Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Fun with Hitchens


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#61 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,782 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 September 2021 - 09:38 PM

godzilla

 


  • Juthro likes this

#62 Myc

Myc

    El Jardinero

  • App Administrator
  • 7,802 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 September 2021 - 11:53 PM

I wanted to read it. But upon a serious skim - I found the article to be all over the place lacking any single point upon which to seize and contemplate.

 

We argue the semantics of choice and base that in a religious construct.

When the Creator grants us free will and some of us choose not to follow the biblical narrative (written by scribes, scholars, and pharisees - in other words religious or legal "authorities") - the human narrative is used to dismiss those of us who exercise the concessions of the Creator in granting each of us free will.

 

In accordance with religious teachings - we all face judgement at the end of our days - naked and without excuse or benefit of semantics. Our hearts are measured and evaluated - no language or pleading can intervene.

If you had to do something to defray or defer greater harm - the Creator knows your mind (as if it were your own).

We all make bad decisions. Or some are the victim of not their choice.

To tell people what to do and how to behave is in defiance of scripture. (Paraphrased) Before you attend to the splinter in your neighbor's eye, first attend to the log in your own eye. This alone tells us that we are individually under-qualified to make decisions about the lives and choices of others because............we are all self-deceived at the personal level - at all times - perpetually.

 

It cannot be more clear than that. I am the author of my decisions and I will ultimately reap the rewards - whatever they may be. Dictating to others what their decisions must be based upon cultural consensus is to presume the authority of the Creator - which is defined as blasphemy in religious circles.

You be you and I Am always.

 

Ultimately, it seems that the job of the destroyer is to divide, categorize, and label (and convince us all to do this work individually).

It seems the job of the Creator is to experience it all as an observer without emotional attachment. A true scientist indeed.


Edited by Myc, 09 September 2021 - 11:58 PM.

  • Juthro and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#63 Myc

Myc

    El Jardinero

  • App Administrator
  • 7,802 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 12:25 AM

I'll follow that post with further logic.

 

If the Creator had a "death penalty" - he would have killed Cain instead of banishing him from the community.

Adam and Eve would "surely have died" as a result of taking the fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

It was not until mankind had some history on earth and began writing of their escapades that the Creator (seemingly) took on a more vengeful nature.

 

At the end of the day, we were all given 10 rules - because the Creator knew of our potential to complicate things beyond our ability to manage. He gave us an individual challenge to follow a simple rule-set and not to use scripture to convict, minimize, or judge our fellow man. As we have grown as a global civilization we are seeing those abilities (personal recognizance) put to the ultimate test.

 

I chose this particular perspective from which to write this commentary due to my recent observations regarding draconian and outright illegal maneuverings in TX. I'll leave it to the reader to research the details and I'll refer the reader to my previous post in answer to questions regarding the validity of the legality of said details. This in regards to abortion rights issues.

 

That biblical history was written by attorneys and speech writers who had a political agenda. The one with the loudest bullhorn and the deepest pockets wins the right to write history.

 


  • TVCasualty and Juthro like this

#64 Juthro

Juthro

    dope smoking hillbilly

  • OG VIP
  • 9,703 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 12:30 AM

The republican party....   They want to give an unborn fetus rights, and protection under the law, but when they are born into a bad situation they don't want to give them any welfare, or healthcare.

 

I don't think I need to tell anybody what side of this I'm on.


  • TVCasualty and Myc like this

#65 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,782 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 10:00 AM

I wanted to read it. But upon a serious skim - I found the article to be all over the place lacking any single point upon which to seize and contemplate.

 

That's because it was quoting Reagan's book about abortion. The "thoughts" of that B-list actor/tool of the mob aren't worthy of a response. It was arguably his Administration's pandering to the self-righteous hypocrites (e.g. the "Moral Majority" minority) that firmly established abortion as a reliable wedge issue to keep people distracted and bickering while the Great Swindle continued unmolested, so to speak. It's almost hilarious that it quotes Motherfucking Teresa, who is clearly a sociopathic fraud so at least she's in good company with Reagan (though she might actually believe in her own delusional cruelty; hard to say).

 

The self-righteous wanted a real culture war, and now they've got one.

