# My basic problem with YOU.



## Cryozombie (May 7, 2011)

Ok, so I unintentionally got into an argument with a friend of a friend the other day, the basic premise was that she stated something as fact that was, in a nutshel her opinion or beliefs.

I responded by saying, "That's all well and good, but remember that is only your opinion, not everyone is going to agree with you and just because YOU believe it to be so does not make it right."

That started the mess... I was patronizing her, she KNOWS its only her opinion, but damn it thats the way it SHOULD BE.

That got me thinking.

We all agree or disagree on many similar topics, whether it be Abortion, Tax Funding for private corporations, etc... many of us may acknowlage that it's only our opinion of what is right or wrong, some of us may not. 

Here is where I draw the line in the sand.

If your "opinion" of what is right impacts me: I.E. forces me to do something against my will, I have a problem with you.

I.E. If you Stop me from Having an Abortion (aside from the obvious medical end of it since I am a guy, but you smartasses know what I mean) because it offends your sensabilities, I have a problem with you. Nothing is stopping you from not having one, don't project yiour value system on me and tell me I can't.

If you force me to pay to feed the less than willing to work, or put clothing on their backs, because it tugs your heartstrings for our fellow man, I have a problem with you. Nothing is stopping you from giving your time or money, don't project your value system on me and tell me I MUST.

The list could go on, But I think I have illustrated my opinion on this matter.

That's my rant for this morning, you may now go back to arguing why Obama is the devil and how we need to steal from the rich to pay for the poor.


----------



## Tez3 (May 7, 2011)

I find a lot of people will say they tell the truth but in actual fact they mean they will give their opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions but as you say when when they impact on others then it becomes more than an opinion it becomes a a restriction on our freedoms.
I don't think someones opinion is wrong per se but when one side says what they say is correct and you are wrong then that's when the arguing starts. Using other peoples opinions to prove yours correct doesn't really cut it nor does giving opnions masquerading them as facts work either. 

I think people _should_ help those less fortunate than themselves but whether you do or not is up to you. I will argue the point with you about that, try persuasion but no never force you to help. You will of course argue your point and it would be a good discussion with each then going our own way without rancour one hopes!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2011)

One can take a 'live and let live' attitude, yes.  If you don't care for the idea of abortions, don't have one.  I get it.

But let's just use that example for a moment - and bear in mind I'm using it as an example, I'm not arguing for or against abortion.

On a generic level, there is the notion that in a democratic society (or representative republic, such as we have in the USA), so long as basic human rights are not being infringed unlawfully, laws can and often do represent nothing more than majority voting opinion.  If the majority of the voting public at a given time is of the opinion that abortion should be prohibited to all, then that is how our society should be ordered, according to our framework of laws.

On the specific issue of abortion, many people who are against abortion are not just against it for personal reasons, but also because they believe it harms society, it harms the nation.  If they thought it was purely a personal decision and affected no one but the person involved, they might not seek to impose their opinion on others in the form of laws, but they think that those decisions and actions have a deleterious effect on society as a whole.

There is also the religious aspect.  One can argue against the logic of it, but the truth is that people who believe that their God does not want people to have abortions will seek to obey that commandment, and yes, that does mean by imposing it on others against their will.  Although our society is secular and not religious, the electorate is made of of people who often are religious, and may be driven by their religious beliefs.  As illogical as it may seem, people are allowed to vote as they wish; whether they are driven by logic or by other factors; even religion, even hatred, even prejudice.  Every vote counts, even when cast by idiots, bible-thumpers, Islamists, communists, socialists, Republicans, Democrats, and car salesmen.  But I am being redundant.

Personally with regard to abortion, I am somewhat ambivalent. I think it is 'wrong' in the religious sense, but I don't feel the need to impose that on others.  I also accept that Roe v. Wade established that a woman's right to privacy trumps any state laws prohibiting abortion (although I also accept that it was a flawed decision that satisfied no one and was constitutionally somewhat of a reach). And from a pragmatic point of view, I feel that bringing unwanted children into the world also increases the demand for social services and costs us more money in terms of crime as well as those unwanted children reach adulthood.

This actually affects me more with regard to things like legalization of drugs.  A Libertarian approach would be more as you describe - if you don't like drugs, don't take them, but otherwise, live and let live.  However, it is my opinion - and yes, it is opinion and not fact - that drugs such as marijuana and cocaine and so on represent such a threat to society that they are properly illegal and should remain so.  I have every right to express my opinion in the form of voting against legalization or decriminalization laws, agitating and making public statements that reflect my opinion, giving money to organizations that reflect my views, and so on - just as others who feel differently have the same rights to express themselves in the same manner.

Our world is made up of people with opinions.  Logical, illogical, right, wrong, conservative, liberal, and so on.  They get to express their opinions.  They get to vote on laws that affect others.  I am glad that in the USA, our basic framework keeps the extreme radical opinions from both sides of the political spectrum from being made into law (or strikes such laws down, in some cases); I think it's a good safety valve and check on the tyranny of the majority.

But I don't have a problem with people seeking to impose their opinion on others, assuming that they do it because they seek to improve our society and not just make people miserable.  In any case, I have the same right to oppose them with my opinion; stopping them would also stop me.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


----------



## billc (May 7, 2011)

With you most of the way, but in the abortion issue there is still an innocent third party involved, the unborn baby.  If you believe that the baby is a person, then killing the baby for anything other than the life of the mother becomes an issue, for me.  How do you get past that, as in not vote to stop it?


----------



## Tez3 (May 7, 2011)

I'm curious though why abortion for example causes so much debate and uproar in the USA when it doesn't elsewhere? Even a predominately Roman Catholic country as Italy has legal abortion. Here in the UK it's a matter of conscience, it doesn't get brought up in elections and is accepted as being a womans choice. Medics are allowed to opt out if they are against abortions, we don't have the strident clamouring or bombings that seem to be part of the abortion debate in the States. We don't have the debates about creation v Darwinism or such 'passionate' political debates or very personal political campaigns either so what makes Americans want to argue so much about certain subjects? Not a criticism btw just curious. Our politicking is very tame in comparision to yours.


----------



## Tez3 (May 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With you most of the way, but in the abortion issue there is still an innocent third party involved, the unborn baby. If you believe that the baby is a person, then killing the baby for anything other than the life of the mother becomes an issue, for me. How do you get past that, as in not vote to stop it?


 

I think you missed the point about this thread.


----------



## Big Don (May 7, 2011)

The right to swing your fist stops at the other guy's nose, Cryo?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 7, 2011)

When I can have an abortion or if the one considering it somehow directly involves me, Ill have an opinion on it. Until then, it's on the 'not my concern, doesn't impact me at all' list.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 7, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Here is where I draw the line in the sand.
> 
> If your "opinion" of what is right impacts me: I.E. forces me to do something against my will, I have a problem with you.
> The list could go on, But I think I have illustrated my opinion on this matter.



