CP3S

Looks like Sherlock is going to start airing at the beginning of January. Woooo!

No other shows matter.

It isn't an ignorant debating tactic, sorry you feel that way.

I appreciate your passion on this topic, I assure you, when I was younger I was making most of the same points you are now, I've not only heard your point of view, but more or less held it. Since then I have seen and dealt with a lot of crap that has swayed me.

Just because I support it, doesn't mean I find it pleasant or ideal.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

.

I wonder what CP3S originally said here.  

Double post. Merged it into one. All these double, triple, and quadruple posts are making my head hurt. Nothing was removed.

darth_ender said:

C3PS, I admitted I would be long-winded beforehand, and I also admitted that I would not change my mind.  Humorous you would call it a close-minded debate, as I've yet to see you change your mind in any of your arguments.

Argue better and I might. ;)

I guess you didn't get the point that I was talking about both sides here?

I just don't have time to read and refute longwinded versions of arguments I have heard many times before, there is really no point in it.

 This was meant to be a debate thread (see the title), and I doubt you or your colleagues are being any more open-minded to the opposite point of view.

I actually do hold a good deal of open-mindedness in any discussion I take part in. We are really treading on the most basic of ground in this debate, this stuff is barely skimming the surface of the issue, and yet we can knock out thousands of words trying to make our point. As it is, we are mostly just argument morality. You with a strong faith in a higher being at the core of your points, and me without certainty in anything but the necessity to be decent to our fellow man.

You're always quite welcome to not respond if you feel you've read them too many times before.  I've read your point of view plenty as well, whether typed by your own fingers or someone who thinks just like you.  But if you don't have the nerve to try to respond to what appears to be a minority opinion here, then go exercise your First Amendment rights somewhere else instead of simply making a mockery of your debating opponent.

I keep forgetting you are a moderator now. Sorry for breaking your rules.

Not sure how you think I made a mockery of my debating opponent? Wasn't my intention.

.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

 but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form.

if that is what you believe, why do you think people have the right to kill it.

You know the answer, we've had this discussion before.

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment.   I am sure you've heard of adoption.    It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.

Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.

but can you really be certain foster homes and orphanages are worst than death?   Also not all babies that are up for adoption end up in foster homes and/or orphanages.    Some people find the adoptive parents before the baby is born.   Then the baby goes directly from the natural mother to the adoptive parents.   I don't think that is so bad.

No, I can't be sure of that. I am not saying kill any kid we thing is going to have a hard life. I am saying that if a woman gets pregnant and wants to destroy her child before it is sentient, why should we stop her? So we can have one more abused or neglected child in the world?

CP3S said:

And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.

I could be wrong, but I think mothers usually recover quickly from birth if they take care of themselves.

That depends. Some of the signs of pregnancy linger for quite some time.

CP3S said:

again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive.  You are playing God.  

I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?

I am not sure what else you call it went you decide that someone is better off death than alive and therefore its ok to kill that person. 

I was saying that I am not playing God. I am not choosing who lives and who dies. We are talking about the mother, with this small potential person growing inside her having the choice of whether or not that small tiny potential person gets to continue growing inside her.

CP3S said:

Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.  

And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?

and if the child doesn't want to die? though?

Is this child sentient? Because for me, that is really where the hinge of this debate lies.

I am sure it can, but I still don't how a fetus taking nutrients can be compared to a mugging.    The fetus isn't even making a conscious choice. 

Let's assume I am starving to death. Without food I am going to die. So I help myself into your home and raid your fridge. Much better. But I don't leave. I tell you I am going to stay at your place for 9 months, and that you need to do regular grocery shopping to keep me well fed. The government decides to back me up and support me in this, on account of the fact that I will die without food and have stated that I am going to let myself starve to death if I am removed from Warb's home.

Still not a perfect analogy...

I am not sure what else you call killing a human being.   

tell me, does the KKK have a right to say that killing black people isn't murder?  nope.   that's also cause we say so.

Going by dictionary definitions here, mate. According to Oxford and Webster, murder is an illegal killing. If I were a KKK klansmen and made the statement that it isn't illegal to kill an African America (shit! why do we always find ourselves back on the subject of race!), it doesn't change the laws and make it any less illegal. It would still be murder. Since abortion is legal, killing a fetus during the period that it is legal to do so, is not murder.

