12-Year-Old Stuns Pro-Choice Teacher and School with Pro-Life Presentation

[foxpaws]

In post #91, you decietfully try to broaden the scope and reframe the debate. Sorry you are not allowed to do that. It is dishonest and unjustified.

Classic circular... Why aren't I allowed to broaden the argument? I wasn't broadening in this case anyway - I was showing you who liberal constituents are really made of. You continued to place them so far left that they all would be members of NOW - and I was showing how that statement just couldn't be true

The quote you cite was in response to asking something that is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are trying to change direction in some fashion.

This is the question...So, since you avoided this by finding something to contest – how do you believe the ‘norm’ of society as a whole views this subject?
How is that irrelevant to this discussion?

When you start asking questions that aren't really on topic

That question was on topic - how do you believe the 'norm' of society views abortion? I can't imagine a question that is more 'on topic.'

And how society views this subject is very relevant - how isn't it?

By I am not simply "stating that and stating that". I have provided examples, including the effective head of the party; Barak Obama who are radical on this and try to misrepresent their record.

And I was showing you examples - I know you have friends who are liberal, everyone does, unless they live in a fairy tale land only inhabited by like thinkers. I was showing you, as well as everyone who reads this, that they obviously know liberals, and they aren't the way you keep painting them shag. But, continue to do so- it shows how the right continues to separate themselves from everyday America.

Weather or not I am "extreme right" doesn't say anything about weather or not my point is accurate.

Yes, I was asking for an observation on your part - how you view the world. People who are placed on either extreme of the political spectrum have a tendency to 'lump' the entire opposing side. It is a type of prejudice. In your case you seem to think if someone is liberal that they must (or mostly) follow certain stereotypes. However it is usually only the extremes on either side that conform to stereotypes.

Weather or not I am being in some way "childish" or "rude and insulting" or whatever, is irrelevant. What matters is that what I say is accurate. You aren't attacking the accuracy of what I say, you are attacking the manner in which I say it.

Not only do I attack what you say - I also don't have to do with the included name calling. I haven't called you 'childish' or 'rude and insulting'. However I find it rather telling of you that you had to place quotes around those to imply that perhaps I called you those things. Don't do that shag. I don't call you any of those things.

However I do believe you are quite quick to label me as childish (heck in post 108 you got to do it twice).

And just because you disagree with them doesn't make them "radical". You would do well to keep that in mind.

Radical - Noun - a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles, an extremist (dictionary.com).

I think both sides have people who fit that description. It isn't because I disagree with them shag - it is because they fit the classic description of the word, a person who holds or follows strong convictions, or someone who is extreme.

You keep trying to prove that one side isn't dominated by radicals so the other side must not be either. That is a non sequiter. Weather or not one side is or isn't dominated by radical is irrelevant to weather the other side is or isn't dominated by radicals.

So, you want a list of liberals - I am not sure what you want here shag. I can give you list and lists of people in political office, in the public eye, dead people who are liberal who are not radical. That is an exercise of silliness. You could compile lists of people who are on the left who are radical. Then I would demand lists of right leaners that are 'normal' and then I could counter with lists of people on the right who are radical.

So, what do you want here shag? Tell me. Examples are really the only way to look at this, and as I said it just gets silly.

Yep. I'm just being petty and immature, so my argument should be rejected because of that.

No, once again you are putting words in 'my mouth.' Don't do that Shag. I never said you were petty or immature - those are your words.

I said that you were quick to place blame because of the current leanings of society are moving away from an abortion ban, and a definition of life beginning at conception.

That is the problem. The right wants to have that discussion and debate in society and ultimately let society determine things. The left is working to circumvent the will of society and impose their will on society. It is they way the Democrat party works.

And the debate is happening, in almost every session congress, at both the federal and state levels, anti-abortion laws come up, they are debated and more often than not defeated. On almost every major state election these types of issues are placed on the ballot, and they go down to defeat, by the people. The debate is occurring constantly, just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that this subject is going down quietly... The NRL is very vocal and very good at getting their agenda placed before the people. And, neither side can circumvent if they are active in the discussion. This isn't being swept under the rug, and this issue isn't going away soon.

And if liberals want to start getting rid of constitutional rights, I will be all over them.

They have and you aren't.

