mooeypoo

Wow.

Where do we start with the logical fallacy appeal-to-emotion Godwin's law super-salad....

And I wholeheartedly agree. I know why people say there is no grey area, and I say it myself at times, when speaking to people who use people abusing the system as an excuse to be apathetic or worse in these situations. Both sides , those who abuse the system and those who ignore the crimes, are equally disgusting, for lack of a better word. Because both of those groups undermine the seriousness of what happens in these situations and continue to make proper discussion of the topic impossible.

 

I am in no way advocating that there isn't a difference in sex and criminal, and apologize if it read that way. The vast majority of these crimes are no question black and white. Hell there are times when I get angry that certain things are technically legal, but again that's abusing the system. I figured someone may bring out one of those super specific examles to undermine your point, so I brought it up to avoid a page of discussion of back and forth of whether it was black and white or not.

Agreed completely.

[edit] Also, who do you think would win between our avatars? Badass blowtorch lady Vs. Gatling Kitty![/edit]

The kitty, totally. It has 9 lives.

I know and agree with what you are getting at, but I think think there is some grey area in some very specific circumstances. For example, I use to be of the mindset that while having sex if you wanted to try something do a kind of 'test run' of beginning to do it and gauge the reaction of your partner. If they said to stop or seemed not to enjoy it stop, if they seemed to enjoy it keep going. Once when this happened I was told that I did something that they did not want and they were thinking about getting police involved. I never thought when doing that I was being coercive or doing something non-consensual, but I was unknowingly. Most sexual crimes are completely non-grey, but sometimes things like this could be considered somewhat grey (pretty dark grey, but grey nonetheless). You may very well disagree, and I could see why one would, but I do think there are some specific times when it's slightly grey.

There are also some people (women and men, though admittedly mostly women) who abuse the sexual harassment laws to get revenge or get advancements at work, suing (or threatening to sue) people due to false charges. There are also occasions of false rape charges.

People abuse the law. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between sex and criminal sex.

I see what you mean, Ringer, but I think this distinction is incredibly important to stress over and over again.

~mooey

Do you suppose that the exploiters think they are doing something morally objectionable? Why assume that? I would say sex-positive ideals might influence their thinking in a situation where the harm they inflict isn't immediately obvious to them. The idea that 'it's just sex' provides what they may see as a justification for their actions.

 

Also, if the 'it's just sex' maxim is vaunted by a group of girls, there may be pressure to get involved despite misgivings.

Let me get this straight.

The exploitation of women is due to the "It's just sex" maxim who you claim is vaunted by a group of girls.

So, in other words, since women treat sex casually, they get exploited. Is this what you meant to say, or is this just a byproduct of what you were unsuccessfully trying to say?

I mean, not that it's the first time I hear the "blame the victim" mantra, but this one's a relatively imaginative one. Kudos for that. I'll ignore the enormous generalization you seem to be making about women in general and their supposed exploitation in general, so we can concentrate on the crux of the blame issue.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, though, because of your earlier comment that:

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

--is a perfect example for flawed logic.

First, if you think that the difference between 'sex' and 'sex crime' is grey area even in principle, I would suggest you keep your genitalia inside your pants and never use them for sex, in fear you may accidentally be criminal with it.

Second, this statement is not different than saying that the difference between using a computer and using a computer criminally is a grey area.

It's not a grey area.

Neither is violence or criminal sex. It's very clear, really. If it's not concensual, it's not legal. If it's with a minor it's not legal. If it's violent and hurt someone, it's not legal.

No grey here. Not even shades of grey.

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

 

As i say, all completely legal, but i have to admit to losing a couple of nights sleep over it.

16 year old prostitution is legal? Where is this again? As far as I understand it, that's not supposed to be legal. Not because of prostitution necessarily (that's a different issue) but because they're minor.

I'd like to get more details on this, seeing as you're using it as an example to show how your entire idea is correct. Proof or drop it, as we often say to science people.

Denying people contraception and sex education is a truly moronic reaction, but so is jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon, as you seem to do.

What is "sex positive bandwagon" and who are you to tell anyone what to do with their own genitalia? If I want to have sex with a woman, or a man, or two men and three women, it's my business. The only way you should care about it is if my act is hurting someone else. Which, unless you're considering having blueballs from not being able to join in "being hurt", is not hurting anyone.

So. You seem to claim sex and criminal sex are too close together. That's scary.

You seem to claim "positive sex" is bad. The solution is easy: don't practice it.

You seem to claim that women bring about their own exploitation. I dare you to repeat this to a woman who's been raped. All three, in fact.

And let me reiterate: If you don't see a big difference between sex and criminal sex, please keep you sex to your own hands, and stay away from others.

Unbelievable.