You have to pay taxes.
You have to pay for things.
You are not free to lynch people.
You are not free to smoke marihuana.
You were not free to drink beer while underage.
You were not free to have sex while underage.
...

I understand your reasoning, but living in a society means that **** happens you don't agree with. That's the price of living in a society. The only alternative is to go to e.g. Idaho and drop off the grid, find a different society, or become an outlaw.


----------



## billc (May 7, 2011)

Just want to say I am not trying to turn this into an abortion thing, it is not where you want it to go, just mentioning that with drugs, you can use them and effect just yourself, in theory. If you drive at the same time we have laws to deal with that. It is just that it is not only the womans body, there is the other body inside. No more for me on the abortion thing.


----------



## billc (May 7, 2011)

Well, to take a different tack, if it doesn't effect you directly, it doesn't concern you.  then what would you say to a parent abusing a child.  It doesn't directly affect you, the child isn't yours, and if it is happening three blocks away from you, what do you address this in relation to your post Bob, and in relation to this post.  Curious, not hostile.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 7, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> You were not free to have sex while underage.
> ...


 
That's just because no one would have it with me when I was underage... I had a couple teachers I tried for tho...


----------



## Cryozombie (May 7, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> You have to pay taxes.
> You have to pay for things.
> You are not free to lynch people.
> You are not free to smoke marihuana.
> ...


 
You missed my point tho, I'm not talking specifically about established laws. I'm talking about Opinion touted as fact and shoved in our faces and us told we are Absolutly positively wrong, bad, evil, selfish, moronic, or take your pick of terms, if we don't agree.

Yes, I have to pay taxes. No, I do not *have to* vote "Yes" to more funding for Schools and Teachers. 
No, I cannot Lynch people. I'm also not a moron if I support the death penalty for criminals.
No, I cannot legally smoke pot. You want me to vote to let you toke and drive and I say no? That doesn't make me a Nazi.

See the difference?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, to take a different tack, if it doesn't effect you directly, it doesn't concern you.  then what would you say to a parent abusing a child.  It doesn't directly affect you, the child isn't yours, and if it is happening three blocks away from you, what do you address this in relation to your post Bob, and in relation to this post.  Curious, not hostile.



**Picks up phone**
"Hello? Trained Professionals? Yeah I have a situation that you, as experts in this matter are much more qualified than I, someone who isn't trained or authorized to intercede, need to please investigate and if necessary handle. K? Thanks. Bue bye.
**Click**

Replace 'child abuse' with 'robbery' with 'assault' with 'verify birth certificate' etc as needed.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 7, 2011)

Am I understanding you correctly, Cryo? It's not the fact that laws get passed you don't agree with, since that's just part of living in a society with rule of law...

...it's the smug assumption by those who disagree with you that you're somehow flawed for having a different opinion?

I'm right there with you. And those assumptions are on both sides of the fence. Young Billi has made it clear in this thread that he thinks I'm a baby killer because I don't believe life begins at conception. And my bleeding-heart liberal sister thinks I'm a nazi for supporting the death penalty.

It's not the disagreeing that gets to me -- I love informed debate (some of you might have noticed this) -- it's the unwillingness to accept that intelligent, informed people might have drawn a different conclusion.


----------



## billc (May 7, 2011)

Budo, you are a german socialist from the 1930's?  How is that possible?  Actually, unless you actually killed a baby,in the womb or out, you technically are not a baby killer.  Technically you just aren't opposed to the idea or the act.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Budo, you are a german socialist from the 1930's?  How is that possible?  Actually, unless you actually killed a baby,in the womb or out, you technically are not a baby killer.  Technically you just aren't opposed to the idea or the act.



Maybe in a past life. Which would explain why my neighbor (who was a soviet soldier in a past life) and I keep fighting over our fence line. 

And thank you for making my point. Technically, I don't believe it's an actual person until it can survive on its own. I'm opposed to 3rd trimester abortions, but comfortable before that. 

BTW, you feel exactly the same as I do. I assume, Billi, that you have masturbated or had sex using birth control at least once in your life. Thus are not technically unopposed "to the idea or the act" of murdering a potential child. You simply choose to identify potentiality as reality a few months earlier than I. 

This right here...exactly what Cryo was talking about when he started the post.


----------



## billc (May 8, 2011)

Technically, it is only a human being when the sperm and egg meet and start the magic process.  Until they meet, they are unviable tissues.


----------



## billc (May 8, 2011)

I prefer to call it merging two souls on the physical plane of existence...or knocking boots.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Technically, it is only a human being when the sperm and egg meet and start the magic process.  Until they meet, they are unviable tissues.



Which is where you choose to draw the line. The Catholic Church (theoretically) draws it even earlier. There's no "technically" here. Your opinion is simply...your opinion.


----------



## billc (May 8, 2011)

Sure, we won't know who was right till we die.  But my "opinion" keeps an innocent human alive, and with a future.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 8, 2011)

Again, it's your assertion that your opinion is fact that's sort of the point of this thread. On what do you base your positioning of the dividing line? Specifically, what data?


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 8, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Again, it's your assertion that your opinion is fact that's sort of the point of this thread. On what do you base your positioning of the dividing line? Specifically, what data?


 
So you agree, that we don't know! If that is the case, shouldn't we air on the side of caution?
If you were told that there may, or may not be a human being behind your paper target at the shooting range, would you shoot?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 8, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Am I understanding you correctly, Cryo? It's not the fact that laws get passed you don't agree with, since that's just part of living in a society with rule of law...
> 
> ...it's the smug assumption by those who disagree with you that you're somehow flawed for having a different opinion?
> 
> I'm right there with you. And those assumptions are on both sides of the fence. Young Billi has made it clear in this thread that he thinks I'm a baby killer because I don't believe life begins at conception. And my bleeding-heart liberal sister thinks I'm a nazi for supporting the death penalty.


 
This is a big part of it but also not the whole of it.

Id use the example of Abortion but that's already rampant in this thread, so lets go to... Feeding the Homeless.

Lets say I am rampantly against feeding the homeless, I think that they should be taught to fish rather than given fish.
You are all for giving them food, since they obviously cannot provide their own.

My point of view does not stop you from providing them fish. However, if you work to mandate that a portion of our taxes goes to do so... Now you have forced me to do something against my will.  You have effectivley forced me to bow down to your way of thinking.  You can't make me agree, but you can make me obey.

That is the second part of what I mean.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 8, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> My point of view does not stop you from providing them fish. However, if you work to mandate that a portion of our taxes goes to do so... *Now you have forced me to do something against my will.* You have effectivley forced me to bow down to your way of thinking. You can't make me agree, but you can make me obey.
> 
> That is the second part of what I mean.


