A moral too far ?

[vidcc]

A vaccine has been developed that could reduce the risk of cervical cancer by 70-80%...... good news? I think so. But there are those that wish to stop this vaccine entering service. WHY? because they say it will encourage sexual activity.

Is there a point where lifestyle moral values should overrule medical cures? Will these people object to a cure for aids? I do wonder if cures for such diseases that often carry a social stigma are being held back because of moral values.

It's ok to have moral values....just don't try to force them on others.

Some links about the issue (I couldn't find the story on the frc site)

new scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500)

the nation ( biased ) magazine (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=pollitt)

crossfire (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/26/cf.01.html)

[MagicNakor]

Considering no one knows the *cause* of cervical cancer, and I have heard of women who've never had sex to be diagnosed with it, I'd politely tell the naysayers to stuff it. No one deserves to be diagnosed with either cancer or AIDS, irrespective of their sexual proclivities and frequencies.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense...I really ought to stop coming here after work. ;)

:shuriken:

[MCHeshPants420]

So we should keep cancer in the world to keep people chaste? Brilliant.:lol:

I say vaccinate everyone who wants to be vaccinated and then stay the fuck out of their bedroom. (Unless you're sleeping with them I guess...)


No one deserves to be diagnosed with either cancer or AIDS, irrespective of their sexual proclivities and frequencies.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense...I really ought to stop coming here after work.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[GepperRankins]

we should stop neo-cons from having any medical help at all until they accept this :unsure:

[Rat Faced]

You dont have to kill embryo's to get stem cells from them.

The Law Lords in the UK have already decided there was nothing wrong with one couple that wished to have a "designer baby".. not because they wished for a superchild etc; but because they wished to take stem cells from the embryo in order to cure the embryo's older sibling.

The embryo would then carry on to term as the couples second child.

Saying that the only way to have "Embryionic Stem Cell Research" is to kill the embryo or use frozen ones before discarding shows one thing.. The Pres of the USA doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about.

But whats new there?

This is exactly the same thing... denying Research and Medicines that would save lives, because of personal Moral feelings.

I assume that, if taken ill, those resonsible for these decisions will make full use of the medications available for themselves. Despite the fact that a lot of that Medical Knowledge was made through Grave Robbing and Murder in the past, Nazi experiments in WWII and in numerous other unsavory ways.

Hypocracy... let them use leeches for all their ailments.

If these people had their way through history, we'd still believe that a Wolves Penis eaten at midnight on a full moon is the cure for warts or some other such foolishness.

Therefore, lets treat their medical ailments the way that the Greeks or Romans would have done... wonder if they'll change their minds then?

[sArA]

@RF.. you nearly threw me then, almost ready to move your post to the 'stem cell research thread'...then...halfway down....ohhhhhh yeeeaaaahhhh...I seeeee using it as an example of moral bigotry...ah...I get it now...

:)

Phew..... :blink:

[vidcc]

there is a stem cell research thread ????

[JPaul]

Considering no one knows the *cause* of cervical cancer, and I have heard of women who've never had sex to be diagnosed with it, I'd politely tell the naysayers to stuff it. No one deserves to be diagnosed with either cancer or AIDS, irrespective of their sexual proclivities and frequencies.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense...I really ought to stop coming here after work. ;)

:shuriken:
Good speech, I agree.

However I also agree that if people feel strongly that something is wrong then they have the right (perhaps duty in their eyes) to say it.

Freedom of expression and all that. As Tony Benn said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Paraphrase).

[JPaul]

If these people had their way through history, we'd still believe that a Wolves Penis eaten at midnight on a full moon is the cure for warts or some other such foolishness.

Unless you have actually tried this how do you know it is foolishness.

Please stop offending the boards wiccans, I thought you knew better than that.

[bigboab]

You dont have to kill embryo's to get stem cells from them.

The Law Lords in the UK have already decided there was nothing wrong with one couple that wished to have a "designer baby".. not because they wished for a superchild etc; but because they wished to take stem cells from the embryo in order to cure the embryo's older sibling.

The embryo would then carry on to term as the couples second child.

Saying that the only way to have "Embryionic Stem Cell Research" is to kill the embryo or use frozen ones before discarding shows one thing.. The Pres of the USA doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about.

But whats new there?

This is exactly the same thing... denying Research and Medicines that would save lives, because of personal Moral feelings.

I assume that, if taken ill, those resonsible for these decisions will make full use of the medications available for themselves. Despite the fact that a lot of that Medical Knowledge was made through Grave Robbing and Murder in the past, Nazi experiments in WWII and in numerous other unsavory ways.

Hypocracy... let them use leeches for all their ailments.

If these people had their way through history, we'd still believe that a Wolves Penis eaten at midnight on a full moon is the cure for warts or some other such foolishness.

Therefore, lets treat their medical ailments the way that the Greeks or Romans would have done... wonder if they'll change their minds then?

Let us not forget the society for the preservation of Leeches.

[Rat Faced]

Say it yes..

However these are trying to stop it being used, because they believe it will increase promiscuity. This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.

