I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask

Extreme Humor

123 Games

Funny Games

Free Samples

Oddee

Fresh Pics

FreeGame Heaven

Viva La Games

Gig Posters

Funny Videos

Funny Videos

Not Healthy

Crazy Games

Crazy News



Back to Listing

The Next Socialist President

Hits: 7131 | Rating: (2.6) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: Cajun247
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
evanbartlett
Male, 30-39, Western US
 555 Posts
Monday, April 09, 2012 12:47:21 PM
I think it's important to know the difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. They aren't the same thing (although not mutually exclusive).

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10349 Posts
Monday, April 09, 2012 5:07:45 AM
I'm surprised CrakrJak hasn't chimed in.

dirtysteve00
Male, 30-39, Europe
 375 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 4:33:42 PM
So this is really just a campaign ad for Ron Paul?
He's not going to happen though is he?

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 3:42:13 PM
Busdriver - You aren't allowed to kill or neglect a baby because you have a right to give that baby up for adoption. You can put it in someone else's arms and walk away (if the bio dad wants to raise it, I believe that women, like men, should provide child support).

Like I said, if we can do that for fetuses in the future then we shouldn't be allowed to kill them either. If there's a viable space for them that isn't inside me, then we should put them there.

Until then, my womb is my womb and the rights of a clump of cells to live inside of me, use my organs, my blood, my breath is not a right the clump of cells has. If I make the moral decision to allow it, fine. But it's not an inherent right.

A clump of cells has the right to its own cells and I won't be harvesting them for organ replacements for myself. It doesn't get my body as a guarantee either.




buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 3:04:06 PM
@Armauld continued

The government shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies. It is their job, however, to prevent one person from taking action against another. The issue is whether or not abortion is an action taken against another moral agent (the fetus), or simply an action pertaining solely to one person. I believe that fetuses qualify as moral agents (that is, people who have full moral rights and responsibilities), because I also believe that the prerequisite for moral agenthood is potential rationality. It can't just be rationality, otherwise babies would have no more rights than fetuses. It's hard to draw a line for full moral rights that doesn't involve either neglecting infants, or including animals (although some would be perfectly ok with giving them full moral rights). So my question is, if you believe fetuses don't have a right to life, why? Or if they do, why does a woman's right to her body supersede it?

buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 2:42:32 PM
@Armauld (obviously)

Like I said, all I have is your word about the personhood amendments, and based on your word it doesn't sound like I'd get along very weel with the people who wrote them. It's unfortunate that their interpretation of the right to life is so skewed, but don't mistake their beliefs for mine and result to a strawman argument.
I've said before that I believe women have a right to take whatever action they want with their bodies, no matter how stupid or harmful (drugs, body manipulation, watching Fox News, whatever). Just not when it infringes on someone else's right to life. And I do believe the fetus has a right to life. There's no point in reiterating that woman have a right to their bodies, that's already been established.

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:15:15 AM
Judge James E. Wilson said the following in regards to the Nevada bill: This bill will protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman's health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the "pill". The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, and others.

It will not let me post the website with online court papers for some reason, but you can search ACLU or online if

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 9:47:44 AM
Busdriver - the argument of taking action vs. no action is logical arguement in theory. In reality though, we get to take action when it comes to our bodies. We own them. They belong to each person with said body. I tend towards libertarianism myself (except, in my version it applies to me too) so I also don't feel the gov't has a right to tell me what drugs I can take or if I have the right to sell my own kidney if I want to.

The government does not own my uterus, I do, and I should be allowed to access any tool I can to decide what goes on inside it. This means everything from access to birth control to abortion.

If technology comes along that would allow an embryo or fetus to be transferred from my uterus to another willing one, then like giving a baby up for adoption I would HAVE to comply with that, because once someone's not using my body to keep themselves alive, I have no say in what happens to their body.

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 9:39:17 AM
BusCompany - But 'right-to-lifers'are flat-out anti-choice. They say that women are not allowed to choose what happens to their bodies.

The reason 'right-to-life' is a laughable title is not because of what they feel towards the fetus, but if you read those personhood amendments (and trust me, they're that bad) they feel that women have no right-to-life, even if they aren't taking another life (like in the case of the dead fetus).

For anyone arguing that most women took inaction and are now using abortion as birth control. It does happen, but for the most part abortions are several hundred dollars, not a fun thing to go through, can be painful and require recovery time,and are often a very tough choice so despite lies that the 'right-to-life-unless-your-a-womaners tell, very few women use abortion as their go-to form of bc.

Wowummwow
Male, 18-29, Western US
 266 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 8:50:31 AM
"Americans don't know what socialism, democratie, republic, liberal... means anyways. "

But... I thought... socialism is bad mkay because the nazis were socialists.

[/sarcasm]

buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 8:10:38 AM
Sorry for the triple post, but it's important to note that I believe a person is never morally obligated or permitted to force an action on another person. So that's why you cannot force a mother to give a kidney to her child.