Not because anyone said so, but because words have meaning and so do laws.

CP3S said:

You sure about that?

so now you want infer that I am sexist just because I a pro-abortion?

I am not having this discussion. This is ridiculous. I never said anything to infer or suggest that you are sexist.

to answer your question: yes I am 200% certain I have no desire to control women.  All I want to do preserve life once it already exists.    That you would infer I am a sexist and that I want to control women, angers me. 

I didn't infer that. But making abortion illegal would be controlling women, it would be telling women that if they get pregnant, they'll just have to deal.

As for defending abortion even if it is human life:   If the fetus is human with the same rights as you and I?  how is killing it any different than killing it once its outside the womb?  If a mother gave birth to a baby, and then decided that since she really didn't want it.  She thought adoption is so terrible and the baby will be better off dead than alive, so she kills it.   We call that murder, right?   Why should it be different for a human still inside the womb?

We would call that murder. Again, the debate should be about sentience and viability. At that point the child is sentient beyond a doubt, and is viable and can survive without the mother. Killing it at this point would be senseless.

That is a good argument against late term abortion as well.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above.

I am sure many women who are pro-life and have had babies, also make the same argument.

And I am sure many women who are pro-choice and have had babies make the same argument as me. The only point I was making there was that they are certainly more qualified to do so than you or me.

Whoa, over night this thread has turned into a sea of longwinded Darth Ender posts. Not even sure where to begin in responded to them, or if I should even bother to respond, given he has already stated that nothing will ever change his mind on the subject. I find close minded debate kind of boring. You already know my stance on the subject, and so far I have heard every point you made at least a few dozen times before.

Johnny Ringo said:

CP3S said:

Catching up on the last few episodes of The Walking Dead. Kind of slow this season. Still really enjoying it though.

Once I finish them, I'll go back to Breaking Bad for another season or two.

 

...this is even more tragic than 005 choosing Mad Men [a decent show] over Breaking Bad [the best show ever?].

I think you really need to rethink your priorities.  I like TWD but it's complete trash when compared to BB.

:)

I agree wholeheartedly. I love TWD because it is a serious drama about zombies in a world where zombie movies tend to be intentionally ridiculous. It does get over overbearing in the drama though. But BB is ten times the show, if not more.

The reason I am taking BB slow is because I enjoy it so much, I don't want to burn through the whole series in a matter of weeks. So my plan of action is to take a season at a time, with a healthy gap between. 

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:  I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human.

while I am not pro-choice, I'll try to explain the logic used by the other side.   It's as simple as this: they don't believe they are taking the right of life away from another human.    They don't believe the fetus is a human yet.   They believe you become a human when born, therefore to them the fetus is not human life.  Since, to them,  a fetus is not human life, it does not have human rights.      

I think you speak for pro-choice people way too casually for someone who isn't one himself. While I agree, there is a large population that likes to believe it as you have explained it, but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form. Everyone else is just trying to sell something, make themselves feel better, or split hairs to confuse the dumb masses, or are one of the dumb masses themselves.

It is human. It has it's own unique human DNA.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment.   I am sure you've heard of adoption.    It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.

Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.

And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.

Also, you have to take care of yourself to bring a healthy baby into the world, a lot of women aren't prepared to do that. Do we force them to carry their babies to term, and if so does that mean we have to force them to sustain from alcohol, tobacco, and other perfectly legal things that may be harmful to the child we are forcing them to have?

again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive.  You are playing God.  

I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?

Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.  

And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above. Try being pregnant then making the same claim that it isn't an attack. Pregnancy can be extremely uncomfortable, and can do a lot to harm the mother's health.

twister111 said:

All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!"

I wouldn't put it "because we say so!"  I would put it: " you must keep the kid alive cause murder is wrong." 

And it is murder because we say so.

The word "murder" is properly used in reference to an unlawful killing, not just any killing in general.

theprequelsrule said:

I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.

I don't wish to be rude but that is bs.   I have no desire to "keep women under the control men".  

