tired of this - anything we can do?

[weepingbuddha]

heres what i'm tired of.
a. stuck-up narrowminded republican facists
b. american emperialsim
c. destruction
d. western hypocracy and bullying
e. military spending, when the money could be put towards what america should stand for--humanitarian equality
f. then end of american "CULTURE"---what is this "good charlotte" bullshit-- whatever happened to real music, like the allman brothers or the grateful dead?
g. watching all of america blindly follow bush and his emperialist henchmen like sheep

i'm sure some of you share similar sentiments. if ya do, how the fuck can we end the emperialist opression of the human mind, spirit, and body? if ya dont agree, tell us why? how can any of these things be justified?

-weepingbuddha.

[hazard]

the only thing that can really be done is revolt. unfortunately, the cattle herd of capitalism is too fattened upon the teat of materialism to want to even begin considering revolution. their precious TV dinners are all they care about.

[Chiak47]

Lafties,

Hell yea this is the shit I want to read...

Revolt you maggots...We need to clean the gene pool some.
Too bad most of you piss jars are anti-gun and us facists
stockpile...What you going to revolt with....bongs?

Did you know the military votes in favor of the Republicans...

Bring it on *****es...

Go smoke some and really think hard about it.....

Thanks,
keep spewing,I have more to Caché

(Edited by Chiak47 at 2:35 am on April 18, 2003)

[hazard]

chunk:

if all you are looking for is a fight, why not fight the good fight? thats right. you cattle just move to wheverver the slaughtering is done. until it is time for you too to be slaughtered.

the idea behind revolution is a massive amjority of people that all revolt simultaneously to usurp the ruling class. gun crazy psycho's like you might have enough time to take down two or three "lefties", but the sheer number mobilized would sweep across you like a tide. thats when the tide will rip you limb from limb, without any weapons. you look forward to this? it seems as though your TV dinners and raw hate have made you blind.

[Chiak47]

Buzzard,

Massive majority of the US wants revolt?
WOW, I'm in the wrong hood.It's 95% republican in my district.Same with my grandparents and my dad's.
I don't see any SUV's around with commie flags nor pro choice stickers.I do have a couple asians down the street that came from laos-But they helped the US....


Sheer #'s-I'm shaking....More dope heads for me to blast. I have over 2 dozen firearms and hell thats enough to arm my wifes PTA friends...
My dad lives close and my sister lives next door.
My Childhood friends live within walking distance and I have available acreage 200 miles north and some 60 miles west that I know like the back of my hand...

So bring it on and ohhh yea steal a truck cause it's muddy.Better pack a lunch cause it might be awhile...


As far as your profile....
I don't watch tv-too many queers for me.However the shield is good.
I do have FOX on in the background.

I have not had a TV diner since I finished school and my family eats at the table.I'm not 100% pro US.
I met Randy Weaver at a gun show and April 19th is a sad day for me.

BTW....
Riots?Did someone win a basketball game?

Thanks,
Blinded by raw hate


(Edited by Chiak47 at 4:52 am on April 18, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Simmer down Jethro..Nobody wants to take over your trailer park. Go back in your double wide and put that thing away now. And while you're at it, put on a t-shirt or something... nobody wants to see that!


BTW: Aren't you a bit late for your Klan meeting?

Your post is full of boarderline racist steriotyping.

[hazard]

ah, the commandante

just when you think you're left holding the fort all by your lonesome...

chunk:
revolution is only possible with a massive majority. at such time, there wouldn't be any percent support for either political party, or either cola company for the matter. presumedly, even the gun toting hillbillies would mobilize with the rest of the population.

of course, I'm not speaking of the present. I'm speaking from the past, as to what will occur in the future. chunk, I know your forecast ends when the TV guide expires, but I'm not even thinking next week when I mention the future. nor am I thinking the distant star wars like future ( that was the past, you know ) either. a future that can and could occur within a century, max. then again, if america keeps moving the way it has been, I give it less than a decade.

[Chiak47]

Red,

How you doing?
What makes you pop in here?

Trailer park?Nope no white trash here...KKK?Rednecks.
I just hate when kids get burned and families sniped-no matter how twisted they think...
Am I wrong Red?

Thanks,
Eric

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 4:19 am on April 18, 2003
Buzzard,

I don't see any SUV's around with commie flags nor pro choice stickers.

I take it you must have missed my car. I proudly display my pro-CHOICE stickers and commie flag (along with the cuban and spanish flags). Lets see what other stickers: pro-feminist, pro-gay, pro-human, vegan, to legalize marijuana, anti-gun, anti-war, anti-racist. Should i go on?

I swear you have a lower intelligence level than Ted Nugent.


(Edited by SenoraChe at 4:57 am on April 18, 2003)

[hazard]

senora:

I am not sticking up for chunk here, but don't you have a problem being "proChoice" as a communist? after all, abortion is defended under the rhetoric of capitalism, isn't it? the "frredom to choose" don't really mesh well with any true socialist ideas out there.

unfortunately for the women's movement, abortion has become nothing more than a platform for capitalist propaganda. a true socialist would be concerned about ALL people, including those being brutally murdered for the sole purpose of profit. the profit of the abortionist. the profit of the factry owners who don't have to pay for pregnancy leave NOR loss of production.

murder for money can never be condoned, and especially cannot ever be condoned when it is defened under the rhetoric of capitalism. freedom to choose, prochoice, my ass.

[Chiak47]

Queer,

I take it you can not afford to live in Darien IL.
Don't you have a kid to rip out of a womb somewhere?

Ted Nugent...Stranglehold is a bad ass jam.


Thanks,
Eric

[Soul Rebel]

Yep, im really queer.

I'm glad i don't live in Il., the place that breeds ignorant shits like Matt Hale and yourself. And its not a matter of money, considering i can afford to live in the most expensive state in the country.

I am so sorry that you are so Anti-choice. Its usually you people that are actually anti-life. You won't support womyn's choice as to what they can do with their bodies, forcing them to have children, but then you won't support social service programs that help these womyn--- this has been proven many times as statistics show, so don't try to deny it. Its pro-choice people who truly value life.

[Pete]

This thread is only about flaming. This place is supposed to be a hell hole it seems. I am glad you are here to keep it up to snuff Chiak. Without you it may actually become a decent debate forum. Wouldn't that be something? Logical debate instead of petty name calling? Opps did I forget to take my hat off and say a prayer when I entered this thread? Many apologies or merciful one! The logic behind your comments are not backed up are they?

I challenge you to prove every single point you have made in this thread up to now including, but not limited to: all leftists are potheads, all leftists are against violent revolution, TV is full of 'queers', 'queers' are 'evil', commies drive SUVs, your district is representative of your country, woman who are raped should carry their rapists baby.