Can't the same be said about anything though? I might be a Code Pink memebr who doesn't want any Federal funds going towards military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I might just want National Guard troops funded to protect the States.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with your sentiments. I just want to know where we should draw the line.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 8, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> That's just because no one would have it with me when I was underage... I had a couple teachers I tried for tho...



A local girl (college student, fairly hot) auctioned off her virginity via a high class escort bureau. Earned her 50KEuro. She wasn't particularly attached to it, and figured she might as well use it to put her through college.

When I was that age I wanted to give it away for fee but found no takers 

Anyway, I know that the US is pretty uptight about prostitution, but it is a bit weird. Give a girl enough money on a weekly basis so that she becomes your personal prostitute, and everything is hunky dory. Some people even admire / envy you (Hugh Hefner, Charlie Sheen). Or if it is more casual, let her shop on your credit card or give her expensive gifts, and people will still not be bothered. Marry her as a trophy wife (sex for status) and that's fine too. But pay per hour and suddenly it warrants the stigma of sex offender, and jail time?

As long as both parties enter the agreement voluntarily (whether for an hour or a week) I don't think it should matter.
So why are so many people who are otherwise pro-freedom and anti government meddling, so against an activity borne from the same freedom?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 8, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Can't the same be said about anything though? I might be a Code Pink memebr who doesn't want any Federal funds going towards military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I might just want National Guard troops funded to protect the States.
> 
> I understand what you're saying and I agree with your sentiments. I just want to know where we should draw the line.


 
You make a good point, and it IS difficult to decide that. My opinion is that the decison has to come from where the enforcing of your viewpoint (or mine, or anyone elses) does not force someone else to act on your opinion, Unless they want it to. Laws against things like Abortion, for example are fairly easy to see the sides on, whereas the use of tax dollars is more of a grey area and difficult to do that with.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 8, 2011)

In no way is Abortion , paying higher taxes, going to war with another country or spitting on your neighbor's lawn the issue here... they're not even the question(s). 

From what I got from Cryo's OP was everyone has a view point on almost EVERYTHING. Problem is when said viewpoint infringes upon your own (opposing) viewpoint and you have to abide by it. 

Our society (presently) is supposedly made up of laws decided by a majority of similar views/opinions. What is right what is wrong. However as of late it seems that many laws (today) are written because of the minority view-points/opinions. I say minority/majority by meaning the NUMBERS of people *not* their race/creed/sex/whatever. Supposedly in a democracy the majority rules. Someone has an idea and a lot (not a few) people agree (generally) with it and it gets voted on and passed into law and you have to abide by it because it's the law of the land and you'll have to suffer whatever consequences determined (again by the majority) suitable if you break said law, be it jail, fines, or whatever the MAJORITY decides. 

But lately it seems that the minority is taking the upper hand because of clever legal-speak that convinces a judge/panel that the minority should have as much rights as the majority does. Gay marriage for example. Gays are still in the minority of this country (as to NUMBERS there of). Yet they fought and won their right to have their marriage union legalized, in spite of a majority saying/voting no. 

What I see is simply in matters where things of law to protect the minority numbers is a matter of impatience and stubborn-ness that the minority opinions aren't growing fast enough to become the majority opinion. Remember that it was illegal for women and blacks to vote in this country. Yet times changed and now it's of the majority opinion that it's OK. 
"He who's opinion is changed against his will is of the same opinion still." goes a quote I recall reading years ago (probably Twain or Longfellow or somebody like that). 
I can be pretty stubborn about how I see things but I do listen and weigh the other side against mine and search the logic in theirs and compare it to mine and I may change it or... I may not. It depends. How quickly it all happens depends upon a lot of other things too. 

If we are to continue having a democracy then we need to ensure that those who are of the minority opinion need to find better ways to convince the majority of their view-point(s). Otherwise build a bridge (get over it) and go with the majority. 

On a personal one to one level... if I encounter someone who opinion differs from mine... I try to weigh just how important it is to convince them that they're wrong and I'm right before I get into an argument with them. 
I lost my job because of a difference of opinion. Ironically it was because the minority opinion had more power over the majority opinion due to status in the work-place. 

I've discovered that sometimes the rights given to the minority can be abused by them, to get what they want.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 8, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> As long as both parties enter the agreement voluntarily (whether for an hour or a week) I don't think it should matter.
> So why are so many people who are otherwise pro-freedom and anti government meddling, so against an activity borne from the same freedom?


 
Yeah I never got this either, but I hear people argue all the time that Prostituion isn't victimless because the prostitutes are usually "forced" either by someone or by their situation, or because it effects their families if men have easy access to extramarital sex. 

I roll my eyes.


----------



## granfire (May 8, 2011)

I think we need to get a little away from specific ideals and opinions. 

Though you know, maybe abortions and gay marriage are not all that bad, considering the opposition usually roots their opinion in religion: it's my opinion that my religious ideals are superior to yours, so deal with it, and _abide _by them! 
It is my opinion that a lawn should be loo longer than 2 inches (screw the gardeners who say 3-4 is better) and a pair of pink flamingos is a must (or garden gnomes) 
It is my opinion that white shoes after Labor Day are tacky, you slut...

Somewhere along the line we have gotten stuck in the kindergarden stage when everything we did was super good genius and brilliant. 
I am so spechul you can't disagree wif me, if you do you are a big mean poopyhead...
And the 'Me' generation was supposed to have lived in the 80s...or are these the kids of those?

facts are sadly secondary...at best. Not everybody is this spechul, some (most) people don't even crack mediocre....
You are entitled to your opinion
you are not entitled to your own facts....(now who said that?)


----------



## Tez3 (May 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think we need to get a little away from specific ideals and opinions.
> 
> Though you know, maybe abortions and gay marriage are not all that bad, considering the opposition usually roots their opinion in religion: it's my opinion that my religious ideals are superior to yours, so deal with it, and _abide _by them!
> It is my opinion that a lawn should be loo longer than 2 inches (screw the gardeners who say 3-4 is better) and a pair of pink flamingos is a must (or garden gnomes)
> ...


 
Hallelujah!

Even on a thread discussing opinions we have people missing the point and trying to force opinions on us!

I like this one too.
_"The degree of one's emotions varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts: the_ _less you know the hotter you get."_ -- Bertrand Russell


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think we need to get a little away from specific ideals and opinions.
> 
> Though you know, maybe abortions and gay marriage are not all that bad, considering the opposition usually roots their *opinion in religion*: it's my opinion that my religious ideals are superior to yours, so deal with it, and _abide _by them!


But you don't have to be religious to believe that killing babies is wrong! Are you religious Gran? Do you believe killing babies is wrong?