 

It's going to be interesting to see if science and reason can defeat superstition and fear. It may well not, but if science loses then we're ALL toast, since last time I checked modern civilization is far too technologically advanced and complex to be managed by willfully-ignorant reactionaries who are actively anti-science. Incidental ignorance is bad enough, but willful ignorance empowered by delusions of righteousness is probably incurable.

 

The fools who promoted the Texas abortion-snitch insanity are going to regret this on so many levels. It might finally get us to a tipping point where enough people finally support removing the tax exemption on churches to make it happen. At the very least the exemption needs to be removed for churches that have been running like for-profit businesses for decades (making billions) and conducting political advocacy in egregious violation of what qualifies them for tax exempt status in the first place.

 

Organized religion has always been first and foremost a tool for amassing wealth and maintaining political power. All the "god" stuff is purely incidental; not even those at the top of the religion pyramid scheme believe what they promote; if they did then they'd have to confront the fact that their own actions would condemn them to the Hell they threaten others with because god is love or whatever.

 

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

― H.L. Mencken

 


Edited by TVCasualty, 10 September 2021 - 10:02 AM.

  • Myc and Juthro like this

#66 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,782 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 12:50 PM

Damn, Texas' government just gets dumber and dumber (your move, Florida!): Texas Governor Greg Abbott signs social media "censorship" bill into law

 

 

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a bill that aims to stop social media companies from banning users or nixing posts based solely on political opinions — the latest salvo by Republicans, who claim that these tech giants are censoring conservative users.

 

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process. It would also require such social media companies to remove illegal content within 48 hours. 

 

Under the state legislation, users may sue the platforms to get their accounts reinstated, and the Texas attorney general would be able to file suits on behalf of users.

 

 

 

"Conservative" views are not censored on social media. Unless they now equate "Conservative" with "willfully ignorant disinformation" or delusional extremist insanity since I've seen a lot of that kind of stuff get deleted (not "censored" ffs).

 

And I guess Abbott and the other idiots running that circus have abandoned their lip-service to Libertarian principles of freedumb since now they're okay with telling private businesses how to conduct their apparently no longer private business of destroying privacy (and democracy, and common decency, and the planet, etc.).


  • Myc likes this

#67 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,019 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 04:50 PM

I can see both sides of the argument for the moral implications of terminating a pregnancy, on both sides they can go to the extreme and start to look ridiculous. Obviously some of those late term abortions can be a little unsettling especially if you are familiar with the actual medical procedure. Just as well forcing someone to have a rape baby seems just as unsettling.

 

I was pretty standard pro choice everyone can fuck off  if they don't like it sort of attitude but things have changed. One guy I was talking to and I had no idea was adopted said to me, I was an unwanted child and I am damn glad I didn't get aborted.

 

There doesn't seem to be an easy answer around that moral side of the discussion

 

However when it comes to regulation around abortions I like to think along the lines of drugs and prostitution. Its going to happen regardless of your laws so why not make a safe system to facilitate it rather than relegate it to the back room.


  • Myc and Juthro like this

#68 Tenderfoot

Tenderfoot

    {{{{{{{ + }}}}}}}

  • OG VIP
  • 1,056 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 09:02 PM

https://www.nytimes....safety-net.html

 

Even the rag NYT writes that life begins at conception.  Hilarious!!  Hate to link to such a site, but....

 

I've got no stupid memes to post.  Sorry. 

 

Hard to reason with racists and the like.  Killing a human is not the same as doing drugs or sleeping with a whore.  No issues with self- destructive behavior.

But when infringes upon other people, most take issue.  Live and let live.

 

I will try to make shorter posts for the ADHD bunch among us.  LOL. 



#69 Tenderfoot

Tenderfoot

    {{{{{{{ + }}}}}}}

  • OG VIP
  • 1,056 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 September 2021 - 09:03 PM

https://dailycaller....-supreme-court/

 

Let Shelley weigh in. 



#70 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,782 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 11 September 2021 - 08:03 AM


There doesn't seem to be an easy answer around that moral side of the discussion

 

I believe there is. Her body, her choice. That was easy.

 

Here's someone else's thoughts about it (pasted here because they're kind of novel), since I guess we're posting other people's stupid thoughts in addition to their stupid memes (since memes are just a different way of conveying thoughts):

 

 

post-102948-0-22463400-1631365117.jpg

Attached Thumbnails

  • abortion.jpg

  • Juthro likes this

#71 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,782 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 11 September 2021 - 08:47 AM

https://www.nytimes....safety-net.html

 

Even the rag NYT writes that life begins at conception.  Hilarious!!  Hate to link to such a site, but....

