patrick.net

Vicente says

Liberals did not invent such ideas, they existed from the first words of any humans I am sure.

I didn't say they have a monopoly or patent on bullshit. But they are using it, and I find it a problem, especially within our government.

Vicente says

But back to your earlier complaint about "too many coloreds on my TV". There is NO explosion of brown faces on TV. That you see more of them, is your perception issue. Perhaps it's like you buy a car or truck and suddenly seems you see it everywhere and didn't notice it before.

No it's not. The day Obama got elected being black became the new "cool". Some kind of weird media cycle.

FortWayne says

That's a very loosely defined "war". That word used to mean something. Anything that affects at most few hundred people with no real consequences isn't called a war.

All "the war on X" statements are meaningless propaganda. It's all marketing. I find it hard to object to Democrats using the catchphrase when Republicans have been using it for two decades now. Turn-about is fair play.

In any case, transvaginal utlrasound requirements affect way more than a few hundred people and have very real, if emotional, consequences. It is in fact the emotional consequences that are the very intention of them. It is meant to be so unbearably painful and humiliating that women do not seek abortions. Even if you are against abortions, this is not a good way of going about it.

FortWayne says

all I see on television is black actors and black celebrities.

LOL - the irony - FortWayne lives in an area where the only channel is BET. It's his own personal hell, like No Exit. Try visiting a different neighborhood, or just looking at other channels.

dodgerfanjohn says

Maddow, Matthews, and Olberman.

Please tell FortWayne about these three examples of white people on TV.

FortWayne says

It's no longer "Homosexuals and Perverts" it's "Gays".

LOL what did you call the black people who took over your TV before the "left wing media" made you start calling them black?

Dan8267 says

thomaswong.1986 says

show me how the Liberals since the 60s have added to the economic welfare of the nation.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPH

surely you jest Dan... did you expect all those anti-war protesters, anti-establishment hippies ( a minority on its self) who went against the grain for 30 years all of sudden become productive members of society... they all bought a suit and tie and went to work for the man as Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers, Banks, Engineers and many Industries (Auto, Energy, Aerospace, Machinery, Transport, Food ... etc etc etc)...

its comical how the ubber lefty party all of sudden are singing a different tune as they were left out of the economic boom.. laughable !

thomaswong.1986 says

surely you jest Dan... did you expect all those anti-war protesters, anti-establishment hippies ( a minority on its self) who went against the grain for 30 years all of sudden become productive members of society...

Since when are hippies liberal? The hippies of the 1960s were the yuppies of the 1980s and the bankers of the 2000s. Sure they preached free love when they were teenagers and their dicks were hard, but when Gen X came of age, they told us if we had sex even once we'd die of AIDS. The hippies were just hypocrites.

Dan8267 says

Sure they preached free love when they were teenagers and their dicks were hard, but when Gen X came of age, they told us if we had sex even once we'd die of AIDS. The hippies were just hypocrites.

Laughable ! anti-war, anti-business, anti-American , anti-family, anti-religion, anti-American culture... it all sounds familiar and very very old...

but now today.. you have to call Conservative African Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and many others... " THE MAN " .. including conservative women.

robertoaribas says

Problems like 78% of hispanics won't vote for them

Problems like 80% of asians won't vote for them

Problems like 60% of the under 30 won't vote for them.

and whites ...who are young... but what does it say about adults.. different story.

Abortions are a problem even as Hilary Clinton stated.. Abortions should be RARE and only in extreme cases" .. I guess that would make here also restrictive and obstructionist as well. She too spelled out the responsibilities of parents to police their children.

Economy ? Laugh Laugh! liberals like Obama have no clue about Business/Industries in the US.. utterly clueless ! They lie about Swiss Bank accounts to the public yet dont mention we have 100s of foreign banks operating in the US borders ...Count the number of Swiss banks operating in the US... Obama cant tell the different between ordinary income tax and capital gains tax. Not to mention trashing existing Bankrupcty/Contract laws... What exactly do they know ! Today, pumping US housing market telling the public .. Prices are coming back.. back to what.. a bubble!

Why should anyone shut Rush up.. he has a 2nd amendment rights, just like the clowns on MSNBC.. If you dont like what he says.. just turn the channel. You sure do not hear crack pot right wingers denying the right of free speech from Liberal slanted MSNBC ? Do you hear anyone on FOX that MSNBC should be shut down ?

You should be carefull .. calling your fellow patriotic Americans ...Teatards.

Perhaps you can tell us what happened to the 10 Million 2008 Obama voters who didnt vote for him in 2012 ?