So, shag, how do you know this - do you review my mail, do you check my phone messages - wow, I am impressed.

Do you want to see the copies of the letter I sent David Scott and Randy Forbes regarding HR45. And yes, I mail them. I happen to know that a priority letter gets noticed on the hill. Far more clout than an email. Did you know they weigh how things are delivered? Lowest - email - highest US mail, it costs the sender money to send it, they must be serious. Telegraphs used to be on the top of the heap, but, no one uses that anymore.

So any right is absolute and it cannot even be taken away with due process. Justice be damned. Weather you realize it or not, that is what you just justified.

No right is absolute and any right can be taken away through due process. That is the point of having a court system; to impose impartial justice. If a "right to life" cannot be taken away in certian instances given certian actions, then no right can be taken away.

No right in the constitution is absolute. Any and all rights can be taken away through due process, per the constitution. So you are cherry picking the right to life as an absolute here and effectively rejecting justice in regards to it.

No I am not saying that shag - you are responding here to my comment saying that although I support the death penalty, I don't try to hide from the fact that when we evoke it we are taking a human life.

I am showing that I don't think rights are absolute if I state I am for the death penalty. I don't get where you have come up with this whole little mischaracterization this time shag. Did you not read the part where I stated I was for the death penalty?

It is not a simple catagorization or an arbitrary line by the right (as you imply). That line is justifed by the whole concept of justice, to reject that line out of hand is to reject justice (at least in certian instances).

However the line you draw in the reverse (death penalty "OK"/ right to life in the womb "not OK") is rather arbitrary.

Not arbitrary shag, you sort of missed the fact that rights in this country don't start until birth... not conception. As stated in the constitution. And rights can be removed according to 'due process'. So, the death sentence isn't against the constitution, just as an unborn fetus doesn't have any rights, according to the constitution.

Same thing when it comes to "substantive rights" including a "right to choose". Unless you can simply get activist courts to rewrite the constitution for you.

The right wants to have that vote by society (in the form of an amendment process), the left has worked for longer then I have been alive to avoid that vote.

So, once again, if the people wanted it, it would be an amendment. This is a democracy shag, and of course there are people working against it - that is what you do in a democracy. You usually have 2 sides working for and against issues.

But, in this case:
One - the right just hasn't worked hard enough or
Two - the people just don't want this amendment.

I think it is two, it sure seems like the right works really hard at this.

 

[Titan]

"Liberal" and "conservative" are ideologies.

"Left wing" and "right wing" are discriptors to identify where a person or idea falls on the "liberal/conservative" ideological spectrum. They tend to be more at the ends on the spectrum then the center.

Most people don't really have a good understanding of the ideologies. They only know the ideologies by their positions (which can be as much a reflection of the party and constituents) then by their philosphical assumptions and underpinnings (which is what ideology is).

Here is a real good definition of American conservatism (conservatism is unique to each country it is in). That site offers this definition of liberalism as well (which you should read to better understand what American conservatism is and is not). You might want to seek out other sources too, but you need to understand that there is a lot of distortion concerning the ideologies. Many people either don't fully understand the ideologies, or intentionally mischaracterize certian aspects of ideologies (or the ideology all togeather) to smear that ideology or put it in a good light. Keep in mind, modern american conservatism is rooted in classical liberalism.

This is your reference to these terms.

Others use different definitions for these terms (see Foxpaws post after yours).

That's why, so everyone is on the same page, they should make clear just what they mean when using them. One's "radical" may be completely from an others "radical" creating misunderstandings in discussions, as seems to be the case in this and other threads I've followed.

I am well aware of what I see the terms as refering to, but I don't assume that is what others interpret them as.

 

[fossten]

This is your reference to these terms.

Others use different definitions for these terms (see Foxpaws post after yours).

Then why the hell did you ask?

Jeez.

 

[fossten]

Liberal as defined by the dictionary...
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

That definition no longer describes the modern liberal.

The modern liberal believes that a handful of people in government can best decide for the masses how they should live their lives, and how much they should have. He/she believes government is the solution for everything, and that people should be controlled, markets should be controlled, and freedom should be controlled.

 

[foxpaws]

I am a liberal, you don't have a clue how liberal, and those 13 points do describe me.