[JPaul]

Say it yes..

However these are trying to stop it being used, because they believe it will increase promiscuity. This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.
They must be allowed to try to do this, even if I think they are totally wrong. So long as it only be words and peaceful protest.

You must be allowed to try to thwart them, by using the same means.

Freedom of expression is meaningless otherwise.

[Rat Faced]

Delays mean death though... so no matter how peaceful their means, if it would cause delay then sod 'em :P

[Snee]

I reckon the ones who try to stop it from being used shouldn't be allowed to breed, so if we can forbid it from being used on them, and them alone, that would be cool.

I reckon it would keep them chaste, at least the wimmins :ermm:

[vidcc]

As far as I am aware this will not be a compulsory vaccination, Even if it was one may be excused on religious grounds.... a freedom an atheist isn't afforded.

If one objects to a vaccine on moral/ religious grounds they can do so...they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated.

[bigboab]

I reckon the ones who try to stop it from being used shouldn't be allowed to breed, so if we can forbid it from being used on them, and them alone, that would be cool.

I reckon it would keep them chaste, at least the wimmins :ermm:

Maybe they would not get chased if they were not allowed to breed.:unsure:

[Snee]

Some people do like a challenge though :unsure:

[Busyman]

Say it yes..

However these are trying to stop it being used, because they believe it will increase promiscuity. This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous.
They must be allowed to try to do this, even if I think they are totally wrong. So long as it only be words and peaceful protest.

You must be allowed to try to thwart them, by using the same means.

Freedom of expression is meaningless otherwise.
Exactly. I want idiots to yell loudly and let themselves be known. :lol: :lol:

[bigboab]

They must be allowed to try to do this, even if I think they are totally wrong. So long as it only be words and peaceful protest.

You must be allowed to try to thwart them, by using the same means.

Freedom of expression is meaningless otherwise.
Exactly. I want idiots to yell loudly and let themselves be known. :lol: :lol:
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? EXACTLY.:blink:

[lynx]

This despite the fact that, as Lynx says, not everyone that develops Cervical Cancer are promiscuous. :blink:

[MagicNakor]

It really is unusual. RF is getting us confused again. ;)

:shuriken:

[JPaul]

If one objects to a vaccine on moral/ religious grounds they can do so...they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated.
So you would deny them their freedom to express this view.

I agree they have no right to stop people being vaccinated, but they must have the right to say it is wrong. To object to it's use.

[hobbes]

I just drove by the adult movie theater and guess what was playing?

Vaccinated Girls Gone Wild.-

Adults only please-http://img81.echo.cx/my.php?image=untitled20np.png

There was a gratuitous use of condoms and bloated syringes were spewing vaccine everywhere.

The money shot and medicine shot made a titillating pair. The chaste will be throwning aside their habits to fornicate to this video.

[vidcc]

I just drove by the adult movie theater and guess what was playing?

Vaccinated Girls Gone Wild.-

Adults only please-http://img81.echo.cx/my.php?image=untitled20np.png

There was a gratuitous use of condoms and bloated syringes were spewing vaccine everywhere.

The money shot and medicine shot made a titillating pair. The chaste will be throwning aside their habits to fornicate to this video.
You seem to be very knowledgable on the content of this movie considering you just "drove by" ;)

[vidcc]

If one objects to a vaccine on moral/ religious grounds they can do so...they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated.
So you would deny them their freedom to express this view.

I agree they have no right to stop people being vaccinated, but they must have the right to say it is wrong. To object to it's use.

The Family research council (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC) Isn't just a group of people giving their views. They are a very active and influential political lobby group and it could be argued that the current administration are puppets to theirs and similar groups pressures.
They don't just say "things shouldn't be allowed" they actively campaign to make them outlawed.

I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... I simply say they have no right to force others to follow their morals.
We in the US live in a society where pharmacists are refusing to supply birth control to the unmarried. We have the morning after pill refused becoming over the counter, not because it is unsafe, it meets all the medical safety needs....but because it "would promote sexual promiscuity" and "it is the equivalent of abortion" because the egg could already be fertilized.

So no I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to express their views, they can march in the streets for all I care. I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values, especially when their values interfere with healthcare.

We cure disease, not point fingers and tell people they deserve what they get

[JPaul]

"I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... "

" .... they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to object to that which they think is wrong. They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

[vidcc]

"I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... "

" .... they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to object to that which they think is wrong. They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

F.F.S.

how many times do we have to say it?

Their "objecting" is manifested in trying to stop it. They are not just objecting by saying so they are objecting by trying to get it stopped. They are a political lobbying group.

[JPaul]

"I have at no point suggested they should not be allowed to express their views.... "

" .... they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to object to that which they think is wrong. They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

F.F.S.

how many times do we have to say it?

Their "objecting" is manifested in trying to stop it. They are not just objecting by saying so they are objecting by trying to get it stopped. They are a political lobbying group.


FFS How many times do I have to say it, they are perfectly entitled to. That's what political lobbying is for.