As for the gay marriage thing, I think they should just allow it. I have a great marriage and allowing gays to marry won't effect my marriage in the least. It does disturb me however when, so called tolerant Liberals cry for gay marriage and yet decry polygamy, cousins marrying and estranged brothers and sisters marrying. If one alternative are given the privelege, then all alternatives that involve consenting adults should also be allowed.


----------



## WC_lun (May 8, 2011)

Opions are niether good nor bad in and of themselves.  The problem is when opinion is substituted for fact, and then used as a basis for not only making decisions for yourself, but others as well.  

Society is a balancing act between the rights of the individual vs the general good of that society.  For the good of society we accept that there are certain restrictions on the individual.  In exchange for those restrictions, the indivual gains the positives of a strong society.  Our debate on taxes are a perfect example of this.  A person solely thinking of the individual would be for the lowest taxes posible for that individual.  A person thinking of just society would be for whatever taxes, no matter how high that it would take to have as close to a utopian society as possible.  Now obviously most people would be somewhere between those two extremes, recognizing the rightsof the individual  as opposed to the needs of society.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 8, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> But you don't have to be religious to believe that killing babies is wrong! Are you religious Gran? Do you believe killing babies is wrong?
> 
> As for the gay marriage thing, I think they should just allow it. I have a great marriage and allowing gays to marry won't effect my marriage in the least. It does disturb me however when, so called tolerant Liberals cry for gay marriage and yet decry polygamy, cousins marrying and estranged brothers and sisters marrying. If one alternative are given the privelege, then all alternatives that involve consenting adults should also be allowed.



Aye, I agree that killing babies, or indeed any sentient being, is wrong. But, just as I am in favour of the death penalty, I am also in favour of the right for women to choose not to carry a fetus to term.  

In one case, it is the removal of life from one who has breached the laws of society sufficiently to warrant it.  In the other case, it is a person electing their life course will go by declining to allow to evolve any further a bundle of cells that is not yet sentient.

I agree that the second case is less 'fair' on the subject but I am also not vegetarian and an undeveloped fetus is no more human than a rabbit (noting that I am not a biological scientist).  I am unmoved by having a rabbit, a lamb or any other cute fluffy creature for my dinner and, tho' I am still emotional more affected by abortion, my rational side wins out on philospohical, social and practical grounds.

I agree on the homosexual marriage angle.  I don't approve of it but that's just my religious upbringing twitching.

When it comes to cousins and siblings marrying tho', those taboos came into being for a practical reason.  Without them we'd all end up with 'big ole ears and playing banjos'.


----------



## Archangel M (May 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> In the other case, it is a person electing their life course will go by declining to allow to evolve any further a bundle of cells that is not yet sentient.




Thats the "feel good" interpretation of abortion IMO. "It's just a bunch of cells" may apply if the abortion happens pretty soon into the pregnancy. But we all know that little humans with all the limbs, eyes, brains and organs the rest of us have get chopped up and washed out as well.

Abortion for medical reasons? Absolutely. Rape? I can be convinced. As "oops I forgot my pill?" No...can't agree with that at all.


----------



## billc (May 8, 2011)

one of the  practical issues for enactment of gay marriage is religous freedom here in the states.  If a religion believes it is wrong to have gay marriage, it won't be any time at all before you may have gay activists in their churches trying to get married, when they are refused, on religious grounds, the law suits will start.

YOu already have the catholic church on the verge of giving up its adoption services because they will not help place children in gay families.  You may not agree, but it is an issue of religious freedom.


----------



## WC_lun (May 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> one of the practical issues for enactment of gay marriage is religous freedom here in the states. If a religion believes it is wrong to have gay marriage, it won't be any time at all before you may have gay activists in their churches trying to get married, when they are refused, on religious grounds, the law suits will start.


 
Nope, not at all.  Actually the seperation of church and state protects the church in this case.  A church is free to follow its' beliefs by not allowing the ceremony for gays.  However, since our government is secular, religious belief is not a basis for, nor carry the weight of law...or shouldn't be.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I agree that killing babies, or indeed any sentient being, is wrong. But, just as I am in favour of the death penalty, I am also in favour of the right for women to choose not to carry a fetus to term.
> 
> In one case, it is the removal of life from one who has breached the laws of society sufficiently to warrant it. In the other case, it is a person electing their life course will go by declining to allow to evolve any further a bundle of cells that is not yet sentient..


 
Well this shows consistency on your part. I abhor the lefties over here who cry and march to have the likes of filth like Tookie Williams spared the death penalty, while on the other hand have no problem with a thirteen year old girl have an abortion through Planned Parenthood without parental knowledge or consent.




Sukerkin said:


> When it comes to cousins and siblings marrying tho', those taboos came into being for a practical reason. Without them we'd all end up with 'big ole ears and playing banjos'.


 
Lol! Your practical reasons can be construed as biological engineering. If this was the reason for cousins or siblings not being allowed to marry, we may as well extend the ban to people who have various forms of cancer. Using that argument two people who have familial polyposis should not be able to marry, because the odds are that their children will have the same disease.


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

Oh, since it's been brought up...my spirituality/religiousness is nobody's business ^_^

(YL, if you were a nice person, I might discuss it with you, but since you share the bridge with a couple of your friends, I won't)


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> Oh, since it's been brought up...my spirituality/religiousness is nobody's business ^_^
> 
> (YL, *if you were a nice person*, I might discuss it with you, but since you share the bridge with a couple of your friends, I won't)


 
Well Gran, it looks like you don't want to answer the question. I love how you and a few others, mostly the women like, to go on the offensive and spout your hatred when you don't like the fact that some of us don't agree with your point of view. Then cry, get offended and go tell, when you're given the same treatment! Oh well, it is what it is!


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Thats the "feel good" interpretation of abortion IMO. "It's just a bunch of cells" may apply if the abortion happens pretty soon into the pregnancy. But we all know that little humans with all the limbs, eyes, brains and organs the rest of us have get chopped up and washed out as well.
> 
> Abortion for medical reasons? Absolutely. Rape? I can be convinced. As "oops I forgot my pill?" No...can't agree with that at all.




Oye veh....

we are back on the abortion kick, aren't we....

The point is, you guys don't get the point.

The point being, while you may have an opinion, and are allowed to express it freely (however much it bothers some people) 

You may not expect or demand that everybody adheres to your believe system and adopts your opinion. 

I believe abortion should be a woman's issue. My opinion is that until guys can squeeze a watermelon out of their you-know-whats they have no valuable input.

Does that mean I can tell you guys to shut up? No.

But so far we are having a bunch of supposedly grownups who have a hizzy fit when called out on either their rude behavior or the false information they try to spread. 
I mean, seriously, I'd spank my kid if he ever behaved like that! 

it's a lack of basic manners, plain as that.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 10, 2011)

granfire said:


> But so far we are having a bunch of supposedly grownups who have a hizzy fit when called out on either their rude behavior or the false information they try to spread. </p>I mean, seriously, I'd spank my kid if he ever behaved like that!
> 
> 
> it's a lack of basic manners, plain as that.


