Fair enough, I'll expalin why they aren't comparable.
With rape, it is an issue for us all to be concerned about because it can happen to us or our families. We put laws in place to offer consequences. If rape were NOT illegal, any person who wished for intercourse could simply take it from any avalible person. This would destroy our societal fabric. The way we date, the where we go, our general saftey and security at any given moment and many other things as well.
Even as a man in in a loving relationship, if rape were legal, you're wife telling you "yes," would be of no meaning.
With theft, it is an issue for us to be involved because our property/capitol/ideas are often linked to our ability to survive. We put laws in place to promote order, othewise anything you wanted you could simply just take. Sucess wouldn't have any relation to hard work or drive but instead by our simple ability to overpower another weaker individual (for instance). Again, the societal fabric that maintains order would be destroyed.
Even as a person with no belongings, you still should have your intelectual property protected. RL's argument that as a person become LESS weathly that they would care LESS about their property is the inverse of the truth. I'd say if yu had nothing, the things you did have, would mean even more to you.
With slavery, it is an issue for us to be invovled because we could just as easily be determined inferior and put into servitude. Such extreme prejudice does not confine itself to race lines either. Facsist ideals can exist in any population, and it could easily be you who feels the effect. "Slavery" is a limited term, I'd prefer to address "oppression." If one group could declare its;ef superior to another group, it would destroy societal fabric and especially the order that is needed.
Take back all the Jim Crow Laws. Let everything be "Seperate but Equal." Let's assme you're a part of the majority, white-male. You'd live in a society that would stagnate. You could never have the best people for the job, only the majoritiy's people. Of course you could also end up being oppressed.
I can't believe I needed to clarify this.
With abortion, you'd be hard pressed to find an exampe of it breaking down the societal fabric.
Rape, theft, oppression. We have always had people/groups that desire the respective sex, wealth, and power that come with thse things. Abortion is not about these things. It's a personal affair.
baddog wrote: I considered RL's examples of "mind your own business" to be very analagous to your examples concerning abortion. Perhaps you could do a better job of distinguishing the differences than providing rhetoric and ridicule. Please objectively explain why RL should have concern (or not) about the issues he presented.
Some people "earn" their ridicule - all by themselves. That you can support such ridiculous statements puts you in the same category.
cicerone imposter wrote:baddog wrote: I considered RL's examples of "mind your own business" to be very analagous to your examples concerning abortion. Perhaps you could do a better job of distinguishing the differences than providing rhetoric and ridicule. Please objectively explain why RL should have concern (or not) about the issues he presented.
Some people "earn" their ridicule - all by themselves. That you can support such ridiculous statements puts you in the same category.
That you also continue to respond with rhetoric & ridicule (and still offer nothing of substance) speaks volumes. And your question would be??? :wink:
baddog, Show me how my opinion/statements are off the mark? I'll then respond to your ridiculous charge.
cicerone imposter wrote:baddog, Show me how my opinion/statements are off the mark? I'll then respond to your ridiculous charge.
You made a personal attack that was unprovoked & unnecessary - and you asked no question. What would you like for me to respond to?
I am in the process of responding to Deist's post - respond as you feel the need to.
No question necessary. I agree with Diest's response. The balls in your court. Show me how my personal opinion on issues are off the mark or wrong. I'll then respond.
baddog, As a matter of fact, I'd like to see your answer to real's statements.
real wrote:
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
These are all consistent with your view that I 'should mind my own business.'
That is to say, they are illogical.
Deist:
Your basic premise on the abortion-issue has been as follows (paraphrasing): "If it doesn't affect you - why get involved."
I have my own thoughts about this and have shared them with you. Concerning the post in question (RL's) - I see RL's position.
ie:
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
In the very literal-sense; these examples are all true. However in the "humanitarian" sense - they are at the very least "bothersome".
I contend that perhaps RL's (and for sure my) beliefs about abortion-issues stem from "humanitarian" roots. When you discount our beliefs about abortion-issues with a seemingly literal thought of: "It doesn't affect you, so stay out of it..." (again - paraphrasing), that is certainly your choice. However it does come across as callous and perhaps even "inhumane". [Particularly when you show more "humanitarian-like" thoughts about other issues.]