And they don't even come close to describing the other choice I had in this election. Obama isn't all of those, but McCain/Palin wasn't even close...

We make compromises in elections. But, I had to make fewer when choosing Obama than I would have had to with McCain/Palin as a choice.

 

[fossten]

you don't have a clue how liberal

HOW DARE YOU SLANDER ME!!!!!!1!1!ONE!!!ELEVENTY11!!

 

[shagdrum]

Fox, you really shouldn't comment on something you don't understand.

Liberal as defined by the dictionary...
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

The very best definition of liberal I have ever read was by JFK (certainly a liberal) you can find it here, as part of his acceptance speech in the 1960 presidential election.

That has to be the most ignorant thing you have ever posted (and you have posted some whoppers). You don't go to a dictionary to understand a political philosophy. It is the wrong tool for the job. That is like using and accordian to go hunting with.

You cannot "define" a political philosophy. You can explain it, but it is not something you can simply define. And encyclopedia would be an appropriate source.

If you don't grasp that, they I don't you know much about political philosophy in general.

Most all those definitions have nothing to do with the ideology of liberalism. They are simply accepted spin of what some ideas some people view as a "liberal". It only serves to distort and obfuscate things here.

Titan, if you want to know what liberalism is, don't listen to foxpaws as she will only point you in the wrong direction through her utter ignorance on the subject and talking in circles. You don't need to listen to me, but you will only be feed distortions and half-truths from her that will only confuse the issue.

I wouldn't assume to point you in the direction of a good definition of conservative, I am sure my viewpoint would be colored.

No, your viewpoint would clearly be ignorant.

I find it odd that a conservative would take it upon themselves to give you good source for how a liberal should be defined.

You also clearly don't realize that modern american conservatism is a form of liberalism!!

I have studied these two political philosophies at great. depth. I am a political science major, I am required to. In addition, I have read many political philosophy books including the writings of many classic political philosophers to read for fun. I know what I am talking about.

The fact that I happen to be a conservative does not in any way discredit what I have to say. If anything, it should be a rather telling that after a objective and very exhaustive examination of the two political philosophies that dominate political discourse in this country, I choose conservatism.

It it rather telling that you would work to marginalize what I have to say here in an obviously attempt at a smear.


I know the ins and outs of liberalism (in any form), conservatism and American conservatism very well. You clearly don't. You don't even have the basic knowledge to discuss it, as demonstrated by your going to a dictionary to "define" liberalism.

That sort of shows you the difference right there between conservative and liberal.

Actually yes, it does. Liberals will talk as if they know what they are talking about when they really have no clue and conservatives only talk about what they know.

Just because you are a liberal does not mean that you understand the underlying philosophy that makes up liberalism. Fox, you clearly don't have a clue about that philosophy.

Just goes to show that your passions determine your political principles and positions and not rationality through a critical examination of the different political philosophies.

You don't seem to know how to shut your mouth when you don't know what you are talking about. Makes you look childish and foolish.

 

[shagdrum]

I am a liberal, you don't have a clue how liberal, and those 13 points do describe me.

But they don't come close to describing any political ideology. They are only spin; nothing more. Many have very little if anything to do with liberalism as an ideology.

What you offer is a look at the style of liberalism, what I offer is a look at the substance of it and what makes up liberalism.

You need to shut your mouth and educate yourself on this.

 

[shagdrum]

This is your reference to these terms.

Others use different definitions for these terms (see Foxpaws post after yours).

That's why, so everyone is on the same page, they should make clear just what they mean when using them. One's "radical" may be completely from an others "radical" creating misunderstandings in discussions, as seems to be the case in this and other threads I've followed.

I am well aware of what I see the terms as refering to, but I don't assume that is what others interpret them as.

Liberalism and conservatism are political ideologies. That is the only "definition" of either of them that is at all accurate here. Everything else offer as a "definition" focuses on the style of liberalism.

Fox has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. If you decide to go with her "definition" you are going to look like a fool.

Ideologies are things that cannot be "defined". They have to be explained. You need to research them to understand them. volumes have been written trying to "define" various ideologies.

Here is the definition of an ideology:

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

In this instance, the second definition is the more accurate one.

You cannot simply "define" a "body of ideas" or a "set of doctrines or beliefs". You can only explain them. That takes more time and effort.

