Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think Penske is just trying to lose the whole metrosexual stank with this argument. Don't let him get you worked up when he doesn't even care.

Sorry. That P.O.S. slavery argument is so fucking intellectually dishonest, hackneyed and overused by idiots it just gets my goddamned blood boiling. I don't know if I get more pisssed because its so flawed, asinine and stale, or because its such a cheap, sophomore "I'll steal the moral highground" jackass argument tactic. Its the sort of thing that's nearly made me attack opposing counsel in court. Nobody's stupid enough to miss the fallacy of the argument, which means the person using it is always lying or trying to slide one past the goalie. Its an insult to everyone and wastes everyone's fucking time. And that disingenuous debating is what is front and center in the polkitical discourse these days...

No wonder everyone thinks us idiots.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Sorry. That P.O.S. slavery argument is so fucking intellectually dishonest, hackneyed and overused by idiots it just gets my goddamned blood boiling. I don't know if I get more pisssed because its so flawed, asinine and stale, or because its such a cheap, sophomore "I'll steal the moral highground" jackass argument tactic. Its the sort of thing that's nearly made me attack opposing counsel in court. Nobody's stupid enough to miss the fallacy of the argument, which means the person using it is always lying or trying to slide one past the goalie. Its an insult to everyone and wastes everyone's fucking time. And that disingenuous debating is what is front and center in the polkitical discourse these days...

No wonder everyone thinks us idiots.

Ultimately, I think it works out to be a very good analogy.

And I'm WAY smarter than you.

So, there. Nyah nyah.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This makes no sense for several reasons.

1. Some percentage of woman are anti-abortion. Assuming your logic i think we would have to survey only those women who have been pregnant to see what the opinion numbers are. I don't have a cite, do you?

Should a female fetus, who is likely to grow up to be pro-life have a greater vote than one who'll grow up to be pro-choice?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This makes no sense for several reasons.

1. Some percentage of woman are anti-abortion. Assuming your logic i think we would have to survey only those women who have been pregnant to see what the opinion numbers are. I don't have a cite, do you?

2. I don't need to be have been a slave to understand that slavery is an abomination and an inexcusable infringement on the human rights of a slave, just as I don't have to have carried an infant within me to know infanticide when I see it.

1. Exactly. If we let the women vote, and they came out pro-life, I'd live with it.

2. You know half of whhat you think the issue is. Until you understand what its like to actually be pregnant, and what it does to the woman, you only know HALF, at most. If I had finished half my courses for a pilot's license, would you let me fly you somewhere? You keep skipping over the woman's rights like she's not an issue. She's there dude. Somebody's got to hold that sacred fetus.

Billmore exposed your argument for what it is. He believes the woman's rights to her body are subordinate to the fetus's. That. Is. Your. Argument. We both know it, so just say it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ultimately, I think it works out to be a very good analogy.

And I'm WAY smarter than you.

So, there. Nyah nyah.

Crap. Been ussed by every hack from NR throught the Catholic Guild for years.

Garbaaage. For exactly the reasons I noted and you have yet to refute.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That. Is. Your. Argument.

If everyone had periods like you have periods, none of this would even be an issue.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you suggesting a carpet bombing campaign?

No.

I watched an old documentary on the Vietnam War last night. The segment was dealing with the war in the villages. It struck me that we have the same problem here that we had in Vietnam.

The terrorists are among the general population. In many instances, large segments of the population may not agree with the tactics they are using, but they share the same basic sentiments as the terrorists.

How do we root out the bad guys and kill them off without slaughtering huge numbers of innocents and not-so-innocents-but-non-terrorists? Any large-scale operation will drive the villagers into the hands of the enemy.

But we can't tell them apart simply by looking at them. They don't wear uniforms. They don't live in garrisons. We aren't going to make any headway with a "Hearts and Minds" campaign.

I honestly don't know what to do. I do know that what we are doing now is pretty much a forever proposition. It is sapping our resources and the American public and the current administration have no appetite for raising taxes to support the effort.

We can't simply throw up our hands in defeat. But we have to find a different way to fight this war.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
If everyone had periods like you have periods, none of this would even be an issue.

Whiff.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In America anyone can take ownership of their own life. Its both a gift and a responsibility, with the latter item being the thing many liberals have a tough time with.

Actually, many people can't take owenrship of their life. And even those who can, don't always make it. That's the price of a capitalist market-driven economy. It produces winners and losers.

Taking care of the losers to some degree is the price of peace. I'm not preaching equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is a good beginning, but it still won't take care of everyone.