You may have not directly said those things, but they are implied. Prove it. No side tracking. Do each one by one, or go pick up your guns (which you have a ridiculous amount of) and run around town.

[synthesis]

Simmer down Jethro..Nobody wants to take over your trailer park. Go back in your double wide and put that thing away now.

That was brilliant. I actually laughed out loud.

[Anonymous]

" pro-feminist, pro-gay, pro-human, vegan, to legalize marijuana, anti-gun, anti-war, anti-racist. Should i go on? "

I realize many of these things are your standard liberal/leftist protocol, so I won't quibble with you over them. However, I do wan't to ask, why are you anti-gun?

[hazard]

I hate to do this, but on this one I can't hold back at all.

senora:
your second paragraph to chunk should be reasoned better. as a communist, if you are really one, you should be opposed to such propaganda. anyways, the attempted flip of values is some pretty bad rhetoric. without isolating the individual arguments, all I want to say is that simply because something is offered as a choice doesn't make it valid. many women's choices regarding their body are already illegal, many more should be. this has nothing to do with a woman or "women" and everything to do with the brutal exploitation of women, as a sex, into sacrificing their babies for the profit motive. it is even defended exclusively under the propaganda of profit. a real communist or socialist cannot possibly support abortion under its current "choice" defense. it makes you as hypocritical as the capitalists.

[Soul Rebel]

I don't understand why he is here if he hates us so much. Doesn't he have anything better to do--- like shoot down gun control laws, cut down on social services, take away reproductive rights, beat on or kill some gays, burn some African-American or Hispanics house, take money out of education funds to fund war, etc.

I just dont get it. I wouldnt be here if i hated leftists, what would be the point? Its one thing to be here and carry on a mature, info-backed debate and then its another to be here and play name-calling.

[hazard]

senora:

"reproductive rights", thats a laugh. abortion is about destructive rights, not reproductive rights. even worse, under this concept, only women are allowed such rights. that is the strictest definition of sexism I have ever encountered.

[Pete]

Woman are the only ones who carry children. They should have the right over thier own body, as men do. I am a male, so I will stay out of this arguement, it is not my place to say what she can or can't do to her self. That is just too feudal/traditional of a thing to do.

[hazard]

crazy:

so you're telling me u have no right to tell a woman that she can't punch you in the head? what about driving on the wrong side of the road? or better still, jumping in front of a freight train? you have every right. you simply have fallen for a fallacious argument that has made abortion into a gender issue, when it really isn't nor should it ever have been.

as for women carrying the children, sure. that doesn't mean that they shuould have exclusive rights over its life. first of all, you must necessarilly consider the father. for without him, there is no baby in the first place. leaving the father out of context is unjust, and sexist to boot. you must also consider the baby. it, like the father, is given no say. there must be a rational way to incorporate all parties invlved and end this ridiculous notion that a pregnancy only effects the woman pregnant. it effects at least two other people.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from hazard on 5:25 am on April 18, 2003
I hate to do this, but on this one I can't hold back at all.

senora:
your second paragraph to chunk should be reasoned better. as a communist, if you are really one, you should be opposed to such propaganda. anyways, the attempted flip of values is some pretty bad rhetoric. without isolating the individual arguments, all I want to say is that simply because something is offered as a choice doesn't make it valid. many women's choices regarding their body are already illegal, many more should be. this has nothing to do with a woman or "women" and everything to do with the brutal exploitation of women, as a sex, into sacrificing their babies for the profit motive. it is even defended exclusively under the propaganda of profit. a real communist or socialist cannot possibly support abortion under its current "choice" defense. it makes you as hypocritical as the capitalists.



Ok, I totally respect your opinion. Yes i am a communist, otherwise i wouldn't be here. What i said is not propoganda, it is how i feel. I have developed these feelings after years of research on the abortion movement. My feeling are of course based on actual facts, not facts fed by the media. And why is it a bad argument if it has logic and true? I wasn't saying that because it is a choice that it is right. I was just pointing out that the anti-choice side constantly points out that the pro-choice side is anti-life. However, it has been proven many times that it is the same people who support a woman's choice support social services which benefit not only womyn, but the poor and other underrepresented groups. I was not saying that either side is right. It is a matter of opinion.

And yes i do understand that this has more to do than just with choice. Abortion like surrogate mothering is very exploitive. However, as a feminist, as well as a communist, i do understand that abortion is essential to womyns lives. It must be offered as a choice. Womyns bodies have historically been exploited and the only way to change that is to empower womyn. The only way to stop the exploitation of womyns bodies and their sexuality is to allow them to have power over these things. To have power there would have to be choice and control. Do you see where i am getting at? I wish i could elaborate or word it better, but i think this will do.

I do have to say however, that i am somewhat offended at you questioning if i am really a communist or not. Just because i may have a different view from you doesnt mean i am not a communist. :)

[Boris Moskovitz]

Personnally, I am against abortion, this is completely barbaric. No one should choose to kill or to let live another being. No one should be prevented from existing. (If it was even possible!) I would think the baby would be the one choosing to die or to live, lol.

Really, I am personnally against it. But since I am not a woman, I will now shut the hell up.

[Pete]

Hazard, quit being an idiot full of hormones or something and actually read what I wrote. She has a right over her own body. She can smoke whatever drugs she wants, she can use methods she wants as contraceptives (a proffessional abortion is much safer than say a coat hanger). Man wake up, this is not the 50's.

Your entire first paragraph is based on a misconception of what I said.

Your second is something I agree with.

Feminists who want more than equal rights/equal oppurtunity/obligations make me sick. When they seek power over males they are being sexist (not saying SenoraChe is this way!!).

BTW Senora spelling woman 'womyn' is one of the silliest things I have ever seen ;) (Don't take offense to that, I just find it amusing!!)

(Edited by CrazyPete at 12:50 am on April 18, 2003)

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from hazard on 5:42 am on April 18, 2003
crazy:

so you're telling me u have no right to tell a woman that she can't punch you in the head? what about driving on the wrong side of the road? or better still, jumping in front of a freight train? you have every right. you simply have fallen for a fallacious argument that has made abortion into a gender issue, when it really isn't nor should it ever have been.

as for women carrying the children, sure. that doesn't mean that they shuould have exclusive rights over its life. first of all, you must necessarilly consider the father. for without him, there is no baby in the first place. leaving the father out of context is unjust, and sexist to boot. you must also consider the baby. it, like the father, is given no say. there must be a rational way to incorporate all parties invlved and end this ridiculous notion that a pregnancy only effects the woman pregnant. it effects at least two other people.