Again, fox shown that she clearly has absolutely no clue what she is talking about here. You would be ill advised to listen to her.

At the very least, read the wikipedia entries for liberalism and conservatism. But keep in mind that those are overly simplistic and only serve as a very basic introduction into the ideologies. People have made it their life's work to determine, understand and articulate what exactly these various ideologies mean. In a sense, it is like trying to master a musical instrument.

 

[foxpaws]

But they don't come close to describing any political ideology. They are only spin; nothing more. Many have very little if anything to do with liberalism as an ideology.

What you offer is a look at the style of liberalism, what I offer is a look at the substance of it and what makes up liberalism.

You need to shut your mouth and educate yourself on this.

Ah, wow - we have gone to 'sit, stay'.

Don't make it so easy Shag - there is nothing quite like telling someone - Don't listen to the other side, I know all the answers - to make them look even closer at both sides...

Which I hope they do. Otherwise, they might actually just believe you, and take your word on this little subject. And obviously you have no prejudice in this matter whatsoever.

At least you have gotten to the point of not directing them to a conservative site so they can learn about the "true meaning" of liberals.

Oh, another great source for all things - Wikipedia. shag, you actually use wikipedia? OK, well, if you want to use old wiki for looking things up.

Check out Modern liberalism in the United States in Wiki - since wiki can be trusted, and isn't able to be edited or swayed at all. And for grins - check out it's companion piece - Conservatism in the United States.

We wouldn't want anyone looking foolish now would we?

(Note - the above links are only to show how silly it is to use wiki for something like this...)

 

[shagdrum]

Classic circular... Why aren't I allowed to broaden the argument?

I assume you are trying to say I am making a circular argument. Here is what a circular argument is:

...a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises​

Now how is this quote in any way circular:

In post #91, you decietfully try to broaden the scope and reframe the debate. Sorry you are not allowed to do that. It is dishonest and unjustified.​

I was pointing out that broadening the argument as you were attempting to do was decietful because it attempts to reframe the debate. I was making an assertion, not an argument. How is that in any way circular?

You can't simply throw out accusations of fallacious arguments. They need to be accurate and you need to be able to show why they are fallacious, otherwise, you simply discredit yourself.

FYI: you cannot broaden the argument in the middle of a debate as you did because it is inherently deceptive (it underhandedly reframes the debate) and is thus, dishonest.

I wasn't broadening in this case anyway - I was showing you who liberal constituents are really made of. You continued to place them so far left that they all would be members of NOW - and I was showing how that statement just couldn't be true

You were speculating to broaden the focus from simply "liberal constituents" to the entire democrat base. They are not the same thing. You were effectively including conservative democrats to paint a different picture. You were broadening.

This is the question...So, since you avoided this by finding something to contest – how do you believe the ‘norm’ of society as a whole views this subject?
How is that irrelevant to this discussion?

What is "this"? You need to keep the quote in context. What is the context of your quote? In this case, you need to know what is being responded to. Post numbers and links would be nice.

And the burden of proof is not on me to show that it is irrelevant (FYI: We weren't talking about society as a whole; it is irrelevant). The burden of proof is, and always has been on you to show it is relevant. You still haven't done that, but you keep bringing it up. That further strengthens my suspicion that it is some sort of cute little rhetorical "trap" that you have to spring on me as long as I answer it in a way that you can manipulate. So, until you show how it is relevant I refuse to answer.

Besides, any answer is mere speculation, nothing more.

That question was on topic - how do you believe the 'norm' of society views abortion? I can't imagine a question that is more 'on topic.'

And how society views this subject is very relevant - how isn't it?

Further perpetuation of your shifting of the burden of proof.

We weren't talking about society as a whole, we were talking about liberal and conservative constituents. To switch to the whole of society deceifully broaden's the argument and reframes the debate.

And I was showing you examples - I know you have friends who are liberal, everyone does, unless they live in a fairy tale land only inhabited by like thinkers.

Nope. I have maybe 3 conservative friends. The rest are either very liberal, or ignorant (and thus, "moderate") and tend to buy into democrat/liberal propaganda come election time. So I can't help but hear "both sides of the argument". How many liberals can say that?

