How did I miss this gem of a thread?! Thanks for updating your LOL thread, Frink!
Very, very nice. I'm impressed by what you are able to accomplish!
Taking a time out again for a while. Failed my second test, though it was close. I love it here, and I'll post periodically, but I will be reducing my posts dramatically for a while. But don't cry. I'm always around ;)
It certainly could be any one of those.
Don't feel bad about looking them up to share with us. Just don't look up the answers to others' :) Even the ones I remember, I'm uncertain about the wording so I look them up.
doubleKO said:
darth_ender said:
A cyclops stares from pale white face
Earrings seven his visage grace
Atop his head are five tattoos
Ebon black his pair of shoes
On his pale back six scars dug deep
He felt no pain and did not weep
His job to tumble, bound and fall
But he's no fool--no not at allA six-sided die.
^ I had to draw a picture to work that one out. I was thrown by the "face" at first which I thought was supposed to be a zero.
CORRECT! DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!
Good job. I thought that one was fun.
Well, you're absolutely right!
We be in AZ. Whatcha expect? But you are right, I miss the monsoons. I love that time of year.
PS I know you're not in Tucson anymore, but are you willing to supply a general area? When at the UA, I lived very close, just south of the campus.
It's an interesting guess, but it's not a crash test dummy.
In response to yours, I'm going to guess the mouth or voice.
And before Frink gives you a hard time, I suspect you meant "bored" ;)
walkingdork said:
I find this all very offensive!!
IGNORED!!
Yes, it is offensive. I MEAN NO! I MEAN...SHUT UP!!! GET OUTTA HERE, YA TWIT!!!
Please come again soon, and we can carry on this delightful conversation.
And I can't help but share the same feelings with all the rest of you. Very much indeed.
Ah, but you didn't agree inside. You only agreed on the outside, which is completely unacceptable. But of course, you agree with me on this, so I'm not arguing with you, and the thread remains kosher ;)
YOU'RE NOT COMPLIANT! GET OUTTA HERE!!!
Or just apologize nicely *bats eyelashes*
I really liked this one
A cyclops stares from pale white face
Earrings seven his visage grace
Atop his head are five tattoos
Ebon black his pair of shoes
On his pale back six scars dug deep
He felt no pain and did not weep
His job to tumble, bound and fall
But he's no fool--no not at all
Magic.
Ditto. Nice call, BW.
Man, you're good!
Just completed Shadow Puppets, the third book in the Shadow series of the Enderverse. Last time I explored this universe, this was my stopping point, though one more novel existed at the time. I have to say, I liked this much better than last time. Again, I attribute this to an increased undersatnding of geopolitics, as the nations of the earth are fighting each other. Card does a interesting job describing the way politics, ethnicities, and nationalities affect loyalties. He shares an interest in peoples of the earth with me, and so I enjoy it very much. However, some of his ideas are a little harder to swallow, though considering this is around 150 years (give or take, it's never made explicit) in the future, perhaps things will change. For example, a Muslim man of Russian ancestry is an Israeli citizen in this Israel-Arab alliance, and he retains his Russian name. I won't spoil too much, but the Muslim world renounces its extremism, makes right with everyone including Israel, translates the Qu'ran into other languages while considering them equally sacred (presently, only the Arabic Qu'ran is really the Qu'ran, and the rest are simply attempts at accommodating those too lazy to learn Arabic--I'm not even permitted to touch a real one). Sectarian differences are cast aside. Nationalities (i.e. the various Arab nations) don't prevent unity of action. Neither do the ethnic differences, such as Persians, Arabs, Turks, Kazakhs, Indonesians, etc. In another vein, he almost always describes a person's nationality or ethnicity, though such things are not always obvious. A random, yet Vietnamese soldier walks into a room. An Indonesian cab driver offers a ride. How do we know these things?! It's all a bit humorous, but it didn't really bug me. Overall, it was still fun, though flawed.
SPOILER SECTION
Bean ages and marries that gal he rescued in the last book. But his genetic abnormalities give him pause to have children, as they could be gifted intellectually like he is, but also subject to the same growth abnormalities. He is convinced to proceed and provide in vitro fertilization, but his nemesis kidnaps the tubes containing the fertilized ova. This nemesis is also losing influence in the world, and Bean ultimately defeats him. Meanwhile, Peter lost much of his power as figurehead of the world, but is starting to gain it back. Really, the biggest flaw in this book is the foolishness of the protagonists. Bean has perhaps become too human in intellect now. What I mean by this is that while he could perceive and prognosticate some unrealistically insightful conclusions at 6 years old, now he overlooks stuff that his wife (bright as she is, no one in the world is as bright as Bean) picks up on. And Peter, in his efforts to conquer the world by reason and word, makes some extremely foolish political decisions that conveniently set the stage for the book
END SPOILERS
So I liked it. Not without flaws. Not always realistic. Possibly not even interesting for everyone. But for someone like me who loves to imagine the "what ifs" of a not-too-distant future of the world, it was satisfactory. It's the weakest of the Shadow series so far, but last time I didn't even enjoy it much, so it's moving up.
Can't argue with that.