It's bad manners to speak out against killing babies? Wow, that's a new one!


----------



## Nomad (May 11, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> It's bad manners to speak out against killing babies? Wow, that's a new one!



Riiiiigggght.  And "killing babies" is the evocative and emotional language that anti-choice types tend to bander about.  Please, let's get one thing straight here... a fetus is *not* a baby.  They're two different entities.  A baby is capable of breathing on it's own and surviving outside the womb, a fetus is absolutely dependent upon the mother for life.

At best, a fetus has the _potential_ to become a baby; at worst, it could technically be considered a parasite on the mother (I don't consider it such, but simply state another side of the argument).  Miscarriages of non-viable fetuses occur quite regularly; often the fetus is no bigger than a few divided cells at the time.  No one that I'm aware of considers this the death of a baby but if it occurs considerably later (especially when it has begun to develop more of the characteristics of an infant, and when the parents have invested significantly emotionally in this potential change in their lives), a miscarriage is often mourned in similar fashion to the death of a baby.

When the fetus has a solid chance to survive on it's own outside the womb (with modern infant ICU for instance), it is a much grayer area, and for that reason (and the fact that it's much more dangerous for the woman as well) I'm personally against late-stage abortions except in extreme circumstances (eg severe risk of death to the mother, etc.)

Doctors do not abort babies.  They abort unwanted fetuses; whether the pregnancy occurred through rape or as a mistake is not my business.  If a woman decides that having a child will ruin her life (or ruin her life now), then I believe that she's the *only* person who has the right to decide that, and to choose not to have a baby instead.

I agree with granfire strongly on this one; as someone who possesses a penis, I have a right to my opinion on this subject, but can be confidently certain that it will never directly be a question *I* have to face in my life.  As such, I concede that I have no right to set policy for millions of women who might have to face such a decision.


----------



## Blade96 (May 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Technically, it is only a human being when the sperm and egg meet and start the magic process.  Until they meet, they are unviable tissues.



Nope. When it meets, it is a single cell. One cell is not a human being. Even 8 cells is not a human being. 

But enough about that. I think some opinions turn into rules we all follow. People thought killing another (born) person is murder, and thats not allowed. 

and some opinions arent set rules written on paper but we just know its not right to do.

Helping the needy? Knock yerselves out. I think that should be a responsibility, not an option.

Abortion? If you dont like it, then don't have one. But don't force me to carry a pregnancy to term.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

My wife, when she was a teenager, had an abortion.  She was convinced she was ready for something she wasn't and afterward decided she could not carry a child to term. Her family is very religious and she carries guilt over it these many years later.  I believe abortion is a very serious decision and my personal view is it should only be used in rare instances.  I don't think the government should be the one making this decision.  There is a ton of grey area for most people on this issue.  What I do know without a doubt is my wife has high morals and she is not a murderer.


----------



## Blade96 (May 11, 2011)

The one thing I do like about pro - lifers is that at least they remind us that abortion is a serious thing to do and the decision should never be made lightly.


----------



## granfire (May 11, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> The one thing I do like about pro - lifers is that at least they remind us that abortion is a serious thing to do and the decision should never be made lightly.




It should not be done lightly, no. But the decision should rest with the person who will have to live with the consequences.

HOWEVER....

this is not the point of this discussion.

The point is that some people think it is ok to be rude to bully somebody into agreeing with them. 
discuss.


----------



## Blade96 (May 11, 2011)

I would not bully someone into agreeing with me. I don't think that's right. I was bullied. Its gross. I wouldn't do it to someone else. Even if they believed that Hitler was a socialist or that abortion should be illegal for everyone. I'd campaign against em to keep it legal, but i would not bully them and make them agree with me by force.

and yeah the abortion decision rests with the person in question who'll be having it.


----------



## Nomad (May 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> The point is that some people think it is ok to be rude to bully somebody into agreeing with them.
> discuss.



I know that these tactics tend to backfire with me.  A reasoned argument that gets your point across without debasing your opponent is, in my opinion, much more effective.  Not to mention classy.  

Insulting your opponent is a good indication that you lack a more cogent argument to support your belief.


----------



## Blade96 (May 11, 2011)

Some of my best friends atuniversity are pro lifers and conservatives.  I still have some of them on Facebook. 

I love it when people of very different beliefs and backgrounds can be friends, get along, and be classy without bullying or anything.  Its cute and sweet.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

My best friend is right wing conservative.  I respect that.  Sometimes we argue even heatedly, but never denigrate.  It is because we respect each other and niether of us are so arrogant to think we are 100% right, 100% ofthe time.


----------



## Blade96 (May 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> My best friend is right wing conservative.  I respect that.  Sometimes we argue even heatedly, but never denigrate.  It is because we respect each other and niether of us are so arrogant to think we are 100% right, 100% ofthe time.



Yay for cute.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

LOL I doubt either of us would come close to falling under the category of cute


----------



## granfire (May 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> LOL I doubt either of us would come close to falling under the category of cute




yes, yes, you are cute!


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> yes, yes, you are cute!


 
I hate you!


----------



## Sukerkin (May 11, 2011)

:splutters with laughter at the last couple of exchanges:  I empathise, *Lun* - my missus has still not learned that to call a chap "cute" is tantermount to an insult :lol:.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 11, 2011)

Eck!  No hiding from the MT software I just noticed - it's already registered my tick upwards in the age department .


----------



## Sukerkin (May 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> My best friend is right wing conservative.  I respect that.  Sometimes we argue even heatedly, but never denigrate.  It is because we respect each other and niether of us are so arrogant to think we are 100% right, 100% ofthe time.



This is a most important point :tup:.  I quite agree that it is a laudible goal to achieve if you can be held  in good regard by contributors from both ends of a continuum.

I take pride in the fact that, here on MT, people with widely divergent and passionately held conflicting beliefs think that I am "alright".  It is a compliment that I value greatly.  In return, I would more than happily share a table in a real-world pub with them too; for if you can argue vehemently and still respect a person then that is the grounds for true understanding of each other  :bows:.


----------



## granfire (May 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I hate you!



:inlove:

CUUUUUUUUTTTEEE


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

STRONG Hate!!!


----------



## granfire (May 11, 2011)

wc_lun said:


> strong hate!!!



^_^

<3


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 11, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I would more than happily share a table in a real-world pub with them too; for if you can argue vehemently and still respect a person then that is the grounds for true understanding of each other :bows:.


 
You're buying......right?


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 11, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Some of my best friends atuniversity are pro lifers and conservatives. I still have some of them on Facebook.
> 
> I love it when people of very different beliefs and backgrounds can be friends, get along, and be classy without bullying or anything.  Its cute and sweet.


