Rev Nile's Zoe' law passed! Feminazis frothing at the mouth.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Byron, Nov 22, 2013.

  1. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Hang on... are you seriously saying that you haven't read it? It just became painfully obvious that this has been even more of a waste of time than I had previously thought.
     
  2. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Awkward.

    In one fell swoop of but a few lines, you just negated all the claims of logic and science and further outed yourself as somebody who loves liberty except when it doesn't agree with what Zeus... no, Odin... hang on... Ganesh.... ugh... someone.... says. Well done.

    Not to worry; for every legislative step forward that the religious zealots take these days, they take about three backwards.

    Also, interestingly, there is strong evidence for a causal link between high rates of religiosity in a society and high rates of abortion. See the following link of a nice explanation of why: http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/righteous-abortion-how-christianity-promotes-abortion/ (written by a psychology PhD and recovered Christian).
     
  3. Byron

    Byron Guest

    You have zero trades and zero feedback. You joined around the time of that same sex "marriage" thread. Did you just join to push your sick agenda?

    All you seem to do is post lengthy replies only to threads that go contrary to your warped views. Very little input anywhere else.

    You seem to be trolling for arguments, if there was an ignore button you'd be the first one I'd use it on.

    You're a waste of my time.
     
  4. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    I actually joined a couple of months before that thread, and I didn't start that thread, so, as often seems to be the case, you are factually incorrect.

    So now you go for the "I've been on this forum longer than you, so I am better, so ner". Not surprising, when that's about all you have left. I've seen it before - almost always from people with no basis to their nonsense and in response to a newer member making well-written, well-argued posts that go against what they believe.

    I'd be flattered if you'd ignore me. Your hatred of me only serves as proof that I have influenced you, in addition to your failure to adhere to your religion.

    What, pray tell, is your input to this forum, aside from sharing your delusions? It's just bizarre that people like you go to church and sing and dance and carry on about how kind, compassionate, loving and tolerant they are on a Sunday, yet carry on like this for the other six days of the week. Also, shouldn't you be out giving your worldly goods to the poor, sick, and otherwise needy, and not spending so much time on a forum dedicated to stockpiling wealth? Jesus talked a great deal about doing that, but made little to no (depending on how certain things are interpreted) mention of the issues that you obsess over. Jesus befriended those he thought did wrong. I might disagree with the lunacy of the bible, but Jesus, as a person, spoke about a lot of important things and had some sage advice for humanity. I'm sure he'd be rolling in his tomb if he knew of the mockery that was being made of his legacy.
     
  5. boyracer

    boyracer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ok so for realz I was not supposed to be posting in this thread anymore but this post made me do it.

    Byron - my views are the same or essentially the same as gooby, I also have feedback and quite a long time on this board. Pray tell, am I a waste of your time also? Do I have a sick agenda in your view?

    Not that I agree that feedback or length of time on the forum counts for much as I prefer to play the ball not the man but I'm still interested in your response.
     
  6. Byron

    Byron Guest

    Nothing against you BR. If you have read my posts here over time, you will see that I never play the man.

    However IMO the poster I am referring to has no genuine interest in pm's and is simply here to troll and push his "alternative lifestyle" agenda and other left wing cause clbre. In other words shit stir and goad other longstanding members into arguments.

    His joining date, total lack of trades, no feedback, majority of posts on gay marriage and abortion and very light posting on real pm topics all point to this.
     
  7. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    You never play the man? Like you just tried to, you mean? Riiiiight. You don't even attempt to refute anything I say, but say that it is rubbish because your 'stats' are higher than mine, then accept somebody else with essentially the same views because they have higher stats. Not playing the man... not at all.

    If I had no interest in PM's, I wouldn't have come here and I wouldn't post anything on them at all and, unless you can read my mind, your opinion regarding what I genuinely do or don't think is worthless.

