Red Poplar's silly abortion thread

[Red Poplar]

But Fuserg won't be sanctioned for offensive language and provocations, now would he? From that I see that this forum is an oppressor even worse than those we're fighting against. A small elite holds the power, doesn't answer to anyone and can do whatever they please without consequences, and others can't do anything about it. Does that remind you of a certain system? Yes - a system that I'm not fighting for.

This is a system that excludes, rejects its potential allies just because of their beliefs. I thought my knowledge on the history of Yugoslav nations would be put to good use here, yet I haven't had a chance to speak at all, just because I support human life. Continuing to pursue your exclusive policies (exclusivism is right-wing) will never earn you popularity larger than you currently have, one or two percent at most. Because you despise religion, tradition, national self-determination, and human life in its first phase. And people don't want to replace the current oppressor with another one, people of the 21st century want freedom, and although many here declare themselves as "anarchists", proponents of freedom, this forum is faaaar from freedom. When you put into your close-minded heads that people are different, not inequal but different, then we could talk about uniting the Left (Think of the Spanish Popular Front.) Until then, you are kept on an internet forum, which brings no benefit to the working class. Be my guest! :cool:

[#FF0000]

All that is well and good but we don't want people who push a sexist position posting in the main forum.

It was also in the rules you agreed to when you joined.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But Fuserg won't be sanctioned for offensive language and provocations, now would he? From that I see that this forum is an oppressor even worse than those we're fighting against.

Perspective, you could use some.


A small elite holds the power, doesn't answer to anyone and can do whatever they please without consequences, and others can't do anything about it. Does that remind you of a certain system? Yes - a system that I'm not fighting for.

You can always leave. Nobody is forcing you to be here, whereas we all have to live in society.


This is a system that excludes, rejects its potential allies just because of their beliefs.

People who want to limit reproductive freedom aren't our allies.


I thought my knowledge on the history of Yugoslav nations would be put to good use here, yet I haven't had a chance to speak at all, just because I support human life.

The very existence of this thread puts the lie to your claim.


Continuing to pursue your exclusive policies (exclusivism is right-wing) will never earn you popularity larger than you currently have, one or two percent at most.

We're about what's right, not what's popular. Did you know that populism is a right-wing praxis?


Because you despise religion, tradition, national self-determination, and human life in its first phase. And people don't want to replace the current oppressor with another one, people of the 21st century want freedom, and although many here declare themselves as "anarchists", proponents of freedom, this forum is faaaar from freedom.

"I'm being oppressed on the Internet!"


When you put into your close-minded heads that people are different, not inequal but different, then we could talk about uniting the Left (Think of the Spanish Popular Front.) Until then, you are kept on an internet forum, which brings no benefit to the working class. Be my guest! :cool:

If you think internet forums have no benefit to the working class, why are you here?

[Bud Struggle]

All that is well and good but we don't want people who push a sexist position posting in the main forum. It rather should be "what RevLeft defines" as a sexist position. There is no general consensus in the world or in the overall general Socialist attitude that being anti-Abortion is sexist. I'll grant that most Socialists agree with the pro-Abortion position, but it is far from universal. RevLeft has a right to make any rules it chooses for membership, but defining unilaterally what is "sexist" and what isn't--goes a bit far.


It was also in the rules you agreed to when you joined.Those are indeed the rules. :thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

It rather should be "what RevLeft defines" as a sexist position. There is no general consensus in the world or in the overall general Socialist attitude that being anti-Abortion is sexist. I'll grant that most Socialists agree with the pro-Abortion position, but it is far from universal. RevLeft has a right to make any rules it chooses for membership, but defining unilaterally what is "sexist" and what isn't--goes a bit far.


I can't think of how restricting a woman's bodily autonomy is not sexist.

[Bud Struggle]

I can't think of how restricting a woman's bodily autonomy is not sexist.

Because you don't believe that a fetus is a human being. I understand that--and I appreciate it. But others believe that a fetus IS a human being--once you take that course being anti killing of a human being makes all the sense in the world.

The problem here is that it is all opinion. There is no ultimate definition of what a human being is or when life starts. And yes I know you can hurl a thousand definitions at me, and I can do so back to you--but it all comes down to the same thing-----opinion.

So theys why you saying that being anti abortion is sexist--is nothing more than your opinion, that you certainly have a right to hold and RevLeft certainly has a right to restrict people for. But it is your opinion--not fact.

[#FF0000]

Because you don't believe that a fetus is a human being. I understand that--and I appreciate it. But others believe that a fetus IS a human being--once you take that course being anti killing of a human being makes all the sense in the world.

Well not to be snarky or anything but unless those others people are scientists then I don't really put a lot of weight in their opinion on the matter.

[Red Poplar]

Sexism again! Can't you find another argument in favour of your views? There are many pro-life socialists, are they all sexists? Is Margaret Sanger, a feminist and founder of the American Birth Control League, sexist as well? How would you then explain a female opponent of abortion?

Abortion is a widely-discussed topic, there won't be an agreement soon, so why are you so convinced that you are right? Like I said, I used to be pro-choice, but having seen the things I've seen, I changed my mind because I gave my opponents an opportunity to demonstrate their views. And I've never considered other people's views "silly", like you do. That's another proof that you're exclusive and close-minded, which a leftist shouldn't be.

Again, a fetus is not a part of a woman's body. It has its own DNA, brain, heart and other body parts. It's just that it's not developed enough to live independently, so it develops in its mother's uterus for the first 9 months of its life. If you sit in a car, do you consider yourself a part of the car, just as the engine, wheels or seats? I think not. If a fetus isn't a human being, then when does it become one? After exactly how many weeks/days of pregnancy?? I'm not expecting you to change your mind regarding abortion, but my views are justifiable, not "silly".

And you calling me a sexist would be the same as me calling you murderers. However, I won't do that. I'm a libertarian, and I respect views other than mine. Unlike you.

[#FF0000]

Can you explain how restricting a woman's bodily autonomy is not sexism?

[Bud Struggle]

Well not to be snarky or anything but unless those others people are scientists then I don't really put a lot of weight in their opinion on the matter.

And that's fine. But you can get a lot of scientists that will define life beginning at conception, or with a heartbeat, or with brain activity.

Actually, conception and birth are both at the FAR ENDS of the spectrum, both pressing more on ideology than science. Heartbeat and brain activity might be the more reasonable scientific options.

[Jazzratt]

Oh hegiohsduikghsrdklgdsfhjdahgio not this silly bollocks again.

Look arseface, you can find all kinds of examples of feminists who've said fucking ridiculous things that are materially sexist. Simply claiming to be a feminist is not enough to actually be exempt from being a sexist or holding a position that is, in reality completely detrimental to women.

EDIT: This was directed at Red Poplar, not Bud.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sexism again! Can't you find another argument in favour of your views?

Why should we? It's a good argument.


There are many pro-life socialists, are they all sexists? Is Margaret Sanger, a feminist and founder of the American Birth Control League, sexist as well? How would you then explain a female opponent of abortion?

Didn't she establish Family Planning clinics that include abortion, among other services anti-choicers forget about?


Abortion is a widely-discussed topic, there won't be an agreement soon, so why are you so convinced that you are right?

Because we are. Only women can get pregnant, so preventing women from having abortions represents an attack on women.


Like I said, I used to be pro-choice, but having seen the things I've seen, I changed my mind because I gave my opponents an opportunity to demonstrate their views.

