Tweet
Bigger breasts 
The treatment should be made mandatory for all girls with small boobs
The treatment should be made mandatory for all girls with small boobs
-
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok -
Shame, its best to put fingers, mouth, etc. on it.Originally posted by alva
Hmm, let's see...
Use of inventon:
Paint: to paint dirty pictures in caves
books: to able to write dirty stories
Film: to be able to make dirty pictures
Internet: to sent both pictures and stories to one another
Stemcells: greater boobs
There's a connection there somewhere, just...can't...put my finger on it.
"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy CarterComment
-
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but in my case the answer is 'yes, that's why'.What's the point of having morals if I can't force them on other people? That's why I keep trying to take over the world. Isn't that why you play civ?Comment
-
It is and it isn't. Most people would say my statement was ridiculous, but if they were really honest with themselves they would have to admit there was a lot of truth in it.Originally posted by VJ
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm
to VJ, an honest man.
“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of ManComment
-
Well, let's face it, aren't all laws just an imposition of one code of morals over another? "Don't murder" is based on certain assumptions about the value of a human life. The chief distinction between it and "don't abort" is that the vast majority of people believe adult human life is worth saving, and only sociopaths are in the dissenting minority. If you disagree with my morals, it's the nature of democracy to allow you to fight against them and impose your own provided you have greater eloquence or weight of numbers. The "imposition of morals" is not, by itself, a bad thing. The literal observance of such a "non-imposing" code would turn us all into libertarians or anarchists.Comment
-
Surely, Libertarians, as strong believers in individual rights and freedoms, are the very opposite of "non-impositional" in their morals?Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
Er, OPPOSITE of non-impositional? You're losing me in the compounded negatives here. I would say they don't "impose" at all, or try not to, insofar as they refuse to let anyone impose anything on anyone else, period. They're a perfect example of taking "don't impose your personal morals on me" to its most idiotic, but inevitable, conclusion.
They run into problems just trying not to "impose" on person X, because person X has values that support "imposing" values on person Y, and so on. Is it okay to impose on imposers? And if somebody else doesn't agree with your imposition, can they impose on you to prevent your imposing on another's imposition? Ethics can't exist alone in a vaccuum like that...Comment
-
Libertarians, I'm given to understand, are strong proponents of the rule of law. What is the rule of law if not the imposition, at gunpoint if need be, of a code of behaviour, ie a morality?Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
Elok was wrong in citing libertarians; actually, there is NO consistent moral code that prohibits imposing morality on others - the very concept is internally inconsistent.
The only (relevent) issue in the abortion/stem cell debates is what do we call a "person" with rights. There is no more authoritarianism in it (like the pro-choice absolutists claim) than in the North imposing emancipation on the South. Now, I don't agree with Elok on what constitutes a person, but I think the people who yell about right to privacy and separation of church and state are tilting at strawmen.Comment
-
The Anti-Choice people seem to think the term "person" is an absolute term, it isn't.Thier absolutism it is a relic of Platonic essentialism. It doesn't matter if the ball of cells is Homo sapiens or not, it is still just a ball of cells. And don't start arguing with me about a soul, Ben, because there is no such thing as a soul.Comment
-
Could we talk about breasts again?Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
I love reading stories like this and smiling because I'm seeing Gemma tomorrow. As she put it herself, breasts are awesome
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - KuciwalkerComment
-
Anti-ChoiceOriginally posted by Odin
The Anti-Choice people seem to think the term "person" is an absolute term, it isn't.
I guess that makes you Pro-Death.
And of course person isn't an absolute term - but your definition of personhood is no better than his (objectively), so I wouldn't argue that if I were you. Calling blacks people is objectively no more justifiable than calling a fetus a person (ignoring utilitarian arguments, though of course utilitarianism itself doesn't have any inherent objective truth).
You're just a ball of cells. BANG!Thier absolutism it is a relic of Platonic essentialism. It doesn't matter if the ball of cells is Homo sapiens or not, it is still just a ball of cells. And don't start arguing with me about a soul, Ben, because there is no such thing as a soul.Comment
-
I was making a point that the Religious Right don't have a monopoly on defining "person".Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Anti-Choice I guess that makes you Pro-Death.
And of course person isn't an absolute term - but your definition of personhood is no better than his (objectively), so I wouldn't argue that if I were you. Calling blacks people is objectively no more justifiable than calling a fetus a person (ignoring utilitarian arguments, though of course utilitarianism itself doesn't have any inherent objective truth).
You're just a ball of cells. BANG!
I am not pro-death, I don't like abortions, particularly in the 3rd trimester, and we would not need to do them as often as we do if people in this country got proper sex-ed (contraception), but it is none of my business if a person gets an abortion or not.Comment
-
I was making a point that the Religious Right don't have a monopoly on defining "person".
As far as I know they've never claimed to.
(btw, almost all of the abolitionist arguments were religious in nature or most often based right on the Bible...)
I am not pro-death, I don't like abortions, particularly in the 3rd trimester, and we would not need to do them as often as we do if people in this country got proper sex-ed (contraception), but it is none of my business if a person gets an abortion or not.
But if the fetus is a person, then it IS your business as much as it's your business if I decide to kill someone. Right to privacy does not imply the right to violate others' rights, such as by killing them. As I said, the ONLY relevent issue is what constitutes a person (and therefore has rights).Comment
Comment