 
And despite my persistent urging, you didnt vote Conservative last week.....you were incorrect not to you know?


----------



## Blade96 (May 12, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> LOL I doubt either of us would come close to falling under the category of cute



i'm cute. 



Ken Morgan said:


> And despite my persistent urging, you didn&#8217;t vote Conservative last week.....you were incorrect not to you know?



*starts laughing*

does totally fake cheerleading moves and waves ORANGE pom poms in Ken Morgan's face


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 12, 2011)

_[/quote]Riiiiigggght. And "killing babies" is the evocative and emotional language that anti-choice types tend to bander about. *Please, let's get one thing straight here... a fetus is not a baby. *They're two different entities. A baby is capable of breathing on it's own and surviving outside the womb, a fetus is absolutely dependent upon the mother for life..[/quote]_


This is semantics! The baby, fetus or whatever you choose to call it is a human being. Our President was asked in the Saddlebak debate before the election when he thought life begins. His answer "That's beyond my pay grade". It is a living, breathing Human! And yes, this is an emotional topic. It's an emotonal topic because the topic involves killing the innocent for convenience.


_[/quote]At best, a fetus has the potential to become a baby; at worst, it could technically be considered a parasite on the mother (I don't consider it such, but simply state another side of the argument). Miscarriages of non-viable fetuses occur quite regularly; often the fetus is no bigger than a few divided cells at the time. No one that I'm aware of considers this the death of a baby but if it occurs considerably later (especially when it has begun to develop more of the characteristics of an infant, and when the parents have invested significantly emotionally in this potential change in their lives), a miscarriage is often mourned in similar fashion to the death of a baby..[/quote]_


Exactly, my wife has an aunt who has misscarried all three of her children, all within two months of being pregnant. She mourned them as she would've mourned any child. Misscarriages occur all the time, as does the accidental death of children. Just because babies die of SIDS, doesn't mean we are justified in killing them out of convenience!


_[/quote]When the fetus has a solid chance to survive on it's own outside the womb (with modern infant ICU for instance), it is a much grayer area, and for that reason (and the fact that it's much more dangerous for the woman as well) *I'm personally against late-stage abortions except in extreme circumstances (eg severe risk of death to the mother, etc.)*.[/quote]_


This is nice to know!


_[/quote]Doctors do not abort babies. They abort unwanted fetuses; whether the pregnancy occurred through rape or as a mistake is not my business. If a woman decides that having a child will ruin her life (or ruin her life now), then *I believe* that she's the *only* person who has the right to decide that, and to choose not to have a baby instead..[/quote]_


Tiller aborted babies! He was a doctor! Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it so!


_[/quote]I agree with granfire strongly on this one; as someone who possesses a penis, I have a right to my opinion on this subject, but can be confidently certain that it will never directly be a question *I* have to face in my life. As such, I concede that *I have no right to set policy for millions of women who might have to face such a decision*.[/quote]_


I have no intention on setting policy concerning this. I have no political ambitions, thank God! My opinion is however valid and I thank you for recognizing that fact. Just to confirm, you beleieve that both you and I have no right to set policy concerning this. If that's the case, if Michelle Bachman proposed a bill to overturn Rowe vs Wade, you wouldn't have a problem with it?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 12, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, so I unintentionally got into an argument with a friend of a friend the other day, the basic premise was that she stated something as fact that was, in a nutshel her opinion or beliefs.
> 
> I responded by saying, "That's all well and good, but remember that is only your opinion, not everyone is going to agree with you and just because YOU believe it to be so does not make it right."
> 
> ...


 
In my opinion your opinion is that my opinion is waaaaaay right and your opinion is so far wrong it should not, in my opinion, even be discussed as a valid opinion at allof course this is just my opinion


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 12, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> In my opinion your opinion is that my opinion is waaaaaay right and your opinion is so far wrong it should not, in my opinion, even be discussed as a valid opinion at all&#8230;of course this is just my opinion


 
Roger that! I'll consider that the case for me also.


----------



## granfire (May 12, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> In my opinion your opinion is that my opinion is waaaaaay right and your opinion is so far wrong it should not, in my opinion, even be discussed as a valid opinion at allof course this is just my opinion




cute! ^_^


----------



## Nomad (May 12, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> This is semantics! The baby, fetus or whatever you choose to call it is a human being. Our President was asked in the Saddlebak debate before the election when he thought life begins. His answer "That's beyond my pay grade". It is a *living, breathing* Human! And yes, this is an emotional topic. It's an emotonal topic because the topic involves killing the innocent for convenience.


 
This is not semantics.  Word choice, particularly in this debate, is itself emotionally and politically charged.  Obama's comment that "that's beyond my pay grade" was a very clever way of sidestepping the debate and avoid giving us his opinion on this, because he recognized that his opinion (no matter which direction it fell) would be harshly criticized.

You missed my point.  No, it's *not* a _living, breathing_ human.  If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus dies.  Period.  There is currently no medical technology to sustain and grow such an early stage embryo into a normal, viable human being.  

Your comment of "killing the innocent for convenience" is just another emotionally and politically charged phrase designed to sway people to your cause... it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure itself.



yorkshirelad said:


> Exactly, my wife has an aunt who has misscarried all three of her children, all within two months of being pregnant. She mourned them as she would've mourned any child. Misscarriages occur all the time, as does the accidental death of children. Just because babies die of SIDS, doesn't mean we are justified in killing them out of convenience!


 
Actually, many miscarriages are not even noticed.  They occur while the embryo is in such a tiny state that the woman may never even know she was pregnant.  Often the only indicator would be a later than normal or heavier than usual period.  Your wife's aunt and others I have known who had later miscarriages mourned the loss because they wanted to have a child and had emotionally invested in the possibility of being a parent, not necessarily because of the inherent value of the fetus.  I'd contest that this emotional attachment would necessarily be absent in someone wanting an abortion.  Again, comparing this procedure to someone killing a baby is not valid, and is an emotional and politically charged plea for your cause.



yorkshirelad said:


> Tiller aborted babies! He was a doctor! Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it so!



Nope.  Simply stating it again in an emotionally charged way and adding exclamation points doesn't make your argument more cogent.  Doctors abort fetuses.  Not babies.   



yorkshirelad said:


> I have no intention on setting policy concerning this. I have no political ambitions, thank God! My opinion is however valid and I thank you for recognizing that fact. Just to confirm, you beleieve that both you and I have no right to set policy concerning this. If that's the case, if Michelle Bachman proposed a bill to overturn Rowe vs Wade, you wouldn't have a problem with it?



I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided that only those with a vested interest, such as women of child-bearing age, get to vote on it.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 12, 2011)

Nomad said:


> You missed my point. No, it's *not a living, breathing human*. If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the *fetus dies*. Period. There is currently no medical technology to sustain and grow such an early stage embryo into a normal, viable human being. .


