| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-07 05:06:15 |
|
|
| Nickthebassist |
 |
 |
|
|
The best reason to change, then, is to change what is not good. If something is good, then why change to something that isn't? |
Isn't that what this election has done? It has pushed for change since things are not working.
"Stay the course" has been the mantra of the administration, yet things in Iraq have only gotten more and more violent. Yet the President kept on with "stay the course". Is this NOT a good reason to change? After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Is this not what has been happening with the war in Iraq?
It will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next few weeks in US politics. The independent report on the state of Iraq that was released today has been eye-opening. It is calling for change in a big way. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-07 11:19:58 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
 |
|
@Nickthebassist
The point here is that you should have the freedom to exercise your own morality.
Right.
I agree, it should not be forbidden (but as you probably know, some doctors will keep helping, although it is forbidden ; as it is forbidden, it will be a bit dangerous for them, so doctors will think twice, and maybe they will try to speak with the women, and not only use chirurgical tools ; this is good... if morality is necessary, discussion about morality is necessary too).
yet things in Iraq have only gotten more and more violent.
More and more, no.
One point is nice in Iraq, but you would surely disagree with me about it. They don't extract oil, that means they keep oil for the future generations. This is a very very very good point in my eyes, and unfortunately, only the iraki population (and some foreign soldiers) is paying the price of this.
Yet the President kept on with "stay the course". Is this NOT a good reason to change?
Change what ?
If you have ideas about it, then thell them.
Nobody told something clear about it during the elections process.
@Bac
The best reason to change, then, is to change what is not good. If something is good, then why change to something that isn't?
To fight against lazyness.
But I'm not concerned that I or others won't grow more knowledgable in four years.
This is probably true. And Bush government is probably not concerned about that, this government never cared for educating American population. This is in my eyes the most negative point.
I'm sure some of will grow wiser with time, no matter who is in charge.
You don't know this world. Lies spread more easily than knowledge.
I can not give you proofs about politicians. I can give you proofs about two great scientists, Pascal and Newton.
If you care to know, I can post it, yet I'd prefer not. Anybody can find the lies, and it is a very interesting and educating (and not that difficult) task to search for some lies about them. So if you care to know, I will not post it here, but I can send to you some private messages.
Lies can spread more quickly than knowledge. Experience is absolutely necessary to detect which is right and which is not. For science, it is easy, we have so much science since 350 years. For politic, it is more difficult.
Four years may result in too high a price for all of us.
Forget about the government. If you see something wrong around you, try to help and to correct it.
You have this freedom in your country, you can do many things "against" the government. Use it. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 00:03:40 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
 |
|
|
|
The best reason to change, then, is to change what is not good. If something is good, then why change to something that isn't? |
Isn't that what this election has done? It has pushed for change since things are not working.
"Stay the course" has been the mantra of the administration, yet things in Iraq have only gotten more and more violent. Yet the President kept on with "stay the course". Is this NOT a good reason to change? After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Is this not what has been happening with the war in Iraq?
It will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next few weeks in US politics. The independent report on the state of Iraq that was released today has been eye-opening. It is calling for change in a big way. |
Again, many things are working, just fine - at least in terms of certain legislation and action. Not everything, of course, but when has everything "worked" perfectly all at once?
Economically, one can see that tax-cuts have helped to create economic growth. There's been a ban on partial-birth abortion, blah, blah... These are all things that I see as positive moves. If you don't agree with some of these things, especially in principle, then naturally one might say it doesn't "work".
In Iraq, I'd say that "staying the course" is not a good way to go, but that's a vague and somewhat misleading phrase. Any U.S. military general in Iraq would tell you that they adapt (or change) strategy on a daily basis. Now, as far as the strategy coming out of Washington, then there probably is change that could be helpful. More troops in Iraq might be a good start. If by "stay the course" Bush means that we need to finish what we started, then I'm in agreement with him.