I was showing you, as well as everyone who reads this, that they obviously know liberals, and they aren't the way you keep painting them shag. But, continue to do so- it shows how the right continues to separate themselves from everyday America.

Well we have already established that you don't know what liberalism is at the most basic level; ideological. You only seem to know the mindless platitudes that are used to spin liberalism in a positive light. That seems to be true of most liberals as well...

You are doing everything you can to expand the scope of the people lumped into what qualifies as "liberal constituent". Just because someone holds some liberal views doesn't make them liberal. O'Reilly holds some liberal views but he is hardly a liberal.

Even if someone tends to lean left on most issues, it doesnt make them a liberal; they would be a left leaning moderate.

Liberal constituents are the people who buy into liberalism as a whole (well understood or not) and make up the base of the democrat party. The reverse would be true of conservative constituents; they make up the base of the republican party.

Yes, I was asking for an observation on your part - how you view the world. People who are placed on either extreme of the political spectrum have a tendency to 'lump' the entire opposing side. It is a type of prejudice. In your case you seem to think if someone is liberal that they must (or mostly) follow certain stereotypes. However it is usually only the extremes on either side that conform to stereotypes.

You wrote that in response to this statement:

Weather or not I am "extreme right" doesn't say anything about weather or not my point is accurate.​

Your argument is based on speculation and assumption. If I am "extreme right" you assume that I have a predjudice that clouds my judgement and means that my point is inaccurate.

That is a textbook example of an ad hominem circumstantial argument. It is a dishonest smear attempt, nothing more.

Not only do I attack what you say - I also don't have to do with the included name calling. I haven't called you 'childish' or 'rude and insulting'. However I find it rather telling of you that you had to place quotes around those to imply that perhaps I called you those things. Don't do that shag. I don't call you any of those things.

No, you just willfully implied them in you own little passive agressive manner. You just implied that I am being irrational in that last little ad hominem point you made. Ad hominem arguments (which you habitually make) are inherently insulting as they work to smear your opponent. Weather or not you are directly saying it or are simply implying it doesn't make a difference.

However I do believe you are quite quick to label me as childish (heck in post 108 you got to do it twice).

Quick? No. But I am not gonna pull any punches and will state what seems to be the most obvious conclusion. I don't simply "call you" anything. I spell out how and why your actions demonstrate that characteristic.

Radical - Noun - a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles, an extremist (dictionary.com).

I think both sides have people who fit that description. It isn't because I disagree with them shag - it is because they fit the classic description of the word, a person who holds or follows strong convictions, or someone who is extreme.

So now you are cherry picking vague definition and calling it the "classic definition"? Sorry, you don't get to determine the definition in the middle of the debate. I already posted the definition in post #148 (from this link originally):

• marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional
• tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
• of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change
• advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

All those definitions are much more useful because they are specific. They also show that radicalism is defined by change and moving away from tradition.

Conservatism, at it's core, is determined by tradition.

"Having strong convictions" does not make you a radical. That is an absurd statement.

So, you want a list of liberals - I am not sure what you want here shag. I can give you list and lists of people in political office, in the public eye, dead people who are liberal who are not radical. That is an exercise of silliness. You could compile lists of people who are on the left who are radical. Then I would demand lists of right leaners that are 'normal' and then I could counter with lists of people on the right who are radical.

So, what do you want here shag? Tell me. Examples are really the only way to look at this, and as I said it just gets silly.

In response to this:

You keep trying to prove that one side isn't dominated by radicals so the other side must not be either. That is a non sequiter. Weather or not one side is or isn't dominated by radical is irrelevant to weather the other side is or isn't dominated by radicals.​

I was pointing out that the logic in your overall premise is flawed. Just because one side is not dominated by radicals (you have agreed to as much concerning conservatives) doesn't mean that the other side is also not dominated by radicals (which you are trying to claim of the left because the right isn't radical).

No, once again you are putting words in 'my mouth.' Don't do that Shag. I never said you were petty or immature - those are your words.

Then what where you saying? You were clearly implying something negative about me and that it somehow discredits my argument in this line of your's from post #144:

You try now to blame schools and msm – fine, place blame, it is much easier than actually admitting that maybe, most people would rather the government not get involved in this issue.​

That is the problem with your passive agressive BS; it clearly implies something; but what that something is tends to be unclear. The only thing that is clear is that it is implying something negative and that I am being intellectually dishonest.

