| 15th November 2006 03:45 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
uttered by people who live lives largely unaffected by the right wing assault on the Constitution....in my job I deal with people whose very freedom depends on election results....only a fool thinks their vote does not count....or wastes it on 'bosses'
Sigh. I finally come to look at this thread, due to sheer boredom with the slowness of the content management system at work.
This interests me. Please elaborate, jizzy. Feel free to email or PM me. I don't care where it happens, but I would like to know/talk to you about this. |
| 15th November 2006 03:48 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Do Bush Geeks know how the female birth control pill works?
Yes, they do. This is why many conservative pharmacy employees and pharmacists REFUSE to distribute doctor-prescribed birth control pills to women across the country.
|
| 15th November 2006 03:52 PM |
|
|
| WJ |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
Yes, they do. This is why many conservative pharmacy employees and pharmacists REFUSE to distribute doctor-prescribed birth control pills to women across the country.
I bet those same places will distribute Viagra. |
| 15th November 2006 04:02 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
WJ wrote:
I bet those same places will distribute Viagra.
Yah, but not to women.
I once tried to get a company giving away free samples of the shit to give a free sample to me.
Nada. They wouldn't even do it when I called back and pretended to be getting it for my boyfriend.
Which reminded me of when I called all the escort services here in SF and tried to get two escorts. No one would take my "reservation." They actually asked me WHAT I WANTED THEM FOR. I said my friend and I needed dates for a wedding. They refused.
I guess my money isn't as green...
[Edited by SheRat] |
| 15th November 2006 04:13 PM |
|
|
| WJ |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
Yah, but not to women.
I once tried to get a company giving away free samples of the shit to give a free sample to me.
Nada. They wouldn't even do it when I called back and pretended to be getting it for my boyfriend.
Which reminded me of when I called all the escort services here in SF and tried to get two escorts. No one would take my "reservation." They actually asked me WHAT I WANTED THEM FOR. I said my friend and I needed dates for a wedding. They refused.
I guess my money isn't as green...
[Edited by SheRat]
You should have just told them you wanted the escorts for your boyfriend; then they would have taken your reservation and thrown in some free Viagra. |
| 15th November 2006 04:14 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
I too would like Jizzy to explain the remark that Sherat is curiious about...I figure I know what he's referring to, but, for the life me, can't see the logic...but maybe you can explain? |
| 15th November 2006 04:17 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Just out of curiosity...why the parentheticals?...Is there a non-christian religion that is more tolerant?...Please list them...and just so I know where you're coming from, are you an athiest?...agnostic?...other?...You've impliedly equated some of my views to religious views in some of our past discussions and I guess if I'm going to be forced to defend the notion of religion and its viewpoints it would be nice to know where you stand
Couldn't say whether other religious traditions are more tolerant of scientific advance. Islam once was, which is why much of the classical wisdom which was deliberately destroyed by late Roman and medieval Christians was reintroduced into Europe during the Renaissance from Islamic sources--and why algebra has an Arabic name.
Please do not confuse my criticism of reactionary Christianity with a rejection of religion. As I have previously explained, a religious (spiritual or metaphysical) perspective is fundamental to my world view. I am a Thelemite (Google it; it is not our practice to preach, convert or discuss at length). As such, I take issue with proselytizing faiths. Of the major world religions, I find Buddhism the most sensible. I recommend Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" to those unfamiliar with the tenets of that system.
 |
| 15th November 2006 04:18 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
I too would like Jizzy to explain the remark that Sherat is curiious about...I figure I know what he's referring to, but, for the life me, can't see the logic...but maybe you can explain?
I assumed he's another criminal defense lawyer. |
| 15th November 2006 04:18 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
I too would like Jizzy to explain the remark that Sherat is curiious about...I figure I know what he's referring to, but, for the life me, can't see the logic...but maybe you can explain?
Nanky ?!
[Edited by Joey] |
| 15th November 2006 04:28 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Couldn't say whether other religious traditions are more tolerant of scientific advance. Islam once was, which is why much of the classical wisdom which was deliberately destroyed by late Roman and medieval Christians was reintroduced into Europe during the Renaissance from Islamic sources--and why algebra has an Arabic name.
Please do not confuse my criticism of reactionary Christianity with a rejection of religion. As I have previously explained, a religious (spiritual or metaphysical) perspective is fundamental to my world view. I am a Thelemite (Google it; it is not our practice to preach, convert or discuss at length). As such, I take issue with proselytizing faiths. Of the major world religions, I find Buddhism the most sensible. I recommend Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" to those unfamiliar with the tenets of that system.
