Man, I never really noticed that about myself but thanks for calling me out on it. I'm an aggressive drunk sometimes but I stand by what I said last night 100%. And frankly, I don't care if I'm an ******* to someone if they're being a bigot. I'm not gonna adjust my values and behavior while tip toeing around someone's feelings just to keep the peace. If someone's being ****ty I'm gonna call in out on it. I consider it a courtesy and appreciate the same treatment.

Also, I don't really care where someone's from. Someone born of a bigoted family doesn't get to get away with bigotry just because their pops dropped the N word like its no big deal.


Not making any accusations here.

Now this is just as ridiculous to me as what you seem to think of other people. Nothing is more impressionable than a child. If you, as a child, are exposed every day to what your parents believe, what else are you supposed to believe unless you have a high enough IQ to think for yourself critically on these issues, which most people don't have. Most of what people believe is a regurgitation of their family's beliefs, and that's no one's fault. This is developmental psychology, my dad runs a foster care company that houses children that are more ****ed up than you will ever understand, but it's impossible to blame them or think less of them because every last one of them were exposed to unthinkable situations in their everyday life. It's pretty much the same thing.

Obviously this does not apply universally, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes when they say ignorant things about issues like this is all I'm saying.

this is a really strange question. if he thinks innocent humans might be dying then why wouldn't he question it?

The way I see it, no matter how gray the issue may be ethically, when dealing with abortion in a legal sense it becomes a binary, black and white, two answer issue: legal or illegal. So at that point you have to boil it down to the basic point. And that point is, is preserving the life of the fetus more valuable than preserving the integrity of the woman's right to her body? Obviously the answer depends on where the line is drawn as to when a fetus "all of a sudden" becomes a child with all the protections of a human being, but if it doesn't qualify then the woman's right takes precedence. Period. An cap on this would only confuse the issue.

This is a pretty fair stance, I'd say. The reason I've thought of there being a cap is because it's sort of a compromise - but I see the issues in it.

@YD


I've made that exact same point here before- people are often a product of their upbringing. I'm not saying they should be thought less of, I'm saying they should be called out on their **** regardless. And I'm not sure why you're saying there are people more ****ed up than I could ever understand. It's a little insulting really, what do you really know about me and the people in my life in the real world?

He said it doesn't excuse it, not that it doesn't happen

Because the children I was referring to are unlike anything you'll ever see in the real world because they can't function in the real world, that's why they're in a high security foster home. We're talking about nine year old kids that raped their sisters and stuff, man. They're so troubled and abused that they will probably never be able to live anything close to a normal life in the "real world".

It's an extreme example, but it's extremely tragic and scarring to interact with these kids and to read/hear their stories, so when I see one of them acting out of control I just can't blame them, nor can I blame someone that lives in a heavily pro-life household for feeling strongly about that stance.

I'm saying that it does indeed excuse it to an extent.

There's also a difference between calling people out on their **** and being rude to them for thinking differently

Yeah, no kidding.

I don't know you well enough to share my life story with you and I don't have anything that compares to your example. But I'm sure I've gotten ****faced and posted enough times about enough things to give an impression.

There is never an excuse for bigotry. The lines your trying to connect are completely seperate from each other.

YorkDaddy only posts here when he sees a member being called out for whatever reason. He complains about it but he really feeds on drama.

Yeah I'm such a drama queen, wishing that people would try to see both sides of an argument instead of calling people bigots and misogynists with no basis for it. Give me a break.

How can the cells divide if they are not living?

I'm glad you understand.

She hates trolling but does it herself, weak.

maybe calling him a misogynist was heavy handed. What he said was misogynist though. And we're on the same page as far as trying to understand why someone might have questionable views and how treating such people like **** is counterproductive. I dont always live up to my standards but i try my damndest. I actually tried to make a thread about that very thing but it didn't take off and I haven't had the mental capacity to go as deep as I meant to.

I'd say it was, because I am not a misogynist, and if what I said is considered to be misogynistic, apologies for potentially offending anyone, that was not my intention. As one user said, there's a reason I specifically said "couples/women" - I'm not trying to single out and criticize women as a whole, here. I think men and women are equally terrible.

So telling you that you come on here to troll is trolling? :rolleyes:

The Ascension, I don't think you are a misogynist but at the same time it's a bit strange having a man say what a woman should do with a bunch of cells.

I haven't been trolling at all, you're trying to stir me up for no reason. I've been nothing but polite and well-intentioned, so stop being petty and immature. It used to work, but it won't work on me anymore.

As I said, it depends what one views the fetus as - a "bunch of cells", or a living being.

And I don't see what makes it strange. Abortion is a common issue. Are only women supposed to discuss the morality of it?

For the record, I am far closer to pro choice than pro life - but I feel as though my suggestion fulfills a bit of a compromise. I guess not.

Regardless of how much I might agree with someone I think it's a bit reductionist to call a fetus "a bunch of cells". They are, obviously, but if that's all they were then I imagine it wouldn't be such an emotional event for a woman to abort one. A fetus is more than the sum of its parts in the mind of a person. They're the promise of a person. I mean I can't really think of a fetus without also thinking of a baby or a child. So I can understand people letting that get in the way of their logic when talking about abortion.