Ok, this is where i start getting a little mad. Do you realize that the father can always leave? The mother cannot, she is carrying it for 9 months. Sure after the delivery she can give the baby up, but you have to consider two things. First, an attachment begins to develop between the mother and child. They spend nine months caring for their bodies as well as that of their child. Second, why should we keep putting more children into the system. Most of these children will be in and out of foster care for most of their lives, or will never get adopted. Why should we subject children to this? If we care so much about children we should not allow for this to happen.

One also has to consider such things as economics: can the couple afford to have the child, can they support the child after they are born, etc. If a couple decides that they cannot afford to have the child than they should have the right to abort it.

It is not murder considering that the procedure is most commonly carried out in the first couple of weeks. Here, nothing has yet developed within so to say that it is murder is ridiculous.

[hazard]

senora:

fair enough. I shouldn't have questioned your allegiances. I should really stop doing that. however, just as you have done much research on abortion, I have done the same. as such, this is one issue I can't roll over on. sorry.

I find it interesting that you mention pChoice women's support groups as being more sympathetic to single mothers than pLife women's support groups. I'll have to take your word on that one. as far as my research indicates, the oppositte is more true. that is, pLife support is the group that encourages women to give birth as they will be supported as single mothers. pChoice support typically provides immediate abortion funds and post abortion counselling.

as far as offering abortion as a choice, I think there are already far too many profit driven choices out there. as many coloured, flavoured and shaped condoms as one can imagine. five sizes and shapes of sponges. you got foam. you got spray. you got inserts. then you got pills. daily, weekly, monthly, "morning after" and so on. women have all of these choices, each mass marketed and advertized and sold. I don't see why abortion must be conisdered a necessary "choice" with so many others.

basically, I was sort of dreading this issue as I figured many would disagree with me. hopefully we can at least retain the social overlay and remain comrades nontheless.

[Soul Rebel]

CrazyPete- I am not offended at all. A lot of people find it silly! And don't worry i am not about dominating males, most feminists aren't. We feminists (the many different types of feminists) are just trying to push for social change- we want to put an end to sexism, racism, classism, etc. We want the world to be a more comfortable and better place to live in. Unfortunately many people don't see this, they just believe the stereotypes: that we are non-shaving, bra-burning, lesbian man-haters. The reality is that we are not these things. Gees, i dont even have a bra to burn!!! :)
So don't worry--- I am not offended :)

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from hazard on 6:00 am on April 18, 2003
senora:

fair enough. I shouldn't have questioned your allegiances. I should really stop doing that. however, just as you have done much research on abortion, I have done the same. as such, this is one issue I can't roll over on. sorry.

I find it interesting that you mention pChoice women's support groups as being more sympathetic to single mothers than pLife women's support groups. I'll have to take your word on that one. as far as my research indicates, the oppositte is more true. that is, pLife support is the group that encourages women to give birth as they will be supported as single mothers. pChoice support typically provides immediate abortion funds and post abortion counselling.

as far as offering abortion as a choice, I think there are already far too many profit driven choices out there. as many coloured, flavoured and shaped condoms as one can imagine. five sizes and shapes of sponges. you got foam. you got spray. you got inserts. then you got pills. daily, weekly, monthly, "morning after" and so on. women have all of these choices, each mass marketed and advertized and sold. I don't see why abortion must be conisdered a necessary "choice" with so many others.

basically, I was sort of dreading this issue as I figured many would disagree with me. hopefully we can at least retain the social overlay and remain comrades nontheless.


In response to your first paragraph: no problem :) And i am not asking you to budge on your stance, i am just asking you to understand--- just as i understand your stance. We are very much comrades :)

In response to your second paragraph: Actually Pro-choice groups provide more than just help with abtaining an abortion. Like i mentioned they support legislation that helps womyn and other underrepresented groups in general, such as welfare. As for anti-choice groups their support doesnt last or come at all--- this is from all the stats and interviews i have gathered. Anti-choice groups often offer help to womyn, saying that they will help them place the baby in a home (which is fine, if the mother chooses it) and help them financially after the baby is born. But the reality of it is that these groups havent helped womyn at all financially, which is horrible (to offer help and not go through with it). When it comes to social services such as welfare it is actually the so-called pro-life (anti-choice) who are less likely to support these services. Do you see what i mean? If you want i can post the facts/stats.

As for your third paragraph--- even though there are many choices of contraceptives you have to take into consideration that not everyone can afford contraceptives or has access to them. To make matters worse the government has cut funding for clinics such as Planned Parenthood which offered free or affordable contraceptives to it patients, which of course caused an increase in prices. We cannot expect poor people just to stop having sex--- that would truly be barbaric. Also, please consider unexpected events such as rape, incest, or contraceptive failure.

[hazard]

senora:

its rather unnerving to actually encounter someone that refers to the pLife group as anti-choice. its this sort of rhetoric that I was referring to in my first post. it doen' get us anywhere if we start reffering to these groups for what they aren't. like calling your position anti-life. in the pro stance, the oppositte is already inferred. stating it is sheer rhetoric.

call me naive, but isn't abstinence cool anymore? just joking. seriously, though, its not like our species are animals and cannot help but to have sex. sexual responsibility must include protection from pregnancy if becoming pregnant is the problem. the choice to not have sex is always there. as long as people see sex as a means and not an end, which is procreation, the "problem" of pregnancy will persist.

I'm interested in your response to my claims that proChoice involves itself in the rhetoric of capitalism. basically, I know all of the arguments already and I can't budge on them. as a communist, senora, how do you deal with the fact that you are using capitalist arguments to defend your principles? I personally could not do so without good reason.

[Soul Rebel]

Hey Hazard, i sent you a pm so check it ok! :)

[Soul Rebel]

First, let me explain: me being "Pro-choice" i would call you "Anti-choice", you being "Pro-life" can call me "Anti-life" if you want. That just how i learned to refer to them. If it is unnerving for you- that is not my intent. I agree with you that we (well, most of us!) are able to control our sexual urges and so we should think things over before we take action. This sometimes is not possible, emotions sometimes do get the best of us. As for abstinence, I know you were joking about that, but i have to say that to teach abstinence is unrealistic. In teaching abstinence, protection and safety is not taught. In my opinion i think this is very dangerous. Once again, I am not asking you to budge on your opinion. When i discuss or debate issues with you, as a comrade, my intent is not to change your opinion. I understand you feel differently and so i respect that. We may have different beliefs on abortion, but i believe that both of us are here to fight injustice. Personally, i dont believe that i am using capitalist arguments for my stance on abortion. It is quite the opposite- capitalism is a patriarchical system, which is anti-feminist. The capitalist system would benefit from not allowing womyn choice. Do you see where i am getting at? From one comrade to another, please understand and respect my opinion as i respect and understand yours.