No, you changed your mind because you were grossed out. Reason had nothing to do with it.


And I've never considered other people's views "silly", like you do. That's another proof that you're exclusive and close-minded, which a leftist shouldn't be.

Maybe instead of calling other people names, you could instead try backing up your silly views with something other than "eew, icky".


Again, a fetus is not a part of a woman's body. It has its own DNA, brain, heart and other body parts. It's just that it's not developed enough to live independently, so it develops in its mother's uterus for the first 9 months of its life. If you sit in a car, do you consider yourself a part of the car, just as the engine, wheels or seats? I think not.

The difference is, I don't depend on the car to carry on living.


If a fetus isn't a human being, then when does it become one? After exactly how many weeks/days of pregnancy?? I'm not expecting you to change your mind regarding abortion, but my views are justifiable, not "silly".

They are silly. You are trying to draw lines in the sand, but the tide is coming in.


And you calling me a sexist would be the same as me calling you murderers. However, I won't do that. I'm a libertarian, and I respect views other than mine. Unlike you.

You wish to restrict the autonomy of women. You are a sexist.

[Red Poplar]

Sexism is a relative quality. Why would someone be sexist, because a 22, 20 and 18 year old say so (while swearing, as well)? You're a little too arrogant and self-assured, and certainly not convincing me. First of all, you can't discuss like normal people, using normal language. Secondly, again, you dismiss other people's views as "silly", which only proves how backward you are. And allegedly, you are fighting backwardness.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sexism is a relative quality. Why would someone be sexist, because a 22, 20 and 18 year old say so (while swearing, as well)?

No, because they hold sexist positions.


You're a little too arrogant and self-assured, and certainly not convincing me.

That's a shame.


First of all, you can't discuss like normal people, using normal language. Secondly, again, you dismiss other people's views as "silly", which only proves how backward you are. And allegedly, you are fighting backwardness.

I did more than just call your views silly. I explained why also.

[Red Poplar]

Yeah, Noxion, "sexism" is hell of an explanation.:rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, Noxion, "sexism" is hell of an explanation.:rolleyes:

I've explained why your views are sexist, it's not my problem if you refuse to see that.

[Jazzratt]

Sexism is a relative quality. It really isn't. Something either materially disadvantages women or it doesn't.


Why would someone be sexist, because a 22, 20 and 18 year old say so (while swearing, as well)? No. They could be sexist because they support limiting women's bodily autonomy, reducing them to objects or less than people. You quote and name drop feminists but you don't actually seem to understand what they've said. Also I think you've got the, entirely irrelevent, ages wrong; if you're going to make stupid ad hominem attacks based on age and language then at least have the decency to be accurate you pompus porcupine prick.


You're a little too arrogant and self-assured, and certainly not convincing me. I'd rather be arrogant and unconvincing than falsely humble and wrong.


First of all, you can't discuss like normal people, using normal language. Surprise arsehole, swearing is normal language. Normal people swear all the sodding time, just because it upsets your fucking porcelian-fragile sensibilities doesn't mean it's abberrant language.


Secondly, again, you dismiss other people's views as "silly", which only proves how backward you are. And allegedly, you are fighting backwardness. If your views are silly and backward there is, in fact nothing wrong with pointing it out. It takes some real bloody temerity to alledge that it's evidence of backwardness on our part.

[RGacky3]

All that is well and good but we don't want people who push a sexist position posting in the main forum.

Is it sexist to say that women have a responsibility to wear tampons? Because men don't have too?

My point is this has nothing to do with sexism, it has to do with whether or not a fetus is a human.

[Red Poplar]

No, Noxion, I'm an idiot, so I don't understand. :rolleyes: According to you, if you depend on something, you're not a human being. What about people who need dialysis or a respirator? They're not independent so they don't deserve to live? Other than that, I don't see anything wise or rational in what you're writing.

[Red Poplar]

Jazzratt, my "attacks" are not based on age, just the fact that a 18-22 year old person can't have a certain degree of education necessary to completely understand all the things we're talking about.

Could you please explain to me why I'm "falsely humble", since you couldn't explain why I'm "wrong" (arrogance again)?

In the civilized world, swearing isn't normal part of the language. It may be on this forum, since you guys lead the scene, but it shouldn't make you too cocky though.

[Red Poplar]

"What the fuck are you talking about, you utter failure?", said one of the admins. I guess this marks the winner of the discussion. You are beaten, because when a person yells or uses offensive language, it means that he/she is lacking arguments. Now it's proven.

What's up fellas? Cat got your tongue? Anyway, I'm going to sleep, I ran out of patience for arguing with hypocrites.

[Jazzratt]

Jazzratt, my "attacks" are not based on age, just the fact that a 18-22 year old person can't have a certain degree of education necessary to completely understand all the things we're talking about. What utter cack. This is pretty basic stuff, maybe you're a little slow on the uptake or something but most people don't need that long to grasp the topic at hand. What's especially hilarious is that you're talking about level of education, implying that one has to have completed at least an undergraduate degree before discussing all the things we're talking about.

You're clearly speaking out of your arse.


Could you please explain to me why I'm "falsely humble", since you couldn't explain why I'm "wrong" (arrogance again)? I haven't suggested you're falsely humble. I've stated I'm not going to become so just because you don't expect me to belittle your stupid opinions.


In the civilized world, swearing isn't normal part of the language. It may be on this forum, since you guys lead the scene, but it shouldn't make you too cocky though. Seriously? Maybe in the rarified atmosphere of whatever dusty country club you call "the civilised world" swearing is a huge abnormality in language. Where normal people live, work and spend their liesure time you will find that they actually swear. You've got a fucking distorted view of the world if you imagine otherwise.


"What the fuck are you talking about, you utter failure?", said one of the admins. I guess this marks the winner of the discussion. You are beaten, because when a person yells or uses offensive language, it means that he/she is lacking arguments. Now it's proven. You've been relying on fallacious reasoning (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/style_substance.htm) since you started your argument. It's no surprise that you'd come up with some shite like this which makes no sense. It simply isn't true that yelling (which I can't do because this is written communication knucklefuck) and using offensive language indicates that someone has no argument. Having no argument indicates that someone has no argument, nothing else.

[Sam_b]

The problem for you is that we don't need another argument aside from sexism, although there are other arguments to make. Are you saying this because you don't have a decent counter-argument to save yourself? In your initial posts you said is was your 'right' to hold such an opinion. Debatable at best, young Jedi, but what do you have to say to a woman that correctly points out it is her right to control whatever happens to her own body? This results in you, presumably a man, trying to lord over something that is completely and utterly out of your domain.

Also, its wise not to mention 18-22 year olds not having an 'education' to have a sufficient understanding. First off, you need to define 'education': are we talking academic (which I gues, naively you are) or time in the struggle, or time being involved in understanding these so-called 'complex' issues? Can the patronising attitude.

FYI I'm 22 next month, and likely to start a PhD this time net year after completing my MA. By your definition, I guess I don't have the education to talk about these issues huh (protip for you: not that this means anything about anyone's ability to argue against your sexist position)

[#FF0000]

Is it sexist to say that women have a responsibility to wear tampons? Because men don't have too?

As sexist as it is Ageist to suggest children sit in booster seats.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, Noxion, I'm an idiot, so I don't understand. :rolleyes: According to you, if you depend on something, you're not a human being.