 
This does not make sense. How can something die, if it is not living? It is a human being that is being killed.



Nomad said:


> Your comment of "killing the innocent for convenience" is just another emotionally and politically charged phrase designed to sway people to your cause... it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure itself..


 
 No, it's not, your viewing it that way because you don't want people to view it that way. Just because you don't view things a certain way, doesn't make the statement viod!



Nomad said:


> Nope. Simply stating it again in an emotionally charged way and adding exclamation points doesn't make your argument more cogent. Doctors abort fetuses. Not babies..


 
So when a "fetus" can survive outside the womb, it becomes a baby in your view? If that's the case, Tiller was killing viable babies. Btw, didn't Scott Peterson get convicted of two counts of homicide, one for his wife and one for his UNBORN CHILD?


----------



## Nomad (May 12, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> This does not make sense. How can something die, if it is not living? It is a human being that is being killed.


 
My mistake.  Language is a little tricky.  I'd revise that statement to read "If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus _cannot live_".



yorkshirelad said:


> No, it's not, your viewing it that way because you don't want people to view it that way. Just because you don't view things a certain way, doesn't make the statement viod!



This is exactly what I'm saying to you.  Just because you view it as "killing the innocent for convenience" doesn't make it so.



yorkshirelad said:


> So when a "fetus" can survive outside the womb, it becomes a baby in your view? If that's the case, Tiller was killing viable babies. Btw, didn't Scott Peterson get convicted of two counts of homicide, one for his wife and one for his UNBORN CHILD?



Okay, so had to do a little research to find out who Tiller was.  I assume you mean George Tiller, the murdered abortion doctor who was the frequent target of violent pro-lifers (a beautiful oxymoron by the way).
So he "killed babies" as you put it, by:



> In accordance with Kansas state law Tiller performed late-term abortions, which helped to make him a focal point for anti-abortion protest and violence. Tiller treated patients who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses _had severe or fatal birth defects_. He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses, in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."[20]



So he performed a medical procedure in accordance with the law of the land, and was murdered for it.  Wow.  What a demon.

The fact that Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder shows the ambiguity of the issue of when life begins in the eyes of the law, and hardly serves to "prove" your contention that a fetus is identical to an actual _living, breathing_ human baby.  Also, Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was murdered.  The baby could easily have survived on it's own outside the womb if it were born prematurely at that stage, and I suspect that played into the verdict.  It would have been much more interesting to see if two murder charges would have actually stuck if she'd been killed when the embryo was 1 month along.


----------



## Blade96 (May 12, 2011)

My best friend had an abortion. I (and her and her husband as well) would take offence to her being compared to, say, Waneta Hoyt, who killed actual, born, breathing, babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waneta_Hoyt


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 12, 2011)

Nomad said:


> My mistake. Language is a little tricky. I'd revise that statement to read "If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus _cannot live_"..


 
So the fact that the fetus cannot live without it's mother makes it morally ok to kill it in your view? In your opinion yes, In mine no. 





Nomad said:


> Okay, so had to do a little research to find out who Tiller was. I assume you mean George Tiller, the murdered abortion doctor who was the frequent target of violent pro-lifers (a beautiful oxymoron by the way).
> So he "killed babies" as you put it, by:
> 
> So he performed a medical procedure in accordance with the law of the land, and was murdered for it. Wow. What a demon..


 
Do a little more digging on Tiller. He became a millionaire killing viable babies. Some of the reasons for the death of these viable babies were as shallow as the mother was depressed that she couldn't enjoy herself with her friends. Nice guy! And no, I didn't and don't advocate the manner of his demise. The guy who killed him was a nut, but in the same instance, I wouldn't mourn the loss.




Nomad said:


> The fact that Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder shows the ambiguity of the issue of when life begins in the eyes of the law, and hardly serves to "prove" your contention that a fetus is identical to an actual _living, breathing_ human baby. Also, Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. The baby could easily have survived on it's own outside the womb if it were born prematurely at that stage, and I suspect that played into the verdict. It would have been much more interesting to see if two murder charges would have actually stuck if she'd been killed when the embryo was 1 month along.


 
So, the baby could've survive on it's own, but still you have a contension as to if the child was an "actual _living breathing_ human baby". The irony may escape you, but it doesn't escape me!


----------



## WC_lun (May 12, 2011)

Your information on Tiller is incorrect.  There is a lot of bad stuff out there on him that just isn't true.  I did not know him personally, ut someone I trust did.  I'll take her word and the word of papers here in KAnsas City and in Witchita over some of the other news sources I've seen.


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Who knew this would turn into an abortion thread. There you go, the OP's point both missed and proved.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 13, 2011)

Seems to illustrate one of his points very well. I'd be interested in exploring Cryo's other point about being forced to support things you disagree with.

For me, it rankles...but seems like it's part of the price of admission for living in a democracy.


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

I think ever since man decided living in a community was to his benefit that compromises have had to be made. Co-operative living will mean it's safer, more economic and a better way of living but it's always going to have drawbacks for individual's 'freedoms' because a community is always going to have to decide on certain rules they abide by to allow a reasonably harmonious society. Unless you chose to live totally outside any society you are going to have to accept those rules. It obviously becomes harder and harder to have a harmonious society the bigger it becomes, what worked centuries ago in small villages where it was easier to have the agreement of everyone to what rules are followed is not going to work in modern cities. So I agree, a discussion on how to live in modern society and still be able to keep what 'freedoms' you consider necessary would be a good one.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Who knew this would turn into an abortion thread. There you go, the OP's point both missed and proved.


 
Of course this is only my opinion but I do believe that you are only stating your opinion


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Of course this is only my opinion but I do believe that you are only stating your opinion


 

Should I find some media type person writing on a political website to 'back up' my opinion to make it seem as if it is in fact, a fact?


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Should I find some media type person writing on a political website to 'back up' my opinion to make it seem as if it is in fact, a fact?


It's not what you're saying.  It's what you're failing to say.  Why, for example, haven't you denounced the strange way that Americans leave the tea bag in the cup when they drink hot tea?  That's suspicious, and even though you haven't expressed an opinion on the subject, I'm going to imply that you've done so intentionally because you secretly leave the teabag in the cup when you drink tea, too!  (bear with me, I'm building to a point)

And because you secretly drink tea with the tea bag floating around in the cup AND you train in MMA, which we've previously established is solely an American invention, I conclude that you're not a British woman.  Rather, you are... an AMERICAN.  You might live in Britain, but you're secretly an American loving American.  Admit it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Should I find some media type person writing on a political website to 'back up' my opinion to make it seem as if it is in fact, a fact?