I don't what strategy is being used over and over in Iraq that isn't working. There may be some, but something as complicated as large military campaing probably has many things being done wrong and many being done right.
But here is the big question, that I have yet to hear being answered by the Democrats (the people we've put in place for this supposed "change"): What are they going to do differently?
I've heard a lot of talk about "goals" from this study group lately. But so what? I think the main goals are pretty clear to everyone and have been for a long time. The question is, how are they going to achieve them? What are their great new plans to acheive these goals?
I'm going to go out on a limb take a guess that they have nothing new in mind - other than possibly withdrawing from the situation altogether. And that would be catastrophic. If they have a plan that will secure Iraq and bring our goals to fruition, then that would be great. But I'm not counting on it.
But, like you said, it'll be interesting. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 00:18:19 |
|
|
|
|
BAC "In Iraq, I'd say that "staying the course" is not a good way to go, but that's a vague and somewhat misleading phrase. Any U.S. military general in Iraq would tell you that they adapt (or change) strategy on a daily basis. Now, as far as the strategy coming out of Washington, then there probably is change that could be helpful. More troops in Iraq might be a good start. If by "stay the course" Bush means that we need to finish what we started, then I'm in agreement with him.
I don't what strategy is being used over and over in Iraq that isn't working. There may be some, but something as complicated as large military campaing probably has many things being done wrong and many being done right."
i'm thinking that maybe you're thinking too detailed. it's not about the strategy in which they engage the enemy....it's the larger strategy in which they engage the entire country that isn't working. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 01:35:57 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
@Bac
The best reason to change, then, is to change what is not good. If something is good, then why change to something that isn't?
To fight against lazyness. |
We should change simply to fight laziness? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me.
Was it good for Germany to elect Hitler simply to fight laziness? Is it better to exchange good for bad in the name of fighting laziness? That would be crazy. There are other ways to fight laziness besides making negative changes in life.
If one is lazy, then that sounds to me like an enternal problem that is best dealt with by the individual and maybe their freinds and family, but not by electing subpar politicians.
|
But I'm not concerned that I or others won't grow more knowledgable in four years.
.... And Bush government is probably not concerned about that, this government never cared for educating American population. This is in my eyes the most negative point. |
Actually, I think they've been very concerned about that, but Bush's plan for school vouchers and the like has been shot down by foolish politicians and greedy teacher's unions.
|
I'm sure some of will grow wiser with time, no matter who is in charge.
You don't know this world. Lies spread more easily than knowledge.
I can not give you proofs about politicians. I can give you proofs about two great scientists, Pascal and Newton.
If you care to know, I can post it, yet I'd prefer not. Anybody can find the lies, and it is a very interesting and educating (and not that difficult) task to search for some lies about them. So if you care to know, I will not post it here, but I can send to you some private messages.
Lies can spread more quickly than knowledge. Experience is absolutely necessary to detect which is right and which is not. For science, it is easy, we have so much science since 350 years. For politic, it is more difficult. |
I don't know this world? Hmmm... I think I've been around to know some things about it, but not everything. I think lies often do spread easier than the truth, but that depends on who/what has the loudest voice and so on... There is truth, but you just have to know where to look.
I agree that politics is filled with lies and liars, but even politics has some truth in it. Experience does help a great deal, I agree. But also, being thorough and looking over the facts.
Of course, science when applied properly can be a great revealer of truth. And very often it is!
However, since scientific work is still performed by humans, then it is just as subject to misuse and lies as politics. The human cloning hoax by Hwang Woo-suk, for example. There are plenty of others. You have to remember the scientific research is often funded by politicians, goverments, or others and this can result in certain pressures on scientists to deliver the results that their funders are hoping for.
Or the scientist can have their own agenda that they want to push -- sometimes even their peers have this same agenda, so they won't question certain things so easily.
|
Four years may result in too high a price for all of us.
Forget about the government. If you see something wrong around you, try to help and to correct it.