That's what freedom of expression means. Whether you like it or not. If you take away their right to object where does it end. Who decides what can be objected to and what can't. What books do we burn.

So long as they stick to words and political lobbying and stay away from things like violence and intimidation, then no foul.

FFS I disagree with their position, but I defend their right to express it. I said that earlier. I disagree with your suggested censorship, but irony of ironies I defend your right to want it and lobby for it.

[Rat Faced]

It really is unusual. RF is getting us confused again. ;)

:shuriken:

:blushing:

I was drunk and didnt look properly.. I knew it was a blue name though :P

Whoever said it, i was agreeing with it ;)

[vidcc]

They have no right in stopping other people making up their own minds. Provided it does not impact adversely on their own choices.

[JPaul]

Stopping, is what you are trying to do.

Expressing an opinion or lobbying is different, it is attempting to explain or influence. It does not stop people making up their own mind.

[vidcc]

You are wrong again.... I am expressing my opinion that they have no right.

Please feel free to tell us how I am stopping them

[JPaul]

I said you would try to stop them. By denying them the right to express their view.

Obviously and thankfully you cannot actually do it.

Do you believe in freedom of expression.

[vidcc]

I said you would try to stop them. By denying them the right to express their view.
no you said I am trying.

Stopping, is what you are trying to do.
Am i going to congress or the senate to change the law? No... so how am i trying to stop them?

I am not denying them the right to express their veiw, I am expressing my view that they shouldn't impose their values on others...and at this time in history they are actually doing it.



Do you believe in freedom of expression.

yes.... far more than these extremists do. I will fight for their freedom of speech, not their freedom of imposition. I will express my views but I will not impose them. if I felt I had the right to impose my morals on others I would pay to have a monument erected outside our courthouse next to the ten commandments that says "there is no god, stay within the law anyway"

[JPaul]

They are not imposing anything as I understand it.

They are expressing their opinion and lobbying lawmakers. That's the way it works.

You say they have no right to do this. How is that supporting freedom of expression

[vidcc]

you need to read up on the present political situation in the USA.

By going to congress and pressuring the lawmakers they are wishing to impose their values not simply express them

[bigboab]

you need to read up on the present political situation in the USA.

By going to congress and pressuring the lawmakers they are wishing to impose their values not simply express them

It is no different in any Democracy. Everyone approaches their representative to try and get their point brought to the 'Floor Of The House'. Very few succeed. Only when you have a lot of representatives pushing the same point something happens.

[JPaul]

Indeed, that's what the system of lobbying is designed for. Like minded people trying to influence politics.

It is freedom of expression in the same way as anything else is.

I too find their opinion wrong, we agree on that. However where we disagree is in whether they should be allowed to do it. I think freedom of expression includes that which I disagree with, else the system is wrong. Who is to arbitrate on which lobbies will be allowed.

[vidcc]

J2 i refer you to my previous posts

[vidcc]

J2 I will re-word/re-phrase re-state one more time.

I see a difference between saying "My morals disagree with this" and "my morals disagree with this so I am going to try to change the law so you have to abide by my morals"..


I stated I AM EXPRESSING MY OPINION. I stated that they have no right to try to force their morals on me, this is my OPINION. I state my opinion yet I do not go to congress to try to make this opinion law.

Today we see actual lawmakers based on their religious morals trying to limit civil rights for others...newsflash... not every American shares those morals. I am not talking about the things that lawmakers should be ruling on...social security, the budget etc. I'm talking about personal freedoms, things government has no place interfering in.

So I made a distinction between freedom of speech and direct action. I AM STATING MY OPINION...not trying to change the law.... And the issue in this thread is about moral values.... it has nothing to do with the drugs safety, it has nothing to do with its effectiveness. It has to do with forcing moral values on others that don't share them. It has to do with interfering in peoples personal lives and in this particular case that interference could lead to someone dying of cervical cancer.

I will stand next to you and fight for your right to speak your mind even if I disagree with you, I will stand in your way if you try to force others to comply with your personal moral values. Do you see the difference?

If you wish people to follow your moral values do it by expressing your opinion and debate, convincing them, not by legislation. Our lawmakers could do with remembering what the word freedom means. They represent ALL Americans and not just the ones that voted them in.

[Rat Faced]

Ah but vdcc, even if they actually manage to get through Congress..something i doubt at the moment...

In the USA, the president can disregard 'the people' via his veto... wait a minute, he'd pass this one.. :rolleyes:



That veto, especially when its admitted to be his personal moral position that makes use of the veto, is wrong.

Thats not Democracy, its akin to totalitarian...

Perhaps, if some politicians stopped acting like infidells, we might listen to their claimed Christianity. :blink:




Is this the shortest post covering the largest number of subjects i've tried?

If this dont confuse Magic, i dunno what will :blink:

[vidcc]

Rat
They are getting through.....



I think we agree that all governments could do with a good cleaning.

