Who is a True Patriot in America (Page 10): Well, Chardo, I can't say I blame you. If I were you I'd be tired of losing every debate as well. To be honest, I was getting bored anyway...

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

TheChardo wrote:

{So you called me stupid for expressing an opinion on h**e crimes? You have forever forefited any moral high ground and your right to talk about civility to anyone. I think that I've got you rattled! Regardless of what your civil union would look like, if you refuse to grant the status of marriage, you are being discriminatory and therefore a BIGOT. What is the problem with marriage? Can you explain? Polite civilization. GMAFB! You are pathetic and I've had enough of you}

Well, Chardo, I can't say I blame you. If I were you I'd be tired of losing every debate as well. To be honest, I was getting bored anyway, winning debates against you is too easy, no challenge at all.

Meanwhile, I hope you have a long, happy, productive life and enjoy your retirement benefits at the expense of so many poor people in NJ.

One last suggestion - You should probably go back to using your original photo, the less we can see of you the better you look.

PS - I didn't call you stupid, I asked if you are. Apparently you agree.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

Not that I'm in on this particular discussion, but if we are to deem marriage a holy institution, shouldn't they only be granted by churches. Whereas the state should only grant civil unions, which would legitimately be a document granting legal status of cohabitation and child rearing, loan acquisition and joint filing, etc. The state should only be a place to file a document of intent and contractual obligations, whether they be gay or straight. The church, on the other hand, should unite under oath before god, explicitly....marriage. I don't think that the state should have any intrusion on what would be called a moral process of pairing consenting adults, mainly because the word 'moral' is in there.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Cedarstrip wrote:

However, Reason's argument that exceptions to a law based on extenuating circumstances invalidate the basis for the law is preposterous.

Thank you Cedar. That is effectively my argument with Reason. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make allowances for anything, but there are circumstances that do require different treatment from the norm. As such, it doesn't invalidate the norm because of its exception.

The fifth amendment says "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I think we can reasonably conclude that a******n doesn't conform to "due process". That leaves the question of whether a fetus is a person, or at what point it becomes a person. Is it at conception, when a heartbeat begins or brain activity, or some other identifiable stage of development? If we conclude that it only becomes a person at birth, does a fetus have any prenatal rights? If so, on what basis? Is it OK to k**l a baby that survives an a******n attempt? If you can provide compelling answers to these questions maybe the country can put this issue to rest.

I personally do not see this as such a hard question to resolve. The only question regarding pregnancy that matters is viability. Is the pregnancy viable? Viability starts with conception and continues throughout life. In answering the question of viability you have to determine if the development of the fetus is normal. If the cells stop dividing then it's obviously nonviable (death). Is there any malformation that makes the fetus nonviable? Take the example of the child in India who had eight limbs. She had a "Siamese" twin that did not fully develop on its own. As such it was more of a parasite, incapable of self sustaining life without the twin. I'll not go into that story further, but I will only add this, had the fetus been a single child developing without a head, then it would be nonviable. Just because there is a problem doesn't determine viability by itself (babies without limbs, cleft palates, etc...all viable). The issue is whether or not a fetus can be self sustaining outside the mother when born. Also, you have to take into consideration conditions that can be corrected with modern medicine. So, as long as an (fertilized) egg/embryo/fetus/baby can be viably be brought to full term and born (with or without the aid of medical science), then they meet the definition of life and should be treated as such until proven otherwise.

However, Reason's argument that exceptions to a la... (show quote)

The Progressive Patriot

Voice of Reason wrote:

quote=TheChardo {So you called me stupid for expr... (show quote)

That does it. We're done here. You a few fries short of a happy meal. You don't debate, you attack and make absurd and baseless assertions. You're not in touch with reality. You're right, I can't win against craziness.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rob-portman-gay-marriage_n_2881805.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

*forfeited

Cedarstrip Loc: Michigan

Voice of Reason wrote:

quote=Cedarstrip However, Reason's argument that ... (show quote)

I can see that you aren't going to address the validity of your position. In logic, math, and formal debate, attacking the logic of argument A (even if completely successful) doesn't prove argument B. However, that approach is frequently sufficient in politics. Pregnancy presents a whole lot of characteristics and potential circumstances that aren't present in normal right/wrong behaviors. I guess I just don't understand the pro-choice willingness to trivialize the question of rights of the developing person in the womb.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Cedarstrip wrote:

I guess I just don't understand the pro-choice willingness to trivialize the question of rights of the developing person in the womb.