In my experience, that kind of passive agressive BS is typically used to imply some sort of pettyness and/or immaturity.

I said that you were quick to place blame because of the current leanings of society are moving away from an abortion ban, and a definition of life beginning at conception.

You have no clue how I reached that conclusion. Rest assured, it wasn't like you seem to do reach conclusions, through mere speculation that sounds plausible and fits with your views.

So, shag, how do you know this - do you review my mail, do you check my phone messages - wow, I am impressed.

There have been instances on this forum where it is pointed out and you have not condemned it but actually defended it.

Do you want to see the copies of the letter I sent David Scott and Randy Forbes regarding HR45. And yes, I mail them. I happen to know that a priority letter gets noticed on the hill. Far more clout than an email. Did you know they weigh how things are delivered? Lowest - email - highest US mail, it costs the sender money to send it, they must be serious. Telegraphs used to be on the top of the heap, but, no one uses that anymore.

Good for you! Doesn't mean you aren't cherry picking what constitutional rights to "defend".

No I am not saying that shag - you are responding here to my comment saying that although I support the death penalty, I don't try to hide from the fact that when we evoke it we are taking a human life.

I am showing that I don't think rights are absolute if I state I am for the death penalty. I don't get where you have come up with this whole little mischaracterization this time shag. Did you not read the part where I stated I was for the death penalty?

No you are not saying it, you are just justifying it.

Here is what you originally said:

And, shag life is life – I believe in the death penalty. However, I believe we are killing a human being when we enforce that penalty. I don’t try to pretend that it is a ‘different’ type of life then others. They may be guilty of a crime, but the definition of life does include them. They breathe, they have cognizant thought, they are human beings, by any definition you can imagine. You start to categorize ‘life’ into different buckets – guilty – innocent – hateful – precious – whatever. You are destroying human life when that person is put to death. I believe that society has made that decision that it is apropos to end that human life. But I don’t try to justify it by making it some sort of ‘lesser’ life with the whole ‘guilty/innocent’ standard.​

In your zeal to defend your position and brand pro-lifers as hypocrites you are intentionally ignoring the legitimate distinction between an innocent life and one guilty of a heinous crime. You are mischaracterizing it as "hiding from the fact that the death penalty is taking a life", or "pretending it is a ‘different’ type of life then others" when it is no such thing. Pro-lifers are in no way trying to "hide" from the fact that the death penalty is taking a human life.

The logic you use to justify it inherently rejects the rule of law, at least in regards to the death penalty. All your talk about "categorizing life" serves to reject the line in the constitution between rights and rights take away through due process due to guilt for a heinous crime. So you are rejecting justice in regards to the right to life. You are effectively saying that it is immune to due process and is thus absolute, per the constitution.

So, to still support the death penalty under that logic is completely arbitrary and without justification.

However, the left is trying to hide from the idea that abortion is taking a human life. That is part of the reason it is characterized as "pro-choice".

Not arbitrary shag, you sort of missed the fact that rights in this country don't start until birth... not conception. As stated in the constitution.

And where in the constitution does it say that? Or is that one of those "living constitution" re-write "interpretations"?

So, once again, if the people wanted it, it would be an amendment. This is a democracy shag, and of course there are people working against it - that is what you do in a democracy. You usually have 2 sides working for and against issues.

Of course you are missing the point.

The left is working to avoid any substantive debate. Even the debate techniques typically employed work to avoid honest debate. When keep putting your opponent on the defensive through fallacious shifting of the burden of proof, moving the goalposts, mischaracterization, smears, etc. you remove any chance for an honest debate.

The MSM perpetuates this because they heavily influence the agenda for national discourse in this country. Academia does their part as well through similar tactics. The liberals, through dishonesty, deciet and other shameful tactics (mixed with their dominance in key areas of society) have effectively shut out the conservatives.

But it is not the liberals fault that no amendment is passed, right?

An amendment doesn't have to outlaw abortion. It could very easily enshrine it in the constitution as a right. But the left works to keep that from going to an amendment process either. What does that say.

 

[Titan]

Then why the hell did you ask?

Jeez.

