Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Prelate Diogenes Shandor

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 92
1
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: Yesterday at 03:58:00 pm »
Sci-fi story involving planets with unrealistic shapes but which are treated in a realistic fashion. A cube world, for instance, where all the oceans pool in the center of each face and  travel from face to face is difficult because the edges and vertices are mountains (you have to travel away from the center of mass, or in other words "up", to reach them)

2
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 27, 2017, 08:20:57 am »
"No More Peepers For Mister Squeakers" - This is a book for beginning readers about a semi-anthropomorphic mouse (like the ones in Disney's version of Cinderella) who gets blinded when a cat claws his face. And although he survives the encounter his eyes and face are burst/torn open and blood goes everywhere.

3
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 26, 2017, 02:00:35 am »
A self-replicating nanobot grey goo is created. This comes about at a time when the polar ice caps are finally starting to really melt in earnest. Now it must battle The Blob and the shoggoths for world supremacy.

Gag gift: The Go F\/ck Yourself sex doll. Made as replica of recipient, delivered direct to their door in ultra discrete packaging. "Can't live with it, can't live without it."*

*construction is super-durable, making any attempt at disassembly very psychologically engaging, and return processing prohibitively expensive.

If we're also suggesting obscene gag items now, how about one of those spark fountain fireworks, but it's shaped like a penis

4
Apparently there was just a terrorist attack in England. What convenient timing, just in time for the election. This stinks of a false-flag operation (or maybe not stinks of but at this point it's definitely a possibility).

5
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 22, 2017, 03:36:25 am »
Comedy: The Greek mystery cults are actually Scientology-esque scams

EDIT:
Another Idea:

*Skit lampooning the gateway drug argument against marijuana legalization by presenting a wacky skewed version of it holding that the shopkeepers who will sell it if it is legalized will become mobsters because if using pot is a gateway to using heroin and crack then perhaps selling pot is a gateway to being a mobster

6

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

Everything here is horseshit.

Abortions end unwanted, dangerous, or non-viable pregnancies. Criticizing people for "not wanting to take responsibility" is the epitome of BABIES ARE PUNISHMENT FOR SEX thinking. Proposing a hypothetical scenario in which pregnancy is removed from the equation so you don't have to talk about bodily autonomy is fucking stupid, and then you go on to assume that women would get off on smashing eggs/incubators anyway.

I was not criticizing, I was empathizing. I think I may fear serious responsibility more than death itself. I am anti responsibility, anti-duty and certainly opposed to traditional sexual social mores and Abrahamic prudishness that says that you need to be a married couple or something to have sex and that you can't have sex if you're an unmarried couple, or a random hookup from the craigslist or Tinder, or an Eyes Wide Shut type situation (and just because I've phrased that last thing in a humorous way I don't want you to take that as me not being serious about it; I am, and I really meant those last two parts). And furthermore I explicitly suggested to still avoid it but find some other way; put it up for adoption or leave it on someone's doorstep and I am 100% serious about that you should do that (though maybe try the first one first because, and only because, the second could get you into trouble). Responsibility should be dodged and slack restored but without violence when possible.

As for the lizard parable, fine, I suppose that's a little outlandish. Let's consider another more realistic one then:
Suppose, in the future, that there are medical advances such that with treatment a fetus is viable as of the second month, and furthermore suppose that wherever this is taking place has a functional amply funded single-payer health system; Is there, in this situation, any excuse for leaving the fetus to die after extracting it?

EDIT:
And for clarification I'm all for medically necessary abortions and abortions of non-viable pregnancies (though the latter seems a bit of a redundant step when there's not overlap with the former). Hell, when its medically necessary it ought to be sponsored by the government just like any medically necessary procedure ought to; it's only the elective ones I take issue with.

Now's my turn to quite possibly get my monkey on, but I think that the current raving lunatic believes in traditional family ties and maybe even the concept of a nuclear family, judging by this:

paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family

Personally, I think family ties are a convenient screen for hiding abuse and the foremost enabler of things like nepotism and us vs them thinking, and the "nuclear family" concept has only made this worse. Anti-abortion rhetoric is used, in some cases, to further this specific agenda: essentially using the concept of "family" to beat innocent humans with.

