Abortion and Nazi Germany

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, a great post. I will take your criticism to heart. I do not like hurting anyone.

One small thing, and I will erase this if you caught it.

I assume you meant an edict of papal infallibility rather than papal infidelity!

[Pat Speer]

Pat, a great post.  I will take your criticism to heart.  I do not like hurting anyone.

One small thing, and I will erase this if you caught it.

I assume you meant an edict of papal infallibility rather than papal infidelity!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the best Freudian slip I've made in a long time. Classic.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Yeah, I got a chuckle out of it!

[Guest John Gillespie]

"It is a very simple process to cc an e-mail. There is no need to post private e-mail on this public forum and I rather wonder why you have?"

I rather wonder why you wonder. However, that response is very instructive.

[Guest John Gillespie]

Pat, a great post.  I will take your criticism to heart.  I do not like hurting anyone.

One small thing, and I will erase this if you caught it.

I assume you meant an edict of papal infallibility rather than papal infidelity!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now, THERE'S a Freudian slip...

[Guest John Gillespie]

"Nic is a highly valued member of this Forum. I cannot say the same about Tim. Like most members I rarely read his postings. But if you can’t take the criticisms your extreme views are going to encounter, I suggest you leave and post on Forums that share your views."

Tim,

Such desperation on display for support of their views, don't you think?! But there it is bubba, the Invertebrate Progressives (IPs) self-exposed again.

Evidently, it matters not that one engages in discourse as a gentleman on the MisnomerForum; disagree with the Professor and you're asked to leave the school. But you can stick around so long as you keep nodding your head in vertical fashion. You'll then be allowed to use vile language, make personal attacks and write stupidly.

Say Ol' Boy, if I read the above quote correctly, you now have been given license to respond in kind. I know you won't because you're better than the IPs who not only support the nastiness but laud it. Frightening, isn't it?

Quick, Tim, finish the game before they take their ball and go home to Mum. Leave them to...themselves.

The following applies as nothing else:

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again; but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-- William Butler Yeats

The line most worth repeating applies directly to the IPs:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Goodbye, misnomerforum.

By the way, we're sooo glad we kicked you out of Boston. We celebrate that

ON ST. PATRICK'S DAY!!

[Tim Gratz]

Yes, John, it is rather incredible that Mr. Simkin does not seem willing to enforce the rules that he himself promulgated.

I was thinking of asking John the following qualification:

(1) It is apparently permissible for someone who agrees with your position on

a matter of public policy to call someone who does not an "asshole". Is it

permissible, then, for someone who disagrees with your views to call

someone who agrees with your views an "asshole", or can such vile insults

only be used against those who disagree with you?

(2) Regardless of whether the insults can run both ways (or only from left to

right), since "asshole" is apparently an acceptable epithet, can you (using

asteriks if necessary) list any vulgarities or obscenties that are

forbidden? Or does anything go?

Since the rules have apparently been amended by conduct, should not the rules be amended to conform to the practice? I have this as a possible amenfment:

(1) If you are in agreement with the political philosophy of the administrator

of the Forum you may personally attack someone who does not agree

with that philosophy. In engaging in any such personal attack, you may

use the following epithets: asshole, nitwit [etc.; etc.]; you may not however

use the following epithets: [etc etc] [the latter phrase being necessary

only if there are indeed any vulgarities or obsenities that are

prohibited].

John, I suspect that a lot of the more educated members of the Forum who may be diametrically opposed to many of my views are nonetheless shocked and disappointed that John will not enforce his own rules. This is called "The Education Forum". It is not, I submit, a sign of education to call someone an "asshole" because you disagree with his or her position on an issue. In my opinion, it demeans and cheapens the Forum.

Although in many ways I continue to have great respect for John, I have been recently disappointed in some of the quality of his own debate. For instance, on this thread he essentially attacked the sanity [!] of those who disagree with his position on abortion. That, I submit, is crazy! It would be, I think, far closer to the truth to posit that anyone who could not understand or admit that, in accordance with science, a fetus was a separate entity, a new person with her own DNA, etc. must be lunatic. But I do not so suggest. I can respect the position of those who hold the opposite view on abortion and do not need to question their sanity or morality.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Let me add this: any man who resorts to vulgarities against someone merely because of a difference in politics or philosophy is not a gentleman. By the same tokem any female who does so ought not be called a lady.