 

I've got no stupid memes to post.  Sorry. 

 

Hard to reason with racists and the like.  Killing a human is not the same as doing drugs or sleeping with a whore.  No issues with self- destructive behavior.

But when infringes upon other people, most take issue.  Live and let live.

 

I will try to make shorter posts for the ADHD bunch among us.  LOL. 

 

Abortion isn't killing "babies," or "humans." Or racist. That's just silly, frankly.

 

Besides, that would make God the worst offender of all abortion doctors since there have been a lot more miscarriages throughout history than abortions. I guess the Bible doesn't apply here since in one part it claims life begins at "first breath." But it claims other things in other parts. So it's a bullshit wedge issue even from a Biblical perspective and lots of cherry-picked quotes can be taken from it that support either position.

 

Heck, if we adopted abortion laws based on the Old Testament then it would only be illegal a month AFTER birth, lol (see: Numbers 3:15). So the Bible seems to contradict itself about the topic (imagine that!). I don't want my (or women's) health care to be decided by specious interpretations of an old cut-and-pasted book (it wasn't even original) that compiled the ancient superstitions of tribes of spectacularly violent people people who didn't know where the Sun went at night.

 

 

It's also disingenuous to claim the NY Times is claiming "life begins at conception" in that article since it's reporting on legislation, not biology. There's a difference between rhetoric and biology, after all. Playing rhetorical "gotcha" with semantics is infantile (so to speak). Sure, human cell blobs are technically "alive," but they sure as hell aren't "babies" or "people" ffs.

 

It's not ADHD that prevents me from reading a bunch of trite, self-righteous drivel published by the mob's Presidential sock-puppet. It's that it's a bunch of trite, self-righteous drivel written by the mob's Presidential sock-puppet.

 

And you don't have to be passive-aggressive about your unexamined misogyny. Just go ahead and say you want women to get back in the kitchen making you sandwiches when they're not making babies.

 

 

 

It's going to be interesting to see how many teenage girls drop out of school in Texas (limiting their employment/career potential a bit) because they got pregnant and can't get an abortion and subsequently end up on welfare because the hypocrites only give a shit about pregnancy and controlling women, not actual babies. This is going to bankrupt Texas if it stands for very long (hopefully).

 

 

 

 

https://dailycaller....-supreme-court/

 

Let Shelley weigh in. 

 

 

Cool anecdote, I guess. But it's irrelevant to the issue at hand, and not very coherently written so I'm not even sure what it was attempting to convey.


  • Juthro likes this

#72 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 3,019 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 12:51 PM

 

I believe there is. Her body, her choice. That was easy.

 

Hence my support for legislation.

 

I find that term to be a bit of a conversation stopper, and maybe that is what is was designed to do

 

You don't have to have unyielding support for something while still believing others have a right to access it.



#73 Juthro

Juthro

    dope smoking hillbilly

  • OG VIP
  • 9,703 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 07:07 PM

 

 

I believe there is. Her body, her choice. That was easy.

 

Hence my support for legislation.

 

I find that term to be a bit of a conversation stopper, and maybe that is what is was designed to do

 

You don't have to have unyielding support for something while still believing others have a right to access it.

 

 

Why do we need more  legislation?   The only new laws that I've seen proposed are restricting rights, not giving them.  IMHO more laws are not the answer.  

 

The only reason this has become the issue it is, is because of legislation.  Abortion wasn't illegal until a law made it so.   The government shouldn't be in the business of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child. 



#74 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 4,163 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 07:45 PM

Abortion isn't killing "babies," or "humans." 

 

Is this really possible to declare definitively?

 

I get a chuckle out of, Joe Rogan's, maybe, bit, saying something to the effect of: "You notice they never finish that sentence. Woman's right to choose...what? Oh yea, choose to kill a baby". I think that's a good move not to finish that sentence."

 

That's a paraphrase but it's close.

 

It's the Grodain knot of politics. It boils down to whether one thinks of it as "aborting a fetus". Or, "killing an unborn child". 


Edited by August West, 13 September 2021 - 08:08 PM.