Also, particularly the "reproductive" bit of our neighborhood moron's above quoted bit makes me think that he believes motherhood is an essential part of being a woman. Which, if true, has a ton of fun domino-effect aspects that force him to believe a host of other stupid things or modify his bullshit. They aren't even slippery slope fallacy, they're logical consequences of that belief.

I wanna go back to this and say that I'm actually borderline anti-family. And partly because of abortion. If everyone was raised by the state or something it would scale back elective abortions to only the true bodily autonomy cases that have issue with pregnancy itself. Furthermore, the traditional family has become a false idol; in whose name progress is stifled, in whose name gays are discouraged from getting married and everyone else is badgered into it, in whose name people fight and are miserable for years because they don't want to get divorced, in whose name we have excessive censorship, in whose name many children endure negligance and abuse because there's no one other than their blood relatives to raise them and their blood relatives are all negligent, in whose name avoidable public health crisises occur because parents are given the authority to choose not to have their kids vaccinated

7
paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family

Personally, I think family ties are a convenient screen for hiding abuse and the foremost enabler of things like nepotism and us vs them thinking, and the "nuclear family" concept has only made this worse. Anti-abortion rhetoric is used, in some cases, to further this specific agenda: essentially using the concept of "family" to beat innocent humans with.

Also, particularly the "reproductive" bit of our neighborhood moron's above quoted bit makes me think that he believes motherhood is an essential part of being a woman.

Where the hell did you get that interpretation from?

I think you're reactively trying to pigeonhole me into a preconceived notion (no pun intended) of a pro-life person. As strange as it may seem to you, and as admittedly rare as they seem to be nowadays, there are a greater range of possible political opinions out there than just cookiecutter Democrat and cookiecutter Republican.

My statement was if anything anti-traditional family. It was a statement against family ties and traditional family roles and specifically against parental control and authority.

And furthermore I've argued several times elsewhere on this board in favor of the idea that we'd all be a lot better off if all gender roles and expression were comprehensively suppressed across the board and we had a single range of acceptable forms of dress, speech, conduct, etc for all members of society to the point where it would be impossible to even speculate whether a given person was male or female.

A BABY IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR SEX.

Are you insinuating that I insinuated that? At most I insinuated that it's something that happens. I didn't even say that you have to deal with it; in fact I explicitly said that someone else would. Again, I think you all are trying to pigeonhole me.

8
So you come in here with "helpful advice" on how we can better "defend" abortion,

I never said that.

I came here to try and sway you. That said I believe the standard jesus freak pro-lifers are morons too, so I'll give you something that may be helpful specifically against them. Try quoting Ecclesiastes 4:3 to them, "[/i]But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.[/i]"

9
My main problem with abortion however is the undercurrent of ableism and of paradoxially reactionary concepts about reproduction and family that underlay it. It's supporters are basically saying that 1.) People like me who have genetic disorders shouldn't exist and 2.) That a child only exists for the benefit of the parents, rather than for their own benefit or to string along the ponzi scheme that is civilization until we can find a way to stabilize it by putting a stop to death.

Also, going back to this

Well... no.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

So, we've aired the paranoid way pro-choice sees pro-life, so now let me give you a glimpse of the - perhaps equally paranoid, I don't know) way they pro-life sees pro-choice.

I don't actually believe it's really about bodily autonomy at all. The issue isn't that you don't want to be pregnant, the issue is that you don;t want to raise a child. Bodily autonomy is just a convenient excuse. Imagine, if you will, this were a paralell universe where we were reptiles and the gestation took place completely outside of you, without even any incubation needed or possible, you'd find some other excuse for why it's ok to smash eggs. You simply don't want to take responsibility, which is something I emphathize with, but I can't support your methods. Instead, why not seek out one of the many gay couples clamoring to take responsibility for you

EDIT:
In fact, forget reptiles, you'd find some excuse even if we were amphibians or fish

10
As for the rest, it seems like you haven't read biology's requirements for life. Last I checked, genes aren't the only requirement.