Thanks for completely misrepresenting what I said. I objected to your car analogy because it was misleading, for the simple fact that fetuses cannot survive outside the womb.

Also, people aren't cars. Your analogy suggests that women are mindless vessels, which is a classic sexist position.


What about people who need dialysis or a respirator? They're not independent so they don't deserve to live? Other than that, I don't see anything wise or rational in what you're writing.

Dialysis machines and respirators aren't people, but nice try.


"What the fuck are you talking about, you utter failure?", said one of the admins. I guess this marks the winner of the discussion. You are beaten, because when a person yells or uses offensive language, it means that he/she is lacking arguments. Now it's proven.

The validity of an argument isn't decided by how loud it is or whether it is delivered in clean language or not. Typical style-over-substance bullshit.

[Tablo]

Can't you guys just ban Red Poplar for trolling already?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wearing tampons is most likely a good idea (I guess) but what exactly makes it a "responsibility"? Does that mean that women before tampons were invented were all irresponsible?

[Bud Struggle]

Can't you guys just ban Red Poplar for trolling already?

I think you guys are beating up on him and being a bit harsh. Most people don't wander in here equipped with full RevLeft sensibilities. It takes a while to understand all the secret handshakes and rules of this place.

He got pissed off when you (rightly) restricted him for his abortion beliefs (who am I to argue with property rights? ;),) but to hammer him about being a sexist is a bit insulting, especially if he is new to your understanding of what you mean by sexist.

Let him cool off a bit. He had some pretty interesting posts on Croatia in his Abortion thread and a pretty interesting discussion with the Jolly Red Giant.

[Tablo]

I think you guys are beating up on him and being a bit harsh. Most people don't wander in here equipped with full RevLeft sensibilities. It takes a while to understand all the secret handshakes and rules of this place.

He got pissed off when you (rightly) restricted him for his abortion beliefs (who am I to argue with property rights? ;),) but to hammer him about being a sexist is a bit insulting, especially if he is new to your understanding of what you mean by sexist.

Let him cool off a bit. He had some pretty interesting posts on Croatia in his Abortion thread and a pretty interesting discussion with the Jolly Red Giant.
I don't like his view, but if he weren't such a whiny condescending fucker I wouldn't be hating.

[Che a chara]

I also think it's a bit far fetched calling it sexist. I used to have some discrepancies regarding this topic, but it came down to this, what sort of person would force or want a women to give birth against her will ? that, IMO, is monstrous. Then you have the after effects, both mentally and physically on the mother. Would she live and be surrounded within the best conditions to bring up the child ? ..... would that be fair on either, and who knows what mental deterioration and abuse it could lead to.

Then you come to the unborn baby, what feelings of pain would 'it' have ? If the child is put up for adoption or placed into care would he/she be looked after properly ?

(p.s., i would hope my response will go some way in overturning my restriction :))

[Sam_b]

'unborn baby'?

[Che a chara]

'unborn baby'?

Well yes, the unborn child in fetal development. That's what it is, no ?

[Quail]

A fetus will become a baby, yes, but a fetus is not a baby. It can't survive outside the womb, and for a long time, it can't feel pain. I bet none of you arguing against abortion are female.

I've been pregnant and given birth. Being pregnant sucks, giving birth hurts like nothing I've ever had to endure and I don't think that anyone has the right to force that upon an unwilling woman. You have to think of the trauma a forced pregnancy would cause a woman. Stopping a life ever coming into existence is much kinder to the woman, and likely kinder to the baby.

[#FF0000]

He got pissed off when you (rightly) restricted him for his abortion beliefs (who am I to argue with property rights? ;),) but to hammer him about being a sexist is a bit insulting, especially if he is new to your understanding of what you mean by sexist.

I explicitly explained what we meant by sexist. I said that being pro-life was "a meterially sexist position" and explained what that meant.

[Bud Struggle]

I explicitly explained what we meant by sexist. I said that being pro-life was "a meterially sexist position" and explained what that meant.

Yea, sorry I missed that on the other thread. It was a pretty decent explaination on your part.

[Sam_b]

Well yes, the unborn child in fetal development. That's what it is, no ?

Guess again champ

[Che a chara]

Guess again champ

So just 'the unborn' would be the correct term ?

[Dean]

Because you don't believe that a fetus is a human being. I understand that--and I appreciate it. But others believe that a fetus IS a human being--once you take that course being anti killing of a human being makes all the sense in the world.
Its not whether or not its a "human being" that is an issue.

The issue is the shared traits that it has with human beings, and whether or not they are those specific traits which are deserving of moral representation.

But it still goes further. It is an issue of public policy in the context of a "human" (to be very liberal with your representation for the sake of argument) which is created by a woman, exists and demands within and from her body, and is, in fact a part of her.

Now, the issue of the human-ness or moral character of the fetus does have weight. But the fact is that, both restricting the right to abortion and excising the baby prematurely to "save it from abortion" are determinations asserted on a woman which ultimately disempowers her in the management of her own body.

You simply cannot expect, as a society, to demand certain medical procedures or lack thereof on a significant portion of the population. It's absurd and the only moral answer to respect for the fetus and the women is to allow her to choose and hope that a pluralistic, decentralized socio-economic model will lower the rate of these procedures.

And its worth noting that fetuses don't share any of the characteristics of consciousness for a long period of their stay in the womb.

[Dean]

So just 'the unborn' would be the correct term ?
Fetus.

"Unborn baby" is used to evoke a particular response, that is reaction and political opposition to the destruction of the fetus. Enough changes occur to the fetus during birth - including drastic changes in the level of mental activity, I might add - that make them qualitatively different.

[synthesis]

I'm siding with the OIers on this one - not because I don't support a woman's unconditional right to have an abortion, which I do, but because I don't think there's any good faith being assumed here. Being anti-abortion might be an objectively reactionary position, but that's not necessarily how anti-abortion people see it.

You don't have to automatically relegate them to the status of "class enemy" - I think that it's pretty rare that anti-abortion people are actually fully conscious of the reactionary nature of their position.

I believe that people's positions should be challenged with dialogue first, without the assumption of reactionary intentions. Give it some time, and if they're really being unreasonable about it, then you can treat them however you'd like.

[Red Poplar]

Look, people, you may say that I'm trolling, but that's just because you refuse to understand my arguments, which are scientifically backed, just as yours. So I'll repeat them:

1) All parts of a body have the same DNA. Fetus has a independent DNA, different than his mother's, which definitely proves that FETUS IS NOT A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY.

2) Fetus has 46 chromosomas, and of all living beings on Earth, only humans have the exact number of chromosomas. So, the argument that fetus is not a human being, fails.

3) It's scientifically unclear when life begins, therefore it's just a matter of interpretation. I personally claim that life begins soon after implantation in the uterus, when cells start to divide in a rapid rate. Again, that's my opinion, it's unclear who is right. However, I don't understand why a fetus, according to you, is not a human, while a baby is. You can't just put a border and say, 'until then it's not a human, after then it is'.

So, I was clear. I completely support everyone's right to manage his/her own body, but as I said, fetus is not a part of it. You call me sexist, I can call you murderers. However, I won't, since I'm obviously more civilised than you. As for the age, I consider that more experienced persons should guide a forum like this. There isn't a single 20-year-old minister or leader in the world, and it's not for no reason. As for the degree of education I mentioned, I didn't say that you ought to have an undergraduate degree to understand abortion, but without a degree in gynecology, genetics, biology etc., your knowledge, compared to mine, is not wide enough to call me "wrong"!

