can be taught language. They have complex social structures they live in, just like we do. They are as intelligent as us, but they are still sentient.
I've never argued humanity on the basis of how intelligent we are. I know that apes, while not nearly of the mental capability of even a young human, still have some degree of ability. That's not in question.

Originally posted by Jomb
Neanderthal and Homo Erectus may now be extinct, but the fact is they lived alongside man at one time, and you said that Homo Sapiens encountering another sentient species was so remote as to be not worth thinking about. But the fact is that it happened before, so you are wrong in thinking its impossibly unlikely.
I said Homo sapiens encountering an extraterrestrial lifeform, as in your example, is so remote as to be not worth thinking about.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 01:10 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
If the Plan B pill has no possibility of destroying an egg that's already been fertilized, then I can't object to it.

Edit, because I can object to it on the grounds of the information Skydude provided while I was posting this...

(edited by Silvershield on 04-26-06 12:11 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 01:32 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Bio
Silvershield: renember the link I posted some time ago to prove sientifist worry about moral, did you at least read it? it say that once a certain line of cell devlopped that mean the zygote have a certain chance to be able to suffer and this is essentially immoral to abort it. also if you guy worry THAT much about moral, why are you christian, this religion caused more suffering and death than Hitler, but you consider Hitler evil and christianism good
Not to be rude, but the first half of your post is a little bit difficult to understand...

Regarding the latter part, though: true Christianity is more of a mindset than a label. There have been dozens of historically prominent "Christians" who paid little heed to the tenets of the faith. The title was used to gain or retain power, or to accomplish a political end, or for similar purposes. These people were Christian in name only, and did not adhere to the morality that identifies a true believer.

In any case, I'm not so sure that Christians throughout history have matched the atrocities of WWII Nazis, but I suppose that's subjective...

Originally posted by Arwon
[entire post]
If the drug has no chance whatsoever of causing a fertilized egg to be destroyed, then why would the company - whose goal, naturally, would be to appeal to the widest possible audience - advertise that as a possibility? Doing so knocks off the pro-lifers as a possible user of the product.

Edit: Dammit Skydude, let me post something before you butt in!



(edited by Silvershield on 04-26-06 12:33 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 01:34 AM, in Sexual orientation. What a load of bull. Link
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
Wrong term, mattp

This is the proper usage
Purely semantics.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 02:42 AM, in Sexual orientation. What a load of bull. Link
No, it's more like calling a heterosexual person "gay," but intending it to mean that the person is attracted to the opposite sex. Wrong term, right intention.

_� <--- See, I can use condescending smilies too.

Edit because the smilie doesn't show up. Needless to say, it's the same one Ziff used...

(edited by Silvershield on 04-26-06 01:43 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 10:52 AM, in What goes on in our minds? Link
Originally posted by ||bass
I can immediately tell that noone here has ever taken philosophy of ethics courses.

Don't most majors require you to take atleast one philosophy of ethics class? Mine does.
My school calls for all students, regardless of major, to take Philosophy 101, as well as a senior year Ethics course and, in the meantime, at least one other philosophy or religious studies course of the student's choice.

But, yeah, Intro to Philosophy was more of a "these are various philosophers, and this is what they said" history-type course than anything else.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 10:56 AM, in Sexual orientation. What a load of bull. Link
Ok, you're a person of ambiguous gender whose sexual preference is bisexual. No misuse of terminology there - satisfied?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 11:09 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Arwon
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.
It may be a consequence of the nature of certainty that it's impossible to prove the negative, but a side effect of that unavoidable consequence is that it's still not an acceptable method of birth control for anyone who is genuinely pro-life. Even the smallest chance of causing the expulsion of a fertilized egg is too large of a chance.

Originally posted by Arwon
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.
If I'm understanding your statement right, that opposition is the same radical-minded group that most level-headed pro-lifers would rather not be associated with.

Originally posted by Arwon
(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)
And at implantation, it's that exact same tissue only it has some physical anchor. I don't see how that variable - whether the cells are attached to something or not - should be used as the definition for anything of consequence.

Originally posted by Arwon
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?
Why do you assume that each of those unfertilized eggs would end up as an abortion? There's a difference between a woman who is willing to use contraception, and one who will go all the way and actually abort the baby she's conceived once that contraception fails. That expulsed zygote very well could've been tolerated to full-term if it had implanted and begun to grow as normal; there's no evidence to suggest that the mother would perceive the abortion as an act equivalent to just "finishing the job the pill started."
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 03:54 PM, in asian with a teddy bear Link
I knew exactly what it would be before clicking the link, but I couldn't resist actually going ahead and clicking it anyway. It was traumatic, to say the least.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 05:06 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by max
i dont see how this is different from reading any other fairy tale so i honestly dont see what the problem is. but i guess people are more ignorant and bigoted than id like to belive.
Why is it always a matter of bigotry, and not simply innocent difference of opinion? Skydude's doing well enough to defend his side with unprejudiced lines of argument, but it's still just because he's an ignorant bigot?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-26-06 05:14 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by max
actually skydude made the best comment in this thread which is "I don't think the teachers should take it upon themselves to decide what moral values to teach children.". teachers should be allowed to read whichever books they choose to (for the appropriate ages, of course), and they should not have to censor themselves.
Your comment is diametrically opposed to what Skydude said in that quoted sentence.
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


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.218 seconds; used 486.59 kB (max 642.02 kB)