~mooey

If there is no consistent religious argument, as imatfaal argues in the thread he linked, that still doesn't necessitate or justify the inferences made.

What are you talking about? The bible is FULL of demeaning rules and regulations about women, from what time of month a man is allowed to touch her (and NOT touch her because she's "dirty" with something supposedly god gave her monthly) and up to the lovely fact that a raped woman is no longer pure, so the rapist must marry her otherwise she won't ever find a husband.

The entire bible is about controlling sexual acts, women in specific. Those are quite consistent religious arguments, wouldn't you say?

Could that be because you're cherry-picking what you need to support theory?

Well, the way to test it is easy: give us an example of a good religious argument for it

I wandered off topic there. I was just trying to find a cross-cultural explanation for any link between female subjugation and regulation of sex. I thought it would be interesting to know if female subjugation served some functional purpose other than moral regulation of sex.

I think that point was unclear, then, but regardless, I think that it's probably a mix of both. The subjucation of women probably has a lot to do with the "regulation of sex" but it's not strictly that, seeing as there are societal and religious laws and customs about women staying home to deal with the children and house, while the big manly man has freedom to do as he pleases, for the supposed purpose of being the of the family.

~mooey

Anyway, you guys are treating the underclasses as pets, as is usual with social lefties.

"You guys" who? Considering we're mostly from different countries, different genders, different ages and different social status background, I am having a bit of trouble identifying who "you guys" are.

That and, of course, the lovely ad hom. But we'll skip that one 'till we identify who exactly you're trying to attack.

Woss goin' on?

 

Anyway, you say "The result of their politics is just that..."

 

I konw this is just a 'makes sense' argument, but i see traditional homosocial culture as a control of male sexual jealosy and mate guarding rather than female sexuality. The problem has been stood on it's head throughout history for convenience; female sexuality is easier to control.

 

And with reliable contraception these male instincts (?) are obsolete.

Female sexuality is easier to contol...? I beg your pardon? do you mean that women are easier to control in a patriarchal male-dominated society and in a patriarchal male-dominated households? That might make a bit more sense, but works against your argument.

Then again, abortions have nothing to do with sexuality, or the "control thereof" of sexuality of women. Last I checked, both men and women contribute to the event that might necessitate abortion, but I might have to review my biology booklet.

Whatever male 'instincts' you're refering to, I am hopign they're not some reference to rape, seeing as rape was longlong proven to have nothng to do with sex and everything to do with control.

So, in short, wtf are you talking about?

As for the subjucation of women, well, let's think what would happen if MEN would be in this place instead of women..

The number seems to vary.

http://www.guardian....o-pain-24-weeks - 24 weeks

http://www.msnbc.msn...hird-trimester/ - around 28 weeks (third trimester)

 

Whatever the figure is, it is certainly not as soon as the baby is given birth to, so can we agree that late term abortion is unethical."late term" being defined as after the fetus is capable of suffering. agree? (Given that the mother's life is not at risk and that the pregnancy is not a result of rape).

Okay, sure. Then again, late-term abortions are a different issue in the ethical discussion here as well as in the law for that exact reason.

I, for one, am pro choice, but am not too quick to be pro late-term-abortion. Those should be decided STRICTLY by medical opinion in case there's severe potential harm to the woman or baby otherwise (and barring any *very* special circumstances I might not be able to foresee, and why courts and medical committees are for).

So.. early-term abortion is exempt from this 'baby is suffering' issue. Would that mean we can agree it's the woman's choice?

If the fetus is capable of suffering what gives the mother the right to inflict suffering?

"Fetus" can only feel pain around 35 weeks after conception, or around 2-4 weeks before delivery.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fetus-feels-pain-37-weeks-study/story?id=14472566#.UIThr8XYFnE

Which means the fetus does not feel pain during the time that is viable for abortion, the mother does not inflict suffering, and hence, your claim is irrelevant.

badjoke, can you tell us what you've already tried, and where you got stuck?

We don't answer homework questions, but we'd love to help you get to the answer yourself.

The quickest and easiest way to justify murder is to establish the "non-humanity" of the intended victim. That is exactly what abortionists are doing to the fetus.

 

How many unborn babies will continue to be tossed onto the altar of "women's rights" ?

 

Barrack Obama summed up the Liberal mentality best when he said abortion would "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." In other words, the baby gets in the way of women's equality, so it has to go!

 

About his own two daughters, Obama said "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby". That's what a baby is apparently — a punishment.

Science seems to establish quite well that a blastocyst isn't life. That makes it nonlife, which makes your argument moot by definition.

There's no need to go into your blatant disregard for proper discussion by strawmanning the argument to fit your own goals, you've already lost it in the first sentence.

Are we going to have a logical argument about this, or are you just going to spit on us and call us murders until we give up on the thread completely?