If I was running a Forum, I would limit participation to ladies and gentlemen.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, what the heck are you doing? You have to know that this Forum is no different than any other Forum in that it reflects the bias of those who run it. Andy and John have made it more than clear they are leftists. In an effort to preserve freedom of expression, however, they have given you much rope. You can pretty much bet your marbles that a right-wing oriented website would not give their resident leftists so much rope. They would probably report the guy to Little Green Footballs and arrange for his computer to be assaulted by poisonous spyware and spam.

It's an imperfect world. It's an imperfect Forum. Sometimes it seems like you wanna get kicked off so you can blame all those narrow-minded leftists who refuse to support freedom of expression. No such luck. Instead, it seems that your little feud with Nic has caused her to take a break or even leave the Forum. Shanet.... Nic... How many members will have to leave before you can feel comfortable with the fact that you have better control over your emotions than others? Is it all that important for you to know that you have a cooler head than many of those on the left? Isn't that the sin of pride? Is it more important to be a "gentleman" than to actually communicate? Is it the messenger not the message? If so, this might explain your attraction to Nixon in 72, when America voted against McGovern more than they did for Nixon, as McGovern's supporters were just too angry, too scary, too...right about the pointlessness of the Vietnam War....

It's okay to let others be wrong sometimes. IMHO I think you should quit pushing people's buttons. If they start to get rattled, back off and say well, I'm sorry to offend you. It seems to work for me.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry, Pat, as much as I agree with most of your posts, I have to disagree with you here.

(1) This is called "a debate". It could hardly be called a debate if everyone agreed with each other, could it? What's the old expression, "preaching to the choir"?

(2) It is John who formulated the rules, not I. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was running the Forum, I would adopt the same rules John did, prohibiting personal attacks on other members. It is one thing to argue that a person's views are worthless, ridiculous, baseless, etc. It is far different to call them a vulgarity.

Besides, did I not say above that if John wanted to allow such personal attacks he ought to change the rules so the rules were consistent with the manner in which the forum was being administered?

And let me make it clear I do NOT believe that all left-oriented persons are "hot-heads". And there are clearly plenty of right-wing hotheads as well.

I also think it is worthwhile for the Forum to try to educate its younger members to: (1) personally respect persons with whose views they strongly disagree (unless there is some other reason not to respect them); and (2) argue the merits of their position without resorting to foul language or personal attacks.

You ought to know I have no interest in removing people from the Forum or prohibiting their expression of their views (regardless of how ludicrous I may consider some of them). I enjoy my debates with Robert Charles-Dunne, even though he heavily laces them with sarcasm (the last time I think he kept refering to me as Sherlock, but obviously in a derisive rather than complimentary manner).

Bottom line is: if the Forum has rules of decorum, they ought to be enforced. If in practice there are no such rules, then eliminate the rules. It is the hypocricy to which I object. Did it hurt me that Nic called me an "asshole"? Not in the least. I don't think her calling me an "asshole" made anyone believe I was (whatever tham vulgarity implies)--unless they already had that opinion.

I'd just like a little honesty here. How can there be rules prohibiting personal attacks and yet John allows Nic to call me an "asshole"? I just think John ought to be honest and either enforce the rules or amend them. Heck, I don't care if he wants to promulgate a rule that says: "Personal attacks on other members are prohibited except anyone can attack Tim Gratz". But why have a rule you do not enforce? Be honest about it.

And you can be assured if I ran a Forum I would encourage even spirited debate, but I would have a rule of decorum and I would enforce it, even if the offending party agreed with all of my world-views, prejudices, etc. And again, at the risk of repeating myself, I think it is good training to require members to debate in an intelligent and civilized manner.

You see, I guess I am in favor of repealing all those funny antiquated laws that are not enforced. I don't remember examples but you know what I am talking about. I guess it is the conservative in me that says that if there are rules they ought to be enforced and enforced evenly.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

It's an imperfect world.

Granted, Pat, but teaching people to respect other people and to engage in civilized debate would bring it just a little step closer to perfection, would it not? And what's wrong with that?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Oh well, I know I shouldn't but here goes.

(1) Its a Womans individual right to choose. Do you seriously believe that banning abortion would make the problem go away.It would simply mean a return to "Back street abortionist's" Then watch the body count rise.

(2) Isnt it strange, that the very people who proclaim with such certainty that the state cant possibly save peoples Jobs-nieghbourhoods by direct intervention, are the same people who cant wait to "get busy" with abortion, gay marrage, right to die, etc. it seems to me that the very places were individual freedoms are needed, are the places that the state seeks to deny them.

I know this is an issue where feelings run both high and deep, and I certainly dont pretend to have all the answers. But like it or not, its the womans choise, and having decided on this painful course of action, she needs our support, not our vilification... All the best ..Steve.