Now, as for my situation: I've been mistreated, insulted, sweared at and offended many times since I came here, just because I'm pro-life. As much as you accuse me of being a sexist, I can accuse you for discrimination because of different opinion, which is no better than sexism. I'll repeat for the sixth or seventh time: I never stated that I favoured banning of abortion. I only claim that abortion is something that should happen in extreme situations, and avoided by using adequate birth control and sex education. A ban wouldn't do any good, since it would increase abortions performed in illegal conditions, and cause more health problems. On the other hand, if you see abortion as something positive, then you have serious problems.

By the way, this situation reminds me of the Middle Ages. A community that thinks the same gets hold of someone different, then exposes him in a town square, mocks him, insults him etc. So, I advise all of you haters, to fuck off of me, since swearing is a normal part of the language, according to you.

However, I'm ready to forgive everything and forget abortion if you give me back my reputation, unrestrict me and start treating me like a human, EQUALISTS.

[9]

Is it sexist to say that women have a responsibility to wear tampons?

for fuck's sake



My point is this has nothing to do with sexism, it has to do with whether or not a fetus is a human.No, it has nothing to do with what term you apply to a fetus.

It's really very simple: either you do, or you don't, support the 'right' of the bourgeois state to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and give birth against their will.
It really is that black and white.

[9]

That said, I don't see why its necessary to keep Red Poplar restricted if he agrees to confine his advocacy of forced-childbirth to the OI forum.

[Red Poplar]

It's really very simple: either you do, or you don't, support the 'right' of the bourgeois state to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and give birth against their will.
It really is that black and white.

It really is black or white that Stalin banned abortion, and you consider yourself a Stalinist. :D

[Red Poplar]

That said, I don't see why its necessary to keep Red Poplar restricted if he agrees to confine his advocacy of forced-childbirth to the OI forum.

That's what I said too. But these guys obviously want to control other people's minds, that's why they wouldn't unrestrict me. Thanks for your support anyway. :)

[9]

It really is black or white that Stalin banned abortion, and you consider yourself a Stalinist. :D

I don't, actually; it's ironic hipster Stalinism.

[#FF0000]

That's what I said too. But these guys obviously want to control other people's minds, that's why they wouldn't unrestrict me. Thanks for your support anyway. :)

to be honest we are just going to keep you restricted out of spite

[Red Poplar]

to be honest we are just going to keep you restricted out of spite

Please, don't! I'm gonna cry.... :crying:

[Sam_b]

However, I'm ready to forgive everything and forget abortion if you give me back my reputation, unrestrict me and start treating me like a human, EQUALISTS.

People are dying in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq...get some perspective for fuck's sake. This is a forum, we don't need to seek your forgiveness.

[Red Poplar]

What the fuck do Gaza and Afghanistan have to do with this situation? I'm not asking for an apology, although I should, I'm just appealing against my still-unjustifiable restriction.

[Sam_b]

What the fuck do Gaza and Afghanistan have to do with this situation?


start treating me like a human

This is an internet forum. You're squealing about human rights and such nonsense. Again, get some perspective.

You don't seem overly concerned about a woman's right for body autonomy, so why should anyone respect your 'right' here?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I posted this in the unfair restrictions thread before noticing that it was requested that regular users abstain from posting there:


Pro-lifers that didn't advocate restricting abortion have been allowed to remain on the main forum before. Personally being against abortion in itself isn't against the rules as far as I know.

[Red Poplar]

This is an internet forum. You're squealing about human rights and such nonsense. Again, get some perspective.

You don't seem overly concerned about a woman's right for body autonomy, so why should anyone respect your 'right' here?

Again, you ignorant motherfucker, I'm concerned about every person's right to be born, which in my opinion outstrengths a body autonomy, besides, in case you can't read, I've already explained why a fetus is not a part of a woman's body. Fascists.

[Sam_b]

I'm concerned about every person's right to be born

There's no such right.


Fascists.

You also have no idea what fascism actually is.

http://cdn.bikechatforums.com/files/worlds-smallest-violin_190.jpg

[Red Poplar]

There's no such right.



You also have no idea what fascism actually is.



In some countries, there is.

Then remind me - a totalitarian system based on the rule of a small "elite" who enforce their laws without having to justify them, exclusion of any sort of opponents, censorship, trashing of individualism... if I'm not wrong, that's a description of fascism. And this forum as well.

[Sam_b]

In some countries, there is.

Rights are not defined by the state's law. As a so-called leftist, you should know this.



Then remind me - a totalitarian system based on the rule of a small "elite" who enforce their laws without having to justify them, exclusion of any sort of opponents, censorship, trashing of individualism... if I'm not wrong, that's a description of fascism. And this forum as well.

Well you are wrong, so tough luck.

If you hate this forum, why not just leave? Oh, wait: you're an attention seeker.

[Red Poplar]

Rights are not defined by the state's law. As a so-called leftist, you should know this.



Well you are wrong, so tough luck.

If you hate this forum, why not just leave? Oh, wait: you're an attention seeker.

Then how do you explain that a right to be born is not a right? Because you say so? It's understood that such matters aren't clear, so why are convinced that you are right?

No, I just hate injustice. You would like me to leave so you can continue your dictatorship in peace.

[Sam_b]

Then how do you explain that a right to be born is not a right?

Semen and foetuses do not have rights.

Dictatorship, how droll.

[Lt. Ferret]

they run the messageboard like they'd run society, by smothering opposing opinions and refusing to have discussions.

and im about as pro-abortion as a human can possibly get.

[Red Poplar]

they run the messageboard like they'd run society, by smothering opposing opinions and refusing to have discussions.

and im about as pro-abortion as a human can possibly get.

Yeah! Thank God they won't seize power in the near future.

[Lt. Ferret]

the sad thing is this place is run about exactly like the sean hannity forums, where i got banned yesterday for calling a guy who was advocating arab genocide hitler.

[Red Poplar]

the sad thing is this place is run about exactly like the sean hannity forums, where i got banned yesterday for calling a guy who was advocating arab genocide hitler.

That's because many sociopaths run forums, since they're not accepted in the real life (it's clear why). I was just looking for a normal political forum, do you by any occasion know any?

[Lt. Ferret]

i post on www dot conpunk dot com. (i think they dont like you putting url's on the site since spambots do it).

you'll get some good debates, but its mostly a hideout for libertarians and a couple neo-cons. i ended up sticking around and being the token liberal.

[Red Poplar]

i post on www dot conpunk dot com. (i think they dont like you putting url's on the site since spambots do it).

you'll get some good debates, but its mostly a hideout for libertarians and a couple neo-cons. i ended up sticking around and being the token liberal.

OK, and how about www politicalforum com? They seem rather civilised to me, any experience with them?

[Sam_b]

This is cute.

[Red Poplar]

This is cute.

Did anyone ask you anything? No. So shut the fuck up.

[Lt. Ferret]

OK, and how about www politicalforum com? They seem rather civilised to me, any experience with them?


no idea. ill check them out.

[Lt. Ferret]

This is cute.