P.S. I don't think that the title "right-to-lifers" is laughable, because their entire argument rests on the premise that a fetus has a right to life. The titles I do have an issue with are pro-life and pro-choice (even though I use them for convenience sake) because they imply that the opposing sides are anti-life and anti-choice, which is ridiculous.

buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 7:50:18 AM
@Armauld
The kidney transplant argument makes for a much better rebuttal than saying a woman has a right to her body, because it actually addresses the points pro-lifers (at least the competent ones) have made. The case you described is a little different from an abortion case, though. In the case of an abortion (at least the majority of cases, which are the ones I'm concerned with), a woman- through inaction- allows the fetus to live. The woman must take action in order to prevent this from happening. In the case of a kidney transplant, the mother allows the child to die through inaction, and must take action to save their life. I believe in both cases the mother is morally obligated to save their child's life. However, only in the case of abortion are others morally obligated (or even morally permitted) to prevent action from being taken. This is not so in kidney transplant case, because to prevent action from taking place would be to kill the child.

buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 7:38:38 AM
@Armauld
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your statements. I thought you meant to imply that the reason libertarianism only applies to men is that they're anti-abortion, and to be anti-abortion is to deny that a woman has a right to her body. Although, from your further explanation:

"
How can you argue for keeping gov't out of private business if you allow gov't to interfere with control of women's bodies?
"

it seems to me that that is what you meant. My point is that claiming a woman has a right to her own body is not a valid rebuttal in an abortion argument, because no one ever made the claim that she doesn't. The issue is whether a fetus has a right to life, and if that right to life supersedes a woman's right to her body. The fact that a woman has a right to her body was never in question. I don't know enough about the personhood amendments to comment, except to say that I disagree with them if they really are written that way.

Tekinette
Male, 30-39, Europe
 270 Posts
Sunday, April 08, 2012 4:56:37 AM
Americans don't know what socialism, democratie, republic, liberal... means anyways.

That's what politic propaganda does, they change the meaning of words that can hurt them so that no debate is possible.

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:40:43 PM
Bus company - The laughably titled right-to-lifers have also attempted to pass multiple 'personhood' amendments. Many of these amendments are so strict that a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo has zero chance of making it to term would not be allowed to be removed even though it will almost for sure kill the woman if it isn't. These same people have had amendments (the nevada one jumps out, but others too) where the woman would not be allowed to remove an already dead fetus from her uterus. This means that the woman would have to go into labour naturally or rot to death. A legislator from Georgia (Terry England) excused this because sometimes farmers don't call vets when this happens to their cows. Now please, tell me there's no misogyny involved.

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:34:01 PM
Buscompany - I didn't say any of that stuff,though. I simply said that according to Paul libertarianism is for men only. How can you argue for keeping gov't out of private business if you allow gov't to interfere with control of women's bodies?
Also - No one else has a right to use your body to keep themselves alive. If say your child needed a kidney transplant and you were the only match. Would you owe that kidney to your child (legally speaking, not morally)? No, you don't'. I don't have to support another life living parasitically off of me if I don't choose to. If you disapprove of abortion, don't have one but you don't get to make my moral choices for me.

buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:07:16 PM
Sorry, I ran out of characters on my last post.

Anyways, my point is that a good pro-choice argument should provide justification for why a fetus does not have a right to life, or explain why a woman's right to her own body supersedes a fetus's right to life. Simply arguing that the opposing side is misogynistic is malicious and incorrect.

TheShgn2
Male, 13-17, Southern US
 631 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:04:55 PM
Even I dislike him as a person, I believe Ron Paul would be a good president. Too bad he won't win... Maybe he'll be elected President of the moon colony Gingrich wants to build after it revolts. Because all colonies revolt eventually.

buscompany
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 106 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:01:07 PM
Apparently libertarianism only applies to men


All actual debate about the morality of abortion aside, this tends to be the most common pro-choice rebuttal in abortion arguments that I see. That is, the assertion that a woman has a right to her body. This is sometimes accompanied by an accusation that the offending pro-lifer hates women, or, better yet, wants to force women into reproductive slavery. This would be an excellent refutation (and a justifiable ad hominum) if, at any point, any pro-lifer had ever made the argument that the reason women shouldn't have an abortion is because they don't have a right to their own bodies. This is not the case. Instead, the entire debate over abortion rests on the truth condition of two premises.

1. A fetus has a right to life.

and

2. The right to life supersedes the right to one's own body.

Rawrg
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 935 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 5:34:18 PM
When I saw "Social Conservative" in the description, I thought I was going to staunchly oppose him. I actually have been harping what he's been saying for years now.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10349 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:34:28 PM
His "Steal from the poor to give to the rich" mentality is why you guys are in the current situation you are in.


We're doing that already with high tax rates and an artificial rate of inflation no thanks to the Fed, all for the sake of doing it the other way.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10349 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:31:12 PM
What I do disagree with him on is his lack of comment on how Paul's plan would absolutely destroy America and trash the economy.


You seriously got it backwards dude. It's the overexpansion of government and ridiculus military and welfare spending that's driving our economy into the hole. Paul's plan would actually make everyone better off.

Apparently libertarianism only applies to men


The are pro-choice libertarians (Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard et al) and pro-life libertarians (Nat Hentoff et al)

Armauld
Female, 30-39, Canada
 107 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:11:11 PM
I agree with pretty much everything this guy says and at least he's trying to be fair.

What I do disagree with him on is his lack of comment on how Paul's plan would absolutely destroy America and trash the economy.

On a personal note, Paul claims to be a libertarian but would abolish abortion except when it comes to "rare honest rapes" *eyeroll*. Apparently libertarianism only applies to men...

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 15091 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:10:16 PM
His "Steal from the poor to give to the rich" mentality is why you guys are in the current situation you are in.

The government shouldn't steal from ANYBODY, and shouldn't give to ANYBODY, rich or poor.

We now have the highest corporate income tax rate in the entire world, even higher than Canada's, and unemployment, deficits, and prices are going through the roof.

Do you seriously think you can lower the price of gas by raising the oil companies' operating expenses?

Do you seriously think investors will risk their money on new businesses and create new jobs if the government is going to confiscate half their profits?

Do you seriously think companies will hire more people if you make it much more expensive for them to do so?

Do you seriously think those "greedy rich bastards" will get up and work even harder if you let them keep less of what they earn?

If you do, you're an idiot.

Omphaloskept
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 183 Posts
Saturday, April 07, 2012 3:24:13 PM
Socialist -- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.