Some degree of safety net is a requirement, lest we fall into decay and are brought down from within. That's the thing that many conservatives have a tough time with. They want the benefits, but are unwillling to share in the burden.

[Replaced_Texan]

Tax, tax, tax proposal in the Texas House special session. I note that the Texas House is controlled by the GOP.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

(spree: blog post)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dissent. In most cases, it is not an infringement but a voluntary condition. Rights carry responsbilities, why are the liberals so scared of the latter?

As I noted earlier, it isn't the liberals who are unwilling to shoulder responsibility.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No.

I watched an old documentary on the Vietnam War last night. The segment was dealing with the war in the villages. It struck me that we have the same problem here that we had in Vietnam.

The terrorists are among the general population. In many instances, large segments of the population may not agree with the tactics they are using, but they share the same basic sentiments as the terrorists.

How do we root out the bad guys and kill them off without slaughtering huge numbers of innocents and not-so-innocents-but-non-terrorists? Any large-scale operation will drive the villagers into the hands of the enemy.

But we can't tell them apart simply by looking at them. They don't wear uniforms. They don't live in garrisons. We aren't going to make any headway with a "Hearts and Minds" campaign.

I honestly don't know what to do. I do know that what we are doing now is pretty much a forever proposition. It is sapping our resources and the American public and the current administration have no appetite for raising taxes to support the effort.

We can't simply throw up our hands in defeat. But we have to find a different way to fight this war.

You don't believe that, assuming the Iraqi Military gets up to speed, that they won't have more success in identifying the bad guys and winning hearts and minds? I do. I also saw on Charlie Rose recently a retired general and former member of the Joint Chiefs say that the training of the Iraqis is going far better than he expected and far better than he witnessed a year before, and his belief was that we would begin pulling out within a year, though he acknowledged that we would need to keep command and control personnel there fore many years to come.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ultimately, I think it works out to be a very good analogy.

And I'm WAY smarter than you.

So, there. Nyah nyah.

Assuming that life begins at conception, or at some point before the end of the second trimester. But even then one would have to decide, as sebby notes, whose rights prevail -- kid or mom. It is not as simple as saying that my right to swing my fist ends just before it hits someone else's nose. Pregnancy is different -- in essence, this argument requires a woman to put her health and life at fairly substantial risk to allow another life to be born.

If I need a kidney transplant to live, and you, bilmore, are the only source of one that will work in my body, can the state force you to give up one of yours? Or how about a bone marrow transplant? Blood transfusion?

If your answer is no, why is this different from abortion? I will die without the use of your body.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Shit. Some consistency would be nice. If we're doing this for humanitarian reasons, then we need to save everyone suffering under brutal dictators.* *I'm actually fine with this.

Me too.

Oh wait, this is just another after-the-fact-rationalization-combined with-an-appeal-to-emotions-fallacy.

Nope, not for me it aint. I have been bitching about the sanctions against Iraq well before 9/11, Afghanistan, or the thought that there might be WMDs in Iraq. I never supported going into Iraq based on WMDs. I supported it for other reasons. And as for "after the fact rationalization" for going into Rwanda -- I'd have gladly lit a fire under my government's ass had I known what the hell was going on, or been one of the fax recipients of the Canadian dispatching reports mid-massacre. Alas, both the killers and killees were non-European blacks -- Africans no less -- and so not much attention was paid to it. And I've said this before and a lot more well before the trite Hotel Rwanda.

Welcome to Fallacyville. Population: You.

In light of the above, Welcome to Cynicsville. Population: you, and everyone else but me it seems.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Assuming that life begins at conception, or at some point before the end of the second trimester. But even then one would have to decide, as sebby notes, whose rights prevail -- kid or mom. It is not as simple as saying that my right to swing my fist ends just before it hits someone else's nose. Pregnancy is different -- in essence, this argument requires a woman to put her health and life at fairly substantial risk to allow another life to be born.

If I need a kidney transplant to live, and you, bilmore, are the only source of one that will work in my body, can the state force you to give up one of yours? Or how about a bone marrow transplant? Blood transfusion?

If your answer is no, why is this different from abortion? I will die without the use of your body.

But a mother's relationship to her child is not the same as yours and bilmore's (I surmise, without knowing). Not before and not after birth (with some exceptions, of course).

And we do put limits even on people's behavior vis a vis their own bodies (drug use crimes come to mind, legal ages on certain substances, etc.). It doesn't strike me as completely unreasonable that the one exception to "you don't have to save someone" would be this one, if there were going to be one. But I also think it may be useful to separate out abortion on demand, vs. abortion after consideration of interested parties' physical heath. Seems a different analysis to me.