:thumbup1: great post would read again. :thumbup1:

[Sam_b]

Did anyone ask you anything? No. So shut the fuck up.

you're a sociopath. Because, people who insult, attack and use offensive language against others for no reason, are called that way.
:lol:

[Kotze]

Anybody wants to share some good stories from their fetushood?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did anyone ask you anything? No. So shut the fuck up.

NO U

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/d/d1/NO_U_cycle.gif/180px-NO_U_cycle.gif

[Red Poplar]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifFuck off, mr fucking idiot, with so much experience and so smarter than me, cause "I have been to this earh longer than you" shit.And while you are older than me, grow the fuck up, cause despite your age been bigger, your brain has still to grow up more than a pre-teen agehttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


If you dont like how we mod this forum the way out is not that hard, its just an X symbol on the top right corner.Click on it.Fucking idiot

ps:dont reply in here, you can fill my pm inbox and my profile with your bullshit, but if you reply here, you will be getting more infractions(and if you are wondering what are those, once again read the FAQ)

I guess it's my mistake. I didn't notice your double criteria on time. :blushing:

[Sam_b]

50 Roubles on Red Poplar having -100 rep by the end of the day!

[Sasha]

your wish is my command

[Sam_b]

ONE HUNDRED ROUBLES on -200!

[Red Poplar]

Why roubles?

[Lt. Ferret]

they like worthless currency.

[Red Poplar]

they like worthless currency.

Or maybe they think it's the currency of my country. :lol:

[Sam_b]

It's not. Im pretty sure it's the Kunar these days. Croatia is miles away from Russia anyway.

Regardless, I started wagering my roubles in another thread and its kinda stuck on me. You'd know if you were on the main forums, but...oh, never mind.

[Red Poplar]

"Kuna", close enough, it's been in use since 1993. One US dollar is worth about 5 kunas. This is how it looks like:
http://julijekatancevic.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/100-kuna.jpg

[Sam_b]

In fairness, that is pretty interesting. Thanks

[Lt. Ferret]

It's not. Im pretty sure it's the Kunar these days. Croatia is miles away from Russia anyway.

Regardless, I started wagering my roubles in another thread and its kinda stuck on me. You'd know if you were on the main forums, but...oh, never mind.


plus 1 to internet bully bullshit.

[Sam_b]

plus 1 to internet bully bullshit.

http://bigpondmusic.com/images/AlbumCoverArt/71/XXL/Where-Is-The-Love.jpg

[Lt. Ferret]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pM-5IVV9Xb4/So1ma4DpfjI/AAAAAAAAAys/kkQEHJ56UsY/s400/50+Cent+-+Get+Rich+Or+Die+Tryin.jpg

[Sam_b]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make much sense in this context.

[Lt. Ferret]

Incorrect, my dear Watson.

[Sam_b]

Enlighten me then.

By the way Arthur Conan Doyle never used the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" in any of his novels or the serials he wrote for the Strand magazine. Off topic, but theres your fact for the day.

[Red Poplar]

Enlighten me then.

By the way Arthur Conan Doyle never used the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" in any of his novels or the serials he wrote for the Strand magazine. Off topic, but theres your fact for the day.

Seriously, what is ontopic in this discussion?? :)

[Bud Struggle]

Its not whether or not its a "human being" that is an issue.

The issue is the shared traits that it has with human beings, and whether or not they are those specific traits which are deserving of moral representation. You know, that argument could have been used about Blacks in the old South. They share "some" of the traits of a "human being." I'm not going in that direction--but I get queezy when we get to defining who is and who is not human. My take is that for safty sake--everything human should be treated with respect.


But it still goes further. It is an issue of public policy in the context of a "human" (to be very liberal with your representation for the sake of argument) which is created by a woman, exists and demands within and from her body, and is, in fact a part of her. We, I'll disagree there--the fetus is made by a man and the woman in question and is always individual from her.


Now, the issue of the human-ness or moral character of the fetus does have weight. But the fact is that, both restricting the right to abortion and excising the baby prematurely to "save it from abortion" are determinations asserted on a woman which ultimately disempowers her in the management of her own body. Well, that is a valid point. You are positing the woman's "ownership" and I agree there--but ownership is an arbitrary concept. I could say that as "owner" of my factory I have the right to do whatever I want with whomever works for me. We can also say that all bodies belong to the state, or to the general community.


You simply cannot expect, as a society, to demand certain medical procedures or lack thereof on a significant portion of the population. It's absurd and the only moral answer to respect for the fetus and the women is to allow her to choose and hope that a pluralistic, decentralized socio-economic model will lower the rate of these procedures. I think it is fair that if a fetus/baby is able to survive outside the womb--that all measures should be taken to keep the fetus/baby alive. There is no reason to kill it once it is outside the womb. As a matter of fact once it is living outside the womb--it should be granted all rights of a human being. I don't see how that infringes on the right of the woman.


And its worth noting that fetuses don't share any of the characteristics of consciousness for a long period of their stay in the womb. True. For me to say the life begins at concepting
IS DOCTRINAIRE. But it is also doctrinaire for you to call for abortion when the fetus is viable in the womb.

The only reasonable course is that if the baby is viable--it should be allowed to live.

[Red Poplar]

I would also add that only a small number of abortions, about 20-30% if I'm not wrong, can be justified by health problems, rape, incest, fetal defects or socioeconomic factors. There are women who deliberately don't use any birth control, so they perform an abortion every year, and even more often, whenever they get pregnant. If you ask me, such would be locked up. You had your right to choose a birth control method, you didn't, so face the consequences. I, however, wouldn't force her to give birth, but I would give her a choice (since everyone talks pro-choice): either give birth or you go to prison. Two or three years would be enough.
Abortion, despite the law, should be avoided whenever possible, and performed only in situations I mentioned above. There should be a commision made of gynecologists and psychiatrists who would estimate if an abortion request is justified. Because abortion on request without any explanation leads to an uncontrolled bloodshed of the unborn.

[#FF0000]

There are women who deliberately don't use any birth control, so they perform an abortion every year, and even more often, whenever they get pregnant.

source

[#FF0000]

they run the messageboard like they'd run society, by smothering opposing opinions and refusing to have discussions.

man this is a dumb post

[Red Poplar]

source

Here you go: http://www.glas-slavonije.hr/vijest.asp?rub=3&ID_VIJESTI=122334

However, the article is in Croatian, so in case you don't know the language, I'll translate some highlights:

"Female citizens of Osijek, instead of using birth control, perform abortions
According to the report by National Health Department, in many cases abortion is still a common birth control method. That theory is backed by NHD data which prove that the number of abortions performed is rising, and that a total of 50% of women who request termination of pregnancy already have one or two children... It is estimated that only 11% of women use regular birth control methods... Gynecologists claim that the main reason is inadequate sexual education of women."

[Dean]

You know, that argument could have been used about Blacks in the old South. They share "some" of the traits of a "human being." I'm not going in that direction--but I get queezy when we get to defining who is and who is not human. My take is that for safty sake--everything human should be treated with respect.

We, I'll disagree there--the fetus is made by a man and the woman in question and is always individual from her.

Well, that is a valid point. You are positing the woman's "ownership" and I agree there--but ownership is an arbitrary concept. I could say that as "owner" of my factory I have the right to do whatever I want with whomever works for me. We can also say that all bodies belong to the state, or to the general community.
There is no "ownership of the body," in fact, that would imply saleability. Women have a right to autonomy, end of story.