    Perhaps I just don't feel the need to make hundreds of posts about "omg silver will be at $xx tomorrow and then to da moooon!" when I am well aware that I am not knowledgeable about PM's and, unlike some others, I know when to shut up and read/listen rather than rant about things on which I am not knowledgable. Perhaps, also, I point out things that are ridiculous and based on delusions, yet cause hardship to many people when I see them. There are some very knowledgeable people here (on both PM's and otherwise... hell, even you don't come off as an idiot - I just totally disagree with you and find the delusional basis of your social views ridiculous and somewhat pathetic), but there are also some people who want to use this as a hardcore 'Christian' fundamentalist libertarian-except-for-when-I-don't-like-what-you-want-to-do forum, despite there being nothing 'Christ-like' about their attitude whatsoever. It seems that the latter group haven't had too much in the way of people challenging them until recently, and they don't like it when it happens. So be it. I can take it - clearly - and you clearly resent this and want me to run off crying.

    What my posting habits point to is that I am not knowledgable on PM's and don't pretend to be, and I see a lot of absolute nonsense here. If you post nonsense, you ought not be surprised when called out on it.
     
  8. boyracer

    boyracer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes, you have always, to my mind at least, always come across as fairly reasonable so I was pretty stunned to say the least to see you come out with a "smite the heathens" comment. To be honest I think you misinterpret gooby's position, which is as I've said the same, or at least similar to mine. Again, your opinion on abortion is entirely your own business - I just have an issue with any argument that thinks their position is morally superior especially when it comes from a religious background (which is fine in and of itself) but presented as factual based on science, natural law etc etc

    I stayed away from the same sex marriage thread with good reason. This thread is tame by comparison and I think I only got a few pages in to it before I just gave up. There is also a serial poster (pest??) that posts pretty much exclusively on the RE forum, has no trades or feedback and his sycophants seem to have no problem with that so I'm not sure a trades/feedback judgement is fair and balanced on the validity of someones argument but I'll leave that up to you.

    I do look forward to any further discourse with you on perhaps a less, shall we say, combative subject??
     
  9. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,609
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    The only reason I mentioned middle aged men is because for some reason it always seems to be middle aged men at the front and center of any discussion about abortion. I don't know why that is, but let's face it: being a man is a pretty sweet deal where pregnancies - unwanted, accidental or otherwise - are concerned.

    Perhaps this is pointing out the obvious too but gender is kinda relevant to this issue. Not every issue, granted, but on reproductive systems? Where the definitions of "man" and "woman" originate?

    Yes, I do think gender is an important issue and like I said before, I would not be happy for a group of people with a disproportionately large number of females to creating laws about how much control I'm allowed to have over my reproductive organs. Likewise, I don't think it's fair or reasonable for a group with a disproportionately large number of males to be making laws about what women are allowed to do with their bodies.

    I strike you as the kind of person who's afraid of disagreeing with people, do I?
     
  10. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Only if you agree with some foundational ideas regarding the family unit, and the progression of relationship.

    Its not a sweet deal being a man, unless you see no real responsability for your own involvment where your sperm ends up.
    If you insist on having your dogs kept in an unfenced house, refuse to put the on leashes and teach them no discipline - your going to be up for negligence when they bite someone walking by.

    A man is responsible for his own actions and choices, just as much as the woman is.

    To say 'gender' is a relevant aspect of this issue (in that it reduced the relevance of men's input on this issue) is to first abrigate the responsablity of men. Which I dont, and many other 'middle aged men' dont either.
    So now you are closer to knowing the 'why'.
     
  11. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    I'm gonna wade back in here.

    Firstly on the point of a female's right to the sanctity of her body and her obvious right to control what happens within it to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.

    So what if a bloke donates a motile sperm to the equation in a split second of orgasmic joy? In the real world of both science and life THAT is his only (at that point in time) involvement . One microscopic little tadpole out of a few million or so that joined in the party at the time and won the race.

    In the interim the female is providing the reception, lodging (for everyone not just the winner) Waste disposal, security ( there is only the one winner), and the prize. And this is all before conception takes place.

    Once it does there is still accommodation, nutrition, redecoration, power supply, and some major upgrading of accommodation that takes place to allow for the new installation. Hormones need to flow, blood levels need to increase, all manner of shit takes place on every level from the brain to the feet. And this is all in just the first few days and weeks.

    And the bloke ? Well he just goes back to producing sperm.