If you take another look you will see I didn't ask what these terms meant, only that one should define how they use them so others can understand their arguments better . As you so aptly demostrate here it's easy to misunderstand what is being said.

It's plain from the preceding post that there is more than one view of what a liberal is out there, what do you mean when you refer to someone as a liberal? Is it the same as Shagdrum?, or Foxpaws?, or is it something else? and how are we to know what that is pray tell?

 

[shagdrum]

Ah, wow - we have gone to 'sit, stay'.

Don't make it so easy Shag - there is nothing quite like telling someone - Don't listen to the other side, I know all the answers - to make them look even closer at both sides...

There is no "both sides" on this. It is a matter of utter ignorance on your part and a lot of knowledge on my part.

To go with an analogy, I am saying the sky is blue and you are saying it is a triangle.

And you are mischaracterizing me. I never said, "don't listen to the other side, I know all the answers". I said not to listen to you on this because you clearly don't know what you are talking about. I never said he had to listen to me, if fact I said the opposite.

But that wouldn't fit into your dishonest attempt to smear me; had to mischaracterize me for that. See why you can't be trusted?

Which I hope they do. Otherwise, they might actually just believe you, and take your word on this little subject. And obviously you have no prejudice in this matter whatsoever.

I am tired of your insulting characterization of me as having a prejudice here. Either cite some sort of evidence to back up that claim or STFU.

The fact is that you are basing that view on nothing more then speculation. You are simply working to smear me.

We wouldn't want anyone looking foolish now would we?

You have pretty well cornered the market on that. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and are in over your head here, but are too obtuse to realize that.

It is pretty clear that you are going to disagree with and try to marginalize anything I say here.

You are desperate. Maybe a little embarassed (but to stuborn to admit it) that you don't understand liberalism as well as a conservative because you don't know anything about the ideological basis for it.

(Note - the above links are only to show how silly it is to use wiki for something like this...)

Why do you think I said they were overly simplistic and only good for a very basic introduction? It will hit the key parts well enough to point you in the right direction to research on it.

It is at least in the same ballpark as what the ideologies truely are, which is much more then can be said about your "definition".

If you could stop being obtuse for a while, and read it yourself, you might learn something as well. But you are clearly not at all interested in that. You are only interested in defending your political point of view by any means necessary. Considering the way you argue, understanding the foundation of those views is unnecessary.

 

[shagdrum]

If you take another look you will see I didn't ask what these terms meant, only that one should define how they use them so others can understand their arguments better . As you so aptly demostrate here it's easy to misunderstand what is being said.

It's plain from the preceding post that there is more than one view of what a liberal is out there, what do you mean when you refer to someone as a liberal? Is it the same as Shagdrum?, or Foxpaws?, or is it something else? and how are we to know what that is pray tell?

Again, fox doesn't know what she is talking about. That isn't a statement out of bias or deciet; it is a fact. The most liberal political philosophy professor in the world would laugh at her "definition" of liberalism. It is a definition of the word, not the idea; superficial at best and obfuscating at worst.

 

[sid grubbs]

Hummm, it may be just me but marriage and kids is ~probably~ something you might have wanted to discuss ~BEFORE~ getting married.

Then again, I'm one of those old people so I probably just don't understand.

RIGHT ON MAN,,YOU AND ME TOO.

 

[foxpaws]

My definition of liberal is from the Random House dictionary, not wikipedia.

However, Random could be wrong...

And yes it is the definition of the word, I don't believe I claimed differently.

It sort of helps to know the word, before you start speculation about 'ideas' that word might entail.

I included earlier JFKs 'idea' of the word. So, I have defined it and given an example of the 'idea'. Since there would be many examples of an 'idea' of the word liberal, probably as many as there are people, I chose one that I felt comes close to my 'idea' of the word liberal.

I didn't feel that Conservative Resource correctly interpreted my 'idea' of the word 'liberal.'

But, since my 'idea' of the word liberal is incorrect according to our expert on ideas, Shag, I will just be quiet, taking to heart his kindly phrased suggestion.