I think it is fair that if a fetus/baby is able to survive outside the womb--that all measures should be taken to keep the fetus/baby alive. There is no reason to kill it once it is outside the womb. As a matter of fact once it is living outside the womb--it should be granted all rights of a human being. I don't see how that infringes on the right of the woman.
It does if you force women to undergo specific medical procedures.


True. For me to say the life begins at concepting IS DOCTRINAIRE. But it is also doctrinaire for you to call for abortion when the fetus is viable in the womb.
No, its not. I'm not "calling for abortion;" I'm calling for the right to autonomy over the medicine your body undergoes.


The only reasonable course is that if the baby is viable--it should be allowed to live.
This is doctrinaire.

[#FF0000]

Gynecologists claim that the main reason is inadequate sexual education of women."

Well this is the problem right here.

[F9]

ONE HUNDRED ROUBLES on -200!

wont happen, he wont be able to make more(stupid) posts, cause he is suspended for a week.Sorry, i suspended him and then saw this:(:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

There is no "ownership of the body," in fact, that would imply saleability. Women have a right to autonomy, end of story. As do people with their property.


This is doctrinaire. Why is that? If a viable baby (and it IS baby if it is living and outside the womb) is outside of a woman's womb--what right does that woman have over that baby's life or death? What right does anyone have over that human being?

[Dean]

Why is that? If a viable baby (and it IS baby if it is living and outside the womb) is outside of a woman's womb--what right does that woman have over that baby's life or death? What right does anyone have over that human being?
Um, you're not talking about abortion there.

[Bud Struggle]

Um, you're not talking about abortion there. Right. If a baby could exist without maternal help does its location matter? Inside or outside of the womb?

[Dean]

Right. If a baby could exist without maternal help does its location matter? Inside or outside of the womb?
Yes because, as I mentioned, the fetus undergoes fundamental changes leading up to and during birth.

Although strictly speaking of, a "baby in the womb" can only get there via re-insertion or some other monstrosity. Such rhetorical questions are just that.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Here you go: http://www.glas-slavonije.hr/vijest.asp?rub=3&ID_VIJESTI=122334

However, the article is in Croatian, so in case you don't know the language, I'll translate some highlights:

"Female citizens of Osijek, instead of using birth control, perform abortions
According to the report by National Health Department, in many cases abortion is still a common birth control method. That theory is backed by NHD data which prove that the number of abortions performed is rising, and that a total of 50% of women who request termination of pregnancy already have one or two children... It is estimated that only 11% of women use regular birth control methods... Gynecologists claim that the main reason is inadequate sexual education of women."
This is a throwback to the old Stalinist era - primarily related to the fact that Eastern Europe did not possess the technology to make reliable birth control pills. As a result abortion was used as a form of contraception. Over 40 years this actually became ingrained in the culture of parts of Eastern Europe (in Croatia it could also be partly as a result of Catholic Church hierarchy's opposition to contraception - it certainly was a significant issue driving the abortion numbers for Irish women). Abortion, if at all possible, should not be used as a method of birth control because of the potential dangers to the health of the woman (and yes I know the dangers are limited - but they still exist).

Abortion is not and should not be regarded or debated as a moral issue. The morality of abortion is irrelevent. The fact is that abortions happen, irrespective of the moral, religious, state, political, economic or social issues involved. Abortions have happened since the first humanoid walked on the planet and abortions will continue to happen for as long as human beings walk on this planet. Abortions either take place under proper medical care or they take place in a back-street dive. The issue for socialists (whether pro- or anti-abortion - and there are both in the socialist camp) is not whether abortion should be supported (a woman's right to choose is a completely seperate issue) - it is to recognise the fact that abortions happen, have always happened and always will happen and then ask - is it better that a woman who is having an abortion, for whatever reason, to have it in a back-street abortion clinic or in a proper medical facility, with proper medical care and proper counselling and support services?

The issue is as simple as that - and, in my opinion, there is only one conclusion a socialist can draw from such a scenario. For a socialist the moral, legal, social, scientific arguments are irrelevent. A socialist must address the fact that some women, for whatever reason, will have abortions and all the legal, moral, political, scientific arguments etc are irrelevent to that woman. The issue is simply about what is best for each individual woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

I have dealt with the issue of abortion in greater detail here -
http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t134814/index.html?p=1745035#post1745035
And I would suggest that both sides of the debate should read it.


There are women who deliberately don't use any birth control, so they perform an abortion every year, and even more often, whenever they get pregnant.
I would have to fundementally disagree with this statement - and the evidence that you have provided does not support this statement. No woman will deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion. For the overwhelming majority of woman abortion is a traumatic experience. No woman would deliberately put herself through such an experience unless she was suffering from pre-existing psycological problems. Woman get pregnant by accident because they have unprotected sex. Why women (and men) have unprotected sex again is an irrelevent argument to a woman who has already ended up with an unplanned pregnancy.

As a final comment - If any socialist wants to reduce the number of abortions that take place (and I am one of them) then the key factor will be the creation of a socialist society with a democratically planned economy where women will not be faced with all the different political, economic, social, legal, scientific and moral pressures that are part and parcel of capitalist society (but remember they can never be completely eliminated) .

[Bud Struggle]

Yes because, as I mentioned, the fetus undergoes fundamental changes leading up to and during birth.Changes are one thing--human beings change all through their lives. The question is viability. That I think is the key issue here. If the important thing here is the woman controling her body (and for the sake of argument I'll agree) then she should be allowed to do what she wants--but if the fetus is viable as a baby it should be allowed to live. Isn't that reasonable? Shouldn't we in all circumstances do the least amount of harm?


Although strictly speaking of, a "baby in the womb" can only get there via re-insertion or some other monstrosity. Such rhetorical questions are just that. That is just a matter of semantics. You call it one thing, I call it another. The medical profession certainly has no hard and fast rule on it.

[Dean]

Changes are one thing--human beings change all through their lives.
Nowhere as they do in childbirth.


The question is viability. That I think is the key issue here. If the important thing here is the woman controling her body (and for the sake of argument I'll agree) then she should be allowed to do what she wants--but if the fetus is viable as a baby it should be allowed to live. Isn't that reasonable? Shouldn't we in all circumstances do the least amount of harm?
Childbirth of any kind is a significant medical phenomenon. Why shouldn't women be able to make their own choices on that topic?


That is just a matter of semantics. You call it one thing, I call it another. The medical profession certainly has no hard and fast rule on it.
If by "medical profession" you don't mean "doctors and other medical professionals"...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Any and all discussion about the viability of the fetus outside of the womb is ultimately a red herring - pregnancy is detectable without medical aids long before then, giving women plenty of time to decide whether they want to keep it or not.

Also, most abortions in the UK and US are early term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method) (source: CDC). So it's ridiculous to base abortion policy on exceptional cases.

[Bud Struggle]

Any and all discussion about the viability of the fetus outside of the womb is ultimately a red herring - pregnancy is detectable without medical aids long before then, giving women plenty of time to decide whether they want to keep it or not.

Also, most abortions in the UK and US are early term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method) (source: CDC). So it's ridiculous to base abortion policy on exceptional cases.

I'm not writing a law. I'm saying that if the fetus is viable and the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy--care should be taken to insure the fetus is born alive.

I don't see why there should be any problem with that.

(Other than you guys would get put into OI if you agreed with me. :lol:)

[#FF0000]

I'm not writing a law. I'm saying that if the fetus is viable and the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy--care should be taken to insure the fetus is born alive.

