My basic problem with YOU.

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bushidomartialarts]

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.