It's a whole different subject but the "veto" is supposed to serve a purpose. Clinton used it to kill a late term abortion ban, not because he is pro abortion...he isn't despite what J2 will say...but because the bill didn't allow for the procedure because of the woman's health... as far as I understand. ( be prepared for many spinned arguments on the reason)
Bush should be using his veto on some of these outrageous budget "pork" but he doesn't. He has threatened to veto stem cell funding. Personally I feel especially in light of what was said about fairness in a "fair" up or down vote for judges I feel he should stick with those principles and follow the up or down vote on funding...that is if the threat to tie up the bill and prevent a vote made by some republicans is overcome.

The veto is open to abuse, but I don't think I would like to be rid of it. In the right hands it is a vital safety net to protect the people. In the wrong hands it is as you say anti-democratic.

[JPaul]

So you object to any form of political lobbying, because if you object to any you must object to all.

Otherwise someone has to decide which is allowed and which is not. Who makes that decision.

[vidcc]

Jpaul

You are either not getting this at all or are being deliberately argumentative.


I will stand next to you and fight for your right to speak your mind even if I disagree with you, I will stand in your way if you try to force others to comply with your personal moral values. Do you see the difference?

By what you are saying I must not object to anything but instead allow it to pass without resistance because it's "free speech"

I am not objecting to them having this opinion. What I am saying is that I will try to stop their attempts to make others comply by law. (although I am not trying here...I am just stating my opinion)

It is anti free speech to try to stop people saying what they believe.

It is not anti free speech to disagree with them

It is not anti free speech to object to someone's attempts to impose their views

It is not anti free speech to try to stop them imposing their views

[JPaul]

No, I really amn't understanding you.

You object to this group using the political lobby, you see that as them trying to impose their views on others. Which is exactly what the lobby is for, to influence politics in the direction you want it to go.

Does that mean you object to the political lobby per se, as it's use is a form of imposing one's views on others.

[Busyman]

vid how exactly does one impose their view anyway? :huh:

Views can't really be changed by another but rather influenced to change.

[Rat Faced]

The answer of course is simple.

These vaccinations are probably the product of a major Laboratory/Company.

If the USA will not sanction their testing or people are causing problems then go somewhere else that will allow this research/testing, such as the UK.

I'm sure that we can handle the extra Jobs and, when the vaccination is proven and on the market over here i'm sure that the public demand in the USA will force them to allow it over there.

Contrary wise, if it is unworkable then the lobbyists will have won.

A win/win situation for everyone except the American workforce; but sinse when have Bush Inc. worried about them?

[vidcc]

vid how exactly does one impose their view anyway? :huh:

Views can't really be changed by another but rather influenced to change.

By getting it put into legislation. As an example let's say your religion prohibits eating pork. You have the right to tell people that eating pork is wrong that's free speech... getting or trying to get the law to prohibit eating pork even for people that don't share your religion is trying to impose. It doesn't mean you change their views on eating pork, it means you prevent them from eating pork.

[vidcc]

No, I really amn't understanding you.



then you shall have to stay in the dark because i am not going over it again

[vidcc]

Rat

These people don't want the vaccinations done on "moral" grounds. It has nothing to do with medical reasons.

But even if the testing scenario where to happen it still wouldn't be accepted here as our law requires we do our own tests.

[JPaul]

No, I really amn't understanding you.



then you shall have to stay in the dark because i am not going over it again
Oh well, we shall never know whether you object to the political lobby per se, or just want to deny it to those who have a different view from you.

Pity you couldn't just answer a simple question like that. Or did your non sequiturs place you is such an onerous position that even you couldn't waffle out of it.

[vidcc]

then you shall have to stay in the dark because i am not going over it again
Oh well, we shall never know whether you object to the political lobby per se, or just want to deny it to those who have a different view from you.

Pity you couldn't just answer a simple question like that. Or did your non sequiturs place you is such an onerous position that even you couldn't waffle out of it.
I answered it several times

[JPaul]

Only with waffle, reminiscent of political speak.

I am now confident that you will not give a straight answer to the question. That comes as no surprise, as to do so would confirm that you actually do not approve of freedom of expression. At least not for those who disagree with you.

[Rat Faced]

Rat

These people don't want the vaccinations done on "moral" grounds. It has nothing to do with medical reasons.

But even if the testing scenario where to happen it still wouldn't be accepted here as our law requires we do our own tests.

There is nothing stopping those tests being carried out abroad, as long as the standards are up to those the FDA require. As its an American company, one would assume they would be able to anticipate which tests the FDA would want, and carry these out at the same time as those required for licensing elsewhere.

"Moral Grounds" would go out of the window, under the pressure of those that want the vaccination available if its successful elswhere.

I would assume that the people that have suffered from any form of Cancer, plus their Friends and Families and the medical establishment as a whole added together would be a much louder voice than those idiots.

[JPaul]

I would assume that the people that have suffered from any form of Cancer, plus their Friends and Families and the medical establishment as a whole added together would be a much louder voice than those idiots.
I agree.

Their collective voices would be louder.

[Busyman]

vid how exactly does one impose their view anyway? :huh:

Views can't really be changed by another but rather influenced to change.
getting or trying to get the law to prohibit eating pork even for people that don't share your religion is trying to impose.
That's lobbying.