 
But that would only be his... or her opinoin... in my opinion


----------



## Nomad (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Who knew this would turn into an abortion thread. There you go, the OP's point both missed and proved.



Actually, I think the abortion debate illustrates the OP's position very well.  The biggest difficulty with the pro-life crowd is not that they are against abortion.  It's that they are against *anyone* being able to have an abortion, and that they sometimes pursue their goals through violent means to support what is, in effect, their opinion on whether the procedure is right or wrong.  It is the ultimate bullying of others to follow their beliefs, through protesting, name calling (murderers!), and every so often, by direct violence against those choosing differently from themselves, or against the doctors who provide a vital and legal service that otherwise would still be available, but much more dangerous for the women involved.

Pro-life is a misnomer.  Their correct label should be anti-choice, but saying that you're against people making up their own minds doesn't read as well.

In contrast, I know many people who are pro-choice who would definitely *not* choose to have an abortion (under any conceivable circumstances) themselves.  They do, however, recognize that they really don't have the right to legislate that no one else should have one either, and that this is possibly one of the most difficult and personal choices that anyone could face.


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> It's not what you're saying. It's what you're failing to say. Why, for example, haven't you denounced the strange way that Americans leave the tea bag in the cup when they drink hot tea? That's suspicious, and even though you haven't expressed an opinion on the subject, I'm going to imply that you've done so intentionally because you secretly leave the teabag in the cup when you drink tea, too! (bear with me, I'm building to a point)
> 
> And because you secretly drink tea with the tea bag floating around in the cup AND you train in MMA, which we've previously established is solely an American invention, I conclude that you're not a British woman. Rather, you are... an AMERICAN. You might live in Britain, but you're secretly an American loving American. Admit it.


 
At this point frankly if I were an American I'd shoot myself!! You are talking sacrilege here!
Teabag in a cup, dear lord, wash your mouth out, it goes in a teapot for crying out loud! Why are you mistreating teabags so badly, do you suspect them of being lefties, gasp..whisper it...communists! It's a CIA plot, everything is America's fault, they just think they are the world's police force. Please I beg everyone put your teabag in a teapot...better still use tea leaves, whichever though warm the pot first, listen to the voice of the British Empire ,we always know best, nanny says so!

Oh and use china cups and the milk goes in last!! You have been warned.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> At this point frankly if I were an American I'd shoot myself!! You are talking sacrilege here!
> Teabag in a cup, dear lord, wash your mouth out, it goes in a teapot for crying out loud! Why are you mistreating teabags so badly, do you suspect them of being lefties, gasp..whisper it...communists! It's a CIA plot, everything is America's fault, they just think they are the world's police force. Please I beg everyone put your teabag in a teapot...better still use tea leaves, whichever though warm the pot first, listen to the voice of the British Empire ,we always know best, nanny says so!
> 
> Oh and use china cups and the milk goes in last!! You have been warned.


 
You use a TEA BAG...and MILK... *BLASPHEMER!!!!!*

Loose tea and hot water ONLY...It's the Chinese way...oh wait...does this mean I'm not an American and I am :uhoh: secretly a Chinese loving Chinese


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> You use a TEA BAG...and MILK... *BLASPHEMER!!!!!*
> 
> Loose tea and hot water ONLY...It's the Chinese way...oh wait...does this mean I'm not an American and I am :uhoh: secretly a Chinese loving Chinese


 

No I drink all my tea black and green without milk. I'm a man loving English woman. :ultracool


----------



## Blade96 (May 13, 2011)

i use a tea bag in a cup. I must be a closet american


----------



## Nomad (May 13, 2011)

I don't drink tea at all.  Probably not a hanging offence in England anymore, though I suspect I could be in for an old fashioned "tarring and feathering" if it were to get out...


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

Nomad said:


> I don't drink tea at all. Probably not a hanging offence in England anymore, though I suspect I could be in for an old fashioned "tarring and feathering" if it were to get out...


 
It's a matter of taste and preferance what you drink but while England is portrayed as a tea drinking country in fast it wasn't as prevalent as people assume. Tea was always very expensive, only the rich drank it, the poor had to do with ale (water was undrinkable). Coffee is probably drunk as much if not more than tea, and it's been like that a long time. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_seventeenth_and_eighteenth_centuries

One reason why discussion is always good...things are not always as portrayed by the media and stereotyping!


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 13, 2011)

and on that note.... I think I will go get myself a cup of tea


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Only Americans drink good coffee.  So, if you drink coffee, it's either really crappy coffee or you're secretly American.  In my opinion.

On another note, what do Brits think of tea out of a Keurig machine?  Are those popular over there in Old America... err... I mean Britain?  My wife bought me one as a gift, and I love it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Only Americans drink good coffee. So, if you drink coffee, it's either really crappy coffee or you're secretly American. In my opinion.
> 
> On another note, what do Brits think of tea out of a Keurig machine? Are those popular over there in Old America... err... I mean Britain? My wife bought me one as a gift, and I love it.


 

What's one of them? I use a cafetiere to make coffee. Btw I think  you live in New Britian as oppped to us in Old America lol, after all we have all the originals, York, Boston, Richmond etc.

American coffee is European coffee really but we have the Arabs to thank for it really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> What's one of them? I use a cafetiere to make coffee. Btw I think  you live in New Britian as oppped to us in Old America lol, after all we have all the originals, York, Boston, Richmond etc.
> 
> American coffee is European coffee really but we have the Arabs to thank for it really.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee


Revisionist history and I'll have none of it! 

Where in Britain is Seattle?  Los Angeles?  Austin?  That's right! Only in America.  For Pete's sake, you guys still play Soccer!

The Keurig machine is cool.  

http://www.keurig.com/


----------



## Nomad (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's a matter of taste and preferance what you drink but while England is portrayed as a tea drinking country in fast it wasn't as prevalent as people assume. Tea was always very expensive, only the rich drank it, the poor had to do with ale (water was undrinkable). Coffee is probably drunk as much if not more than tea, and it's been like that a long time.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_seventeenth_and_eighteenth_centuries
> 
> One reason why discussion is always good...things are not always as portrayed by the media and stereotyping!



This may be true, but this portrayal was perpetrated on my not only by media stereotyping but also by my British dad, stepmom, and their families still in England.   All of whom are heavy tea drinkers... though my dad's family would definitely identify themselves as "of the aristocracy" if pressed.


----------



## Steve (May 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> What's one of them? I use a cafetiere to make coffee. Btw I think  you live in New Britian as oppped to us in Old America lol, after all we have all the originals, York, Boston, Richmond etc.
> 
> American coffee is European coffee really but we have the Arabs to thank for it really.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee


Revisionist history and I'll have none of it! 

Where in Britain is Seattle?  Los Angeles?  Austin?  That's right! Only in America.  For Pete's sake, you guys still play Soccer!


----------