Islam...ONCE WAS more tolerant...I guess...but I do believe that was many years ago...and I'm not even sure you're correct...or that it matters
"Thelemite"...Yo...nothing wrong with a religion dedicated to worhsipping that big bootied broad on Good Times...I can get behind that
Buddhism?...the most sensible?...My mother-in-law is Buddhist...gotta tell ya...she ain't that sensible
Bottom line...there are many impediments to scientific development...some you may find reasonable some you may not...not all impediments are of a moral or religious nature...but we all agree there are limitations on what can be done in the name of science...I mean, let's not dick around, we could make great advances in science if we could monkey around with live humans (see, e.g., the Chinese)...but we don't do it...we draw a line almost universally...so I think with the issue of stem cell research, to discount opposition to federal funding as mere religious lunacy is a real disservice to the debate...given the stakes, and the slope, it's worthy of debate and certainly the morality encompassed within the religious and non-religious opposition is worthy of respect...I mean I wouldn't equate the detractors to the people who burned scientists on the stake...that's a bit specious |
| 15th November 2006 04:32 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
I assumed he's another criminal defense lawyer.
Right...and if he's saying what I think he's trying to say, I believe he is overstating things a bit...the retroactive application of innocence is rare...regardless of the party in power...and I'm pretty sure that legislation in his state is dominated by one particular party...I hope he's not one of these guys that's placing his occupational failures at the foot of the federal government |
| 15th November 2006 04:58 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
"DRESS BLUES" ~ Jason Isabell/Drive-By Truckers
"What can you see from your window
I can't see anything from mine
Flags on the side of the highway
Scripture on grocery store signs
Maybe 18 was too early
Maybe 30 or 40 is too
Did you get chance to make peace with the man
Before he sent down his angels for you?
Mama's and grandmama's love you
Cause that's all they know how to do
And you never planned on the bombs in the sand
Or sleeping in your dress blues
Your wife said this all would be funny
If you came back home in a week
You'd turn 22 and they'd celebrate you
In a bar or tent by the creek
Your baby would just about be here
Your very last tour would be up
But you ain't coming back
They're all dressing in black
Drinking sweet tea in styrofoam cups
Mama's and grandmama's love you
American boys hate to lose
And you never planned on the bombs in the sand
Or sleeping in your dress blues
The highschool gymnasium is ready
Full of flowers and old legionaires
Nobody showed up to protest
Just a sniffle and stare
Red white and blue in the rafters
And silent old men from the core
What did they say when they shipped you away
To fight somebody's hollywood war
Mama's and grandmama's love you
Cause that's all they know how to do
And you never planned on the bombs in the sand
Or sleeping in your dress blues
Nobody here could forget you
You showed us what we had to lose
And you never planned on the bombs in the sand
Or sleeping in your dress blues |
| 15th November 2006 05:02 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
While I certainly understand both sides to the "free-enterprise funded research vs. govt. funded research" argument, I am wondering why no one's brought up the issue of the embryos which are being argued over are donated eggs that are going to *be destroyed anyways.* And have been *being* destroyed. Applying the naysayer's logic, the people who have been destroying these embryos are no better than abortion doctors.
Why the outrage now?
[Edited by SheRat] |
| 15th November 2006 05:03 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
"DRESS BLUES" ~ Jason Isabell/Drive-By Truckers
WTF does this have to do with stem cell research? |
| 15th November 2006 05:24 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
While I certainly understand both sides to the "free-enterprise funded research vs. govt. funded research" argument, I am wondering why no one's brought up the issue of the embryos which are being argued over are donated eggs that are going to *be destroyed anyways.* And have been *being* destroyed. Applying the naysayer's logic, the people who have been destroying these embryos are no better than abortion doctors.
Why the outrage now?
[Edited by SheRat]
Well...I understand the concern is not so much with "to be destroyed anyway" eggs...there is a slope...and if one is concerned that slope will get too slippery, they're going to fight like hell before they start pushing things down that slope...I understand, respect, and in some ways agree with the concern...but that really is not the issue...the issue is as has been stated...whether or not, given the very large opposition by people who pay taxes, the research is going to be federally funded...folks who want to turn this into some religion vs. science, right vs. left debate, quicky overlook that...on purpose I believe...the debate, as far as I'm concerned is fiscal in nature, and at this point, I see no reason to throw federal money towards this research...especially not just so we can say we didn't cowtow to organized religion
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
| 15th November 2006 05:25 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
WTF does this have to do with stem cell research?