It's all about selfishness. One making such a decision is saying (to the unborn) you are not more important than me. You are inconvenient. In short, they are unwilling to acknowledge the child, so they trivialize it, and relegate it to inhuman status...to justify the decision to commit murder. After all, if it's not truly HUMAN, if it's not truly ALIVE, then surely it cannot be murder.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

What does any of this have to do w/ patriotism?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

zonkedout1 wrote:

What does any of this have to do w/ patriotism?

Nothing, it's just the direction the discussion took. Why, are you the topic cop?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

memBrain wrote:

It's all about selfishness. One making such a decision is saying (to the unborn) you are not more important than me. You are inconvenient. In short, they are unwilling to acknowledge the child, so they trivialize it, and relegate it to inhuman status...to justify the decision to commit murder. After all, if it's not truly HUMAN, if it's not truly ALIVE, then surely it cannot be murder.

Let's assume first that everything you said is correct. Let's also assume that you disagree with the "one making such a decision".

So, what you're saying is that a******n is murdering a completely innocent human being. Then you go on to say that in certain "mitigating circumstances" where it is inconvenient for you to argue against it, that murdering a completely innocent human being should be allowed (legal).

I think that you should be very careful about what you wish for.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

Voice of Reason wrote:

zonkedout1 wrote:

What does any of this have to do w/ patriotism?

Nothing, it's just the direction the discussion took. Why, are you the topic cop?

No, when I signed on here, I was hoping you people had a little more consistency than reddit.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

zonkedout1 wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:

zonkedout1 wrote:

What does any of this have to do w/ patriotism?

Nothing, it's just the direction the discussion took. Why, are you the topic cop?

No, when I signed on here, I was hoping you people had a little more consistency than reddit.

I'm not familiar with reddit, but I think that discussions always have a tendency to wander. However, feel free to post something about patriotism to bring it back, if you'd like.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

I'm sorry. I showed poor threadiquette. I've been trying to quit smoking for five days and my brain can't move laterally like it generally can.

A******n just isn't my issue. I do think it should be a tenth amendment issue adopting a community standards policy.

A person can't convince me that potential life is an adequate argument for making a******n illegal and what are you worried about. It's not like the potential republican to potential democrat ratio isn't skewed in your favor.

The categorical imperative argument that murder in any case is murder in every case feels weak.

But, like I said, I've got other things that I'm more concerned about.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

On the issue of patriotism, Steven Pinker refers to it as 1 step in the ever expanding circle of inclusion. Me, I used to think it was ideal oriented, the geopolitical, and then finally I decided it was a weapon that governments use against their own people. In its best form, it is an alignment of ideals (which can have poor outcomes i.e. germanic p***e)at its worst, it can be a tool used to confuse people who have aligned themselves with symbols i.e. the f**g, the office is bigger than the man who occupies it, our guys wouldn't do what the other guys are doing. Think 'A few good men' and MK-Ultra. So, would I sacrifice a thousand arabs to save one American, maybe. A thousand democrats to save one republican, maybe. But, in more solid terms, would I sacrifice anybody to save Michael Moore or Pat Buchanan....No, never, not even once. Sorry, I lost focus. The question isn't necessarily, who is more patriotic. I think a lot of bad people have been very patriotic. For me, it enters into, why are ideas of patriotism so pick and choose, like new age spirituality. Some people love the f**g, some the government, some the constitution, some the police, and I'm sure some, the geographical location. Just as the eskimoes have 32 different adjectives for snow, maybe we should develop some adjectives for the form of patriotism we practice.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

zonkedout1 wrote:

I'm sorry. I showed poor threadiquette. I've been ... (show quote)

It isn't mine either and I agree that other things are more important. In fact, a candidate's position on a******n is not even a consideration for me.

However, I just wanted to point out where I think the conservative position on a******n is wrong, and why. I do believe a large percentage of the population v**es against conservatives simply because of their position on it.