[hazard]

senora:

I think you misunderstand the term patriarchy. this is where I have noticed that many feminists only propagate the propaganda of the capitalists.

the patriarchy was the system of kings and lords. power was trasnferred from the king to his son, or, from the lord to his son. women could only attain power through a freak occurance of some kind. the capitalists, that is the bourgeoisis, elminated the patriarchial system in the revolution hundreds of years ago. in infusing the idea that the patriarchy still exists the capitalists have succesfully difused one of their greatest threats - the women's movement. for in literally using the propaganda of their class (ie. down with the patriarchy!) the women's movement is caught up in a virtual time loop. I sincerely hope that the women's movement can one day drop the pretenses that have driven them from their roots. in ther words, as long as the feminists aren't actually targeting the capitalists for exploiting their sex, they aren't a threat to the capitalists. and what a better misdirection than an already vanquished foe? the capitlists struck a severe blow to communism when they began using the women's movement for their own twisted purposes.

[hazard]

senora:

sorry, I don't see your PM anywhere. sure that you sent it?

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from weepingbuddha on 1:58 am on April 18, 2003
heres what i'm tired of.
a. stuck-up narrowminded republican facists
b. american emperialsim
c. destruction
d. western hypocracy and bullying
e. military spending, when the money could be put towards what america should stand for--humanitarian equality
f. then end of american "CULTURE"---what is this "good charlotte" bullshit-- whatever happened to real music, like the allman brothers or the grateful dead?
g. watching all of america blindly follow bush and his emperialist henchmen like sheep

i'm sure some of you share similar sentiments. if ya do, how the fuck can we end the emperialist opression of the human mind, spirit, and body? if ya dont agree, tell us why? how can any of these things be justified?

-weepingbuddha.


Well getting back to this, yes I am tired of it. But we can't just sit back and retreat into our own lives, pretending this isn't happening, we have to do something about it. Sort out your priorities, which one do you care about most? Then do something about it.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:34 am on April 18, 2003
Lafties,

Hell yea this is the shit I want to read...

Revolt you maggots...We need to clean the gene pool some.
Too bad most of you piss jars are anti-gun and us facists
stockpile...What you going to revolt with....bongs?

Did you know the military votes in favor of the Republicans...

Bring it on *****es...

Go smoke some and really think hard about it.....

Thanks,
keep spewing,I have more to Caché

(Edited by Chiak47 at 2:35 am on April 18, 2003)


Bongs!?

I would be more then happy with a SVD putting down a facist behind a machinegun.

[Chiak47]

cccp,

Better test the windage and adjust the dials cause 1 shot doctrine will come into play.
Make Carlos happy.

Thanks,
Eric

[RedCeltic]

I don’t know how or why this thread became an issue about abortion. I don’t know what country this “hazard” person is from, however here in the United States, the right to choose is connected with woman’s rights, as it’s called reproductive rights. Now communists and socialists are a bit different here than in some other parts. While in the Soviet Union, protecting minority rights was considered “counter revolutionary” in the United States, minority groups are what make up the majority of the underpaid workforce.

I point this out because it is also these minority groups that are in the most need of abortions. Believing in a post capitalist system where these problems do not exist is all well and good. However when fighting for your “utopia” try not to fight against the rights of people who are living in reality.

The real world is not a bed or roses. Women get raped, children are born into the world with serious defects, or serious addictions to crack cocaine. In a perfect world, children brought into this world will all grow up in a loving family, in a house in the suburbs with white picket fences, a dog and half an acre of land to play on. In reality, this is not the story for many children who suffer being ward of the state and are often mistreated, abused, and often raped and pregnant an early age themselves.

Are you going to tell a retarded girl who was raped that she must give birth to the rapists child, knowing full well she can’t take care of her own self? Are you?

The choice of abortion is never easy. And much of it could be avoided with proper education, funding and distribution of contraceptives. All of which is blocked by people like you who’s neo-puritan morals get in the way of common sense.

To the comment that abortion is “barbaric”, I would like to know if a legal, professional and sanitary abortion is “barbaric” than what would you call women using coat hangers for abortions as was done prior to Roe Vs. Wade.?

The most important thing to remember about abortion is that a prohibition on it will not make it go away. It was around in the middle ages, during biblical times, it was around in the 1950’s the 1960’s… and will be around if banned.. even in the most advanced socialist state.

[Soul Rebel]

RedCeltic- that is the point i have been trying to get across to hazard.

Hazard- patriarchy refers to a male dominated system. Society is male dominated, especially by white men. Men benefit from the laws and norms in society, while these very laws and norms hold womyn back. So feminists are not misusing the word patriarchy, they are using it correctly because patriarchy still does exist. Patriarchy will only be gone when men no longer are priviledged from womyn's subordinate position in society. And it is patriarchy that is a capitalist tool. While i very much respect your opinion i believe you are wrong in saying that the feminist movement is using capitalist arguments and basically heading in the wrond direction. We use ethical relativism when considering such issues abortion, not capitalist ideals.

[mentalbunny]

On the abortion issue, women do get the final choice as women, not men, carry the child in pregnancy. It is the lesser of two evils to deprive a man of a certain child than to foprce a child on a woman, because the man can always father a different child.

I think we would all agree that abortion would not exist in a perfect world, but there is no such thing as tangible perfection.

An interesting question would be whether a man could choose to abort a child he didn't want, say if his girlfriend said she was on the pill but wasn't and got pregnant.

[weepingbuddha]

mentalbunny--- sorry i didn't answer that question earlier. i would probably say the most important thing on my list of greivances is the topic of humanitarian equality, which, while i was absent to this tread, people went off on. abortion, womens rights, and such topics should be first on the list, becuase this is what america stood for in the first place, but never followed through on. next would be everything else. FUCK WESTERN INEQUALITY! its spere of influence will only screw up the world more, so what has to be done is progressive, nonviolent revoltution towards a more equal domestic front, where women and men of whatever race have total equality. we live in a orwellian society--where "all are equal, but some are more equal that others" and IT HAS TO END. it is reflective of exactly what america hates the most. but then again, haven't we all become what we hate? bush has done exactly what saddam did, ignore and defy the UN. disgusting.

a few last words-- chiak, and any others that intend to flame, dont send anything to this thread. mentalbunny, redceltic, hazard, and senorache (who reminds me a lot of my girlfriend :)) appear to want to have a mature debate.

thanks- weepingbuddha

[mentalbunny]

Good answer WB. Don't worry about not replying earlier. I can see that you're going to do really well here, if you want to.

[NeedForRevolution]

its right that you need many people for a revolution but we have to start with convincing people of the revolution in a capitalist society not many people see the other possibilities

[weepingbuddha]

thanks mentalbunny. i appreciate that.