You sure about that? Again, when you make your pro-life statements, make sure you take into consideration the fact that you are opposing the right to a choice you'll never have to make by any kind of stretch of the imagination. You're opposing the right of other people to a choice you'll never be faced with.

Catching up on the last few episodes of The Walking Dead. Kind of slow this season. Still really enjoying it though.

Once I finish them, I'll go back to Breaking Bad for another season or two.

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche. The developmental childhood years are extremely pivotal in an individual's life. You screw those up, you screw up the person. At this point we have layers upon layers of screwed up people in this country, prepared to make layers and layers of more screwed up people. If some of these people chose to "opt out" of at least one of their contributions to the screwed up masses...

I've seen some kids in some really heartwrenchingly awful situations thank to parents who were never fit to be parents. There are so many situations like this we can't even track or contain them all. If they are willing to undo what their irresponsible behavior created, by all means, let them spare that poor child from that fate.

Would you rather millions more children be born to parents who didn't really want them in the first place and who are not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be even the lousiest of parents?

FanFiltration said:

TV's Frink said:

So, did you not understand my reason, or did you just not read it? We were once excited parents too. I can assure you that the ultrasound changed everything.

To be honest, I did not consider this situation Frink. I certainly did not mean any hurtful disrespect by my off the cuff comment earlier in this thread.  I like shock humor, but not at the cost of hurting people feeling in that sort of area.

What FF said.

My comment was originally made for the famous person thread, then I decided to post it here instead. But no, I didn't read your comment at the time of posting, but you had mentioned that situation in the past.

I do sympathize, it must be a horrible thing to go through.

Not trying to sound overly insensitive or anything, but I still don't think that has a bearing on my comment about seeing fetuses as symbolic of new life. Your situation really sucked. But a lot of ultrasounds do bring many parents a lot of joy and exciting images to share with their friends. My whole point was that the fetus, being one of the early stages in the development of brand new humans (exciting stuff!) doesn't have to be seen as a morbid symbol of death and political controversy. Your personal experience doesn't nullify my point to any degree. It is unfortunate that babies die, I've seen dead babies, but I still find babies cute.

I thought the gummy fetus was actually pretty funny, and kind of cute. I think it is kind of weird so many of us find it as morbid as we do. It's a fetus! We were all one once! Why is it that dead fetuses and abortion are the only things some of us can think of when we see a fetus?

When I think of a fetus I think of new life, endless possibilities, and the wonders of the reproductive process. Excited parents with pictures of sonograms in their wallets.

I don't feel that a gummy fetus is any more morbid, distasteful, or crass than a gummy baby, puppy, or any other cute or innocent gummy shaped products.

Yep. Definitely down. Maybe permanently this time.

Disappointing; I kind of liked this place. :(

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

I REALLY WISH THAT I COULD'VE GONE WITH ERIKA TO SAN FRANCISCO THIS WEEK.

ERIKA SURPRISED WITH BY FLYING ME OUT TO SAN FRANCISCO.  WE HAD A GREAT WEEK TOGETHER.

Hopefully she was tutoring you in English sentence structure.

Started reading Let the Right One In last night, now I am one fifth of the way through the book and running a couple of hours short on sleep for the day.

Kind of wish I hadn't seen either of the movie adaptions before I started reading this. So far, the movies are extremely close to the book. Still really getting into it though.

So, talent makes someone more valuable? Slightly more tragic when the ten year old kid who is totally badass with a violin dies than when the ten year old who doesn't do so well in school and just want to play video-games in his free time dies?

doubleofive said:

 

Tobar said:

CP3S said:
I'm not sure how abrupt the announcement of its cancellation was, but I don't think it ever did well enough that anyone should have expected a second season.

I was actually referring to LOST in that first part addressed to you. =P

3 years. Lost set itself a death date so that they would be able to aim towards an end goal. What's odd is that's EXACTLY when it started wandering away from a goal at all.

 

Ah, that is funny, I've heard a lot of people say the abrupt and silly ending to the American remake of Life on Mars was likely due to it being cancelled at short notice with the writers scrambling to tie it up real quick; so I thought that was what you were talking about.