After further reading your post to me - I more clearly understand your position. (Do not necessarily agree - but understand where you're coming from.) :wink:
Make sense?
baddog, In what way are those statements true in the literal sense?
Diest TKO wrote:I can't believe I needed to clarify this.
Once the mind is trained to accept on faith that which is not supported by evidence, then logic and objectivity are no longer in the tool box.
mesquite, Well stated; the ground rules change with their own sense of logic, none.
cicerone imposter wrote:baddog, In what way are those statements true in the literal sense?
In the "literal" sense:
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
* RL is (I assume) a guy, therefore unlikely to be raped.
* And (hypothetically); if a woman in Honduras (or around the corner) is raped by an uncle... how does that affect RL?
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
* If he's not rich - most likely, no one will ever steal money from him, so why care about those laws.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
Since RL made no reference to history - I am basing my answer on present day.
* Racial profiling effect on minorities by police, employers, etc. If RL is white - no profiling, no effect...
In the "literal" sense:
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
* RL is (I assume) a guy, therefore unlikely to be raped.
* And (hypothetically); if a woman in Honduras (or around the corner) is raped by an uncle... how does that affect RL?
You just have been ignorant of the simple fact that men/boys have been raped.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
* If he's not rich - most likely, no one will ever steal money from him, so why care about those laws.
Another ignorance; "stealing from the rich" affects the poor in many ways. Since you don't define who the "rich" is in this country, who is rich? When anybody steals anything, it involves our police, costs increase in our stores, and the cost of imprisonment goes up that everybody pays for.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
Since RL made no reference to history - I am basing my answer on present day.
* Racial profiling effect on minorities by police, employers, etc. If RL is white - no profiling, no effect...
A loss of any equality by any identified group in the US is a loss for America as a whole. Since you identified yourself as "white," I'm not surprised by your racial bigotry.
cicerone imposter wrote:In the "literal" sense:
Since I'm a guy, why should I care if there are laws against rape? It doesn't affect me.
* RL is (I assume) a guy, therefore unlikely to be raped.
* And (hypothetically); if a woman in Honduras (or around the corner) is raped by an uncle... how does that affect RL?
You just have been ignorant of the simple fact that men/boys have been raped.
Since I'm poor, why should I care if there are laws against stealing from the rich? It doesn't affect me.
* If he's not rich - most likely, no one will ever steal money from him, so why care about those laws.
Another ignorance; "stealing from the rich" affects the poor in many ways. Since you don't define who the "rich" is in this country, who is rich? When anybody steals anything, it involves our police, costs increase in our stores, and the cost of imprisonment goes up that everybody pays for.
Since I'm white, why should I care if there are laws protecting blacks? It doesn't affect me.
Since RL made no reference to history - I am basing my answer on present day.
* Racial profiling effect on minorities by police, employers, etc. If RL is white - no profiling, no effect...
A loss of any equality by any identified group in the US is a loss for America as a whole. Since you identified yourself as "white," I'm not surprised by your racial bigotry.
If I'd realized your personal agenda of making illogical and downright wrong assumptions of my answers - I would not have offered you the time or effort. I should've known better as I've seen your inability to stay on-topic with most posts (including this one) and also your pattern of personal attacks when your position is threatened. I'd say you are quite the spoiled little child and will not engage with your rhetoric again. :wink: If you care to have a conversation and can remain on-topic for a reasonable length of time - I may reconsider looking your way. Until then - bye-bye.
And BTW: I never identified myself as white! Pay better attention (on-topic) and you won't look so foolish.
But if you agree with RL's position of being white, and that he's not affected, you're part of the problem whether you're white or green.
You responded, and I challenged. If you can't take it, go cry to your momma.
Diest TKO wrote:Opps! Almost forgot!
Medical, Research & Academic Institutions
Academy of Science of St. Louis
Axion Research Foundation
Buchanan County Medical Society
Committee for the Advancement of Stem Cell Research
Divergence, Inc.