Armor piecing anti-tank rockets are not particularly designed to produce shrapnel, and if desired, they could be designed to minimise shrapnel. Whenever an explosive goes off in contact with metal, there is going to be a danger of shrapnel, but anti-tank ammunition is not specifically designed to damage/kill personnel.

That's what I said, it's designed to shoot tanks, which means that if it shoots people, it kills them without a doubt. Unlike a gun, where if you know how to use it you may choose to either kill or "just" injure.

You seem to be under the misconception that all anti-tank weapons produce a huge explosive cloud. That is not the case.

Well, I was a Lieutenant in the military, dealing with guns on a personal loving level. But yeah, what do I know.

You said "IF X, then Y"

Your X turned out to be not-so, by your logic, it should be not-Y.

Hence, "if the guns are not designed for shrapnel" --> they might not be DESIGNED to produce shrapnel, but unless you want to claim to me that individual people are going to shoot tanks on an individual level, then they were not meant to be shot directly AT people (without a tank) and when they are shot at people (without a tank) the only reason you would say there's no "shrapnel" is because the human shrapnel is soft and squishy.

I might not be anti guns (which I am not) but your logic in this case really doesn't follow, Anders. Are you really saying anti tank weaponary is okay to be bought in a store? If so, then your initial "if .." conditions should be ammended, since those guns fail on them.

There might not be any immediately pressing reason for them now, but what about in the distant future? How do we know the situation will not change?

When the Zombie apocalypse come, do what Milla did, and break into the abandoned police station to take your fill of weapons.

Until that happens, I would much rather people don't get access to these unless they have proper training, which in the case of anti tank and armor-piercing weapons, it takes A LOT of training, as well as lack of any dissernable PURPOSE.

They're clearly not for self defense.

You might argue that we could always change the law if and when the need arrises, but will we actually be able to react fast enough? Laws are not changed overnight.

You can say that about everything with equal amount of lack of logic.

For instance, it's illegal to commit theft. But when the Zombies come ad there is a block on the immediate supply of water and food, it may be necessary to go to your local Zombie-infested supermarket and steal some bottles of water.

By your logic, we should already allow people to steal bottles of water RIGHT NOW, because god knows what might happen in the future.

And if the central government did ever become malignant,

This is again where I leave you to your ranting. No one said "central government" and (SURPRISE) the people who might be against automatic assault rifles or anti-zombietank missiles might not be anti weapons in general, or for a central malignant government.

This is just a huge strawman that's extremely not useful.

There are already regulations against explosives. In a rocket launcher, it is the explosives that do the damage, so there is not so much reason to ban the rocket launcher itself. I suppose one could argue for banning the propellant also, but such an argument would be based more on the grounds of preventing a fire hazard.

If you know wha you're doing, you can make a gun from anything. That's not the issue here, just like it's not the issue of banning guns to prevent criminals from having them since CLEARLY criminals will not listen to any ban law.

The issue is selling a shoot-ready (and having the ammo on the side is still shoot-ready) weapon for people who have no need for the particular weapon (OVERKILL!) and are not TRAINED to use the weapon. Do you know why "anti tank" weapons are usually the job of two or three particular soldiers in a platoon? Because they take extra training on how to properly and effectively use them. Even to soldiers who know how to use guns, know how to do tactics, and shoot actual bad guys with actual guns.

You're making no sense.

That is an incredibly inaccurate and self-serving assertion. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere else I've heard of that would support this. You're going to leave a lot of animals sleeping on the cold ground if you continue to make your strawmen this big.

Yes, but Phi, when the Zombies come, it might happen, so we have to get ready for it RIGHT NOW!

t necessarily the States.

 

I know many of you who dream of a one world government don't like the idea of separation of powers, or checks and balances. But that is the way it is, and you are going to encounter plenty of deep seated resistance (including from me) if you try to change it.

Well, if you know, it must be true.

Anders, you have a tendency to state bombastic claims as your opponents' claims just so it's easier for you to argue against, and then generalize positions to make a point. Those two are fallacies that turn any argument void.

So, please stop doing that. Thanks.

Oh, and my points about the gun which by your logic should be banned, despite the fact you seem to note it should be legal, still stand unanswered.

~mooey

I would support armor-piercing shoulder mounted rocket launchers, provided they were designed to minimise scrapnel

But they're not designed for that. In fact, they're designed for maximum shrapnel and damage.

(so they would not be very effective against people)

... define "effective" ? They were meant to be used against Tanks, which would either make them ineffective against people because they're "overkill" or too effective against people because they'd live a red mist in their wake.

Do you forsee the need for individual civilians to shoot tanks anytime before the Zombie apocalypse?

and provided that they were not sold containing any explosives.

So if the explosives were sold on the side to be purchased in the next store, that solves the issue?