NeedForRevolution, you are absolutely right. convincing people of the need for a revolution would be next to impossible, as we live in a narrow-minded, media driven, fear addled country.
heres a question: is it possible for a progessive socialist revolution to take place under the theory of non-violence? che certainly didnt think so, but ghandi did. i believe if any sort of revoltion would take place, it would have to be strictly non-violent, but thats just me; orthidox marxism/leninism wouldn't exactly work in the situation presented here in the states.
thanks-weepingbuddha

[hazard]

everybody:

I'm sad to see people wise enough to see the logic and reason of socialism fail to see the flaws of abortion, and more importantly, the manner under which it is defended. perfect world? retarded women raped? this aren't arguments even in the best of situations.

as communists and socialists WE MUST understand what abortion means in a capitalist regime. the brutal murder of life for the sole purpose of profit. to ignore, to overlook, to misrepresent this argument in any way, and especially in such a way that makes abortion a women's issue, is to do the dirty work of the capitalists. abortion is a billion dollar baby butchering industry. it is treated by capitalists in the same way as pest removal is treated.

do not be confused by their lies. the capitalists are using OUR arguments against US, trying to force US to accept their industry of child sacrifice to their almighty lord. GOD MONEY.

I would like to mention, now, that the capitalists seem to be effectively polarizing the movement through instances like abortion. which lends furthur weight to my position that it is a morally depraved act, at any level. for it is done for profit, and is the legal extermination of a human. for it is warped and twisted into a socialist principle, although it uses the propaganda of capitalism to defend itself, if only to force divisions within the socialist movement.

marx himself made a number of statements against the abuse that we were to endure at the hadns of the capitalists. here is such a quotation "the bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchial, idyllic relations" COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, pg 5. yet the feminists of today STILL spout off about the patriarchy. why? could they be confused, or could they be abused? my guess is that they are being used by the capitlaists against themselves. against OURSELVES. its about time we started looking at abortion for what it is and not for what the capitalists want us to think it is. namely, a woman's right and NOT billion dollar baby butchering beneficial to the bourgeoisie.

(Edited by hazard at 2:20 pm on April 21, 2003)

[weepingbuddha]

hazard, i cant see where you are coming from. what i think has happened to you is this: you have, like so many others, started to look at things from a one-lane perspective--that of the political. while i do think there is a profit made off of abortion, that doesn't overrun the fact that it is, more than (what you see it as) a capitalist conpiracy, a step towards humanitarian equality. women should have the right to choose whether or not they want to bear the baby that is in their body. sure, it makes a profit. but should there be feminist equality? YES. i'm sorry, i think you have had your nose too deep into the politics and economics of things----abortion is an issue that revolves around the right for a woman to choose, not an issue that revolves around capitalist economic conspiracies. and on the terms of your quoting marx---go past the orthidox. you cant listen to the old wise men all the time.

thanks-weepingbuddha

ps. dont you think it would benifit more than just the bourgeoisie? the woman is also in the mix-- she benifits as well. we have got to stop looking at the fucked up, twisted, corperate ganster machines, and start looking at the people! the woman is there as well! once again, humanitarian issues are ignored. this is what has to be seen by all, capitalist, communist and socialists alike.

[hazard]

the woman already had that choice( god I hate using this word, it's just so pro-capitalist ) when they chose to have sex. unless they are dimwitted or retarded, like somebody else pointed out, they must know what will happen when they have sex. for sex really only has one natural purpose - pregnancy.

women who want abortions are crying, *****ing idiots who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. if they didn't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have had sex. its like eating poison and then saying you didn't want to get poisoned. its like slitting your wrists and then saying that you didn't want to commit suicide. its like buying a non-refundable ticket and then saying that you wanted a refund.

women, as a "group" (although they are really only a gender) are stabbing themselves in the foot with this abortion thing. they holler about inequality, centralize around this notion of abortion, and its entire doctrine and structure treats women like beheaded chickens. they don't know why they do things, they don't want to bear responsibility, they want an easy way out.

personally, I prefer to keep this argument in a political phrasing. at least that way abortion is a tool of the capitalists that exploits women as opposed to a tool of women that exploits themselves. this is what I believe; abortion is a capiitalist tool. I believe this because I sympathize with women and cannot believe as stupid as my preceding arguments indicate. as such, it is not their fault that they are brainwashed and manipulated. we all are.

(Edited by hazard at 3:31 pm on April 21, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

hazard, I finally see where you are coming from and I understand what you mean. However I do not agree that you can take away a woman's right to have an abortion. Just because this is abused in a capitalist society does not mean it should not be used at all or not in a socialist society. Personally I would not have an abortion unless in dire circumstances but it is not for me to judge others and there must always be a safe, legal procedure for abortion to prevent backstreet clinics arising which are incredibly dangerous.

[Hampton]

women who want abortions are crying, *****ing idiots who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

So the man plays no part in this?

if they didn't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have had sex

Going by your twisted ideology if you're a man, you shouldn't have sex unless you want a child.

I believe this because I sympathize with women

So when you used words such as "dimwitted" or "retarded", "crying, *****ing idiots", "brainwashed" and "manipulated" to describe women you do it out of sympathy?

(Edited by Hampton at 1:18 pm on April 22, 2003)

[hazard]

hampton:

come on, bro, don't misquote me. don't you know any better?

first question: I believe that the man shuld bear responsibility and have input in the decision regarding abortion. of course, men too could want to abort while women don't want to. as such this is only going to partially solve this problem. if anything, the sexism of abortion laws prove that they are flawed and need redressing.

2nd question: yes, thats it exactly. if you want to have frivolus, hedonistic sex you MUST take precautions and deal with the consequences properly if pregnancy occurs. abortion is a cop out and a sad sacrifice of life for selfish, capitalist reasons.

3rd point: obviously I don't sympathize with the women I'd call *****ing idiots. actually, if you quoted me properly, you'd realize I don't really consider any women these things. they are being used by capitalists for the billion dollar baby butcher industry. its not their fault, really. sort of like its not really my fault that I watch TV and play computer games and drink coke. we are products of our society.

bunny:
thats fair. as such, I think the pro Choice people sshould mve away from their current defence of the practice. most importantly, the idea of "free choice". as it stands, I don't see any defence for abortion other than the rhetoric of capitalism. and we all know how good THAT defence is.

[Hampton]

obviously I don't sympathize with the women I'd call *****ing idiots. actually, if you quoted me properly, you'd realize I don't really consider any women these things.

This statment contradicts itself.

[hazard]

no it doesn't. why do you think that?

[Hampton]

The first sentance you admit that you would call women "*****ing idiots", saying "I don't sympathize with the women I'd call *****ing idiots".

