myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
1st and 2nd Amendments under attack
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 934

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
By the numbers:

question are you saying there is not way of defining the term (promiscuous) , or is it for each person to determine for themselves?

Answer: In common usage, the term promiscuous is reserved for women, and conveys loose morals. The way the question is posed assumes that there has been a change in sexual practices--which is not entirely clear--and that sexual behavior can be proscribed by absolute moral terms, rather than in the context of a culture. It is for those reasons that I consider the question insensitive--if there is something that you are trying to get at, try phrasing it in a different, more neutral manner.


Some see promiscuity meerly as the sexual activity outside of marriage.

mac wrote:
question: Do laws makes things acceptable, rational and moral?

answer: laws, and the finality of an arbiter such as the Supreme Court are the glue that bind us together as a society. I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on counting votes in Florida in the 2000 election and in the recent Civil Rights act case--I believe that both were nakedly partisan, and favored Republican election results. I also disagree with Citizens United and the Philadelphia gun case. But that is the legal system, and I accept the finality of those decisions. To do otherwise--as evangelicals have with Roe v;. Wade is profoundly radical, and thus carries its own moral dilemmas.

You agree with some laws and disagree with others? Sp based upon your own reasoning could the answer have been "no"?

mac wrote:
question: What leaves greater emotional scars, the termination of a pregnancy or being poor?

answer: This question poses a false choice, and says more about you, and your desire to impose your own views, than does it represent a real inquiry. It is, like many of these questions, sort of "so have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of reasoning.

The question is merely a question. It is like asking what is the greater number 1 or 5.

mac wrote:
Somehow I don't think that the woman who has had eight abortions, mentioned above, is scarred by that. But if you actually have any evidence that is systematic and not anecdotal, I would be willing to look at it.
Somehow you don't think.......is a statement based more upon your opinion than fact. Do "you" actually have any evidence that is systematic and not anecdotal?

mac wrote:
By the way, my wife gave up a child to adoption when her first husband abandoned her. She was Catholic and never considered abortion. It scarred her. We know the mother of our older daughter, who arranged a private adoption with us, very well. She made the best of a bad situation, and we are grateful that she didn't have an abortion. That doesn't give me the right to force either adoption or carrying a child to term, or abortion, on a woman. Or to judge why or how she became pregnant.
I feel for your wife. That must not have been a pleasant situation to deal with.

mac wrote:
question: If a "Christian" couple should wish to adopt a child should they be denied this because their views of homosexuality are based upon their biblical beliefs?

answer: I suspect you know the answer to this one, which is why my response was snide. In America there is both religious freedom and separation of church and state, and nobody can use your religion, or lack of religion, as criteria for your suitability to adopt a child or run for office. At the same time, there are limitations on the ability of someone holding religious views to impose those views on others with different views.
You are correct in you assumption that I know the answer. The answer is that people are denied based upon their beliefs. It is more common then you think. Is this grounds for a snide answer?

mac wrote:
You have no legitimate interest in the basis of my moral code--nor I in yours.

That is a partly false statement. I actually do have an interest, otherwise I would not have asked. I have lots of friends who do not share my views but I am still interested in what they have to say.
If you are not interested in mine that is your right, but I might suggest that your views as mine may not always be the correct one and that you can always learn from others.

You forgot some:

In your opinion what is the cut off time for termination of a pregnancy?

Would you deem it acceptable to terminate the fetus / child's life after delivery?

What is the difference between the two scenarios above?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1442

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reinerehlers,

Welcome to Mac's world, I admire your persistence. Of course, he is always right so I hope your head can take the beating against a stone wall.

Maybe he should review his post about "Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder". Self enlightenment is always a good thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1323

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cripes! It's turning into a day of real surprises.

Not only has mac patiently and politely responded in detail to one he designated a knuckle dragger, though not without also incinerating another few million brain cells with his pyroclastic bomb lobbings at arch enemy Mr. Gybe, (round 1,067 ), but an even bigger shock awaited the opening of the morning paper.

A high achieving, no nonsense women academic was pouring pity on her modern, helpless, sisterhood feminists.

Quote; 'Their cry might be; I am woman, hear me mew.' She went on, (and I think Mr. Reinerehlers may agree) 'Feminism in todays stance is all about womens weakness, and that they cannot possibly do for themselves. The whole point of what my generation achieved was to remove from our heads that women were born to be victims. We proved we could stand on our own two feet, equal to anyone, and equal to all.'

I would like to know how she views abortion on demand. Victimhood?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2579

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Mrgybe responded to the facts of poverty and unadopted children in Texas that I posted with a statement that he supports a number of groups that are taking care of the problems. With thousands of kids in foster care, and over 6 million in poverty in Texas while the same legislature cuts programs for education and poverty, his claim is clearly not true.

The dishonesty of the man is quite breathtaking. This is what I actually responded to:

mac wrote:
Show me a conservative with a real program to deal with unwanted and poor children and give them a better life, and I'll listen to their sarcastic nonsense about abortion. But I won't hold my breath..

To which I responded:
Quote:
I can show you dozens of programs that look after the health and well being of hundreds of thousands of these children. I am directly involved in one such organization.

He tells us that "is clearly not true" because children remain in poverty. In so doing he minimizes the efforts of thousands of people who are dedicated to improving the lives of those less fortunate. And, by some bizarre twist of logic, all this is the fault of those who would restrict late term abortions.

Quote:
As usual, mrgybe provided no details about his magical solutions--information is made available on a need to know basis.