Heartland Health
Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences
Midwest Research Institute
Missouri State Medical Association
Mound City Medical Forum
Northeast Missouri County Medical Society
St. Louis Maternity Society
The St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Society
Stowers Institute for Medical Research
University of Missouri
University of Minnesota
Washington University in St. Louis
Washington University School of Medicine
Webster University
Don't forget the...
Civic, Business, Governmental & Faith Organizations
American Jewish Congress, St. Louis Chapter
B'nai B'rith St. Louis
Bridge Builders Senior Services
Center for Emerging Technologies
Central Reform Congregation
City Council of Kansas City, MO
Civic Council of Greater Kansas City
Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences (St. Louis)
Columbia Chamber of Commerce
Communications Workers of America Local 6377
Concerned Clergy Coalition of Kansas City
Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri
Edward Mallinckrodt Jr. Foundation
Ethical Action Committee of the St. Louis Ethical Society
First Unitarian Universalist Church of Springfield
Greater Kansas City Building & Construction Trades Council
Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce
Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus
Hadassah, St. Louis Chapter
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 42
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 3808
Jewish Community Relations Council
Jewish Community Relations Bureau/American Jewish Committee
Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute Association
Kansas City Police Department Friends and Family
Kansas City Missouri Baptist Ministers Union
La Raza Political Club
MAINstream Coalition
Metropolitan St. Louis Clergy Coalition
Missouri AFL-CIO
Missouri Biotechnology Association (MoBIO)
Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Missouri Women's Network
Montford Point Marine Association, St. Louis Chapter
NAACP, St. Louis County Chapter
National Council of Jewish Women
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women's Political Caucus
of Metro St. Louis
Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise
Pike County Women's Action Team
Rabbinical Association of Greater Kansas City
Semper Fi For Life Foundation
St. Louis Building & Construction Trades Council
St. Louis Greater Area and Vicinity Port Council
St. Louis Labor Council
St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association
The BioGenerator (technology transfer center)
Union Cultural Mexicana
It's starting to look like no matter how many dollars you turn, spreading them out over all the conspirators might kind of make it not worth investing your time...Weird huh? Unless perhaps they had an alternative motive than making money.
Lies? Conspiracy? Profit? Go write a novel. Seems like the only misinformation here is from you.
If large numbers of people believe a lie, does that make it true?
The supporters of A2 claimed their amendment did NOT allow cloning.
You, yourself, have admitted that it is cloning.
You have already agreed that these supporters have, in fact, supported a lie.
So what is the point of your list?
It's not cloning of a human being! It could be used to make identical organs etc, but it's not the cloning of a person.
The TRUTH is that the opponents of A@ argue that this (technology) is going to be used to clone humans. When the supporters say that it's not for the cloning of a human, it's for the creation of new treatments etc, you call it a lie.
A2 specifically bans the cloning of a human. There is a difference. Your inability to comprehend that; your lack of education on this, does not make this a lie.
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, the TRUTH is that A2 is going to help people and that's it.
You sir are living the LIE.
Thinking back, I realized that you still might not understand.
You do know that you can clone an organ without creating an entire human right?
If you answered 'no' to this question, there's a problem.
This is one of the many opportunities that stem cell research shows a great deal of promise in.
Diest TKO wrote:It's not cloning of a human being! It could be used to make identical organs etc, but it's not the cloning of a person.
The TRUTH is that the opponents of A@ argue that this (technology) is going to be used to clone humans. When the supporters say that it's not for the cloning of a human, it's for the creation of new treatments etc, you call it a lie.
A2 specifically bans the cloning of a human. There is a difference. Your inability to comprehend that; your lack of education on this, does not make this a lie.
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, the TRUTH is that A2 is going to help people and that's it.
You sir are living the LIE.
A2 'defines' cloning as the 'implanting in the uterus' anything other than a fertilized egg, (such as the product of SCNT).
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
By redefining cloning, it skillfully sidesteps the reality that the product of SCNT is a clone, whether implanted in the uterus or not.
Typical liberal spin.
'Let's just call it something else. Let's say that it's not what it really is. Use a different word for it.'
I'm sorry, what's the problem?
I was unaware that such a elastic definition of cloning existed prior.
Liberal nothing, it's just smart and cover the bases to make sure that other's don't take advantage of the amendment.