    The female is responsible for EVERYTHING once that little tadpole of DNA leaves the males body. And it doesn't matter whether she has a partner or not, quite often it is not that partners little tadpole that has cracked the egg. It is her body that determines the outcome and by virtue that the foetus exist's and nothing else.

    The individual who is the vessel wholly responsible for the existence of the foetus hold's the ultimate choice over whether it continues to reside in their body and it is ultimately no-ones choice but theirs. The sperm donor may have an opinion that might be considered, but it is not his body that the foetus resides in.

    A comparison might be drawn between the above and that of a foetus created in a lab, in a test tube in cryo. Does life exist ? It is not in a woman's body, it is an egg and a sperm conjoined and there are probably millions in existence but they are legally the property of both donors. Only once they are implanted into the body of a woman do they become a part of her body and hence her property.

    For sure it is an emotive issue but my point is that you can not ( as yet anyway) have a baby without a females body, that body is an individual with every right to do with as she pleases with her body. You can lay down any law you like but people/individuals will ignore it and do as they please anyway.

    RE: The shitfight above, I personally see the same sort of argument taking place, absolutely hilarious to note though that it seems to be between a bunch of blokes who lack both a womb and a menstrual cycle to blame their irrational bitchiness with each other upon :lol: .

    OOOh look you made a spelling mistake in your argument, OOOh You believe in God in your's , OOOh you're new here, Really Really impressive debate there. :|

    I don't think any young woman faced with the decision of terminating a pregnancy would note with any concern many of your arguments. In fact the only arguments I've read here that would sway anyone would be that of SilverS and Byron but only if the person concerned was of a religious persuasion. And I don't have a problem with that because such people have a belief system I respect as their choice. Individual choice is what it is all about.

    Belittling people based on their beliefs and attacking them as a basis of your debating the issue rather than putting forth a substantial argument that addresses the subject concerned means you lose in my book. I personally do not agree with a religious slant to this debate as it removes the individuals right to decide their future but I'm not about to run down a fellow member here based on their beliefs (unless they really piss me off and I've had a few- For which I would profusely apologise for personally afterwards (and it's happened before)).

    So back to the debate, (Hypothetical) Your 19 year old daughter who is on the pill and in her second year of a Batchelor of Science degree falls pregnant just before her final exams are due for that year, she works part time at KFC and does not have a boyfriend (dirty little whore).

    She can
    A: Take a few pills, be sick for a few days and carry on with her life (and learn a lesson that the pill doesn't mean you wont catch aids or get pregnant)?.

    B: Take some time off Uni because she is sick as a dog with morning sickness and hopefully go back to Uni when she has had the baby and live off of single parent income until then with help from her family?.

    C: Approach the bloke (a fellow Uni student) she had a one night stand with and tell him she is pregnant with his child, Hope that he will continue Uni and provide for them into the future?

    Mind you this is a pretty basic scenario and doesn't take into account even a bee's dick of the complexities that might arise from a young woman getting pregnant or even an older married woman with three or four kids already and a mortgage and husband.

    For the record I personally do not think something is alive in the real sense until it has drawn breath on it's own, We all eat eggs, roe, yoghurt, lamb and any number of other things that are embryonic or young lives in the real world, just because we are sentient and at the top of the food chain does not give us any special status in the world of science and life , if anything our awareness to my mind gives us a responsibility to breed responsibly and to ensure we are responsible for our numbers.

    Gooby this is for you, You are obviously intelligent, but you don't have to prove it here by attempting to run down long standing and well loved members based on your interpretation of their intelligence. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge but it serves no-one if you repeatedly show it by picking the minutiae of another's post's and continually show yourself as an arsehole through arguing well picked minute points. Nobody cares about such things, it is the substance of your person and the accuracy of your character that we all care about.
    We are a community here, not adversaries as you will find elsewhere, we disagree but we respect each other despite that. By all means argue your point as you believe it to be but do it with respect of the other person.
     
  12. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Could it be said that the reason for abortion is directly resultant from adultery and fornication.

    Abortion is only nessesary if you want one thing that is desireable without what naturally occurs as a result.