You have this freedom in your country, you can do many things "against" the government. Use it. |
Don't worry, I do what I can to move things in the right direction. But when the government is doing something I want them to do, then I won't go against them. If they do something I don't like or thing is bad for our society, then I push for the change. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 01:56:05 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
i'm thinking that maybe you're thinking too detailed. it's not about the strategy in which they engage the enemy....it's the larger strategy in which they engage the entire country that isn't working. |
Yeah, you may be right that I'm over-thinking the question... but even in that case, I'm not sure one can say it's not working. I mean, I don't know how much time it takes to make these kind of changes, but I guess the truest measure of success will be when the opposition in Iraq is either put down or when the Iraqi govt. is able to handle the problems without us.
Some things seem to wprl alright, but I agree that there is certainly much that needs work over there. I think there needs to be more overwhelming force shown by us over there, but who knows if that'll happen. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 18:40:11 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Bac
Was it good for Germany to elect Hitler simply to fight laziness?
I don't think that history of nazism was written in 1934.
1934 was not a great change. Hitler government was during a long time controlled by the biggest German capitalists. This government got more independence during the war. Yet, even during the war, some big German companies didn't suffer much. Instead they could develop during the war, thanks to modern slavery.
Hitler got an enormous amount of money for the elections of 1934. From German, Dutch, Swedish companies (and probably many other european ones). He (and some other nazi leaders) could take the plane every day or every two days, and make a speech in a different city every two days. This was rare in the 30s.
Some Hitler ideas were popular, but Hitler party was not that popular.
Many people were impressed by these elections. Through the election campaign, they noticed this organization of the nazi party. Also, the nazi party didn't appear as violent through these elections.
We can get a lesson from 1934 ? Yes, money can change the result of an election. This fact remains true in many many countries (including France and the USA).
but Bush's plan for school vouchers and the like has been shot down by foolish politicians and greedy teacher's unions.
OK.
Maybe.
I don't know enough about this subject.
You have to remember the scientific research is often funded by politicians, goverments, or others and this can result in certain pressures on scientists to deliver the results that their funders are hoping for.
This was not the case for Newton or Pascal. I think there are lies about them, but I don't think they wanted or helped to develop these lies.
Concerning politic, I am interested to see what democrats propose for Iraq. I have the feeling they refused to help the Bush government, and all their critics were negative ones (they never proposed an interesting ideas to the republican government). I think they are not stupid, and they probably have some good ideas. During years, they refused to help, because they were not leading your country.
I am interested, and I'd like to see what they propose. Of course, you can remember that these people (democrats) like leadership more than helping their own country...
Mishto
it's the larger strategy in which they engage the entire country that isn't working.
How large ?
What do you mean exactly ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 20:57:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm thinking that maybe you're thinking too detailed. it's not about the strategy in which they engage the enemy....it's the larger strategy in which they engage the entire country that isn't working. |
Yeah, you may be right that I'm over-thinking the question... but even in that case, I'm not sure one can say it's not working. I mean, I don't know how much time it takes to make these kind of changes, but I guess the truest measure of success will be when the opposition in Iraq is either put down or when the Iraqi govt. is able to handle the problems without us.
Some things seem to wprl alright, but I agree that there is certainly much that needs work over there. I think there needs to be more overwhelming force shown by us over there, but who knows if that'll happen. |
i think htey missed the opportunity. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-08 20:59:38 |
|
|
|
|
laraan: i mean that the military strategy of killing people is working. the strategy that isn't working however is the one that will bring stability or at least reduce the desire to kill of iraqi's and other elements in the country. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-09 01:47:25 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
@Mishto
I suppose there is irony in your words. Irony about wars is farther from my head than the shuttles of your country when they are in space.
Warn me after the landing. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-10 01:54:51 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
| The issue that people should be taking with this whole matter is the people who are doing the legislating on this particular issue. The majority of the people voting on this issue are older, white, male and reasonably affluent. Those are the majority stats of the people voting on this issue. The issue of legal abortion does not directly affect the lives of these people save as an election year issue. |
Man, I don't care if the majority of the people doing the voting are 22 year old Asian women or 85 year old hispanic men. I care about how they vote on the issue.