I don't know you well enough to fairly make such an accusation so I apologize too. I was under the impression you were the alternate account of a previous user who made a name for himself being a misogynist prick. I'm kind of a drunken asshat sometimes.

Hi

I am all me. And it's cool. I know that feel, I've made the same mistakes on a different forum (I accidentally banned a guy once under the guise that he was a previously banned user, turns out he wasn't - oops).

Yay everyone is friends <3

You've been accusing WhateverDude of things and suddenly now you're innocent? I have seen you do this so many times and it's really boring. How about posting like a normal member, not just coming here to create drama where there was none.

It's our bodies though, it's not a mans right to tell us whether having an abortion is lazy/unnecessary.

I agree that there is definitely an emotional part of having an abortion, but scientifically it's just cells up to a certain amount of weeks. It's down to the woman to make the decision, whether or not someone thinks its morally right or wrong.

That's a perfectly fair stance, and not one that I can really argue with.

Sure but my point is that it's an emotional issue for everyone, so painting it as purely scientific when judging someone is unfair.

:)

And I've seen you contribute unnecessary vitriol to situations that don't call for it plenty of times. I was having a peaceful, friendly conversation with a member that I respect and there was zero reason for you to speak up and try to escalate things. No one was feeling insulted and I added a disclaimer that I find WD to be a great member to ensure that didn't happen. What you did (completely unprovoked) is called trolling. There was no drama until you intervened.

I know you're a mod and I'll give you the respect you deserve for that, but I really don't see a single thing I've done wrong and I think you were trying to stir things up which is something I won't do anymore. I've come back as a changed member, so just try to ignore your perceptions of me and give me a chance.

You guys should stop talking about each other and discuss on the merits, try to stick to the subject matter. It helps avoid ****fights.

I agree. Overall I agree with Vanilla's stance that it's a woman's body and I'm pro-choice, etc, etc, but "scientifically it's just cells up to a certain amount of weeks" is kind of misleading. First of all, it's a moral discussion, so it's not directly relevant; there is a legitimate moral argument on behalf of pro-choice already being made, so it's not really necessary in this regard anyway. Second of all, science doesn't actually say it's "just cells" (key word just). They certainly say it is a clump of cells, but science doesn't take up a moral position, such as setting the threshold for when something is "just" a sea of quarks and leptons, rather than having some sort of significance, since meaning is susceptible to subjective opinions and environmental conditions.

That's not to say some scientists and scientific communities don't take moral positions. Often it can compromise their subjectivity though and their work becomes more political than scientific. But science is not scientists, of course.

scientifically it never stops being just cells. it's an arbitrary line you're trying to draw that doesn't actually exist.

i agree it's the woman's choice and i actually agree with abortion being legal. i'm just ok with humans being killed for the sake of reproductive control. but pro-choicers need to stop playing these silly word games.

Well the point isn't "life" or "cells" (or at least it shouldn't be to anyone who has any useful understanding of what constitutes life), it's consciousness, and the level of consciousness that qualifies as worthy of protection. "Consciousness" itself is a nebulous concept that's based on many different emergent biological processes, and at what level it should be protected is probably just as nebulous, so trying to come up with any kind of hard-and-fast rules concerning it is pretty much impossible. But again, we're dealing with legal issues, which are binary, yes or no, legal or illegal questions, so at some point, you do have to make distinctions that are, at least to some extent, arbitrary. It is what it is.

We can just define some threshold drawing on Tononi's model of consciousness :P

that's true. but it's not a scientific distinction we're making, it's just a judgement call. like the age of consent.

edit - also, i think it's a little trickier than consciousness vs non-consciousness. essentially it is human life we're really concerned about, you're just saying you think consciousness is the point at which a human life earns protection. we have no problem slaughtering animals that are just as conscious as any human baby.

Like I said, arbitrary. And I imagine the idea of consciousness is going to start being more and more important. From my understanding there's more and more talk about giving dolphins and whales status as "nonhuman persons", which wouldn't give them the same rights as human beings, but would guarantee them a right to life (or so I believe). This whole concept of secular personhood vs. souls seems to be a relatively new concept in the public consciousness, so it's no surprise that there are contradictions in our laws. Give it some indeterminate amount of time and I imagine the concepts of consciousness and personhood will start making more sense in a legal sense.

hopefully it also liberates them from the shackles of sea world.

anyway that's a fair point, though it's easy for westerners to not want to slaughter whales and dolphins cause we don't really eat them that much anyway. i would wager a pig is aware enough that if that's our criteria we should feel ****ty about killing them in droves yet that won't stop any time soon. and i won't stop eating them either because i'm just not that good a person.

Same here. Bacon > not being an *******.

But I can see a time, long in the future, when serious restrictions are placed on what animals can and can not be used for meat.

hopefully by then they master the science of growing bacon in a petri dish