Heartland

Gollum's Cock wrote:And just another thing.
@Being...your argument is based upon a financial social standpoint which unfortunately depresses me.

If you agree, that being free to decide what to do with you life and what not is a financial social standpoint,
yeah, then you've got the obvious truth ... which is depressing.

markfiend wrote:The pro-choice argument in a nutshell:

1) The woman's right to bodily autonomy: Even if you grant that an embryo or a foetus is a human being, due the rights and protections of an adult (which, incidentally, would be odd, because we don't say that a newborn child is due all those rights) there are no circumstances in which we privilege one adult's rights over another's bodily autonomy. (The example of live organ donation is frequently brought up; we would not force anyone to donate a kidney against their will even though such a donation would save another person's life.) Forcing someone to surrender their bodily autonomy against their will is slavery.

Really just playing devil's advocate here but if, as in your example above, you grant that a foetus is a human being with human rights, the bodily autonomy argument doesn't hold water because you're choosing to end one life rather than inconvenience another. Imagine conjoined twins where separation would definitely kill one but the other would survive. Would it be right for the survivor to insist on separation for the sake of their own bodily autonomy? (Yes, I know it's not a perfect example but devil's advocate, hypothetical situation to illuminate the principle.)

Being645 wrote:

Gollum's Cock wrote:And just another thing.
@Being...your argument is based upon a financial social standpoint which unfortunately depresses me.

If you agree, that being free to decide what to do with you life and what not is a financial social standpoint,
yeah, then you've got the obvious truth ... which is depressing.

You're free to decide not to drink and drive......you're free to decide not to get pregnant.

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:The pro-choice argument in a nutshell:

1) The woman's right to bodily autonomy: Even if you grant that an embryo or a foetus is a human being, due the rights and protections of an adult (which, incidentally, would be odd, because we don't say that a newborn child is due all those rights) there are no circumstances in which we privilege one adult's rights over another's bodily autonomy. (The example of live organ donation is frequently brought up; we would not force anyone to donate a kidney against their will even though such a donation would save another person's life.) Forcing someone to surrender their bodily autonomy against their will is slavery.

Really just playing devil's advocate here but if, as in your example above, you grant that a foetus is a human being with human rights, the bodily autonomy argument doesn't hold water because you're choosing to end one life rather than inconvenience another. Imagine conjoined twins where separation would definitely kill one but the other would survive. Would it be right for the survivor to insist on separation for the sake of their own bodily autonomy? (Yes, I know it's not a perfect example but devil's advocate, hypothetical situation to illuminate the principle.)

There is a famous article by Judith Jarvis Thomson that addresses precisely this objection, and still argues in favor of the moral permissibility of abortion.

http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/docume ... ortion.pdf

stufarq wrote:Really just playing devil's advocate here but if, as in your example above, you grant that a foetus is a human being with human rights, the bodily autonomy argument doesn't hold water because you're choosing to end one life rather than inconvenience another.

We choose "to end one life rather than inconvenience another" every time we fail to force an unwilling donor to give up a kidney.

I quite like the Sisters' new songs, I think they're pretty good live these days, and whilst a new album would be good I'm quite happy to just see them play live whenever they play a venue nearby.

Gollum's Cock wrote:

Being645 wrote:

Gollum's Cock wrote:And just another thing.
@Being...your argument is based upon a financial social standpoint which unfortunately depresses me.

If you agree, that being free to decide what to do with you life and what not is a financial social standpoint,
yeah, then you've got the obvious truth ... which is depressing.

You're free to decide not to drink and drive......you're free to decide not to get pregnant.

... at what cost - socially, emotionally, financially, physically ... and yeah, we're all free to live a life without decade-long medication ... cool, absolutely.

Oh, and apart from the fact, that the male half of humankind is entirely NOT free to get pregnant or not ... ... that's why they like to tell other creatures what is right or wrong for their life and body.

popcorn, anyone?
i'm eating celery now, but maybe someone want one enjoying internet fight?

So as to Mozilla, here's the news ...

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/0 ... zilla-ceo/

The man is much worse than an (alleged) homophobe... he's the creator of Javascript.

Bartek wrote:i don't understand why people need to get stoned or baked or drunk to relax.
uh oh and i despise people addicted to fags, drugs and alcohole - yes, you're sick, but at your own free will. yes, even when you're daddy or mommy, or granny, or grandpa was addicted, moreover, then you're dubble guilty of your own situations.

fair enough. i don't blame anyone else for the vices i choose to indulge in, i just reserve the right to not be told what i can and can't do with my own body/life/money. and even if alchohol wasn't dangerously addictive i would still drink it from when i wake up to when i go to sleep, which makes the fact that i am technically addicted irrelevant.