Just as I'm not concerned if the person commiting the act of abortion is rich or poor, white, black or brown.
Their race and social background is not relevant. We're talking about an ethical and moral issue. So, again, I'm not concerned about the color/social status of the hand that writes the law. I'm concerned about what law that hand writes/passes.
|
Now if you look at the people who have to resort to these procedures, you will find very different circumstances. You will find them to be much less well off financially and in most cases when this procedure is done at this late stage it is to protect the health of the mother. The people who are using this procedure as birth control? Well you can come to your own moral conclusion about that. And I would guess that a fair number of Doctors would be opposed to that type of procedure as well. |
As I said before, I'm fine with protecting the [i]life[i/] of the mother - that's it. In general, very few abortions at any stage of development (way less than 1%) are performed to save the life or even the health of the mother. So, I would be willing to concede that abortion be performed in those exceptionally rare cases.
|
What disturbs me about this is that the Congress is taking it upon themselves to inject their morality into the issue. The whole point of choice is that people should be permitted to have the choice to make this decision. You are going to find that the majority of people in these circumstances are going to make a well reasoned decision whether you agree with it or not. The point here is that you should have the freedom to exercise your own morality. But taking away that choice via legislation is effectively stripping women of their reproductive freedom, and I find any such infringement on freedom to be very much against the best ideals of America. |
Ummm... I'm not sure I get this. Of course Congress is going to inject their/our (since we voted for them) own morality into the issue. That's what legislation is. Virtually all legislation is based on a moral position. That's why we vote for certain people to represent us.
Leaving abortion out of the equation - should people be allowed to choose to commit murder, steal, rape, drink and drive, embezzel funds, prostitution, vandalize property, sell drugs to children, etc., etc. Clearly these are all moral choices people make. In our society, we have laws against these things whether people think it's morally ok or not.
So if that disturbs you, then maybe you prefer not to live in a representative republic?
As for abortion, it's not about the "reproductive rights" of women. It's about the right of that baby to live. If she doesn't want to risk having a baby, then don't have sex. If she was raped, then punish the rapist and support the victim, but don't punish the baby. The baby did not ask to be created any more than the woman asked to be raped. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-10 02:09:46 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
Bac
Was it good for Germany to elect Hitler simply to fight laziness?
I don't think that history of nazism was written in 1934.
1934 was not a great change. Hitler government was during a long time controlled by the biggest German capitalists. ...
|
Regardless of when it came about or how it came about, was it a good change or a bad change? That's the question.
I'm just trying to get you to admit that there's good changes and bad changes that happen. Surely, you've seen changes come about in your life that weren't good or positive.
|
This was not the case for Newton or Pascal. I think there are lies about them, but I don't think they wanted or helped to develop these lies.
Concerning politic, I am interested to see what democrats propose for Iraq. I have the feeling they refused to help the Bush government, and all their critics were negative ones (they never proposed an interesting ideas to the republican government). I think they are not stupid, and they probably have some good ideas. During years, they refused to help, because they were not leading your country.
I am interested, and I'd like to see what they propose. Of course, you can remember that these people (democrats) like leadership more than helping their own country...
|
Yeah, I'm sure this was less the case for them when it comes to monetary influence, but perhaps even they had an agenda. I'm not saying they did, but it would still be possible.
As for the democrats in power, I'm sure you may find things you like about them. It will be interesting, but I'm not looking forward to the possibility of them winning the presidency in 2008. If they have good idea, then I'm waiting to hear them. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-10 14:22:11 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Regardless of when it came about or how it came about, was it a good change or a bad change? That's the question.
The elections (it is 1933, and not 1934, just a small mistake) were not a big change.
The change came after.
Now I see what you mean.
Were these years 1933-1945 bad or good years for Europe ? For many people, it was bad years, and I can not deny it.