  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#75 Juthro

Juthro

    dope smoking hillbilly

  • OG VIP
  • 9,703 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 08:37 PM

No religious, or government entity should be able to force a woman to carry an unborn child if she does not wish to.  To force her to do so is treating her as a reproductive receptacle, and not as an equal human being.  She deserves a choice.

 

Also, I'm curious if anybody knows why is seems that the states that want to restrict abortions also seem to be states that strongly support capitol punishment? 

 

 


  • Myc likes this

#76 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 4,163 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 08:48 PM

No religious, or government entity should be able to force a woman to carry an unborn child if she does not wish to.  To force her to do so is treating her as a reproductive receptacle, and not as an equal human being.  She deserves a choice.

 

If one's beliefs declare that eliminating the unborn child is murder they would disagree that it's a simple matter of a woman's choice.



#77 Myc

Myc

    El Jardinero

  • App Administrator
  • 7,802 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 09:14 PM

Also, I'm curious if anybody knows why is seems that the states that want to restrict abortions also seem to be states that strongly support capitol punishment? 

Hah!! We deny you the right to "murder" an unborn fetus because we reserve the right to murder them after they've been born.

Quite an observation there.

 

As a livestock rancher, I am opposed to any member of my herd being able to posses the choice to abort a pregnancy. It's all in the numbers. Instead, I prefer to sell that flesh by weight upon maturity.


Edited by Myc, 13 September 2021 - 09:17 PM.

  • Juthro and FLASHINGROOSTER like this

#78 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,782 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 09:14 PM

 

No religious, or government entity should be able to force a woman to carry an unborn child if she does not wish to.  To force her to do so is treating her as a reproductive receptacle, and not as an equal human being.  She deserves a choice.

 

If one's beliefs declare that eliminating the unborn child is murder they would disagree that it's a simple matter of a woman's choice.

 

 

They'd change their tune when I came for their bone marrow, methinks (which will only make sense if you read the last stupid meme I posted). I'd only do that if I truly needed it, of course.

 

"Babies" are what we call fetuses after they're born.

 

So you can't abort a baby, but you can kill one. Which is illegal. Birth is obviously a hard limit on abortion, but the vast majority (>90%) are performed before the 13th week, when the "baby" is still anything but (3" long at 13 wks, tops). As time goes on (into the 2nd trimester, etc.) abortions becomes increasingly debatable/problematic on several levels that preclude any one-size-fits-all legislation or approach. So as a pregnancy progresses into the second trimester it's probably best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is doable since they represent a tiny fraction of the number of actual abortions performed.

 

Besides, what if their "genuinely held" (as if that matters) beliefs were based on misinformation, ignorance, and/or propaganda? Like the notion that there's a "fetal heartbeat" at 6 weeks (which is patently false), for starters?


Edited by TVCasualty, 13 September 2021 - 09:16 PM.


#79 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 4,163 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 09:38 PM

First, I'll admit here, that I'm not particularly interested in deep debates on this subject at this point in my life. Fwiw, I have my personal belief/opinions and my position, legally speaking, is that it's already been legislated at the highest level so I can live with that.

 

Beyond that, as I said, and your response highlights, it's not a simple matter of, "my body, my choice", as catchy as it may sound. That is primarily the point I bring up.

 

I just read that the most premature baby every born was born on June 30th at 21 weeks. It's my understanding that most states where abortion is legal allow it for up to 24 months. Some apparently 20-22. If that's true, in most states where abortion is legal, they allow the termination of a fetus who may (and has) survived. Sounds complex. 

 

As for people having beliefs based on misinformation ? It happens all the time. Is that a very meaningful aspect of this particular debate? I don't see that. Ymmv.

 

Edit to add: I didn't read the meme on the marrow and, based on your suggestion ("it's stupid") probably won't. 


Edited by August West, 13 September 2021 - 09:48 PM.


#80 Juthro

Juthro

    dope smoking hillbilly

  • OG VIP
  • 9,703 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 13 September 2021 - 09:53 PM

It's my understanding that most states where abortion is legal allow it for up to 24 months. Some apparently 20-22. If that's true, in most states where abortion is legal, they allow the termination of a fetus who may (and has) survived. Sounds complex. 

 

I'm going to have to agree with you, August, after 24 months I'm pretty sure it would be called a homicide...  :wink:

 

(I assume you meant weeks?)






Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!