Yeah, like 005 said, they had three years of knowing exactly how many episodes they had left. The show wasn't cancelled, actually, the show runners asked for a definite end date so that they knew just how long they had to drag out the story for, and because they didn't want it to drag on forever like some shows that studios never let die. This all came about after the show began to tank hard during season three (the story went almost nowhere in that season, and we were given some very mundane episodes, like the stupid one about Jack's tattoos). That is why the last three seasons are shorter than the first three, they wanted to end it with season five, but ABC told them they wanted three more years of the show (from season three) so the agreement was that they would do three seasons containing the same number of episodes that would normally be in two seasons.

I'm not sure how abrupt the announcement of its cancellation was, but I don't think it ever did well enough that anyone should have expected a second season.

Watch the original version, it is fantastic. One of my favorite, if not my favorite, TV show of all time. It is really good. The American remake is just a pile of crap, anything good or interesting about it is taken directly from the original.

doubleofive said:

Xbox Dashboard Update:

What do you think so far? I only got to play with it for a few minutes. Seems a bit simpler, definitely better than scrolling all the way to the right to get to items like Netflix. It actually makes me want a Kinect, if just for the swiping and being able to tell it to do things, so I guess its a success in the regard of making me want to buy new things.

I don't like it. Old Dashboard was nice and simple, this one kind of assaults you with too much on the screen at once and now it feels like it takes longer to select whatever it is you want to click on with all the extra boxes stretching out in every direction.

I wonder how they decide what advertising everyone gets? I haven't seen any WoW ads on mine.

Tobar said:

Lost

Finally finished this show recently. I'm confused by how confused others found the ending. It made perfect sense to me and was a fitting end to the series however much I might disagree with it theologically. =P

I don't recall hearing that many people say they were confused by it, but definitely hear a lot talk about how much they didn't like it for various reasons.

In retrospect, Lost really failed to be anywhere near as great as it could have been. It brought in mysterious plot point to get people to watch it and talk about it, and ultimately those remained lose strings, or were tied up in overly simplified and silly ways.

It was one of my favorite shows of all time, I really wanted it to end as this pretty tapestry that I could be proud of (and even though I didn't care much for the ending, I still could have felt this way about it), but instead it is just a tattered mess.

Life on Mars

An odd show I randomly decided to start watching after I finished Lost. I was surprised and amused to find it starred the dad from Terra Nova.

This makes me very, very, very sad.

:(

Just picked up LA Noire for $10 bucks at Target. Haven't played it yet but I always thought it looked kind of cool, and $10 bucks is hard to beat.

greenpenguino said:

But it would be ideal to enlighten people about the first world war. What seems to be astonishing is that people seem to know a great deal about the second world war without ever realising that there was a WW1.

Most people I converse with realize there was a WWI, that would be daft not to. But I have noticed most people seem to have a hard time differentiating its setting and events from that of WWII. Guess they just kind of run together to a lot of people.

I was playing Call of Duty the other day and was thinking the same thing, it would be cool if we had some WWI era first person shooters.

*Sigh*

I've been trying to tie up some of the lose ends I've left over the last year. Last week I played Call of Duty 2 for an hour or so and finished the last few bits I needed on Veteran and now have 100% of the achievements for the game.

Today I decided to do the same for Assassin's Creed II. Finished off the last two tombs I needed, found the last 15 or so feathers I needed, and found the last glyph I needed and solved it. Now I am only two achievements away from 100% on AC II, and both of them are story related so once I beat the game I'll have them all.

I'd love to do the same thing for Call of Duty 4, but I really don't think I'll be able to do that Mile High Club mission on Veteran. I tried for hours one day and made it mind bogglingly close (as in one last enemy standing between me and the hostage), but after a few days of trying over and over again but getting extremely close and dying, I put it away and moved on. Now that has been almost a year ago and when I pick it up and try to tear through that level on veteran I can't even make it past the first couple of rooms. Grrrr. It is the last achievement I need in the entire game.

I suppose after AC II, Call of Duty 8 will be the next game I aim for 100% on.

TV's Frink said:

What do the people over fifty do?

They sit at home watching football and/or worry about the trouble their children are probably up to on some mountain someplace that can only be reached via ATV.