I'd being short for I would so it turns into "I don't sympathize with the women I would call *****ing idiots", admitting that you would call some women "*****ing idiots".

The next sentence you say "...you'd realize I don't really consider any women these things."

So in one sentence you admit that you would insult some women then the next you say you don't really say these things. Which is it?

[hazard]

thats all and well hampton. but you continue to disregard my entire post that lead myself to make that statement.

two possibilities. you understand my post where I originally made this statemnt as an illustration of why I consider this issue more political than most people around here do. and thus I do not consider these women whining and *****ing idiots. OR, you subtract every possible political connotation and I am forced to think that these women are such.

it comes down to how political you want to get. so, if you want what I really think, these women aren't *****ing idiots and only tools of the baby butchering bourgeois. if you don't care what I really think, then I have no choice but to think thats what they are.

so, once again, if you took he time to quote me properly you'd understand thats not what I think. just as long as I am not forced to think that, in which case I "obviously wouldn't sympathize with such women".

its sort of and IF AND ONLY IF idea. no contradiction. just don't misquote me and you won't have these difficulties. got it?

[Hampton]

Is this "baby butchering bourgeois" the same ones who are trying to overturn Roe V. Wade? Or is that a whole diffrent bourgeois?

[hazard]

i don no bout you, hampton, but i've never met a bourgeois. these people comprise the ruling class, you know, the billionare elitists who make profit off the exploitation of the working class. thats the only bourgeois I know of.

I blame the entire class for the billion dollar baby butchering industry. there is no division. the only reason why a member of this class would side with those opposed to abortion would do so to appease the working class. and, necessarilly, such a bourgeois would not be one making the profit from this industry.

look at smoking. big industry supports all moves to make this practice difficult. then there's the smoking industry that support all moves to retain current smoking laws. both are bourgeois owned and operated industry. however, each bourgeois takes a side among the proletariates. while big industry sides against smoking only to cover up the truth that it is their pollution that is the single leading contributor to cancer, the smoking industry claims it is up to the individual to decide what goes into their body. both are wrong, as both are deciding upon greed which is developed through the exploitation of the working class.

[weepingbuddha]

hazard, could you stop calling abortion "the billion dollar baby butchering industry"? as i've been trying to point out, its more than just a means of feeding the capalist, corperate pig machine above us. plus, correct me if i'm wrong (which occurs a lot), abortion isn't an industry -- its a branch of the medical industry.

in a post a while ago, you said--
"the woman already had that choice (god I hate using this word, it's just so pro-capitalist ) when they chose to have sex."
2 things. first off, thats not always true, as someone pointed out earlier. rape does happen, among other things. and plus, people simply make mistakes, humans, as much as they try to be, are not perfect. second, choice isn't a "pro-capitalist" word. in mind, is a word that is important to the survival of humanity. without "choice", a big brother government worse than what is established in the USA now would break though. i dont want that, which is why i believe in what you would concider the capitalist conspiracy of "choice".

in that same post (which i may be shitting all over, but i liked anyway--like bunny, i have some idea where you are coming from) you said "women who want abortions are crying, *****ing idiots".
c'mon. thats not true at all. you might be looking over the fact that some of these women could be "crying and *****ing" for a reason, like they had been raped. OR, mabye its just a teenage girl that had sex-- just messed up. do you want that poor girl to have her educational life, her domestic life, her personal life, her social life, and just about everything else to be ruined forever? god knows (as i do -- i'm a high school student) her life is discombobulated and fucked up enough.

furthermore, abortion is a great idea, becuase humans are flawed. they need refunds.

"However I do not agree that you can take away a woman's right to have an abortion. Just because this is abused in a capitalist society does not mean it should not be used at all or not in a socialist society. Personally I would not have an abortion unless in dire circumstances but it is not for me to judge others and there must always be a safe, legal procedure for abortion to prevent backstreet clinics arising which are incredibly dangerous. "
good call bunny. you can outlaw abortion, but it wont end.
outside of professional hands, abortion could take a turn for the worse -- a turn that would result in the death of both the baby and the the mother.

hope you can see where i'm coming from as i can see where you are coming from, hazard.
thanks-- weepingbuddha

[hazard]

this is where it comes from then. if you follow communism, you believe in a higher ideal for humanity. a less flawed, and more perfect version of the entire human race. defending abortion defends the base imperfections and problems without attempting to correct the errors.

obviously humanity is not perfect. but to allow for laws that are actually masked infanticide is far from being not perfect. its a hopeless scream that reverberates with surrender. don't fix the problem, eliminate it. this sort of eraser head mentality cannot possibly be good for anyone. not the babies being butchered, not the mothers paying the doctors to do the butchering. everybody loses. everybody except for the hospitals run for profit, the insurance agencies run for profit, and the murdering doctors who perform abortions for profit.

just to address the idea that "abortion will persist even if it is made illegal once again", what is up with that? I mean, even though murder is illegal, it still persists. so it should be made legal? this backwards, deceptive reasoning is literally constructed and implanted by capitalism. abortion, quite simply, cannot be defended with reason or passion. only under raw appettite, the greed and need of the very few over the vast many, is abortion defended. it stands, quite clearly, against evberything that communism stands for.

[Soul Rebel]

sorry to tell ya, but insurance companies dont profit from abortion since they dont cover it. most dont even cover birth control, which is ridiculous.

also, many doctors wont do abortions either. most womyn have to go to a clinic such as Planned Parenthood. Doctors arent allowed to discuss abortion either--- they could get their funding taken away if they are funded.

[weepingbuddha]

whoa, sorry i sent 2 of that post...dumb mistake.

once again, hazard, the woman benifits, not just the corperate pigs up top, whether you want to admit it or not. second, what i was saying before about how even if abortion is outlawed it will persist is that women are going to want abortions, even if they are outside the moral borders of their beliefs or the law. so, they will go to alley clinics where primitive methods are used, which could easily lead to the death of the baby and the mother... tell me, whats better? a 1-4 month old embryo dead or the 1-4 month old embryo dead, with its mother dead as well?

senorache- good call.

thanks-weepingbuddha

[Som]

A silly little game to play more communist than thou with all of this.

This is not some inherently interwoven capitalist concept, this not a bunch of rich old men holding abortion in place, and its rare to find those rich old men supporting it.

To call it burgiouse is nothing but justifying things to fit specifically YOUR opinion on this.

Yes, it comes off as a huge industry, so does... lets say.. crackers. You know, like animal crackers, those tasty little snacks, oh how the capitalists profit from them, does this mean while we should abolish crackers?