    Masturbation never produces offspring, sodomy never produces offspring, homosexuality never produces offspring

    therefore,

    Naturally speaking there are some pretty big and valid arguments against abortion being right - if evolutionarily right means functional.

    Rationally speaking there are big valid arguments suggesting abortion being nothing other than (in essence) a testimony to selfishness and complete breakdown of the foundations of western society (Jewish/Christian - Ethics).

    So wouldnt it stand to reason the people pushing abortion are either those trying to protect abrigation of responsability or those who undermine the entire Christian ethos in culture. What are they trying to replace it with?

    The same Christian ethos which would make 'creating money out of thin air' immoral and unthinkable - which you want

    Is the same Christian ethos which makes marriage and life set apart as special and protected - which you dont want.

    Make up your mind, and be consistant, everyone (not speaking to anyone in particular).

    I know surely you could say, i can chose my own morality and it can be inconsistant if it suits me, whats the difference.

    Well, think through hat for a second, maybe you will have a brainwave :)
    If the only consistant thread running through your moral choices is what benefits you at the time, you have people in constant conflict..... that resolves itself utilmately in one way.... all powerful dictator rising to power (after monumental conflict and war).

    This is for Gooby - here is a really good way you can reduce this to absurdity which is your fav rebuttal.

    You can say "Are you seriously trying to say that people not wanting to have children directly leads to a world dictator who will enslave the population? That is ridiculous - now I know how you Christians come up with this crap - you are obsessed with the antichrist."

    Just though your brilliance and intelligence needed a helpng hand. :p
     
  13. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Hehehe this is a good example of situational ethics. So in other words southern.... you will run em down, and that would mean that you lose in your own book.

    Im not trying to run you down brutha, im just using it as an example of why consistancy is important, and when you find inconsistancy its usually to allow in themselves what the person doesnt allow in others.

    This ethic is actually the basis of the attack on christian morality, foundation of western society ethics.

    This is not directly your argument butim changing it to represent the ethic
    You see - you said its wrong (absolutely) unless someone really pisses you off (emotional)

    Therefore anyone who does it silmply says 'my emotional state justifies it' - therefore you cant say its wrong.

    The old ethic based person therefore tries to restrain himself because he says its wrong in itself without any situational ethics, and when he fails - the ridiculing begins. Because situational ethics are not designed to be fair ethics - but self benefitting ethics. They are really a power play
     
  14. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,609
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    What if we weren't assuming the worst of people and considered the idea that a woman might actually be making a completely selfless, heartbreaking decision not to have a baby which she knows she wouldn't be able to provide a good and happy life to?

    All the reasons people have for being celibate or using contraception to avoid having babies - uncertain employment, living in a bad area, lack of support and just not being emotionally ready to give birth to a child and care for it - apply just as much to a woman who finds herself with a pregnancy she didn't plan on.

    Does two and a half minutes of bliss up against the wall suddenly make up for not really having enough cash to buy additional, nutritious food?

    We can talk about valid arguments of evolutionary function all we like but as well as the purely biological aspect of our nature, we also come with the ability for conscious thought. Some of us have the luxury of using it to construct intricate games of logic and some of us face the question "Can I look after a baby and offer it a good life?" and have to decide what course of action to take based on circumstance and practicality.

    In the U.S., more than half of the women who have abortions already have one or more children. That's not women trying to overthrow society's moral standards, that's women saying "I can't handle taking care of another child".

    And speaking of moral standards, what would happen to them if there were a load of additional kids growing up in poor, unstable households to parents who can't give them proper care and attention?
     
  15. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    southerncross - thanks for your reply.

    I think I've been pretty restrained in this thread. I certainly made it clear that I think that religious beliefs are no reason to prevent others from doing something - perhaps took a few jabs, but I do think I was fairly restrained, though I'm probably biased ;) .

    If those of a particular religion have a belief that something is wrong, then, by all means, abstain. Don't, however, attempt to force the rest of society to abstain also.

