Who do you think will win the election?Posted 9 years Ago

Seriously? Gary Johnson?
Just because he is the most well known DOES NOT make him the best. Jill Stein would actually be far better.
Gary Johnson is barely any different/"better" than Obama/Romney.
And frankly I don't seem him with near as much conviction as Jill.
If I read things correctly, Jill Stein got arrested. Twice. For making her stands for things she believes in.
Do you really think that someone like that would be as easily corruptible?
I don't.
So if you're going to advocate a third party, at least make sure you advocate for the one with the most conviction, the one that could most overhaul and change the system, and actually believes in things that are better than the two mainstream candidates.
Forums Home > Politics

Does Size Really Matter *Posted 9 years Ago

At 6/25/2012 12:03:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
If I had a dollar for everyone who comments on the dangers of alcohol yet stuffs their fat face full of Oreo's, Big Mac's, and Twinkies, I'd be a wealthy man.

Not saying this you, RP, just commenting on some of the mind-boggling hypocrisy of many Straight Edge kids.

What hypocrisy ? Are you comparing drug addictions to food. Please.:

Those who talk about living a "healthy lifestyle" by abstaining from alcohol, yet has a worse diet than a vulture. That hypocrisy.

It's even worse because alcohol is healthy in moderation, people are just brainwashed into thinking it's something bad and evil that only losers and stressed out doctors do.
Forums Home > Personal

Do babies under 2 have the right to live?Posted 10 years Ago

At 5/14/2012 11:37:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/14/2012 9:23:17 PM, lovelife wrote:
Because there is a large difference between one who can contribute and help further people's lives (poor people, those that are sick, etc) and one who has no ability to help anyone at all (fetuses and infants)

I'd say just the opposite. The poor and weak can have so many genetic problems and their previous environment was so unstable that their ability to contribute to society is nil, and society would be better off with them dead.

Many poor people are contributing more to society than rich people. Who do you think contributes more, Rick Santorum? Mitt Romney? Al Gore? Teachers?
And when you try to defend what you've said already, in what why?

While the fetuses and infants have stronger potential to help society, since most people don't end up being bums.

Poor=/=bums.
I oppose welfare for those that are doing nothing to contribute, and you know that. Clean parks, walk dogs for the shelter, read to children, etc. Contribute first, get your hand up later. Anyone can contribute, I know someone who has to use a wheelchair, and he has no control over his arms. He can do quite a bit to help out anyway. He can use his feet to type, to dial phones, he can use his feet for all kinds of things.
And I'm sure you can think of at least one other person with a very similar disability.

But regardless, do we measure whether we should let someone live or die based on "if they benefited society?". How would you even measure that?

Simple, if there was a fire I would rather save a teacher to a student that sits around all class goofing off and making F's.
Why? Cause the teacher benefits society, and that student is unlikely to.
A teacher that cannot do her job right? All the kids fail, and she is abusive and gets nothing accomplished to a regular student with a part time job? I'd save the student.
If people do not contribute to society, society will not be able to function right.
A baby cannot contribute, only older children and adults can do that.
Sure -one day- the baby may be able to, however that day is not today, nor is it yesterday, therefore it is of no importance.

Sure someone can produce a lot of goods/services but they also consumed a lot of stuff as well.

That's the way society works best. You work and contribute your ability, money, and energy to society, and it gives it back to you a small amount of the work from people in different areas. If one does not do anything to benefit society, one becomes a leech on society's resources, and that is not something I would want in society.

People deplete the capital stock and natural resources all the time. Who knows how many and which people we'd have to kill off to maximize GDP per capita (technically there would a short-run and long-run solution as well).

This is relevant how exactly? We give, we take, and yes, this is life, people die as a result.

And as I've said before, an infant has more of a right to life than a fetus, because it does not require you to donate your body or any part thereof to continue living.

But the infant requires a lot of resources to stay alive. An adult even more since he/she consumes more.

An infant in no way can work, it requires someone else physically care for them. Also requires special bedding, special food, 2,000 diapers per year, etc. It cannot help anyone, it cannot do anything but consume. An adult may use more (or different rather) resources, but the adult is able to give back and help others.

And of course welfare doesn't require that an adult receive the bare minimum to stay alive, but more. Whose to say which one is the bigger "parasite" to society.

Well the way welfare works is to get you past where you need it, of course the minimum to stay alive would not be enough, you'd end up paying more to get up.
Hint hint, we are on welfare for that reason, and since we were able to pay for day care, both parents could work, the twins are moving on to public education soon, and then the cost of daycare goes, and we can afford to get off of welfare and thus cut off a way in which we take from society. If we only got the bare minimum we could not afford daycare, one parent would need to stay alive, and we would never get off of it.
A fetus is a parasite of the mother, not society.
Check out McFall v. Shimp for more information on forced organ donation.

An infant on the other hand, only has to live at the expense of whoever chooses to help continue the life.

And let's say nobody wants to help continue this infants life?

If you are in a society that does not value infants, or cannot afford to save the infant and other older contributing children, the infant will die.
Simply put, infants are not more valuable than already existing children.
I agree that in many of the countries that happens that they should adopt internationally, but the US exploits many of the women so several countries have shut it down. I highly doubt that China is going to shut it down anytime soon though, since they don't care really.