To call it a 'billion dollar baby butchering industry' well, doesn't make sense, as no babies whatsoever are killed. They're called fetuses, and often theyre gone even before that stage, a bit of a difference.

That's your opinion of the matter if your against abortion, its hardly the inherently communist opinion, and actually just the opposite.

In the Soviet Union, something like 50% of pregnancies were aborted, pro-capitalist eh?

ah well, Down with the burgoiuise animal crackers I suppose.

[hazard]

senora:

your conclusions are transitory. it depends on what government in the US is currently in power. as it is, these moves are not enough to right the wrongs of abortion. insurance companies would cover abortions if the current federal government was democratic. as for most doctors not doing abortions, how many doctors do you need? completely irrelevant. abortionists have no moral problem committing wholesale murder and no logical problem contradicting the hypocratic oathe. I am glad that only a small percentage of doctors fit into the category that committ this heinous act.

wb:

again, if woman are "forced" into back alleys, then maybe they won't have the abortion. that is the mentality. you should be more concerned about the hit men and women who will be performing the murders in the alleys. abortion will only persist for as long as it is tolerated. did you read my little comparison to murder and how it persists? the same is said for ALL crimes. thats what makes these actions crimnal, the fact that THEY DO PERSIST. otherwise, no laws would be necessary. just because people continue to do something is no reason to justify that action.

as for women benefiting, what exactly do you mean? the individual woman or the feminist movement? notice here that I do not say the women's movement because I think that there is a difference between it and feminists. the women's movement is the honest, truthful advancement of women's rights. feminism, as it is today, is nothing more than women manipulated by capitalist ideology and dogma which is centralized around the abortion industry. the benefits, if you mean the individual, are all related to the greed and selfishness that makes capitalism the cesspool that it is. and if you mean feminism, again, these benefits are only in relation to capitalist abuse of the women's movement. now you should understand why I still say abortion is of NO benefit to women, be it the individual or a group of them.

[hazard]

Quote: from Som on 2:10 pm on April 27, 2003
A silly little game to play more communist than thou with all of this.

This is not some inherently interwoven capitalist concept, this not a bunch of rich old men holding abortion in place, and its rare to find those rich old men supporting it.

To call it burgiouse is nothing but justifying things to fit specifically YOUR opinion on this.

Yes, it comes off as a huge industry, so does... lets say.. crackers. You know, like animal crackers, those tasty little snacks, oh how the capitalists profit from them, does this mean while we should abolish crackers?

To call it a 'billion dollar baby butchering industry' well, doesn't make sense, as no babies whatsoever are killed. They're called fetuses, and often theyre gone even before that stage, a bit of a difference.

That's your opinion of the matter if your against abortion, its hardly the inherently communist opinion, and actually just the opposite.

In the Soviet Union, something like 50% of pregnancies were aborted, pro-capitalist eh?

ah well, Down with the burgoiuise animal crackers I suppose.


what I'm referring to is the propaganda of "choice". freedom of speech, freedom of ownership, freedom to choose. when the abortion supporters scream about freedom of choice, tehy're not only screaming about the freedom to choose an abortion, they are screaming about the freedom to choose saltines, ritz, or your fave, animal crackers. simple propaganda. but maybe you can't see or understand that.

as for abolishing an industry, um, isn't that what communism is all about? the abolition of ALL industry run for profit? check your head.

fetus? baby? what kind of a difference is that? you really DO NOT want t get into what the subject of this argument is with me. a fetus is still a human, like you and me. just like a baby is a human. except bourgeois and butcher both begin with B, so maybe you can see why I decided to use a word that begins with that letter. your implication that a feus is not human is rather tired.

USSR 50%? an interesting figure. where'd that come from, the top of your head? or maybe from the wonderous feminist (capitalist tools) stats constructors. my point is that IF the state deems abortion necessary, I have less of a problem than if an individual decides for immature and frivolous reasons that they do not want to bear responsibility for their actions. I am sure that however many abortions were performed in the USSR (50%!?) that NONE of them were heralded under the obscene umbrella term of "freedom of choice".

last lime - exactly. animal crackers, auto manufacturers and baby butcherers. ALL OF THEM.

[Som]

So your saying I shouldn't be able to eat animal crackers?

But I really do enjoy them, maybe you don't understand that.

No ones saying someone needs to make a profit on those crackers, but I'd sure like to vote yes to the production of crackers.

I don't remember exactly where I pulled 50% from, but it was very common in the USSR, I doubt it was really all that 'state mandated'.

A fetus is a few cells that has the potential to be a human, at that point its really just the same being as a chicken or pig in a similiar stage of development, a little bit of genetic code that hasn't been used yet doesn't make it somehow more deserving of life than my bacon was.

Lumping rhetoric on itself is not a real solid argument towards pro-choice being somehow inherently capitalist, anymore than crackers are.

[hazard]

som:

you would really benefit from an understanding of informal logic. as such, I am being forced to be charitable so as not to embarass you or your position any more than I have to.

being charitable, now, every paragraph except for the fourth one must be completely disregarded. a complete and tragic waste of human, uh, words.

you menation chicken and pigs. but you do not mention what potential these cells of becoming a chicken or a pig. their ENTIRE potential is ONLY to become a human. mentioning chicken and pigs makes you sound like a swiss chalet advertisement. did you just eat? similarly, you seem to be indicating that pig fetuses are no different than human fetuses. in other words, ALL fetuses are simply fetuses. complete rubish. you know it and I know it. a bad, slippery slope argument that barely even resembles an argument. it is also guilty of faulty analogy and free loading term fallacies.

I'll leave it at that for now. if you have no prblem with assuming that YOU, yourself, was at one point no different than a pig or chicken, hey, thats YOU. I, on the other hand, do. that is, I have a problem wit people like you considering all humans to, at a point in their existence, to be nothing more than lower invertebrates. bad reasoning to defend a bad practice. sort of makes sense.

[weepingbuddha]

Quote: from hazard on 2:55 am on April 27, 2003
mentioning chicken and pigs makes you sound like a swiss chalet advertisement. did you just eat? similarly, you seem to be indicating that pig fetuses are no different than human fetuses. in other words, ALL fetuses are simply fetuses. complete rubish.

um...all fetuses are simply fetuses. thats his point. until they reach a certain stage, they are just like any other fetus. once they go past this stage, abortions are not performed.

hazard, i hate to say it, but as i was looking through some stuff you said earlier, you are sounding more and more like a sexist to me. sure, you wanna be a communist. great. but being a sexist is turning into exactly what communism attempts to fight - opression, whether it be capitalistic, humanitarian, or otherwise.

som- good argument. i dont think even the most hardcore conservative pro-life rightwinger could face that.