I see no problem.

[vidcc]

dull dull dull


It bothers me not one bit, you have the answer you just have to read

[JPaul]

dull dull dull


It bothers me not one bit, you have the answer you just have to read
Thanks for the confirmation.

TTFN

[Rat Faced]

getting or trying to get the law to prohibit eating pork even for people that don't share your religion is trying to impose.
That's lobbying.

I see no problem.

And if they passed this law... then i'd disregard it.

Never could resist a nice Pork Pie :)


Connection Rejected: 198.81.129.100 - Central Intelligence Agency (05-30-2005 @ 21:03:13)

I really must object to the poppy growers fan club trying to get Air America off me though :blink:

[clocker]

"Moral Grounds" would go out of the window, under the pressure of those that want the vaccination available if its successful elswhere.

I would assume that the people that have suffered from any form of Cancer, plus their Friends and Families and the medical establishment as a whole added together would be a much louder voice than those idiots.
A situation very analogous to the stem cell research brouhaha of two years ago.
Bush and his fundamentalist supporters made political hay out of that debate, stopped funding for research, and are now facing a rising tide of resentment and pressure to reverse the ban.
Of course, for the man who declared "Mission accomplished!" in Iraq two years ago, a reversal like this would be somehow construed as another victory.

We really are idiots.

[vidcc]

J2

So I have no right to try to prevent moral values being made laws? I have no right to object and try to prevent moral intervention hindering medical treatment?.

How would you describe a law which tries to dictate how you live your life ?


I'm sure an example such as a social healthcare system that "forces you to pay for the treatment of others" will help you.

We hear the word "freedom" vomit its way out of Bush's mouth every time he talks to the press. What do you consider freedom? Is it freedom to run your own life by your own values or is it freedom to change laws so that others have to live their lives by your values.

As I said I will fight for your right to say eating pork is wrong but I will fight against you if you try to make it law that I can't eat pork...what is so hard to understand about that?

[vidcc]

To clarify even further, I wonder what you mean when you say "I would stand in your way"; you propose to limit my efforts to (in your words)" impose my will on others"?

yet you don't ask what I mean when I say "I will fight for your right". If you don't literally expect me to get a gun would it have been easier to get if I had said "I would fight your view"


Who gets to define the point at which your efforts to oppose me exceed acceptable limits?

Nobody.... you would be opposed at all levels, just as the abortion debate is.


In any case, I do not propose to do more than I do in this forum, and I have ample evidence to prove I have not changed your mind one iota-are we to fear that your garden-variety politician is not made of sterner stuff than your esteemed self? :huh: given today's lawmakers do you think that the FRC would be greeted by open or closed ears? It doesn't matter that we have millions of Americans with no health insurance...what's important is ridding us of those evil homosexuals. It doesn't matter that we could cure living people...we must stop stem cell research :dry:


You really must learn to submit to superior reasoning, buddy. :P

Haven't come across any yet but when I do you will be the first one I will turn to about how it is done ( I know you conservatives like the freaky s&m stuff ;) )

[vidcc]

I'll let you in on a little secret, vid.

Legislators are exactly like us; you will not change their minds; the most one can do is give them pause.

Take this to the bank:

The legislature will not enact such a law based upon Bush's wish alone; they will make a decision based upon whether it will lend to their re-election, period, which is to say that they will vote whichever way they gauge their constituency to be leaning, which, in turn, renders the appropriate result:

A majority is required to achieve re-election, which means that the electorate's wishes are served, and that is the way the system is supposed to work, whether you like it or not.
well gee... thanks for the janet and john guide to politics :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

J2

So I have no right to try to prevent moral values being made laws? I have no right to object and try to prevent moral intervention hindering medical treatment?
Of course you have the right. That's also lobbying....exerting your influence...whatever. You get it.

I really don't see your argument here. It's simple.

You have the right to exert influence on your legislature to make new laws, to remove existing ones, and to vote for or against laws on the table.

Some of you are arguing semantics when there are no semantics.

Break everything down to it's simplest form and it makes better sense.

[clocker]

I have mentioned here many times-Bush has only tried to forestall taxpayer money being spent (by our spendthrift house) on stem-cell research.


Would that be the Republican controlled House you are referring to?

How thoughtful of Dubya...really looking out for our interests...let's stop squandering millions on medical research whilst squandering billions on his mismanaged Middle East policies.

Gee, I wish we could elect this paragon of fiscal responsibility again.

[Rat Faced]

and that is the way the system is supposed to work,

Yep, thats the way its supposed to work.

It doesnt though, does it?

A Lot of people vote for a party purely because they always have, or 'coz their father did etc and their are so many safe states that only a few need to consider their electorate feel about an issue. These then get castigated when they dont "Toe the Party Line" and vote with the opposition on particular Bills etc.

Party Politics, and not the views of the people that voted for them, are the order of the day.

[bigboab]

I have mentioned here many times-Bush has only tried to forestall taxpayer money being spent (by our spendthrift house) on stem-cell research.