I have one more post to make here, though I know it's a lot. While I oppose paying for everything in others, and while I support the Catholic Church's right to not provide contraception for its employees, I have concluded that one of immediate ways to reduce abortions is to make contraception more widely available. I would love for people to be more educated as to what is right (because I of course am right ;) and choose the right on their own, but I am very content with short-term solutions while longer-term things are worked out, and if free contraceptive care is that solution, then it's something I can begin to advocate.
Don't take this as standing up for Sandra Fluke.
Have all the riddles been answered?
Here's a new one I liked:
The man who built me didn't need me
The man who bought me didn't want me
The man who used me didn't know he had me
What am I?
Do you concur?
To part from the joke for a moment, no matter what computer I'm on lately, this site seems to be running very slowly, even though other pages load fine. Anyone else experiencing this problem?
Preemptive "I don't know why I even asked" with you clowns hanging out here.
Mrebo said:
Monolithium's post is a good example of how some argue these issues. They take a superficially powerful assertion and they say it over and over and over. Because if someone disagrees with it they're obviously bad, so there can be no debate.
You're right, Mono, that we basically have our minds made up on this issue. But Warbler very quickly identifies the error you're making: there is the matter of what the choice is. It's not even just a matter of what is right and wrong in some personal sense, but a belief that the fetus is a human life.
walkingdork is right that calling abortion murder is not consistent with allowing exceptions for rape.
If we're going to be technical, I think many pro-life people see abortion more as manslaughter. Intent plays a big part in defining the culpability. I think many of us have a sense of the intent involved if a raped woman seeks an abortion vs a woman who had unprotected sex and doesn't want a baby right now.
I agree with walkingdork's term "potential child." Though I think the potentiality is understated by those on the pro-choice side - which I went into at length on page 2 (where I keep getting a weird offsite pw popup, btw). My position is that the embryo/fetus is undeniably a human life, though not a person. As a form of human life and a potential child that will become an actual child without some intervening event, it deserves legal protection. To me, the exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother are about balancing other valid interests (which include physical autonomy).
We won't necessarily share moral and ethical values but at the very least, I think we can recognize and tackle what the other side is saying. What I see in Mono's post is that the life of a fetus, at best, has subjective value and at worse, is simply irrelevant. To me that is a cold and foreign view. And certainly doesn't lend itself to being challenged. I think that is the frightening part of his view, to answer his question. And to the extent that a majority accepts his view, it will prevail. However, most people do see a non-subjective worth in the life of a fetus.
I'm always grateful that mrebo is on my side. I agree with this post completely.
DuracellEnergizer said:
darth_ender said:
And I am aware of your (DuracellEnergizer's) view on human life--quite existential if I remember correctly (can't remember where I read that, maybe earlier in this thread?). I'm equally curious as to your views on euthanasia, eugenics, murder, etc., considering "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world," or something along those lines.
Yes, I am a supporter of euthanasia. If someone wants to die, then they should be allowed that right. I do wonder why those people want medical assistance to get the deed done, though, instead of just taking the matter into their own hands or getting a friend/family member to help them.
As for eugenics and murder ... I'll admit, I'm not comfortable with them, especially if the victim suffers physical violence/trauma while it happens. Unfortunately, I've been cursed with the burden of having to adopt moral nihilism/skepticism - the concept that morality doesn't exist, or, more optimistically, that morality may not exist. It's not a concept I'm happy or content with - it makes me sick to my stomach that I have to excuse the actions of people like Hitler or Charles Mason - but until I see some convincing evidence to show me otherwise, I'm stuck with having to say that neither eugenics nor murder are good or evil.
And, JFTR, summing up my antinatalism as simply being a belief that "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world", doesn't quite capture the depth of my opinions. Yes, I believe humans are seriously screwed up - that there is an underlying insanity which affects us all - and we have become little more than a malignant cancer on this planet. Beyond that, though, is something more; we may be victimizers, but we're also victims - victims of a horribly chaos-ridden universe, ultimately doomed to suffer and die senselessly as entropy rots the cosmos away. Overall, especially in this day and age, I think it's just callous to bring children into such a world.
I didn't respond to this. It's a sad view to me. I don't mean to judge you for it or anything, but it is truly depressing, and I can't believe that you truly believe it entirely, even if you have taken the philosophy of morality to its ultimate conclusions. You clearly see that there are certain inescapable morals built into us genetically, even if you don't believe in a Supreme Being who governs right and wrong.
I say this because I don't believe you'd have access to this site from prison ;)
walkingdork said:
Warbler said:
Monolithium said:
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means I am for Choice.
but it must be more than that, in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or you must believe that people have the right to murder.
So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?
I personally don't think so. However, I do feel that I can be more accommodating on these points, though again, I feel it should not be the default, but rather an option. My reason for this is that when when person's health poses a risk to another, sometimes you have to make a choice. Often, separating conjoined twins is an unfortunate and perhaps arbitrary choice of who will die so the other can live. Considering the potential mental health dangers in rape/incest and what they can ultimately lead to, I am willing to provide the option, especially when it does become so much less clear. But even in cases like this, I feel like abortions should be done earlier than later...much earlier than allowed at the present.
I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.
In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards? I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person. But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights? I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.
This is a good point. And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder. However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers. But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made. I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.
I wouldn't consider it murder either. I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances. But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die. If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P). I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.
Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)