Vicente says

scary, narrow-minded, stuffy old men

Lol! you call "this" scary.. narrow minded.. stuffy old men as well...

well yes... they were scary to some, with a narrow minded view of what govt can do and highly disciplined old men .... and on occasions read and quoted the Bible...oh! really scary stuff!

Follow them or follow what some crack pot from Davis, CA states...

thomaswong.1986 says

Follow them or follow what some crack pot from Davis, CA states...

None of those men would be part of today's Republican Party.

FortWayne says

Since Obama became president all I see on television is black actors and black celebrities. Liberal media is overdoing on the black thing.

I find this fascinating.

Oh yeah, and Obama is a "liberal."

Funny, what I notice about our media, is that the right wing entertainment complex has had a dramatic impact on about 30% of the U.S. population. This didn't start with Obama's presidency but it got cranked up then. I guess when the President is black, the whole concept of respect for the office goes out the window for about a third of the country.

Did any of you actually read the article? If you're a Republican then this should be good news for your party. The reason is because clearly the GOP's belief for losing in 2008 was that they "weren't conservative enough" was the wrong decision and they lost badly this time around. Instead the GOP is actually talking about making some changes to their party that would make them more desirable to more people.

If they were to have continued as they were, they would continue to lose elections. Their status quo puts them at an increasingly greater odds with the general public and as such we have the total deadlock in congress. On the other hand if their party shrinks that delta and the differences become less extreme and especially if they stop putting so much focus on witch hunts and social issues then perhaps this will give Americans a more compelling reason to vote for them. Ultimately a 2 party system where the two parties are less opposed ideologically is good for the US population because likely more would get done.

The problem isn't that the gop are scary old cranky white men, we all know this. The problem is the nitwits that think that the scary old white men of the democrat party, are some folks idea of a solution!

Death, or oogoo

marcus says

FortWayne says

Since Obama became president all I see on television is black actors and black celebrities. Liberal media is overdoing on the black thing.

I find this fascinating.

Oh yeah, and Obama is a "liberal."

Funny, what I notice about our media, is that the right wing entertainment complex has had a dramatic impact on about 30% of the U.S. population. This didn't start with Obama's presidency but it got cranked up then. I guess when the President is black, the whole concept of respect for the office goes out the window for about a third of the country.

Because of dishonesty of the situation Marcus. See, I grew up with a notion that neither being white or black was cool, race didn't matter. Accomplishing something was cool, you are what you accomplish in life.

But that is not the attitude the media is spreading, they are spreading attitude of entitlement, that simply being black or whatever is the president of the day is is cool.

And that is a stupid message, it will ruin lives and teach young pinheads that in order to be cool they just need to be born certain color, accomplishing and achieving is out the window!

FortWayne says

Propaganda in our country first works by changing the language so we think differently of our problems

thomaswong.1986 says

anti-war, anti-business, anti-American , anti-family, anti-religion, anti-American culture...

I see what you mean.

Dan8267 says

In any case, transvaginal utlrasound requirements affect way more than a few hundred people and have very real, if emotional, consequences. It is in fact the emotional consequences that are the very intention of them. It is meant to be so unbearably painful and humiliating that women do not seek abortions. Even if you are against abortions, this is not a good way of going about it.

That is because abortions should not be taken lightly. It's human life we are talking about, it's killing a child. You make it sound like all abortions come from rape, and that is not true. Most come from irresponsible behavior by teenagers.

Respect for life and each other starts at conception.

FortWayne says

That is because abortions should not be taken lightly. It's human life we are talking about, it's killing a child.

Ah, but that's the one million dollar question. At what point does a developing offspring become a person? What is the criteria for personhood? Is it just the crude animation of cells performing chemistry? If so, then aren't E. coli persons? Is it just the presence of human DNA? If so, aren't chimps 98.8% persons?

See the thread The abortion question answered. Turns out, both sides were wrong. for the answers.

In any case, the pro-life efforts should be made towards changing the law, not circumventing it. The ends do not justify the means. If the situation were reversed, abortion was illegal but people found a loophole, you would adamantly be objecting to the use of that loophole as unethical.

FortWayne says

Respect for life and each other starts at conception.

What exactly is so special about conception? You are alive before conception. The sperm and the egg that made you are both alive. In reality, every cell in your body is over 3.8 billion years old and has been growing and dividing for all of that 3.8 billion years with occasional short breaks.

Furthermore, conception does not happen in an instant. It take trillions upon trillions upon trillions of Plank times to complete the extremely long process of penetrating the egg, combining the DNA, and starting a large number of chemical processes, each of which starts at a different time. Just because on the human scale of experience this happens quickly doesn't make it instantaneous. So exactly when during the arduous process of conception does the life go from worthless to priceless?