Would that be the Republican controlled House you are referring to?

How thoughtful of Dubya...really looking out for our interests...let's stop squandering millions on medical research whilst squandering billions on his mismanaged Middle East policies.

Gee, I wish we could elect this paragon of fiscal responsibility again.

Give him time. The constitution could be amended to allow this.:ph34r:

[vidcc]

J2

So I have no right to try to prevent moral values being made laws? I have no right to object and try to prevent moral intervention hindering medical treatment?
Of course you have the right. That's also lobbying....exerting your influence...whatever. You get it.

I really don't see your argument here. It's simple.


It appears you don't get the argument...even though it is simple...you have missed it by miles. But you finally hit the nail without realising it.
You have the right to lobby..I have the right to object....

Originally Posted by vidcc
I will stand next to you and fight for your right to speak your mind even if I disagree with you, I will stand in your way if you try to force others to comply with your personal moral values.
I haven't said I wish to ban lobbying. I said I object to people trying to impose moral values by making them law.


object :To be averse to or express disapproval of something.

[clocker]

The war aside, I have no reason to state they're any less adept at spending than the Dem versions of years past.

Given, though, that the Dems had many, many more years to perfect their technique, I'll stick with the Republicans for at least a few more cycles.
"Any less adept"?
Tsk, tsk, no need to be modest.

After all, your beloved Prez and cronies engineered the largest reversal from surplus to deficit in American history.
And it only took three years.

If we give them any more time to "perfect their technique", they will bankrupt the Universe.

Mission Accomplished!

[clocker]

Let us not resort to flowery overstatement or we'll be here all night. ;)
Sorry.
I was an English major.



It's a character flaw.

[bigboab]

Let us not resort to flowery overstatement or we'll be here all night. ;)
Sorry.
I was an English major.



It's a character flaw.

Clocker was in the British army? Undercover?:ph34r:

[clocker]

Indeed, yes.

I rose to the rank of Righttenent.

[Busyman]

Of course you have the right. That's also lobbying....exerting your influence...whatever. You get it.

I really don't see your argument here. It's simple.


It appears you don't get the argument...even though it is simple...you have missed it by miles. But you finally hit the nail without realising it.
You have the right to lobby..I have the right to object....

Originally Posted by vidcc
I will stand next to you and fight for your right to speak your mind even if I disagree with you, I will stand in your way if you try to force others to comply with your personal moral values.
I haven't said I wish to ban lobbying. I said I object to people trying to impose moral values by making them law.


object :To be averse to or express disapproval of something.
I haven't missed anything by miles.

Many moral values are built into law. If I missed something you weren't conveying your points clearly. You harping on your right to object and whatnot.

If an unfair law that is proposed makes it through to the books then you have the right of protest.

It ain't rocket science.

[vidcc]

I haven't missed anything by miles.

Many moral values are built into law. If I missed something you weren't conveying your points clearly. You harping on your right to object and whatnot.



Perhaps you should read what my posts say and not what jpaul says they say

[Mr JP Fugley]

I haven't missed anything by miles.

Many moral values are built into law. If I missed something you weren't conveying your points clearly. You harping on your right to object and whatnot.



Perhaps you should read what my posts say and not what jpaul says they say
Nice one, petulantly insult two people with the same post.

My sincere congratulations.

What confuses folk is what your posts say, or try to. Like I said earlier your use of the non sequitur is oft times masterly and is to your debit.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Clocker was in the British army? Undercover?:ph34r:

Not quite undercover; he flew, though, under a different name-perhaps you remember Major Darling?

He of the twitchy eye? :D
I believe he made it to Captain.

So unless he was one of the few who survived Flanders, or got it posthumously then that was the heady heights which he achieved.

I believe our chum may be trying to mislead you with his tales.

[Rat Faced]

Clocker was in the British army? Undercover?:ph34r:

Not quite undercover; he flew, though, under a different name-perhaps you remember Major Darling?

He of the twitchy eye? :D

Tsk, there is no excuse to give Captain Darling a Promotion.

He dies in the same episode as Captain Blackadder :P

[Rat Faced]

Bugger beat me to it :(

[vidcc]

Perhaps you should read what my posts say and not what jpaul says they say
Nice one, petulantly insult two people with the same post.

My sincere congratulations.

What confuses folk is what your posts say, or try to. Like I said earlier your use of the non sequitur is oft times masterly and is to your debit.
:sleep1:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Nice one, petulantly insult two people with the same post.

My sincere congratulations.

What confuses folk is what your posts say, or try to. Like I said earlier your use of the non sequitur is oft times masterly and is to your debit.
:sleep1:
At last, something coherent and cogent.

"I want to pretend that I'm not replying, while still replying."

hobbes may note the passive aggressive undertones, I wouldn't dream of it.

[vidcc]

:sleep1:
At last, something coherent and cogent.

"I want to pretend that I'm not replying, while still replying."

hobbes may note the passive aggressive undertones, I wouldn't dream of it.
I'm not pretending that i am not replying.... your post set off the auto dull response..... obviously it got to you. :rolleyes:

[Mr JP Fugley]

At last, something coherent and cogent.