By what you're saying, these guns should be illegal. And yet your conclusion is that they shouldn't be..

Your logic is a bit choppy here.

~mooey

People should be proactive about "birth control". I find it much better to avoid the pregnancy than to end it. If people used proper contraception, but it failed, I guess I'm okay with it. If they didn't, well, I would very much prefer it wasn't used. Unless they have a valid reason. Planned parenthood is a great program, but I believe their method of prevention should be contraceptives. Abortion shouldn't be "planned", or even considered as a viable alternative, until it is deemed absolutely necessary. Btw, I believe something to have the "potential for life" when it would, if left to it's natural course, become a human life.

No one plans abortion, chilled_fluorine. We went over this.

And 'potential for life' would mean that whenever a man ejaculates, he commits genocide.

Actually, it's even worse than them women; see, women's bodies are designed to expel the egg if it has not fulfilled its intended potential every month. Men's bodies are not designd with this function -- whenever a man ejaculates outside a woman's womb, it is his choice, and he commits murder.

Are you against masturbation?

Oh, and check out page 2 in this document: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

Abortions are a really tiny tiny tteeeeeeenny tiny percent of what Planned Parentood is *actually* doing. Another point of dogmatic propaganda won for some anti-women's-rights party.

Even Mitt Romney thinks that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest, or the possibility of serious physical harm to the mother or child. Abortions should definitely be legal in those cases, and maybe a few others. I've already explained why people "want" to do what is "required", and I now see there will be no swaying of anyone's opinion.

Alright, that explains your position better, thank you.

Now another question: what do you think of the "Abortion Pill"? This can only be used up to 9-weeks in (about 60 days) in a period of time where the blastocyst is, scientifically speaking, not even remotely close to anything resembling a human.

Not only that, but the pill is blocking the hormone "Progesterone" - this prevents the lining of the uterus from forming to support a blastocyst, so the "potential life" has no time to become potential (let alone form into something we can call 'life'). In many ways, there's no difference between this pill and birth control, which does something very similar in process, the only difference being that the hormones are constantly present in the body and not just taken as a precautionary method after something might've gone wrong (say, a condom ripped).

What's your view on this?

Also, as a continued question - since this was a huge huge deal with the republican party not too long ago -- are you for removing Planned Parenthood from having a federal budget?

chilled_fluorine, are you supporting the republican party just because you can't stand the thought of supporting the other party, or do you support the republican party because you really believe in their ideals? Because the way you keep making excuses to why they claim X or Y or claim to believe in X or Y seems like it's more the former than it is the latter.

And if that's the case, I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to argue at all...?

If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely.

Home-made abortions are deadly.

Women seek abortion when they require one (note, "REQUIRE", not "want") whether they are legal or not.

When abortions are legal, they are generally safer.

If you hold the stance that "If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely." as you quoted above, then I don't quite see how you could be against legalizing abortions.

If you still are against legalizing abortions, please explain how that holds with this logic.

~mooey

Okay...

"How do we know God exists?"

"The bible says so."

"Well, how do we know the Bible is true?"

"It's inspired by God, and anything inspired by Him must be righteous and true." (said hitlers supporters, btw)

Okay...

Which is why that is not even remotely close to proving or claiming that God exists.

"Exactly how long is a meter?"

"The distance light travels travels en vacuo in 1/299792458 of a second." "Well, exactly how much time is a second?"

"The time it takes for light to travel en vacuo 299792458 meters."

Okay...Nothing can really be defined. Only in relation can anything have understandable meaning.

That is a strawman, since that's not QUITE how a meter was declared or how asecond was verified, but even if it wasn't, that's a good example of failed logic.

.... which is a great example for how your OWN arguments have so far failed the logic.

Now that we're on the same page, I think we will be waiting for your next more logical claim.

Also, my nice little visual claim (about women dying) was so far unanswered. It's a big point. Even if you abolish "pro life" you are not going to stop abortions, which clearly shows that women didn't just say to themselves "oh, yeepy, abortion is allowed and easy to get, I want me some!" and hence, clearly, women don't just "want" one. Sometimes, they need one, and clearly as history shows, they might do anything they can to get it.

If you're truly "pro life", should you not support clear and proper regulations, so women who need this treatment can get it safely?

~mooey

Also,

Whether we like it or not, that's a fact. We might as well make sure it's done safely and is being regulated so not "every woman who wants it" can just "have it" and potentially die from it. A better argument, for instance, would be to try and get potential abortion patients to go through some screening process to make sure they're choosing abortion for ethical and responsible reason. We can discuss THAT. But saying that banning abortions will "Save lives" is factually untrue not just because you can't define a blastocyst as life scientifically, but because women die from home-made abortions regardless of what laws are put in place.

Reality. It is even when it sucks.