Isbell never served...that is clear to me |
| 15th November 2006 05:45 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Well...I understand the concern is not so much with "to be destroyed anyway" eggs...there is a slope...and if one is concerned that slope will get too slippery, they're going to fight like hell before they start pushing things down that slope...I understand, respect, and in some ways agree with the concern...
Understood. I am quoting the above passage because I am curious: what, exactly, is the slope? What horrors are imagined?
For all the prinicples involved in the matter, it still seems to be an outrageous misallocation of resources, when there's shit like this going on to be concerned about.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/06/MNGR1LGUQ41.DTL
If there ever was a situation where the principle of the worker owning the means of production applied...Still, I guess one could argue that you can't fight all the battles all the time. And these are usually not white people. Plus, they're chicks.
[Edited by SheRat] |
| 15th November 2006 05:55 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
Understood. I am quoting the above passage because I am curious: what, exactly, is the slope? What horrors are imagined?
For all the prinicples involved in the matter, it still seems to be an outrageous misallocation of resources, when there's shit like this going on to be concerned about.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/06/MNGR1LGUQ41.DTL
If there ever was a situation where the principle of the worker owning the means of production applied...Still, I guess one could argue that you can't fight all the battles all the time. And these are usually not white people. Plus, they're chicks.
[Edited by SheRat]
Imagined horrors?...Maybe I was too quick to judgment...Come to think, my daughter ain't working...all she does is take and take...Time, I say, she earn her keep...What you figure a dozen eggs will bring?...I'm going to run that whole ownership of the means of production thing by her...She still in Jr. High so I'm guessing I can convince her that she's only half owner and therefore, entitled to only half the profits...that is my "modest proposal"
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
| 15th November 2006 06:03 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Imagined horrors?...Maybe I was too quick to judgment...Come to think, my daughter ain't working...all she does is take and take...Time, I say, she earn her keep...What you figure a dozen eggs will bring?...I'm going to run that whole ownership of the means of production thing by her...She still in Jr. High so I'm guessing I can convince her that she's only half owner and therefore, entitled to only half the profits...that is my "modest proposal"
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
I didn't mean "imagined" like, "what a bunch of psychos, what do they think is going to happen"--I meant like, imagine as in, what hasn't happened yet that one can imagine will?
Anyways, is that it?
My point stands: If we're so worried about people selling eggs for research to cure diseases, why aren't we worried about people selling *people* for se....oh wait...
[insert shit-eating grin here] |
| 15th November 2006 06:11 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
My point stands: If we're so worried about people selling eggs for research to cure diseases, why aren't we worried about people selling *people* for se....oh wait...
[insert shit-eating grin here]
Why?...Because selling people is not the issue...not in this thread...and it certianly bothers me that underage women may be sold into sex
If we're so worried about selling people, does it not stand to reason that we should be worried about the people who may be involved in my psycho scenario...it's not that "imagined"...not only do I think it will happen, I guarantee it will happen...they'll be little embryonic sweat shops all over the third world...and judging by that link, eventually in San Fran |
| 15th November 2006 06:13 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
Sigh. I finally come to look at this thread, due to sheer boredom with the slowness of the content management system at work.
This interests me. Please elaborate, jizzy. Feel free to email or PM me. I don't care where it happens, but I would like to know/talk to you about this.
I do criminal defense work. The rights of our people, as secured by the Founding Fathers after hard experience with occupiers, were enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The interpretation of those rights, particularly as it relates to the Fourth Amendment ('the right of the people to be free from unreasonable search and seizure....and no warrant shall issue except upon...') is what has kept this once-great Nation from slipping into a police state as the Bush geeks wish. These rights have been steadily eroded with every great "moral" drive that pleases these geeks. Prohibition, the 'War on Drugs', anti-porn drives....all lead to law enforcement over-reaching as these issues frequently take place behind closed doors. And these Bush geeks wish to pry into ALL of our doors. And to think that this will only apply to criminals or 'terrorists', is to ignore history. At your peril. As do the Bush geeks. So the geeks have sought to make the police lazy and get away with violating fundamental American rights rather than insisting on and enforcing law enforcement's compliance with the Law. Typical. So I come into the picture representing some poor schmuck caught with a joint in some highway stop only because John Q. Cop decided to not waste time and get a warrant and instead searches a locked glove compartment. Under the judges who used to respect this Nation's citizenry, under judges who used not to kowtow before the religious loonies and their geek supporters, the results of such a search would be easy to suppress. Now the loony judges look for ways to keep the joint in evidence. And the result may be criminal sanctions versus my client. That is only one of dozens of annual examples with which I deal.