    The main points I've addressed here are the claims that the position was based on science and logic, when it clearly is not - both because it was obviously a religious point of view and because the 'science and logic' were seriously flawed to the point of being absolutely wrong. I perhaps didn't make it clear, but I have no problem with people having religious beliefs (though I don't think they make any sense, but, again, that is my personal view) - I do have a problem with people trying to force their religious beliefs/requirements onto society at large. Essentially, if somebody was to say "I am <religion> and our belief is that all people of <religion> should/shouldn't do <whatever>, so, if you're also <religion>, do/don't do <whatever>", I'd have no issue with that, even if I thought it was silly. When the message is "I am <religion> and all people must/mustn't do <whatever> because our religion says so", I see a very serious issue.

    In short, a religious argument is a perfectly legitimate argument for deciding what people of that religion should or shouldn't do, but it is ridiculous and wrong to expect to have this forced upon others who are not members of that religion. Further, trying to hide a religious argument in fluff is just as ridiculous and wrong, in addition to being disingenuous.
     
  16. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne

    This is one of the biggest cliches in the debate - and its completely the opposite of what it claims to be. It is probably the MOST selfish and self centered reason.
    I dont know how people can seriously say that with a straight face. Its used to justify killing kids with disabilities, who I work very closely with and are some of the happies people i know.

    Kids are happy when they are fed, held and clothed - in australia in gooby's 2013 is more than capable in giving these things to kids.

    So no the argument above is not 'for' the child, it is heartbreakingly 'against' the good and happy life of the child. If you are pregnant with a 'severely' disabled baby (i am amazed at what constituted 'severly' these days, because some people with those disabilities are adult comedians, retail assistant, actors and achademics, im talking about cerebral palsy and downs syndrome) i can garentee they can be given a happy, and good life with one thing added..... safe, something they dont get in the womb. In fact the world is SAFER than the womb.

    So no I dont accept that because its pretty blown away by the reality.
     
  17. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Interesting, why then is it ok to force people a particular religion into doing what the religious assertion of 'no-god' desire. Hypocrit ;)
     
  18. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Sanchez - I don't know if you read this (I provided a link earlier). If not, perhaps you should: http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/righteous-abortion-how-christianity-promotes-abortion/ (contrary to what some might assume, I actually read just about everything that people post - even if it strongly disagrees with me - in fact, literature that opposes my viewpoint is, as far as I'm concerned, more important to read than stuff that agrees with me... I already know what I agree with... and opinions are fluid, so, sometimes I read something new and my opinion changes, even if only slightly).

    I have a question, then: If what is 'evolutionarily right' is 'right', should we be having butt sex when we just want to get our rocks off and not risk a pregnancy, rather than vaginal intercourse?

    I don't want to get too much into this stuff again, but I think you are, again, misunderstanding things - I'll just make a brief list:

    -You're using a weird sort of false dichotomy - just because Christians may agree or disagree with something doesn't mean that us heathens can't also agree or disagree with the same thing. Christianity does not have exclusivity over an idea regarding something like fiscal policy or marriage rights. Just because somebody who is not a Christian might agree with something that happens to fit in with Christianity, they are not then a 'Christian' and must thus agree with every other Christian doctrine. You might also consider that there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, and they tend to argue with one another over what 'Christianity' really means, anyway.
    -Absolute consistency over everything is really not possible in our complex society. Perhaps the closest we might get is something like bordsilver describes and, interestingly, this would allow abortion.
    -I don't think I've made argumentum ad absurdum here - although you have previously claimed that I have. On the other hand, your claim that allowing abortion is 'open season on little babies' and the vague and indirect implication that it will contribute to an all-powerful dictator and monumental conflict and war are examples of argumentum ad absurdum.
    -Nobody is 'pushing abortion'. Some are pushing to deny the right to abortion, while some are pushing back to retain it. Nobody is advocating that abortion is a great thing and that everyone should do it, at least once.
    -I'm probably going to be in trouble for this one, but anyway: I can absolutely choose my own morality. Please read up on the difference between morals and ethics.

    I'll repeat the essence of what I said before: You're absolutely entitled to adhere to a particular religious code. You're absolutely not entitled to force this onto society at large.
     
  19. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Nobody is attempting to force anybody to have an abortion, religious or otherwise. Nobody is even encouraging it.
     
  20. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Read the legislation... someone is being forced.... and no its not the mothers.... but see if you can find who is being forced.
     

Share This Page