FortWayne says

You make it sound like all abortions come from rape, and that is not true.

Obviously I have never said anything even remotely like that. However, the Republican laws did apply to rape victims and that is the prime reason Democrats called such laws the "war on women".

FortWayne says

Most come from irresponsible behavior by teenagers.

It is your opinion that the teenagers are being irresponsible. Another opinion would be that the teenagers are being responsible by getting the abortion.

But in either case, why should the state violate the rights of an irresponsible person? Whether or not the person is "irresponsible" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is at what point does the offspring have the right to live, and the only way to answer that question is to answer a far more fundamental one: what is it that constitutes a person?

The entire abortion debate dances around that fundamental question. The fact is that the rights of the mother and the rights of the offspring are inherently in conflict. I'm all for erring on the side of safety and preferring the rights of the offspring once a case can be made that the offspring is a person. However, there is no rational reason to believe that personhood is achieved at the arbitrary period of conception. If you are going to make a "soul" argument, then you had better read The abortion question answered as I have thoroughly destroyed the soul argument in that thread.

Dan8267 says

But in either case, why should the state violate the rights of an irresponsible person? Whether or not the person is "irresponsible" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is at what point does the offspring have the right to live, and the only way to answer that question is to answer a far more fundamental one: what is it that constitutes a person?

Yes, because right to life comes before the right to abortion. Life is fundamentally more important.

You have a right to live, angry neighbor next door does not have a right to kill you.

Dan8267 says

It is your opinion that the teenagers are being irresponsible. Another opinion would be that the teenagers are being responsible by getting the abortion.

But if they were responsible these teenagers would not be pregnant in the first place. If teenagers feel shame for certain actions they are less likely to do them, that is a big portion of morality.

FortWayne says

Yes, because right to life comes before the right to abortion. Life is fundamentally more important.

And I would agree with that as long as we are talking about persons, which is the fundamental question.

FortWayne says

But if they were responsible these teenagers would not be pregnant in the first place. If teenagers feel shame for certain actions they are less likely to do them, that is a big portion of morality.

There is nothing inherently evil about sex, even when teenagers do it. Nor is there anything inherently immoral about sex, even when teenagers do it.

Furthermore, shame is an emotional reaction to something that threatens one social standing in a community and as such does not necessarily indicate immorality. For example, most people would be ashamed to be forced to take a dump in public, but it is not the case that such a person is being immoral.

In any case, the morality, ethics, and legality of abortion all come down to the simple question of what exactly constitutes a person. This is the question that neither side is willing to address. Luckily, I have already answered this question thoroughly. Not a single counter-argument has stood up to my reasoning. Unless that happens, we can accept the answer I provided here.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, shame is an emotional reaction to something that threatens one social standing in a community and as such does not necessarily indicate immorality. For example, most people would be ashamed to be forced to take a dump in public, but it is not the case that such a person is being immoral.

Supreme Court has made that decision with a compromise, I don't remember the details but it's something tied to trimesters and seemed reasonable.

But about abortion, only reason to make something difficult is to discourage it. The more difficult an abortion is, the less likely it is to happen and less likely teenagers are going to murder an unborn child. This does reduce unwanted pregnancies in teenagers. That's a good thing.

Dan8267 says

The "war on women" sounds a lot more real than the "war on Christmas".

You forgot about the Democrat party's war on men.

zzyzzx says

You forgot about the Democrat party's war on men.

You mean the family court system's war on men.

FortWayne says

But about abortion, only reason to make something difficult is to discourage it. The more difficult an abortion is, the less likely it is to happen and less likely teenagers are going to murder an unborn child.

If an abortion is murder, it should be made illegal, not discouraged by humiliating girls and women including rape victims. The entire question once again is exactly what constitutes a person. And you are still dancing around that question.

It's not an unimportant question. I'm not going to forbid a woman at gunpoint from having an abortion unless I know that the offspring is a person. This is especially true for a rape victim. If personhood really did begin at concept as you propose, but do not justify, then even a raped girl should be forced to carry the rape baby because two wrongs don't make a right. Sucks for the girl, but that would be the lesser of the two evils.

However, if personhood does not begin at conception, then it would be outright evil to force a raped girl to bear the offspring.

So, the question of personhood is not academic. It is the critical question in the entire abortion debate. This is exactly why you should ask yourself what precisely distinguishes a person from a non-person and why do you believe that. Until you do that, you're just dancing around the issue.

