The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

You still don't grasp the simple concept of keeping your pants on, do you?

And the unborn are innocent. Not true of criminals.

And you can't seem to grasp it's not that simple

[Annoyed]

And you can't seem to grasp it's not that simple

It really is that simple. Since the (biblical) birth of Jesus Christ to the virgin Mary, has there even been one documented instance of a woman getting pregnant without having sexual relations with the sperm donor?

[jelgate]

You missed the point again

[Annoyed]

You missed the point again

Well, one of us is.

I do not concede that we are animals, and that we have to have sex. We are human beings, with minds, and we are perfectly capable of making intelligent choices. Or stupid ones.

[Chaka-Z0]

We also have the capability to give a second chance to another fellow human, your way is radical. And you know damn well it doesn't matter if its legal or not, women used to abort themselves with crude means.

[Annoyed]

Of course, you know I'm not talking solely about pregnancy as "stupid choices", right?
Equally stupid is the kid who decides to ignore the free education offered by the public school system and hang out with his pals in the street instead. Or the many other ways people choose to screw their lives up.

[Chaka-Z0]

Of course, you know I'm not talking solely about pregnancy as "stupid choices", right?
Equally stupid is the kid who decides to ignore the free education offered by the public school system and hang out with his pals in the street instead. Or the many other ways people choose to screw their lives up.

What's your point then? Choices (stupid in your own words) have been made. Society has to deal with the outcomes. What do you propose? Send the kids to Peter Pan?

[Womble]

I do not concede that we are animals, and that we have to have sex. We are human beings, with minds, and we are perfectly capable of making intelligent choices. Or stupid ones.

What precisely is the evidence in favor of your theory?

Because there's a sizable body of research that refutes the concept of humans as rational agents, faithfully seeking maximum utility achievable given current knowledge. We are constantly under influence of a multitude of cognitive biases and emotional states which make our decision-making sub-optimal to say the least. If you're free of those, you run on a lithium battery.

There is plentiful statistical evidence that telling people to "keep their pants on" does not in fact reduce pregnancy rates, including in no-welfare societies. It's up there with "don't forget" at the bottom of the pile of useless phrases.

[Chaka-Z0]

What precisely is the evidence in favor of your theory?

There is no such thing as evidences in Annoyed's theories. You're on a fool's quest Womble.

[jelgate]

Of course their is. Evidence that backs his decades old conclusion. Everything else is liberal propaganda. Remember that 2011 guy at that conference who said politicians were profiting off global warming

[Annoyed]

What's your point then? Choices (stupid in your own words) have been made. Society has to deal with the outcomes. What do you propose? Send the kids to Peter Pan?

What precisely is the evidence in favor of your theory?

Because there's a sizable body of research that refutes the concept of humans as rational agents, faithfully seeking maximum utility achievable given current knowledge. We are constantly under influence of a multitude of cognitive biases and emotional states which make our decision-making sub-optimal to say the least. If you're free of those, you run on a lithium battery.

There is plentiful statistical evidence that telling people to "keep their pants on" does not in fact reduce pregnancy rates, including in no-welfare societies. It's up there with "don't forget" at the bottom of the pile of useless phrases.

In the US, at least, for the past 3/4 century or so, there has been the background knowledge that the state(taxpayers) will pick up the tab for people's stupid decisions. This is part of the background fabric of the society.

What I suspect will happen is that if that is removed; it becomes part of the background fabric that no one will pick up the tab for people's stupid choices, they will have a far more powerful incentive to not screw up.

[SoulReaver]

You still don't grasp the simple concept of keeping your pants on, do you?

You still don't grasp the simple concept of what's done is done, do you?

if you can make a time machine to go back to the past & tell the woman to keep her pants on & prevent the embryo from being created in the first place then hey do it you'll secure a Nobel too

and your smartphone's also innocent

And the unborn are innocent. Not true of criminals.

reality check they're the same person unless you think a body-swap happened somewhere along the way

I do not concede that we are animals

I thought you weren't religious?

[Annoyed]

You still don't grasp the simple concept of what's done is done, do you?

if you can make a time machine to go back to the past & tell the woman to keep her pants on & prevent the embryo from being created in the first place then hey do it you'll secure a Nobel too

There is no need to invent a time machine. If the man and woman keep their pants on to begin with, the problem never occurs. People should be responsible for their poor choices. If some isn't in a position to raise a child, they have no business creating one.

and your smartphone's also innocent

reality check they're the same person unless you think a body-swap happened somewhere along the way

I thought you weren't religious?

The infant (born or unborn) is innocent. If it makes poor choices in its life, such as to bomb schools/churches/whatever, it is no longer innocent due to those choices. And it should be held responsible.

[SoulReaver]

There is no need to invent a time machine. If the man and woman keep their pants on to begin with, the problem never occurs. People should be responsible for their poor choices. If some isn't in a position to raise a child, they have no business creating one.

cept you're also making an innocent person pay (for the poor choices of the parents) by denying them help

The infant (born or unborn) is innocent. If it makes poor choices in its life, such as to bomb schools/churches/whatever, it is no longer innocent due to those choices. And it should be held responsible.

yet it's the same person for whose life you fought & now push to have it terminated

which goes to show the true goal of the GOP & Prolife(tm) movement which is Government control

[Annoyed]

cept you're also making an innocent person pay (for the poor choices of the parents) by denying them help

No, I'm saying that the parents should do whatever they have to do to take care of their own offspring which they created. If they have to quit whatever they are doing and work 4 crappy low-wage jobs to do that, so be it. That child is the result of their choices, and it is their responsibility. No one else. If someone doesn't want to accept that, they can keep their pants on and the issue never arises.

yet it's the same person for whose life you fought & now push to have it terminated

which goes to show the true goal of the GOP & Prolife(tm) movement which is Government control

So, if someone decides to blow up a public structure & kill a crapload of people, they shouldn't be held accountable?