For my family, it was not that bad. Of course, my family suffered from the war.
Half of it was in Marseille, and there, they did not suffer much. The economical crisis of 1929 (and years later) was worst than the years of the war.
The other half was in northern France. It was not easy for them. On the other hand, they had just one children (because of the difficult situation) so they could care more for his education, and that was probably better for my own fate.
Was something good from this year (for my family) ? Yes.
One of my grandfather had very very stupid political ideas until 1938, and these years helped him to understand the world.
Also part of my family was atheist, and part was religious. Thanks to this difficult situation, they helped each other, instead of fighting against each other.
Last point. After 1945, people could speak about the war 1914-18. After 1945, French people could criticize Petain... French people could criticize an hero of the war 1914-18 (and with arguments different from the communist/anarchist arguments). Such critic, such discussion, was impossible from 1918 to 1939.
Yeah, I'm sure this was less the case for them when it comes to monetary influence, but perhaps even they had an agenda. I'm not saying they did, but it would still be possible.
Of course, they had.
And they created some lies in their own books (rather, they forgot to tell the truth about several points).
After their death, other lies were created about their life, and about the general atmosphere of these years in French and UK. And these lies annoy me a lot more.
If they have good idea, then I'm waiting to hear them.
You can wait for a long time. Campaign for 2008 will begin around september 2007, and they will say nothing interesting until this date. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-10 20:10:05 |
|
|
| Nickthebassist |
|
|
|
|
| As for abortion, it's not about the "reproductive rights" of women. It's about the right of that baby to live. If she doesn't want to risk having a baby, then don't have sex. If she was raped, then punish the rapist and support the victim, but don't punish the baby. The baby did not ask to be created any more than the woman asked to be raped. |
What is there not to get? The laws are already on the books and it is a permissable procedure. Leave it up to people to make their own moral judgements. Let them live their own lives. That's what true conservatives like Barry Goldwater have said in these matters. Get government out of people's lives.
I'll also go so far as to say that the only people that should be having this discussion are women. Do men have a uterus? Of course not. Then why should they be involved in a matter that is so unique to women? It strikes me as very arrogant on the part of men. Women bear the burden here. They are the ones who will decide whether they want to see a pregnancy through or not, laws be damned. All of this rightwing dogma on the matter influencing the laws will not do away with abortion. It will just drive it underground again and the loss of life will only increase as women seek out unsafe procedures.
As for the zygote/fetus, let's look at what the government says. A baby doesn't receive a birth certificate until it's born. Nothing is issued to would-be parents upon conception. And a social security number will never be issued until after that birth certificate comes along.
Oh, and please tell me how popular it's going to be for people to voluntarily stop having sex except for the purposes of procreation? Are you really telling me that the President and First Lady stopped having sex after the birth of their twins? People are going to have sex. It only comes across as a "problem" in this country because unfortunately the people who wound up settling in the United States first were the Puritans.
And perhaps abortion won't be seen as such a bad thing in the next few years. You know, when the population explosion really starts to be a problem. We're at 6 billion humans on this planet and rising. I've heard estimates that the planet can only accomodate somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 billion people. Things like that aren't that far off, and they are very real concerns. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-10 20:12:14 |
|
|
| Nickthebassist |
|
|
|
|
If they have good idea, then I'm waiting to hear them.
You can wait for a long time. Campaign for 2008 will begin around september 2007, and they will say nothing interesting until this date. |
It's already starting. The prospective candidates in both major parties are already making trips to Iowa and New Hampshire. They're setting up their "exploratory committees" and getting the ball rolling already. And the first primaries are still over 1 year away. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-11 06:10:24 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
What is there not to get? The laws are already on the books and it is a permissable procedure. Leave it up to people to make their own moral judgements. Let them live their own lives. That's what true conservatives like Barry Goldwater have said in these matters. Get government out of people's lives.
|
Actually, it was a Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade) that made abortion permissable - not a law per se. Slavery was also permissable in the U.S. for a very long time.