As for me, I've already answered that question clearly, thoroughly, objectively, honestly, and accurately in this thread. No person on this planet has ever found a flaw in my reasoning in that thread. I'm willing to entertain new counter-arguments from either the pro-life or the pro-choice crowd, but I reserve the right to defend the position I took there. Of course, if someone actually does make a descent counter-argument, I reserve the right to change my position and accept that argument, though I doubt that will happen.

marcus says

I guess when the President is black, the whole concept of respect for the office goes out the window for about a third of the country.

The rule is, when the President is a Democrat, certain quarters abandon their pretense of respect for the office. Hillary Clinton lamented the "vast, right wing conspiracy" nearly 20 years ago. JFK worried about the John Birchers. IIRC, Clinton and Kennedy were both white.

BTW, Democrats usually didn't even pretend to have much respect for W either. A worrisome exception was, his approval rate climbed above 70% in the aftermath of the worst national security failure in American history. Somehow when people are scared they behave like North Koreans, frantically praising the dear leader.
So maybe Democratic presidents get less devotion because they tend to do a better job, or rather a less terrible job. There are exceptions to that rule too of course, e.g. LBJ starting the Viet Nam draft.

Dan8267 says

The entire question once again is exactly what constitutes a person. And you are still dancing around that question.

I'm not danceing around it Dan. A human being is the supreme court definition of where life begins. Second trimester? I don't know exact definition.

FortWayne says

I'm not danceing around it Dan. A human being is the supreme court definition of where life begins. Second trimester? I don't know exact definition.

Screw what the Supreme Court says. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. What do you think makes a person a person? And does a person really have to be human? Why can't a chimp be a person? You can have a meaningful conversation with a chimp using sign language. Why can't an extraterrestrial be a person? Why can't a robot be a person?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note that the Constitution says "born," not conceived. Note also the Constitution does not provide any exceptions, e.g. for people of a disfavored color, or anchor babies or gay couples, or whoever else might become the target of any political faction.

Dan8267 says

Screw what the Supreme Court says. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. What do you think makes a person a person? And does a person really have to be human? Why can't a chimp be a person? You can have a meaningful conversation with a chimp using sign language. Why can't an extraterrestrial be a person? Why can't a robot be a person?

I think it is roughly a month after conception. We are a society of humans, and humans matter. Robots can't be persons because they should not matter, as they are artificial creations with no soul.

FortWayne says

Robots can't be persons because they should not matter, as they are artificial creations with no soul.

Artificial vs natural does not matter. If I build a human, atom by atom, is it not a human?

As for the soul, neither you nor I possess a soul as there is no such thing. And if there were such a thing and the Christian afterlife true, then it would be a moral and ethical obligation to kill every baby before it could possibly risk its immortal soul, losing an eternity of bliss and gaining an eternity of damnation. The fact that you do not believe it is a moral duty to kill babies before they can endanger their souls proves that deep down, you do not believe in a soul any more than I do regardless of what you tell yourself when you cannot deal with your own mortality.

Furthermore, we can ask the question of whether or not chimps have souls. If they don't, then what about the common ancestor of humans and chimps? There would have to be a point where a mother has no soul but her child does. And how incredibly cruel would that be? A child who has to spend an eternity bearing the loss of her mother?

The very concept of a soul is fundamentally flaw and the only purpose it serves is to delude people about their own mortality. And that is not a good thing as it causes people to make very bad decisions in life.

Dan8267 says

Artificial vs natural does not matter. If I build a human, atom by atom, is it not a human?

You can't and it's a sort of unrealistic discussion. And yes natural does matter, it matters to me. A vcr will never and should never be as important as a human being. For it has no soul and it is not human.

FortWayne says

You can't and it's a sort of unrealistic discussion.

There is no law of physics that states that a fully functional, living human being couldn't be created atom by atom. Unless there is some law that prevents it, eventually it will be done. But even if it were not practical or "realistic", the mere possibility is enough to illustrate the silliness of the concept of a soul.

Would a cloned human have a soul? Would a sheep cloned from sheep DNA have a soul? Would a creature cloned from both human and sheep DNA have a soul? What percentage of human DNA would you have to use in order for the clone to have a soul, bearing in mind that the majority of sheep and human DNA already overlap?

And, of course, there is absolutely no reason why a fully sentient computer or robot could not be built. In fact, it seems rather implausible that, if humanity doesn't destroy itself, we will not have created a sentient AI within the next thousand years, i.e., less than half the time since Jesus.