As a test, I tossed out some quotes from great Americans such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis in one of those endless threads where FijiMax advocate bearing their chests, tossing out the Constitution, and 'getting tough with terrorists'. Rather predictably, in ignorance of who they were trashing, the usual geek suspects accused me of being 'soft' on terrorism and the ususl McCarthy-ite lies. Instead, all they revealed is their contempt for real American values and this Nation's Constitution. I'm sure Oliver Wendell Holmes appreciates the irony of geeks calling him a 'communist'!!! |
| 15th November 2006 06:19 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Why?...Because selling people is not the issue...not in this thread...and it certianly bothers me that underage women may be sold into sex
If we're so worried about selling people, does it not stand to reason that we should be worried about the people who may be involved in my psycho scenario...it's not that "imagined"...not only do I think it will happen, I guarantee it will happen...they'll be little embryonic sweat shops all over the third world...and judging by that link, eventually in San Fran
I guess my point is that this "psycho scenario" is *already* happening, as are "people" farms, where people are being bred for the purposes of selling their organs to the black market.
Again, I was not trying to stigmatize "imagined"--the only thing *I* could "imagine" on the ""slope" was exactly your scenario. I was merely asking because I thought maybe there were some *other* possiblities that I'd not imagined.
As for the thread being NOT about selling people for sex, I also realize that selling people for sex is not the subject of federal funding either. However, you and I, I thought, had explicity taken the discussion out of the realm of the federal funding debate and into one of morality.
Alls I'm saying is I find the indignation on behalf of the fetus/embryos/zygote/whatever on the part of the "pro-life" movement, or whatever you want to call them, interesting.
From the standpoint of someone who is curious about such things.
[Edited by SheRat] |
| 15th November 2006 06:21 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
I do criminal defense work. The rights of our people, as secured by the Founding Fathers after hard experience with occupiers, were enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The interpretation of those rights, particularly as it relates to the Fourth Amendment ('the right of the people to be free from unreasonable search and seizure....and no warrant shall issue except upon...') is what has kept this once-great Nation from slipping into a police state as the Bush geeks wish. These rights have been steadily eroded with every great "moral" drive that pleases these geeks. Prohibition, the 'War on Drugs', anti-porn drives....all lead to law enforcement over-reaching as these issues frequently take place behind closed doors. And these Bush geeks wish to pry into ALL of our doors. And to think that this will only apply to criminals or 'terrorists', is to ignore history. At your peril. As do the Bush geeks. So the geeks have sought to make the police lazy and get away with violating fundamental American rights rather than insisting on and enforcing law enforcement's compliance with the Law. Typical. So I come into the picture representing some poor schmuck caught with a joint in some highway stop only because John Q. Cop decided to not waste time and get a warrant and instead searches a locked glove compartment. Under the judges who used to respect this Nation's citizenry, under judges who used not to kowtow before the religious loonies and their geek supporters, the results of such a search would be easy to suppress. Now the loony judges look for ways to keep the joint in evidence. And the result may be criminal sanctions versus my client. That is only one of dozens of annual examples with which I deal.
As a test, I tossed out some quotes from great Americans such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis in one of those endless threads where FijiMax advocate bearing their chests, tossing out the Constitution, and 'getting tough with terrorists'. Rather predictably, in ignorance of who they were trashing, the usual geek suspects accused me of being 'soft' on terrorism and the ususl McCarthy-ite lies. Instead, all they revealed is their contempt for real American values and this Nation's Constitution. I'm sure Oliver Wendell Holmes appreciates the irony of geeks calling him a 'communist'!!!
Do you have any idea how retarded you sound?...You swinging at imaginary demons again?...Do your job Thomas Paine...It's up to you...You really do sound like a raving retard...I would have kept that thought to myself, but, since you took it upon yourself to attribute some viewpoints to me that I did not express, and further decided to take what promised to be a civil discussion straight into the gutter, I have to say fuck you Corky... |
| 15th November 2006 06:30 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
I guess my point is that it's already happening, as are "people" farms, where people are being bred for the purposes of selling their organs to the black market.
Again, I was not trying to stigmatize "imagined"--the only thing *I* could "imagine" on the ""slope" was exactly your scenario. I was merely asking because I thought maybe there was some *other* possiblity that I'd not imagined.
As for the thread being NOT about selling people for sex, I also realize that selling people for sex is not the subject of federal funding either. However, you and I, I thought, had explicity taken the discussion out of the realm of the federal funding debate and into one of morality.
Alls I'm saying is I find the indignation on behalf of the fetus/embryos/zygote/whatever on the part of the "pro-life" movement, or whatever you want to call them, interesting.
From the standpoint of someone who is curious about such things.
You use the term "indignation"...Why?...I hope you're not discounting all opposition on this issue as premised on morality...