>>>no fucking way i'm going near that abortion discussion btw....

lazarus corporation wrote:I quite like the Sisters' new songs, I think they're pretty good live these days, and whilst a new album would be good I'm quite happy to just see them play live whenever they play a venue nearby.

seconded.




...still not going anywhere near that abortion discussion.

markfiend wrote:...must ...step ...away

Let's both go to the lo----bbyy!

IZ.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

Bartek wrote:i don't understand why people need to get stoned or baked or drunk to relax.
uh oh and i despise people addicted to fags, drugs and alcohole - yes, you're sick, but at your own free will. yes, even when you're daddy or mommy, or granny, or grandpa was addicted, moreover, then you're dubble guilty of your own situations.

fair enough. i don't blame anyone else for the vices i choose to indulge in, i just reserve the right to not be told what i can and can't do with my own body/life/money. and even if alchohol wasn't dangerously addictive i would still drink it from when i wake up to when i go to sleep, which makes the fact that i am technically addicted irrelevant.

i'm miles away from telling anyone what he/she shoud/ought to do with his/her body and free time, esp. when no one hurt except him/her-self.

do whatever you* want and please, but in case of "side effects" you know who to blame

* by "you" i don't mean you eastmidswhizzkid; just to avoid any misconception

I have a severe aversion to Elvis Presley.
The literary equivalent being William Shakespeare.

...and....

I really like Chase & Status.

sultan2075 wrote: There is a famous article by Judith Jarvis Thomson that addresses precisely this objection, and still argues in favor of the moral permissibility of abortion.

http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/docume ... ortion.pdf

And it uses some pretty ridiculous examples to do it. markfiend's example is much more sensible and elegant and he made the entire argument in one sentence rather than 65 pages.

markfiend wrote: We choose "to end one life rather than inconvenience another" every time we fail to force an unwilling donor to give up a kidney.

It's a fair point and I think it highlights the only truly reasonable position anyone can take in this debate: there is no 'correct' answer. There are strong moral arguments on both sides and whichever course you take will have undesirable and arguably immoral effects on someone. And no, that's not a copout. the world just isn't as black and white as we want it to be and sometimes we have to make an unpleasant decision and live with the consequences because making a different decision would have been just as bad.

Hom_Corleone wrote:...and....

I really like Chase & Status.

Rad dude, rad.
NOT!

Erika Eleniak was better looking than Pamela Anderson

in what way?

Bartek wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

Bartek wrote:i don't understand why people need to get stoned or baked or drunk to relax.
uh oh and i despise people addicted to fags, drugs and alcohole - yes, you're sick, but at your own free will. yes, even when you're daddy or mommy, or granny, or grandpa was addicted, moreover, then you're dubble guilty of your own situations.

fair enough. i don't blame anyone else for the vices i choose to indulge in, i just reserve the right to not be told what i can and can't do with my own body/life/money. and even if alchohol wasn't dangerously addictive i would still drink it from when i wake up to when i go to sleep, which makes the fact that i am technically addicted irrelevant.

i'm miles away from telling anyone what he/she shoud/ought to do with his/her body and free time, esp. when no one hurt except him/her-self.

do whatever you* want and please, but in case of "side effects" you know who to blame

* by "you" i don't mean you eastmidswhizzkid; just to avoid any misconception

i knew that anyway. it's all good.

James Blast wrote:in what way?

In the T and A department. ...i said it was controversial.

Gollum's Cock wrote:Erika Eleniak was better looking than Pamela Anderson

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:apologies to mark for potentially turning his thread into a "which mainstream pop-star are you most likely to glue-up a smash hits to" .
okay -not that sorry.

I know what you mean Lee, I can't stop listening to this Lady. So many catchy hooks in her tunes.....

Big Si wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:apologies to mark for potentially turning his thread into a "which mainstream pop-star are you most likely to glue-up a smash hits to" .
okay -not that sorry.

I know what you mean Lee, I can't stop listening to this Lady. So many catchy hooks in her tunes.....

No controversy there! Tove Lo is the greatest bit of pop in years!

Special recommendation for the original video for habits - the remake is nowhere near as good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKSeVyww1gw