[hazard]

what little I've had to look at your posts, weeping, brings me to a conclusion as well.

you are a poser. a half assed punk cmmunist who is only doing so as a rebellious stage in your life.

don't worry, you can carry your baby butchering ideologies with you when you sell out.

sexist? fuck you. poser

care to substantiate your ridiculous and over the top ad hominen attack? thought so

(Edited by hazard at 4:24 pm on April 27, 2003)

[weepingbuddha]

hmm...very mature of you. you couldn't sound more childish. "poser"? you sound like the stuck up little rich boys at my school....pathetic. and you are a sexist......no better than any backwards hardcore christian fundi.

and do me a favor-- grow up a bit. once som started to state some facts that blew away your argument, it became clear you didn't know what to do. so why not fill some space and flame a newbie, huh? real cool.

thanks....weepingbuddha

[hazard]

yes, and ad hominen attacks are mature? to answer that, NO, they're not.

calling me sexist, for no reason other than an attack upon me personally, don't cut it. ignore my arguments and attack me. just shut up if you got nothing else to say.

and you are a poser, are you not? so far you haven't said or contributed ANYTHING socialist or communist. NOTHING. so far, you have argued with me on abortion. and, as you well know, I have rightly proven that abortion is a capitalist industry that is the most brutal form of exploitation imaginable.

as far as som goes, what in the fuck are you talking about? I nailed that punk on his own arguments, and YOU FLAMED ME. blow it out your ass

take your religious, crying ass and go pose as something else. punk

[Som]

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Mr Barnard: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Man: Well, I was told outside that...

Mr Barnard: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

Man: What?

Mr Barnard: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!

Man: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Mr Barnard: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

Man: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Mr Barnard: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

Man: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Mr Barnard: Not at all.

Man: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)

Man: (Knock)

Mr Vibrating: Come in.

Man: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

Mr Vibrating: I told you once.

Man: No you haven't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.

Man: When?

Mr Vibrating: Just now.

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: You didn't

Mr Vibrating: I did!

Man: You didn't!

Mr Vibrating: I'm telling you I did!

Man: You did not!!

Mr Vibrating: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

Man: Oh, just the five minutes.

Mr Vibrating: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

Man: You most certainly did not.

Mr Vibrating: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

Man: No you did not.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: You didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Did.

Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is!

Mr Vibrating: It is not.

Man: Look, you just contradicted me.

Mr Vibrating: I did not.

Man: Oh you did!!

Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.

Man: You did just then.

Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!

Man: Oh, this is futile!

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is.

Thats really all that amounted to, not exactly.. nailed.

The wonderful amount of civility with all of this.

Monty python is great.

(Edited by Som at 4:49 am on April 27, 2003)

[hazard]

som:

I have no idea what that was all about.

Chew on this.

Defending abortion with logic and rhetoric of genocide? Nice move. Again, typically capitalist propaganda. When types of humans are being argued as being “less” than human I need not draw out what the probable results will be. Arguing that fetuses are the same as chickens is remarkably similar to nazi’s arguing that jews are rats. In case you didn’t know, THIS IS WHERE THIS ARGUMENT COMES FROM. And, this is why I cannot allow people to defend abortion under its current defence strategy. It is chock full of capitalist propaganda that relies upon a logical structure aped from the nazi’s strategy to indoctrinate systematic genocide. The only comparison between human and animals is the one that equates capitalists to pigs. Do you catch my drift?



(Edited by hazard at 4:54 pm on April 27, 2003)

[weepingbuddha]

hazard, a few things. you got a few things right. but a few others are wrong. i didn't flame you. i brought up what i thought was true, and was hoping you could come up with some argument to prove me wrong..cuase i thought a lot of what you said was good, and i didn't want my image of you to get flawed cause of a few sexist comments.

heres where you are right. i'm new to the whole deal. i see the flaws of communism and socialism. but i also look around me and see a fucked up, twisted, backwards nation that could be a lot better than it is. and by getting into an ideology that could change that...it seemed like a good idea. so, yeah, you could call me a poser... or you could call me something a little less demeaning...such as a beginner to socialism. i'm trying to get my shit together so i can really argue later, by listening to people like you, who know what the fuck you are talking about.

so sorry i appeared to have flamed. i just got...i donno, stupid maybe?

so my point is--forgive me. i'm still figuring it out.
comrades?

wb

[hazard]

not a problem. I tend to go ballistic, and for that I also apologize.

I don't really expect any of us to agreee on anything. But I get irritated when I hear the same arguments for and against abortion, over and over again. My belief that it has become a tool of the capitalists on many different levels is an unshakable one. som does understand what I mean though in his attempt to discredit my position. crackers and abortion are both just products sold to generate capital.

anyway, we must have many OTHER things to agree upon. comrade? I don't think you need to even ask.

[weepingbuddha]

thanks man. :)

[mentalbunny]

Hazard, you're biggest issue seems to be with profit. In the UK, at least as far as I know, there is no profit from abortion, the cost if any is to pay the doctor a decent wage and to pay for all the rest of it. It is a service, not a profit-seeking industry. It is not about generating capitalism, many people feel that you shouldn't have to have a child if you don't feel you could look after it properly, after all what is more important, the child avoiding a shit life or depriving the "capitalists" of some profit, which is negligible compared to the profit from exploiting sweat-shop workers in the Third World. hazard, there are bigger fish to fry, go take issues with Nike and their production methods, or MacDonad's (you know some sientists have come to the conclusion that you can become addicted to fast food like burgers?!!).

If you don't like it, don't use it. That's all I have to say on the matter.

[weepingbuddha]

amen, brother.

never really thought about that.

wb

[hazard]

here's a term that you may not be aware of, but children of the state are in shorter supply than ever before. adoption is at an all time low. most abortionists and pro choice folks seem to disregard this option. without turning it into an ultra political debate, ie. driving up the price of babies through an intentional shortage, adoption is the only real choice a needy mother should consider. it is not only holistic and natural, but NEEDED. more babies equals more love.

as for the mickie dee's crack, last I checked the capitalist cattle crushing industry hasn't directly hurt or brutally exploied anybody in a while. unless your're thinking of mcdonalds executing union reps. or was that coke? don't matter. no comparison.

[Zombie]

you know some sientists have come to the conclusion that you can become addicted to fast food like burgers?!!

do you mean some ingredients are addictive?
if anyone has links related to that, it would be real cool. thanx.

.Z.

[hazard]

as humans we are already addicted to food with high fa content. the fast food industry is just playing off of our genetic predispositions. appetite is the only way under which capitalism functions.

[mentalbunny]

I have to admit the fatty food thing is on my part totally unresearched, I just remember reading it in a help page in some shitty tabloid cos it was lying around and I had nothing better to do but I'll try to check up on it some time soon.