I don't see what's wrong with that, really.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I don't see why there should be any problem with that.

I might be possible that the woman who was having the abortion would have a problem with it.

[Bud Struggle]

I might be possible that the woman who was having the abortion would have a problem with it.

Why should she care? There are social services. Plenty of people that want to adopt.

It's like asking: "they are my my Pit Bulls--why can't I have them fight?"

Why cause hurt where there is no cause?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Why should she care? There are social services. Plenty of people that want to adopt.
Not the issue - a woman terminating so late in a pregnancy is clearly doing for for some serious reasons. If the issue was simply giving a child up for adoption then she wouldn't be having an abortion.

If a viable foetus is the basis of such medical intervention then, in all likelyhood the woman would end up having a back-street abortion, something that she should not be subjected to. The overwhelming majority of women do not take a decision to have an abortion likely - even more so the later the pregnancy has progressed.

Counselling and social services are and should be there for the benefit of the woman - if they are not she will go somewhere without them and with possible medical complications for herself.



Why cause hurt where there is no cause?
Which is why the woman's decision should be final.

[Bud Struggle]

Not the issue - a woman terminating so late in a pregnancy is clearly doing for for some serious reasons. If the issue was simply giving a child up for adoption then she wouldn't be having an abortion. That wasn't the question or the point.


If a viable foetus is the basis of such medical intervention then, in all likelyhood the woman would end up having a back-street abortion, something that she should not be subjected to. The overwhelming majority of women do not take a decision to have an abortion likely - even more so the later the pregnancy has progressed. You are squirming. Just answer the question, please. :)


Counselling and social services are and should be there for the benefit of the woman - if they are not she will go somewhere without them and with possible medical complications for herself. Yea, there should be counceling--



Which is why the woman's decision should be final.Because you can't address the point? :blink:

[Conquer or Die]

This conversation is limited by ban-hammer wielding punks.

In any case, abortion and contraception were necessary to increase the autonomy and decision making process of the working class. Negatively speaking, less brats to feed on the system. The aristocracy faces little to no tough decisions in this regard historically speaking.

When we can get a revolution up in this piece then the aristocracy will have no such hierarchial power. This will re-focus the conversation on abortion to actually mean "life" and "death" without the silly posturing from the cretins.

Until that time it is a rather unfortunate means to an end.

To answer the question of "life." I don't doubt that a fetus is "life" and I do not doubt the severity of the opposition and the fact that they actually mean well. My problem with removing abortion is that I see no concrete base from any viewpoint to disallow them. Even under religious consideration, unless you're a hardcore baptist, a child will not be condemned to hell if he has not reached the age of reason. The difference between a wanted child and an unwanted child is significant. If we disallow the right to abortion, then we must disallow abortion based on rape, and we must consequently ensure that each child has appropriate means to function into adulthood. That is only possible under significant material conditions of relative collective wealth.

The negative to abortion is the slippery slope to eugenics. Many well intentioned "means to an end" considerations by moral proletarianism have resulted in significant gaping holes with which to be exploited by immoral people - proletarian or not. This is the reason why abortion should have a bad stigma generally speaking, because it's reasonable to have a stigma around it.

I view abortion in the same way I view the Crack-Cocaine divide. Don't worry about abolishing drug laws, equalize them and let democracy and common sense proceed without the upper class entitlement attached. It's also for this reason that I insist that the economic system of proletarian ownership is wholly separate from other considerations - the environment, life, the freedom of conscience, etcetera.

Many people I know on the abortion issue are linked emotionally to it and are usually the ones who don't have to deal with the consequences of a pregnancy in a bad situation. They insist it's about rights when in actuality it's a conversation about cost versus benefit - as sick as that sounds - the same way a person's life in the Congo isn't worth spit to anybody in America. When a person's life in the Congo is awarded the same entitlement as everybody else's, then the debate to end abortion can proceed.

[Adi Shankara]

This conversation is limited by ban-hammer wielding punks.

If I can't agree with anything else, at least I can agree to this: nothing creates more of a chilling effect in non-dogmatic discussion than the threat of the banhammer, putting down whatever he/she who wields it decides is wrong, despite the lack of universal consensus on such matters.

Personally, I'm for abortion. But until there is near-universal consensus on abortion, I don't think anyone should be banned for it, seeing as it's not even something most communists can agree on (For example, if I'm correct, Romanian communists were against abortion)

[Conquer or Die]

Personally, I'm for abortion. But until there is near-universal consensus on abortion, I don't think anyone should be banned for it, seeing as it's not even something most communists can agree on (For example, if I'm correct, Romanian communists were against abortion)

Sinn Fein as well.

[Bud Struggle]

This conversation is limited by ban-hammer wielding punks.

Well, they are not "punks." But there is that chill you get when as ask for rationality and you get Commie speak. "Glorious Soviet Union produces many tons of potash in great five your plan--also we are for abortion at all times."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Don't be ridiculous. Anti-abortion types are restricted, not banned.

[Conquer or Die]

Don't be ridiculous. Anti-abortion types are restricted, not banned.

A glorious example of missing the point for the sake of not having one.

[#FF0000]

A glorious example of missing the point for the sake of not having one.

A glorious example of you being taken for a mook.

[Lt. Ferret]

its impossible to have discussions when you keep restricting or susppending people.

[F9]

its impossible to have discussions when you keep restricting or susppending people.

im sorry to inform you, but we have pretty good discussions outside OI, and far more productive;)

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah i was a part of it until i got restricted, which weakened the discussions, as is the natural conclusion of censorship.

[Bud Struggle]

im sorry to inform you, but we have pretty good discussions outside OI, and far more productive;)

http://www.thayeravenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/politburo.jpg

[F9]

yeah i was a part of it until i got restricted, which weakened the discussions, as is the natural conclusion of censorship.

if you think that the discussion was weakened from your restriction, then you have an issue seen things clear.

BS:FAIL If you are gonna do it, try doing it correct.

[Lt. Ferret]

oh okay the open exchange of ideas is obviously a hampering of understanding.

[Bud Struggle]

Take it FWIW Lt., but arguing with admins and mods really isn't the road to get unrestricted. It's just a waste of time.

[Red Poplar]

Red Poplar is baaaaack!!! Anyone missed me?? :laugh:

[Dean]

Red Poplar is baaaaack!!! Anyone missed me?? :laugh:
Wait I thought you were about to leave this place and join MRN.

[Red Poplar]

Wait I thought you were about to leave this place and join MRN.

Nah, my suspension expired so I came to check what's new. Meanwhile I joined another forum (I wasn't yet kicked out of there) :)

What's MRN? :confused:

[#FF0000]

It would be better if you just didn't ask that. Really.

[Red Poplar]

It would be better if you just didn't ask that. Really.

I really don't know, I don't get on well with abbreviations, and English is not my native language, so...

[Red Poplar]

Magnetic Resonance Neurography? :confused:

[L.A.P.]

I have a question, can anyone tell me how to do the opposite of "thanks" on this forum so his reputation can be -96?

[Red Poplar]

I have a question, can anyone tell me how to do the opposite of "thanks" on this forum so his reputation can be -96?

Sorry mate, only admins and mods can do that. But I'll give you a little thanks. There. Now you got +30. :thumbup:

[Quail]

I have a question, can anyone tell me how to do the opposite of "thanks" on this forum so his reputation can be -96?