That didn't make it right. The goal for those of us who are against abortion is to pass legislation outlawing abortion and bring cases that would overturn Roe v. Wade. It may not be easy, but that's the goal.
And Barry Goldwater was wrong. I think he was right about many things, but he was wrong in saying that you can't legislate morality. It's actually a colosally stupid statement. A friend of mine - that leads a third-party repeated that Goldwater statement and I asked him the same thing I just asked you about all those other moral laws we have.
Of course, neither of you had an answer for that. So if you want the government out of people's lives altogether, then maybe shouldn't have any government?
|
I'll also go so far as to say that the only people that should be having this discussion are women. Do men have a uterus? Of course not. Then why should they be involved in a matter that is so unique to women? It strikes me as very arrogant on the part of men. Women bear the burden here. They are the ones who will decide whether they want to see a pregnancy through or not, laws be damned. All of this rightwing dogma on the matter influencing the laws will not do away with abortion. It will just drive it underground again and the loss of life will only increase as women seek out unsafe procedures.
As for the zygote/fetus, let's look at what the government says. A baby doesn't receive a birth certificate until it's born. Nothing is issued to would-be parents upon conception. And a social security number will never be issued until after that birth certificate comes along. |
Again, you're ducking the issue by trying to divert this into a matter that should be decided by women. Ridiculous! Just because we are men, that means we can't form an objective opinion regarding the fate of another human being? I repeat: Ridiculous.
And that's not even considering the fact that, a man had a hand in creating that life.
That baby is not the sole responsibility of the woman carrying it. I understand that there are men who don't care about what happens to the woman or the baby inside her. And that is a terrrible thing. Those are uncaring men.
We men have an obligation and responsibilty to take care of what is equally our doing.
When my wife became pregnant with our daughter, I knew that she was my responsibility as much as she was my wife's. (And my wife would not have let me forget it!) Yes, my wife carried the baby inside her. And I did what I could to make sure my wife had what she needed to carry that baby to term. She is our child, not my wife's child.
And this: "It will just drive it underground again and the loss of life will only increase as women seek out unsafe procedures." I've never understood this arguement. So because women will resort to performing the abortions dangerously and illegally, then we then shouldn't outlaw it?
So, should stealing be legalized so police and theives won't be at risk of getting hurt? I would simply say that a woman should not attempt such a dangerous thing. And if she does, then she should be crimally charged.
That's fine if the goverment wants to issue birth certificates when the baby is born. That does not mean - no matter what we or the government say - that there is not a person in that womb.
|
Oh, and please tell me how popular it's going to be for people to voluntarily stop having sex except for the purposes of procreation? Are you really telling me that the President and First Lady stopped having sex after the birth of their twins? People are going to have sex. It only comes across as a "problem" in this country because unfortunately the people who wound up settling in the United States first were the Puritans. |
I never said people had to stop having sex except for the purposes of procreation. People can have recreational sex in this country and I'm not trying to stop that. But if one has sex, then he/she better be ready to deal with the consequences of that act.
|
And perhaps abortion won't be seen as such a bad thing in the next few years. You know, when the population explosion really starts to be a problem. We're at 6 billion humans on this planet and rising. I've heard estimates that the planet can only accomodate somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 billion people. Things like that aren't that far off, and they are very real concerns. |
Yeah -you're right. Let's just start bumping people off. Any volunteers?
Actually, I have a solution to the issue of abortion that will keep it pro-choice. Let the child be born, then when - they're older - say at least 3 or 4 - we can ask them if they'd like to die. Then, it's the child's choice, see? :-)
Anyway, it doesn't look like we're going to convince each other on this issue... but hopefully you can see my original point of why I someone with my views would be happy with the last six years under the Bush admin. I believe that was how we started down this rabbit trail.