 

[sid grubbs]

RIGHT ON,,YOU AND ME TOO. iT'S TOO BAD THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP A MALE BIRTH CONTROL PILL IN THE 60's. I HAD A 13YR. HELL MARRIAGE TO A WOMAN 7yrs. older than me that had been married before..Two children. I tried to make it work. My dad always said SHE SAW YOU COMING. She thought he really liked her,,but he didn't. I WAS 19 and she told me "IF I RUN AND DOUCHE RIGHT AWAY I WON'T GET PREGNANT. I WAS A DUMB ASS.

 

[sid grubbs]

Hummm, it may be just me but marriage and kids is ~probably~ something you might have wanted to discuss ~BEFORE~ getting married.

Then again, I'm one of those old people so I probably just don't understand.

Right On Man you and me too

 

[shagdrum]

My definition of liberal is from the Random House dictionary, not wikipedia.

However, Random could be wrong...

And yes it is the definition of the word, I don't believe I claimed differently.

It sort of helps to know the word, before you start speculation about 'ideas' that word might entail.

I included earlier JFKs 'idea' of the word. So, I have defined it and given an example of the 'idea'. Since there would be many examples of an 'idea' of the word liberal, probably as many as there are people, I chose one that I felt comes close to my 'idea' of the word liberal.

I didn't feel that Conservative Resource correctly interpreted my 'idea' of the word 'liberal.'

But, since my 'idea' of the word liberal is incorrect according to our expert on ideas, Shag, I will just be quiet, taking to heart his kindly phrased suggestion.

But the definition of liberalism you gave only focused on the superficial and not any of the substance that is necessary to understand what liberalism is. You have demonstrated that you have no idea of what liberalism is. But no conservative resource can explain liberalism correctly, according to you. never mind the fact that American conservatism is a form of liberalism and that you are basing your claim on specualtion and assumption, any conservative source should be discredited because it is a conservative source. That's not illogical in any way.

Your "idea" of liberalism is clearly based on the rosy picture of liberalism painted by liberals and politicians, not on the subtantive writings of the various philosophers that shaped liberalism throughout history.

Your "definition" and "understanding" of liberalism comes from dictionaries, political speeches, political propaganda, etc. Mine comes from the writings of Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, Rousseau, etc. When it comes to understanding liberalism (which, at it's core is an ideology), which is going to be more accurate and which is going to be based more in spin and bias?

Here is a simplistic yet decent "definition" of liberalism (the more modern, egalitarian type), but in comparison to american conservatism.

 

[fossten]

RIGHT ON,,YOU AND ME TOO. iT'S TOO BAD THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP A MALE BIRTH CONTROL PILL IN THE 60's. I HAD A 13YR. HELL MARRIAGE TO A WOMAN 7yrs. older than me that had been married before..Two children. I tried to make it work. My dad always said SHE SAW YOU COMING. She thought he really liked her,,but he didn't. I WAS 19 and she told me "IF I RUN AND DOUCHE RIGHT AWAY I WON'T GET PREGNANT. I WAS A DUMB ASS.

Actually I heard about a recent development in the birth control arena - a pill for men to take.

The way it works is this:

You have sex, and take the pill afterwards.

Then the pill changes your blood type.

 

[TheDude]

WTF, I read the first post, glimpsed through the first thread, skip to the end and it's a 'what is liberalism' debate?

 

[TheDude]

RIGHT ON,,YOU AND ME TOO. iT'S TOO BAD THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP A MALE BIRTH CONTROL PILL IN THE 60's. I HAD A 13YR. HELL MARRIAGE TO A WOMAN 7yrs. older than me that had been married before..Two children. I tried to make it work. My dad always said SHE SAW YOU COMING. She thought he really liked her,,but he didn't. I WAS 19 and she told me "IF I RUN AND DOUCHE RIGHT AWAY I WON'T GET PREGNANT. I WAS A DUMB ASS.

Sorry to laugh at your troubles; lol.

 

[foxpaws]

Mr Dude - Hello again!!!!

Now, for something maybe you guys can remember -Plan B.

Recently approved for over the counter sales, it is a 'morning after pill' and can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. You just have to be over 18 to purchase it from your local pharmacist without a prescription.

So for the guy that was too big for his condom, or the little escapade of mr grubbs - there is now a much better option available than abortions or miserable marriages, or altering your blood type...

 

[TheDude]

Hello, Foxxy

I believe the anti-abortion crowd also looks down on the morning-after pill. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of RU486.