"I want to pretend that I'm not replying, while still replying."

hobbes may note the passive aggressive undertones, I wouldn't dream of it.
I'm not pretending that i am not replying.... your post set off the auto dull response..... obviously it got to you. :rolleyes:

Obviously, it was so well thought out, argued and presented it could do nothing but get to me.

Your use of the smillie as a debating technique is second to none. So much better than when you try to use words.

[vidcc]

blah blah dull dull


:rolleyes: ..yup..you just keep replying and each time it gets duller

[manker]

Vid, please post what exactly you mean.

I'm also unable to grasp how you can say that you're for freedom of expression but you wish to prevent other people's pushing for their own moral values (provided you disagree with them) to become law.

Seems a bit daft, to me.

[vidcc]

Vid, please post what exactly you mean.

I'm also unable to grasp how you can say that you're for freedom of expression but you wish to prevent other people's pushing for their own moral values (provided you disagree with them) to become law.

Seems a bit daft, to me.

please give me an example of something done in the uk you disagree with...it could be anything from the poll tax to keeping the monarchy

edit: Where did I say I wish to prevent?

[manker]

Okay. I totally disagree with people who spend money beyond their means and then whine about being in debt.

===

I don't need you to approximate this to my situation.

I merely want you to clarify your position when asked to do so by folk that simply don't know where the hell you're coming from.

[vidcc]

Jpaul is the one that suggested i wish to prevent people from trying. I simply said i disagree with people trying to get their personal values into law so those that don't share them have to abide by them.

I don't have to give up my right to free speech or freedom of expression to be a champion of those ideals.

i was more thinking of government acts than what people do when i asked for an example.

[manker]

Jpaul is the one that suggested i wish to prevent people from trying. I simply said i disagree with people trying to get their personal values into law so those that don't share them have to abide by them.

I don't have to give up my right to free speech or freedom of expression to be a champion of those ideals.

i was more thinking of government acts than what people do.I realise what you said.

Surely though you would try to get your own personal values made law, given the opportunity - this is only what the people you disagree with are doing.

If you had the right to authorise, for example, independent inspections of Guantanamo Bay to ensure that the prisoners were not being mistreated, then presumably you would do so. There will be folk who think that the current administration should be totally insular and responsible for policing their actions, you'd be forcing your ideal upon them.

To say it's okay for me to do it (lobby) but not okay for someone I disagree with to do it (lobby) isn't really being a champion of freedom of expression.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The problem is that freedom of expression, in my view, must be absolute.

Everyone has the right to express their view as they see fit (as long as it is peaceful), including lobbying their representatives. Other people can lobby the contrary view.

I really don't know how someone can say they support freedom of expression, but then deny other people that absolute right. Hence my non-sequitur comments.

I genuinely do not understand the position vidcc is taking - I support freedom of expression, but I wish to limit it. A limited freedom is not a freedom.

[vidcc]

I realise what you said.then why ask me to explain it :unsure:


Surely though you would try to get your own personal values made law, given the opportunity - this is only what the people you disagree with are doing.

NO.... I believe my moral values are just that....mine.... and I don't try to get them made law


If you had the right to authorise, for example, independent inspections of Guantanamo Bay to ensure that the prisoners were not being mistreated, then presumably you would do so. There will be folk who think that the current administration should be totally insular and responsible for policing their actions, you'd be forcing your ideal upon them.

This isn't a personal moral value issue so it doesn't attach to what i am saying.


To say it's okay for me to do it (lobby) but not okay for someone I disagree with to do it (lobby) isn't really being a champion of freedom of expression.
If I actually wanted to make a law to stop them from being able to do it I would agree, but I do not. All I did was express an opinion...that's free speech.

Do you not see any difference between saying I don't think they should be allowed and actually trying to stop them?.

If someone said I don't like watching football you would be fine with that. Surely you would oppose them trying stop you watching it as well.

[vidcc]

I genuinely do not understand the position vidcc is taking - I support freedom of expression, but I wish to limit it. A limited freedom is not a freedom.

you do not understand it because that is not the position i am taking

[Mr JP Fugley]

Yes it is if you deny the political lobby.

[vidcc]

Yes it is if you deny the political lobby.

Tell me how I am denying it.

[manker]

then why ask me to explain it :unsure:
'Cos it doesn't make sense.

Surely though you would try to get your own personal values made law, given the opportunity - this is only what the people you disagree with are doing.

NO.... I believe my moral values are just that....mine.... and I don't try to get them made law
Moral values are you what you hold to be right and wrong.

If you had the right to authorise, for example, independent inspections of Guantanamo Bay to ensure that the prisoners were not being mistreated, then presumably you would do so. There will be folk who think that the current administration should be totally insular and responsible for policing their actions, you'd be forcing your ideal upon them.

This isn't a personal moral value issue so it doesn't attach to what i am saying.
You don't have an opinion on whether self regulation of Guantanamo Bay within the current administration is right or wrong. My apologies. How about ... US troops in Iraq?