That's why I am for socialized medicine, and voluntary organ donation, but not forced organ donation. I am for voluntarily giving a fetus life, so long as it does not violate the rights of another person.

And what If someone values their money more then their organs?

Not sure what that question even means.
By all means donate your organs though. I've never opposed that...
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do babies under 2 have the right to live?Posted 10 years Ago

Meaning if you choose to remain in a society that you know will take taxes towards helping people (welfare, socialized medicine) and not just killing people (war) you have an obligation to continue to give back to the society, or you can choose to leave.
A baby has no such ability to get to a place in which the baby can eat and survive.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do babies under 2 have the right to live?Posted 10 years Ago

At 5/14/2012 8:58:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/14/2012 8:45:45 PM, lovelife wrote:
They have a right to life...but like everyone else that right cannot come at the price of another person.
For example if you were stranded in a boat in the middle of the ocean and your options were you could eat the baby, jump out and have the baby jump out and drown, or both starve.
If the baby was old enough to survive on it's own somehow, then that no longer is a justified option. In that case you could jump out and try to find fish without the baby following you and attempt to find fish for you both.

But so long as the baby is not able to fend for itself it does not have a right to life that trumps that of someone that can.

In the United States however, if a parent does not wish to feed or care for children, they CAN hand them over to adoption. They can even leave them in certain locations and have them delivered, like cargo, thus killing a baby in the United States is not justified, as it does not require the use of your body, (we do have formula now, and adoptive parents, even adoptive fathers, can pump enough to start producing milk anyway), and you can survive just fine without killing the baby.
As a baby living in no way clashes with another person living, it is then assumed that babies do have a right to life, almost equal to that of any other child.

Why are you in favor of only negative rights when you favor welfare and other policies (socialized healthcare) that require someone to live at the expense of another?

Because there is a large difference between one who can contribute and help further people's lives (poor people, those that are sick, etc) and one who has no ability to help anyone at all (fetuses and infants)
And as I've said before, an infant has more of a right to life than a fetus, because it does not require you to donate your body or any part thereof to continue living. An infant on the other hand, only has to live at the expense of whoever chooses to help continue the life.
That's why I am for socialized medicine, and voluntary organ donation, but not forced organ donation. I am for voluntarily giving a fetus life, so long as it does not violate the rights of another person.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do babies under 2 have the right to live?Posted 10 years Ago

At 5/13/2012 1:06:14 AM, Prox wrote:

If one is prochoice, I don't see why this should end after birth. What difference should location make except that we're biologically designed to feel bad for killing babies?

Because babies do not require the use of anybody's body against their will.
I have every right to life, but not the right to attach myself to your body for months and require you to go through a painful experience against your will to detach from me and have both of us (hopefully) continue living.
I do not have the right to live at the expense of anyone else, and neither does any.
being pro choice isn't about fetuses not having a right to life, it's about a woman having the right to not be used as an incubator against her will.

I would never commit infanticide, though. My moral brain is much too strong.

Never say never, cause there are crazy situations that could happen. You never know what will happen.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do babies under 2 have the right to live?Posted 10 years Ago

They have a right to life...but like everyone else that right cannot come at the price of another person.
For example if you were stranded in a boat in the middle of the ocean and your options were you could eat the baby, jump out and have the baby jump out and drown, or both starve.
If the baby was old enough to survive on it's own somehow, then that no longer is a justified option. In that case you could jump out and try to find fish without the baby following you and attempt to find fish for you both.

But so long as the baby is not able to fend for itself it does not have a right to life that trumps that of someone that can.

In the United States however, if a parent does not wish to feed or care for children, they CAN hand them over to adoption. They can even leave them in certain locations and have them delivered, like cargo, thus killing a baby in the United States is not justified, as it does not require the use of your body, (we do have formula now, and adoptive parents, even adoptive fathers, can pump enough to start producing milk anyway), and you can survive just fine without killing the baby.
As a baby living in no way clashes with another person living, it is then assumed that babies do have a right to life, almost equal to that of any other child.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Record attempt at most posts.Posted 10 years Ago

ROYAL Y U no be here???
Forums Home > Miscellaneous

Gangster Chronicles DP 6Posted 10 years Ago

At 2/20/2012 5:27:01 PM, TUF wrote:
At 2/20/2012 5:15:04 PM, lovelife wrote:
Just got online. Whats up?

Lol she is alive!
I will give you a quick update.
LDF tried accusing me of silencing f-16.
I combatted her saying I didn't.

compelling.

We argued about it for a few pages.
Finally she came out with her tracker results.
We found that her tracker results were faked, and it was mod confirmed through LK.

seems scum

She admitted to being cult. Everyone lynched her, and out plan is to vigkill f-16, since they are supposedly in a pm together.
Then all of a sudden LDF says she is the mafia recruiter and the mafia planned on recruiting either me or koopin next day phase. Finally medic comes out with the results, and conveinently, LDF's body gets hidden.
Now LDF is claiming she was cult again. The mafias plot is to try and lead a mis-lynch against me and koopin, who were confirmed by LDF basically not thinking thing through before posting them.

Hmmm reeking of WIFOM.
Forums Home > Games

Gangster Chronicles DP 6Posted 10 years Ago

Just got online. Whats up?
Forums Home > Games

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.