I keep my philanthropic efforts private. The little I do is to benefit others, not to inflate my status in front of others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5080

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does get tiresome correcting people who try to put words in my mouth. Particularly in the case of certain individuals, who are so relentlessly dishonest in their expositions that it stretches the imagination to suppose that it is accidental or careless. You might guess my reference here.

Now, to the questions. First, your question about Christians and homosexuality was, as I suspected, a gotcha question. It received a gotcha answer. As I have said, quite politely, try to use neutral language and pose an opinion, and you will get responses in kind. There is certainly bias in the world--evangelical Christians against homosexuals, people of other religions and no religions against evangelical Christians, blacks against whites, whites against blacks, and the right wing against Islam. None of it is acceptable.

Quote:
You forgot some:

In your opinion what is the cut off time for termination of a pregnancy?

Would you deem it acceptable to terminate the fetus / child's life after delivery?

What is the difference between the two scenarios above?


The first was asked and answered above, on page 22:

Quote:
Remember that on abortion, the Supreme Court (by a 7-2 margin) has established both a right to abortion, rooted in the concept of privacy, and a viability test of 24 to 28 weeks. Here from the Pew Center:

Quote:
The second tier of Blackmun's framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability - the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother.


I will not answer your question about partial birth abortion, it is a wedge issue that evangelicals have used to attack Obama in very un-Christian ways. If you have an opinion, and want to pose it and ask neutral questions, I will reconsider that.

Finally, I did not say that I agree with some laws and not with others, although that is true. The political process, when it works, involves compromises and enacting those laws that represent shared values--not the imposition of religious values on those that do not share them. I stated that accepting the finality of a Supreme Court decision, whether you agree with it or not, is the glue that holds society together. I think you missed that point entirely.

Mrgybe, as usual, reads only to disagree. I support charitable efforts, and think that it is part of the package of solutions. Some have the magical thinking that charitable solutions, whether secular or non-secular, are enough--but they fill only about 10% of the needs. That's why I think you need government assistance. But when we talk specifically about Texas, the same legislators who are making abortion more difficult--in far more ways than the restrictions at 20 weeks--are also cutting assistance for women with children who have been abandoned by their husbands, and education and intervention programs for children in poverty. Since those ideas all come in common from ALEC, and are amply funded by the oily Koch brothers, it is not conflation to point out the overall hostility of the program to women and poor children.

And to GT--I would think that mrgybe would be happy to know that there is a diagnosis, and with counseling he can hope to lead a nearly normal life! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2579

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
It does get tiresome correcting people who try to put words in my mouth.

I suggest you contact web site admin. Apparently someone is posting comments......which I and others have quoted verbatim.......using your screen name. If the words we quoted were not yours we apologize.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 934

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
reinerehlers,

Welcome to Mac's world, I admire your persistence. Of course, he is always right so I hope your head can take the beating against a stone wall.

Don't we all "think" we are right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 934

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
reinerehlers,

Welcome to Mac's world, I admire your persistence. Of course, he is always right so I hope your head can take the beating against a stone wall.

Don't we all "think" we are right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 934

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:

Now, to the questions. First, your question about Christians and homosexuality was, as I suspected, a gotcha question. It received a gotcha answer.

My original question was:
"If a "Christian" couple should wish to adopt a child should they be denied this because their views of homosexuality are based upon their biblical beliefs? Is the above a form of discrimination? " I see this as a question plain and simple. I can't help what you read into it. You did, as you said, reply in a snide manner. I responded you were correct and that does in fact happen. Still I wonder how this is a "gotcha question"or a "gotcha answer", and why it warrants a snide response. It was a question. You could have answered yes or no to both without the other. If you are reading a tone into my message then you would be incorrect in doing so.



mac wrote:
The political process, when it works, involves compromises and enacting those laws that represent shared values--not the imposition of religious values on those that do not share them. I stated that accepting the finality of a Supreme Court decision, whether you agree with it or not, is the glue that holds society together. I think you missed that point entirely.
Good point actually. I agree but disagree at the same time. I would think that if a law truly reflected a shared value then it would be voted upon in a democratic manner. That way it would reflect the population as whole more correctly. At times it seems laws are a result of lawyers having a pissing match to who can win. I get it, they are paid to make a point, and sometimes it appears that it is an ego war where the best twister of facts or logic wins. I don't blame the lawyers though. I would blame the system more. Many times it would seem there is a total lack of "common sense."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5080

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--I went back and recovered my language, which was in reference to the Texas legislature--and the other legislatures passing abortion restrictions that don't meet the Roe v. Wade tests. Those restrictions, which have been tried for many years now, and overturned in appellate courts, cost the public legislative time and money defending bad laws. I said:

Quote:
Women will get even. Knuckle draggers won't know what hit them.


I mean by that that a reference to Obama winning 56% of the women's vote, with the rabid right's fervor on abortion a major reason. The country also elected 20 women senators. The woman's vote has dictated the presidential result for the less several quadreniums, and the misogyny in much of the labeling of the right will, I believe, backfire on the conservatives. It take more than a bit of a stretch to get from that to calling reinrehlers, or anyone else not willing to embrace it, a knuckle dragger.

I believe I have made clear my own distaste for abortion--but my belief that imposing restrictions beyond the Roe v. Wade tests, through a religious lens, is untenable in this country which accords religious freedom to those who do not agree with the evangelist or anti-abortion religious view.

I have no trouble being direct when I am offended, but I do strive for accuracy.

reinerehlers--why ask a question that you know the answer to? As I said, religious freedom protects the right of people with whatever belief system to have or adopt children, and protects the rights of people who have no trouble with abortion from being prevented from seeking one. Two sides of the same coin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
Page 25 of 33

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group