[Nic Martin]

Alright, this is going to be my final post on this subject, as quite frankly, it's way past "beating a dead dog" and into "hurling insults at the remains of Ben Affleck's career."

I don't care if you don't like me, Tim, but please, get your facts straight. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Democrat. I'm socially liberal, yes, but fiscally conservative! I support based on the candidate, not the party. Wow, hard to swallow, I imagine. Someone that partially agrees with your political party-of-choice *gasp* HAVING ACTUAL OPINIONS ON OTHER ISSUES THAT DIFFER FROM YOURS!

If you'd like to go back to college (or maybe it's a first for you, as I don't know nor do I really care if you've been already) to somehow find a way to carry children on your own, that's GREAT, then I'll truly believe that you have a clue in hell what you're talking about. Until then, you have as much right to my uterus as I do to your testicles. Unless you'll voluntarily go through non-chemical castration because it's my belief that every male pro-lifer has to, I really don't want to hear your opinions on MY body until you let me make decisions regarding yours. Of course, I’d probably want to remove that rather large stick you have placed in your rear.

Next, this little act you seem to have going of trying to act superior in other forums because we've disagreed here is REALLY pathetic. It makes you sound like a broken record. Are you honestly so fascinated by me that I have a bearing on EVERY posting you make? Also, considering your track record of arguing with members, it's rich of you to condemn me for disagreeing with you. Would you rather be the pot or the kettle? I don't know if it honestly matters though, they're both black.

Also, my respect is EARNED. Simply because your mother got knocked up long before my parents were even married, does not give you a golden ticket. Something you might have noticed, is that not much is free. You don't get a high-paying job at the top of the line just by saying your birthday, and you don't earn my respect by flashing a birth certificate.

I don't care if you & your friend Gillespie think I'm a "disgrace." I've heard a lot worse. Usually it's from people jealous because I'm getting such an early start on this, dirty old men that are pissed off I won't screw them, or people that dislike my right to free speech. I've never claimed to be a "lady." When I think of "ladies," I think of women in dinner gloves and pearls that pretend not to notice their husband is rattling office drawers with his secretary. I'm of the more modern type, or maybe you dislike knowing women actually have power now. I'm not looking for a stamp of approval from anyone, so if you honestly think your commentary is going to make me cry and take my toys to another sandbox, you are sorely mistaken. I'm not the type to sit here, bite my nails, "Oh, what will the neighbors say?!"

You have nothing left to prove. You had nothing to prove to start with, as all your "Evidence" was in a book of debatable origin that isn't taken seriously in any debate unless you're talking with the Pope. Would you honestly take anyone seriously if their only support for their belief was, “MY INVISIBLE MAN SAYS THIS IS WRONG, THROUGH THIS BOOK THAT ADMITTEDLY HE DIDN’T EVEN WRITE HIMSELF, BUT BECAUSE HUMANS ARE INFALLIABLE.. OH? THEY’RE NOT? NEVERMIND THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN FOLKS..”

Maybe it makes you feel like a big strong man, carrying on like this, whining about a teenager that upset you OVER THE INTERNET. Case closed. I will no longer be responding to you any time you address me with anything even remotely tainted with your misogynistic BS whining.

Sweet dreams if you still think you're bothering me.

[Pat Speer]

I stand corrected. Nic did not leave the Forum and she certainly isn't taking a break.

[Gregory Carlin]

Oh well, I know I shouldn't but here goes.

(1) Its a Womans individual right to choose. Do you seriously believe that banning abortion would make the problem go away.It would simply mean a return to "Back street abortionist's" Then watch the body count rise.

(2) Isnt it strange, that the very people who proclaim with such certainty that the state cant possibly save peoples Jobs-nieghbourhoods by direct intervention, are the same people who cant wait to "get busy" with abortion, gay marrage, right to die, etc. it seems to me that the very places were individual freedoms are needed, are the places that the state seeks to deny them.

I know this is an issue where feelings run both high and deep, and I certainly dont pretend to have all the answers. But like it or not, its the womans choise, and having decided on this painful course of action, she needs our support, not our vilification... All the best ..Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The right to chose is just an idea, it may be reflected legislatively in some jurisdictions or it might not, in which case abortion may not be allowed.

The relationship between abortion and choice is not universal, female feticide in China and India for example is not really about choice.

The euthanasia of infants and abortion will possibly be merged in Holland in order to protect doctors who are already doing both.

The right to die will ultimately turn into a reality TV show. Gay marriage is probably not something the vast majority of homosexuals will want to do.