Sorry. I assumed it went without saying that the fetus is made up of cells which undergo metabolism, multiply, and respond to chemical signals

11
Yeah, I see a dumbfuck in a prominent position and it's generally either one of two things - he's either playing the retard in which case he's being dishonest or he really is as dumb as he appears in which case someone smart is totally pulling his strings. I'm not saying Putin cos I honestly have no f'kin idea but if not him them someone like him.

Could be multiple people pulling the strings. His election was apparently the result of at least two unrelated conspiracies (the Russian email hacks and the Pied Piper conspiracy, though admittedly the later thought they were setting him up to fail. There were also a bunch of news organizations printing biased and outright fake news tp try to sway the electorate in his favor). I think that the best hope at this point is that all the people pulling his strings tangle each other up (or alternately for him to reach the point where he's blowing the job off completely instead of just taking too many golfing vacations; at that critical point there is an abrupt transition from dangerous incompetence to the ideal leader of eastern mysticism that rules well by doing nothing)

12
All three of your points sound... pretty weird, in light of what some of the responses to the OP have been.

Point one has been addressed in the OP, and directly relates to biology.

The OP arguments struck me as a non-sequitur and ass-pull. It's clearly a distinct organism because it is genetically distinct.

As for autocatlysis if taken to its conclusion the argument would label anyone with a serious enzymatic disorder as an unperson

Furthermore, from a strict biological standpoint the the pro-life standpoint is closer to being literally correct. Technically both standpoints are incorrect; life is a continuous process that began once, billions of years ago. It would however be correct to say that the diploid stage of the lifecycle begins at conception.

13
Anyway my personal opinion on the matter is unique and probably super offensive to both sides

1.) The woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body but the fetus is not part of her body, so she has a right to remove it but not to directly damage it

2.) A fetus is a fractionally complete person and therefore there is a finite number of abortions, greater than one, that is theoretically equivalent to murder

3.) The only thing worse than state mandated eugenics is DIY eugenics that serves the convenience of the everyday mediocretin.

14
The biggest question with Trump is how much of it is corruption and how much is just stupidity. I know a lot of you don't believe he could really be that stupid but personally that's been my impression of him from the beginning.

15
Well... no.

The argument that fetuses are not babies is of course made all the time. The "life begins at conception" and such ridiculousness is the anti-choice camp's counter to this argument. There will never be any successful attempt to convince them that fetuses are not babies, because anything that is sure to become a thing is as good as having become it already, at least whenever a person is inclined to believe that, which they are in this case. As far as any anti-choice person's ability to reason, there is no meaningful distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby. Even if physically they are as different as an elephant is from a ant, there is no difference morally, and that's all that matters.

Focusing the argument on the bodily autonomy of women, logically, is all that is left to the pro-choice arguer. It's unfortunate that this is one of the many, many exceptions to the conservative's crusade for "less government interference", but it is what it is. We are effectively faced with a situation where half of the country wants to rob women of their own bodily autonomy. Making it a question of bodily autonomy may not be the most effective way to settle the argument, but it's better than trying to drive some impossible wedge between "baby" and "fetus", which has been tried and proven to be completely useless.

Of course, the debate over abortion is not actually a debate over abortion. If saving lives was really the aim of anti-choice "activists", they wouldn't condemn all manner of not-fetuses to death at the slightest provocation in other areas. Their wailing over "dead babies" is just a charade they use because people are easily swayed by the idea of violence against defenseless children. There are many proven ways to materially decrease the rates of both abortion and of unwanted or underage pregnancy in general -- and if these people actually cared about eliminating abortion, they would champion these methods instead of simply calling for prohibition and punishment of abortion. But they don't like those methods, because while they are effective, they strike at the real motives behind the anti-choice crusade: they empower women, rather than constrain them to obedience and "modesty".

So I have to disagree with your assessment that the reason the abortion debate rages on is because the defenders of women's choice are doing it wrong. It rages on because there are theocratic monsters among us who are allowed to push their oppressive agenda as some kind of antidote to all the evils of the modern, liberated world. And as long as they exist, they will find ways to hate anyone who is too free for their liking, no matter what arguments are used against them.

How the darknesses do crowd up one against another in your mind. If you seriously believe this about the christians you're more deluded as they are.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 92