I find the supporting arguments on this issue more "interesting"...typically those arguments aren't affirmative statements of the benefits of the research based on science, rather, they are simplistic attacks on the religion of the stereotypical opponenbt...it's almost as if the supporters of embryonic stem cell research are not so much in it because of the dividends of the research, as they are in it because of the great opportunity it provides them to attack those whom they consider themselves opponents on religious grounds...well...and then there's moonie...who is pretty much into it just so he can bash Bush...which, I gotta tell ya, is the most fucktardest reason of them all |
| 15th November 2006 06:51 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
You use the term "indignation"...Why?...I hope you're not discounting all opposition on this issue as premised on morality...
This is such an indication of how sensitive discussion about these issues has become. In no way was I using "indignation" sarcastically.
And, to clarify, I find the indignation on behalf of the fetus/embryos/zygote/whatever interesting--in light of the LACK of indignation on behalf of sex slaves.
Actually, what I really question is the cooption of the "egg" into the circle. I can understand people indentifying with a fetus, even a zygote. Abortion being actually the "act" of killing a living thing I don't think anyone disagrees (whether the "thing" in question is "fully human" or not, is, I believe, a matter of debate--disregarding the whole "jurisdiction of the woman's body" issue). But the idea that birth control pills are murder?
That seems unreasonable to me. So every time I've had my period for the last 20 years has been murder?
It seems to me to be an unnaturally extreme identification with/anthropomorphization of the egg. Why do we not feel the same with sperm (at last the catholics did..."every sperm is sacred").
And the outrage at the murder of the poor, innocent "eggs" seems to me, silly in light of the sale of people for sex.
It's an interesting issue, really. Why *can't* I sell my eggs? If capitalism deems that they are now a commodity, why not? Capitalism has also deemed my body a commodity as well. And I can sell limited access to my body in a strip club...but it's illegal to actually sell access to my vagina. Which seems a little illogical.
Saying I have the right to sell my body in a strip club appears to give me the right to sell my body period. How can I have full jurisdiction over my body EXCEPT my vagina?
Actually, that is GREAT argument one could use to support outlawing abortion. The state already recognizes it's jurisdiction over my vagina by telling me I can't sell it. Therefore, there exists a precedent to a woman NOT having control over her actual vagina. And if the govt. can tell you you can't sell your pussy, they can also tell you you can't stick a hose up it either.
Too much coffee today.
I'm sure this post will kill this thread. LOL.
|
| 15th November 2006 07:00 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
And I can sell limited access to my body in a strip club...but it's illegal to actually sell access to my vagina. Which seems a little illogical.
Saying I have the right to sell my body in a strip club appears to give me the right to sell my body period. How can I have full jurisdiction over my body EXCEPT my vagina?
I Hate America. |
| 15th November 2006 07:04 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
SheRat wrote:
Yes, they do. This is why many conservative pharmacy employees and pharmacists REFUSE to distribute doctor-prescribed birth control pills to women across the country.
Those are religious whack jobs, not in any way conservatives or even Bush Geeks - they are wrong headed, but at least most are principled and understanding of their insanity.
I'm quite sure 99.9% of Bush Geeks have or have had sex in which female oral contraception was used as a means of terminating conception (its been in widespread use for decades now), but have no idea that they are committing negligent manslaughter as a MINIMUM (more likely some degree of homocide using their definitions) most of the time that the magic pill does its job. Terming destruction of a microscopic set of cells that have no capability of starting human life to be murder, shows the endless stupidity of this President and the dwindling set of fools who still follow his mush - he's like a rusty windup toy that randomly bumps into walls and then lurches somewhere else. So are they, check this thread for examples. |
| 15th November 2006 07:09 PM |
|
|
| SheRat |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Those are religious whack jobs, not in any way conservatives or even Bush Geeks - they are wrong headed, but at least most are principled and understanding of their insanity.
Ah, sorry...I'm not familiar with what is obviously an established lexicon...;-)
I guess my meandering about eggs and vaginas, etc. was extra pointless and indulgent then.
My apologies.
[Edited by SheRat] |
| 15th November 2006 07:11 PM |
|
|
| TampabayStone |
quote:
Dan wrote:
I Hate America.
 |
| 15th November 2006 07:15 PM |
|
|
| robpop |
I have a mother who has a degenerative brain condition. My mother never hurt anybody or ever did anything malicious in her life. I can only hope that the fucking insensitive Bush geek assholes who so strongly are opposed to stem cell research will someday be meeting new people every 5 minutes while they shit their pants. Go to hell scumbags. |