So, I don't expect you to agree with that particular bit of legislation, but don't expect that I'm not going to be unhappy with it. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-11 06:24:03 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
laarar:
Ok, I think we understand each other now. Then, let's see if any good changes come as a result of these elections. There might be some, but given that my views clash with most of the views of the democrats, I'm not holding out much hope with them. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-11 11:37:42 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Ok, I think we understand each other now
Concerning democrats, it looks so.
A difference remains. The tradition in France is to speak about politic, not only during elections or election campaigns.
It is probably not easy for you to have serious political discussions with people who don't share your point of view, as this is not common in the USA, although this is really easy in France. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-11 19:57:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
@Mishto
Irony about wars is farther from my head than the shuttles of your country when they are in space.
Warn me after the landing. |
that is so poetic.
if i make a shirt i'll be sure to credit you. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-18 00:24:03 |
|
|
| xxkellyxx |
| kelly |
|
 |
|
Sorry, haven't been here for ages but I had to come in on this, as a woman!!
|
| [Again, you're ducking the issue by trying to divert this into a matter that should be decided by women. Ridiculous! Just because we are men, that means we can't form an objective opinion regarding the fate of another human being? I repeat: Ridiculous. |
Of course men can have an opinion about it. Having an opinion isn't the same as actually dictating to women about what they do with their own bodies though is it? How is it in the best interests of the baby anyway to be born to a woman who doesn't want it to the extent that she would prefer to end it's existence? I also think it's interesting you mention having an opinion on "the fate of another human being"...because so do I, but I place more importance on the fate of the woman who actually has an established and independently sustainable life and consciousness.
|
| That's fine if the goverment wants to issue birth certificates when the baby is born. That does not mean - no matter what we or the government say - that there is not a person in that womb. |
But the thing is, the womb is actually part of the woman, it's not public property. Everyone has the right to choose what happens to their own body. Forcing women to continue with pregnancies they don't want is atrocious. I can never understand how people can have more compassion, and attach more rights, to a tiny embryo than they do to a woman. In an ideal world, no one would have abortions because there wouldn't be unwanted pregnancies. Every child has the right to be born wanted and loved, though. There are enough unwanted and neglected children on this planet as it is. Is it not more compassionate to end the existence of a forming embryo than to allow the child to be born to a mother who resents it, no matter how horrific the idea of abortion seems (and I agree, it is horrible and no one actually LIKES the idea of it!)? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-18 11:05:32 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
I can never understand how people can have more compassion, and attach more rights, to a tiny embryo than they do to a woman
Because women are women ?
I need to explain a bit more.
In our civilization, we consider normal that women are more secretful, more silent, more hypocrite also, more reserved...
It is difficult for me to have compassion for someone who is very silent...
Some months ago, someone told me about a book of Aristotle. Her teacher gave her this book to study, as an interesting book about politic. She asked me how they could give this book to her. Aristotle is comparing women to slaves 10 or 20 times in the book.
I had no real answer. I just answered "you could study mein Kampf, at least Hitler was respecting women in this book".
It is easy to reject nazism for French people, and probably for American people... Being honest about Aristotle is not very common. Why ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-19 21:30:45 |
|
|
|
|
|
laarar:
Ok, I think we understand each other now. Then, let's see if any good changes come as a result of these elections. There might be some, but given that my views clash with most of the views of the democrats, I'm not holding out much hope with them. |
what would be your ideal america? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-20 00:28:03 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
 |
|
An Ideal America would be what the Mormons have, Unlimited wives for everyone :)
YEEE HAAAAAA |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-20 00:49:46 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
You should turn your eyes towards islam.
This is the official life of Mahomet. He had so many women, he had to have sex with each of them each evening, so he had to be pretty quick with each of them.
For sex, I think there are better ways.
But this is very interesting for integrals.
Do you want some pages of Leibniz ? Euler ?
There are (some more recent, some older) interesting results, but the explanations of Leibniz and Euler are probably the best ones.
What is sex if you have sex with 100 women, each one during 1 minute ; or with 1000 women, each one during 10 seconds ? |
|
|
|