Click the scales in the top right and select "I disapprove."

[L.A.P.]

Sorry mate, only admins and mods can do that. But I'll give you a little thanks. There. Now you got +30. :thumbup:

It's only fair to give you one back.

[Red Poplar]

It's only fair to give you one back.

Of course it's fair. All parts of my body are fair (at least)! :cool:

[Red Poplar]

HEY! Who closed my poll?! Now that's not fair, I just started gaining positive votes... Really unfair. :thumbdown:

[F9]

Cause OI is not Chit-Chat.You are banned from that forum for a reason...So no "chit-chat" threads, you have reactionary chatter, thats enough.

[Red Poplar]

Cause OI is not Chit-Chat.You are banned from that forum for a reason...So no "chit-chat" threads, you have reactionary chatter, thats enough.

But there wasn't any other place where I could have posted a poll. I would have done it in Chit-Chat, but I'm restricted, OI is the only place where I can post. You should found an "OI Chit-Chat" subforum then.

You must have noticed that my threads are among the most pop(u)lar, people see them as funny and interesting (or insane), and mind that these are tough times, people need someone to cheer them up, I could become an Internet celebrity and... OK I'm kidding. I'm not crazy enough to take this shit seriously. But nevertheless, I just came up with another poll...

"What should Red Poplar do next?
a) found a populist political party, and nurture a cult of personality
b) gather money to buy RevLeft, and start a (mod) purge :cool:
c) get laid
d) take a shoot and pistol himself :scared:
e) get a job as a court jester or a clown
f) change his name to Dumbfuck (Red America's idea)
g) keep up doing what he is doing now, because it's awesome"

[Lt. Ferret]

B and C.

[Bud Struggle]

B and C.

I actually offered to buy RevLeft a little while ago. :)

[Lt. Ferret]

i bet we could turn quite the profit off this little baby, if we could get the users to divert their WoW gold to this.

[Bud Struggle]

i bet we could turn quite the profit off this little baby, if we could get the users to divert their WoW gold to this.

I was thinking we could branch out beyond just the forum aspect and make it into something of a Daily Kos of the radical left. Not just chat but serious news from a Communist perspective. I would also organize the blogs to be something more than an incidental feature.

The other thing is there was once a true Commuinst structure to the place--I would want to restore that and set it us as how Communism would work (albeit virtual.)

I had a couple of other ideas, too--

[Lt. Ferret]

pop ups, and lots of em!

[Red Poplar]

Wait I thought you were about to leave this place and join MRN.


It would be better if you just didn't ask that. Really.

Aaaaaah, now I got what you meant! You mean this:
http://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/revleft-is-a-bunch-of-pedophile-zionists

Impressive, even though I'm surprised you didn't find out which forum I joined instead of MRN. :lol:
On second thought, I dunno why this is affiliated with me, I'm not their member so I can't have posted that thread. :p



B and C.

C is always an option. :thumbup1:
Although I'm quite surprised that you didn't pick G as well. :)

[#FF0000]

uggh god every time I'm reminded MRN exists I just remember that mook playing revolutionary dress up and ugh

[Thirsty Crow]

But Fuserg won't be sanctioned for offensive language and provocations, now would he? From that I see that this forum is an oppressor even worse than those we're fighting against.
Yeah, revleft admins will force you to work in shitty conditions for a shitty pay, and moreover, they'll outsource you leaving you jobless and the population of Third World countries horribly exploited.
You're full of feces.

And as far as "human life in its first phase" is concerned, I don't despise it, but I don't despise a woman's right of doing whatever she wants with her body. It seems that you do despise that right.

[Red Poplar]

Yeah, revleft admins will force you to work in shitty conditions for a shitty pay, and moreover, they'll outsource you leaving you jobless and the population of Third World countries horribly exploited.
You're full of feces.

And as far as "human life in its first phase" is concerned, I don't despise it, but I don't despise a woman's right of doing whatever she wants with her body. It seems that you do despise that right.

Dobro, druže, malo sam pretjerao u afektu, mnogo stvari se od tada promijenilo. A što se tiče ljudskog života u prvoj fazi, on nije dio ženinog tijela, pa samim time ne spada u pravo žene da odlučuje o svom tijelu. Shvatite to već jednom, fetus ima vlastitu DNA. I dosta je više (ne)izravnih optužbi za seksizam, taj argument je već davno istrošen.

[Thirsty Crow]

Dobro, druže, malo sam pretjerao u afektu, mnogo stvari se od tada promijenilo. A što se tiče ljudskog života u prvoj fazi, on nije dio ženinog tijela, pa samim time ne spada u pravo žene da odlučuje o svom tijelu. Shvatite to već jednom, fetus ima vlastitu DNA. I dosta je više (ne)izravnih optužbi za seksizam, taj argument je već davno istrošen.

The fetus has DNA, yes. And is human DNA the basis on which we should conclude that the being in question has developed an ability of self-awareness? Understand this: a fetus is a part of a woman's body in that it cannot survive without it. Consider also this: the fetus is connected to its host, and if the fetus develops a disease of sorts it can jeopardize the health of its host. How then could we conclude that the fetus is not a part of a woman's body? It exhibits every characteristics of what we normally call "a part of one's body".
And I didn't accuse you of sexism. I just stated that either you despise a woman's right to decide on matters pertaining to her own body or you don't recognize what "a woman's body" exactly is. Obviously, it is the latter.
Oh yeah, and this is not "zapadni balkan".
But I guess I'm being "totalitarian" in reproaching you for writing in any other language than English (OH NOZ CULTURAL IMPERIALISM!!!).

[Red Poplar]

The fetus has DNA, yes. And is human DNA the basis on which we should conclude that the being in question has developed an ability of self-awareness? Understand this: a fetus is a part of a woman's body in that it cannot survive without it. Consider also this: the fetus is connected to its host, and if the fetus develops a disease of sorts it can jeopardize the health of its host. How then could we conclude that the fetus is not a part of a woman's body? It exhibits every characteristics of what we normally call "a part of one's body".
And I didn't accuse you of sexism. I just stated that either you despise a woman's right to decide on matters pertaining to her own body or you don't recognize what "a woman's body" exactly is. Obviously, it is the latter.
Oh yeah, and this is not "zapadni balkan".
But I guess I'm being "totalitarian" in reproaching you for writing in any other language than English (OH NOZ CULTURAL IMPERIALISM!!!).

If a fetus develops a disease that jeopardizes its mother's health, then abortion is justified. Besides, I've never been in favour of banning abortion, it's just that I think it should be avoided if possible, which is my personal right, a thing many here don't understand. I don't intend to debate abortion any further, because I won't change your opinion, and you won't change mine. Both pro-choice and pro-life views are based on valid grounds.

Why would you be "totalitarian", I never mentioned cultural imperialism. I have no problems writing both in English and Croatian, it doesn't make much difference to me. After all, we need a language we can all understand. As for the "West Balkans" subforum, I don't visit it, because I don't think of Croatia as a part of anything called Balkans.

A korištenje taktike ovdašnjih modova - ironije, sarkazma, ismijavanja i slične zajebancije kao u tvojoj zadnjoj rečenici, sumnjam da će ti donijeti pozitivnu reputaciju među njima.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^The Balkanization of RevLeft. :D

[F9]

Seen that this thread has turned to another reactionary chatter...
Closed