And don't forget about chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. We can have conversations with these creatures using American sign language. Are you telling me that these clearly thinking beings don't have souls? They are indisputably sentient beings. What kind of cruel god would cause these sentient beings to cease to exist when they die but allow humans, barely different from chimps, to survive for eternity?

And then there is the problem with the fact that humans are descendant from common ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and all other apes. This means there is no non-arbitrary place where you can start inserting souls into creatures without being cruel to those that just didn't make the cut.

And then there is the problem with extra-terrestrial life, which will run the gamut between mindless bacteria-like creatures to space-faring civilizations. Any attempt to divide these beings into two groups, those with souls and those without, would be entirely meaningless and arbitrary.

The bottom line is that nature is messy, nature is fuzzy, and nature does not organize itself into nice, neat packages that make human classifications of things easy and comfortable for humans. The very concept of the soul was created by human beings fearing their own mortality, but not thinking of or caring about, all the other creatures in the universe. As such, the fictional soul doesn't even stand up to the most rudimentary thoughts about what's actually in the universe.

Let's say I replace each of my neurons, one by one, with an artificial, silicon neuron. I do this by removing a single neuron from my brain and replacing it with an artificial, perhaps even virtual (i.e., software on a chip) neuron and connecting that neuron to the biological neurons that were connected to the neuron being replaced. I do this for each neuron. At the end of the process, I have a completely inorganic brain that is identical to the organic brain that I once possessed. I have the exact same mind, and may very well have been awake and conscious for the procedure.

Do I still have a soul after my brain has been replaced in piecemeal with an artificial one? If not, at exactly what point did I lose my soul and if my new soulless brain decides to commit murder with its body, is that a sin? If I do still have a soul, then what happens if I move my artificial brain to a robotic body? Does it still have a soul then? If not, same dilemma as before. If so, then why wouldn't a being I create by copying my now artificial (possibly virtual) brain not also have a soul? Wouldn't I be, in effect, either creating souls myself or forcing god to create souls?

Can you see now all the problems with the soul mythology? If not, you're still left with the indisputable fact that if the soul did exist, then morality and ethics would demand that we kill all babies in order to save their souls. After all, there is nothing in mortal life that can even remotely compare to an eternity of bliss or an eternity of suffering.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

No one will take GOP candidates seriously until their candidates wander around waving automatic weapons shouting that rape is a sacrament.

I thought that was already going on.

Dan's atomic reconstruction scenario sounds like something out of Blade Runner. If the Republicans still exist, I can imagine their platform, banning science and campaigning against replicant marriage. At least in that dystopian future, Republicans could point out that atomically reconstructed or otherwise synthetic replicants aren't "born" and so they would need to be naturalized by legislation in order to qualify for equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment.

curious2 says

Republicans could point out that atomically reconstructed or otherwise synthetic replicants aren't "born" and so they would need to be naturalized by legislation in order to qualify for equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment.

In the GOP Blade Runner theocracy, the Bible and Constitution would support having replicants as disposable slave labor. Amendments would be made to support this if needed, and it's unlikely that a GOP Supreme Court would challenge the matter.

Vicente says

replicants as disposable slave labor

Republicans don't need replicants for that, the drug war and life sentences without parole are producing a large supply of prison laborers to undermine union labor.

Vicente says

In the GOP Blade Runner theocracy, the Bible and Constitution would support having replicants as disposable slave labor.

Sad, but true. And this is exactly why the notion of a soul is not simply an academic question. It's not simply a matter of personal, religious beliefs because it materially and gravely affects law.

Already we see that FortWayne's strong opinion that abortion should be illegal from conception is based on the false assumption that humans have souls. That alone is an example of false religious beliefs criminalizing behavior that should not be criminalized. And that alone would be sufficient to rebuke the nonsense of a soul given the importance of the abortion debate.

But that's just the very tip of the iceberg. The fact that we have not outlawed, on the international level, the killing of apes, dolphins, and whales for any purpose is a direct result of this "soul" lie. Sentient beings on our planet right now are being killed in horrifically painful ways because people who believe that a god create humans as special creatures with souls also believe that all other animal life has no intrinsic value and can be morally and ethically slaughtered for mere human convenience.

And if we ever find extraterrestrial life that isn't space-faring, say a Stone Age or Bronze Age culture, you can bet the religious will say those soulless animals can be hunted to extinction and their world stripped for resources.

And when we do create sentient AIs -- and yes, that will happen -- the religious will want them to be slaves.

The fact is that we have reach the technological point where maintaining ethics and morality less evil than Nazi Germany requires that we accept that the soul doesn't exist and that there is a different reason why human life is precious, and that reason is sentience.