To say it's okay for me to do it (lobby) but not okay for someone I disagree with to do it (lobby) isn't really being a champion of freedom of expression.
If I actually wanted to make a law to stop them from being able to do it I would agree, but I do not. All I did was express an opinion...that's free speech.

Do you not see any difference between saying I don't think they should be allowed and actually trying to stop them?.

If someone said I don't like watching football you would be fine with that. Surely you would oppose them trying stop you watching it as well.Of course there is a difference. However, you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they believe is right but still believing you should be allowed to state what you believe is wrong or right (or in this case, lobby to get it made law) -- is daft.

People who have different values of right and wrong to you have the same moral right to vocalise their feelings, in the form of lobbying, as you do. To disagree with this statement goes against freedom of expression


====


You know, I think you're trying to wriggle out of it by making a moral issue into something far too narrow. Our morals tell us what is right and what is wrong. If this is not what you meant then I believe it may be the root of the consternation.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Yes it is if you deny the political lobby.

Tell me how I am denying it.
You are saying that people should not try to influence the law.

That's what political lobbying is for.

[vidcc]

then why ask me to explain it :unsure:
'Cos it doesn't make sense.


NO.... I believe my moral values are just that....mine.... and I don't try to get them made law
Moral values are you what you hold to be right and wrong.

If you had the right to authorise, for example, independent inspections of Guantanamo Bay to ensure that the prisoners were not being mistreated, then presumably you would do so. There will be folk who think that the current administration should be totally insular and responsible for policing their actions, you'd be forcing your ideal upon them.

This isn't a personal moral value issue so it doesn't attach to what i am saying.
You don't have an opinion on whether self regulation of Guantanamo Bay within the current administration is right or wrong. My apologies. How about ... US troops in Iraq?


To say it's okay for me to do it (lobby) but not okay for someone I disagree with to do it (lobby) isn't really being a champion of freedom of expression.
If I actually wanted to make a law to stop them from being able to do it I would agree, but I do not. All I did was express an opinion...that's free speech.

Do you not see any difference between saying I don't think they should be allowed and actually trying to stop them?.

If someone said I don't like watching football you would be fine with that. Surely you would oppose them trying stop you watching it as well.Of course there is a difference. However, you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they believe is right but still believing you should be allowed to state what you believe is wrong or right (or in this case, lobby to get it made law) -- is daft.

People who have different values of right and wrong to you have the same moral right to vocalise their feelings, in the form of lobbying, as you do. To disagree with this statement goes against freedom of expression

No i am not. I am saying i object to people trying to force their moral values on me. i am not trying to stop them lobbying i just disagree with them trying to make their moral values law. If they where just saying what they think then i have no problem with their opinion even if i disagree
====


You know, I think you're trying to wriggle out of it by making a moral issue into something far too narrow. Our morals tell us what is right and what is wrong. If this is not what you meant then I believe it may be the root of the consternation.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, my stance has remained unchanged.
the whole point of the thread was about moral values, in this case people wishing to block a vaccine that reduces cervical cancer because they say it will encourage promiscuity.

[vidcc]

Tell me how I am denying it.
You are saying that people should not try to influence the law.

That's what political lobbying is for.

saying I disagree with them doing it when it is based on moral values . NOT stopping them. If I was trying to stop them I would be anti expression. I haven't said I wish to deny them I said I disagree. You are the one that said I wish to deny them the right to lobby...and seeing as you are not me you can't say what I am wanting to do

[manker]

No i am not. I am saying i object to people trying to force their moral values on me. i am not trying to stop them lobbying i just disagree with them trying to make their moral values law. If they where just saying what they think then i have no problem with their opinion even if i disagree

I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, my stance has remained unchanged.
the whole point of the thread was about moral values, in this case people wishing to block a vaccine that reduces cervical cancer because they say it will encourage promiscuity.You said you disagreed with people trying to get their moral values made law. This is lobbying, is it not.

To disagree with people lobbying about something you don't like yet agreeing with people lobbying about something you think is okay with isn't what freedom of expression is all about.

Now, I might disagree with their sentiment (ban soccer) but I would not disagree with their actions (lobbying to ban soccer).

[vidcc]

No i am not. I am saying i object to people trying to force their moral values on me. i am not trying to stop them lobbying i just disagree with them trying to make their moral values law. If they where just saying what they think then i have no problem with their opinion even if i disagree

I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, my stance has remained unchanged.
the whole point of the thread was about moral values, in this case people wishing to block a vaccine that reduces cervical cancer because they say it will encourage promiscuity.You said you disagreed with people trying to get their moral values made law. This is lobbying, is it not.

To disagree with people lobbying about something you don't like yet agreeing with people lobbying about something you think is okay with isn't what freedom of expression is all about.

Now, I might disagree with their sentiment (ban soccer) but I would not disagree with their actions (lobbying to ban soccer).

But because I believe in freedom of expression I AM allowing them to lobby and I am not trying to stop them lobbying despite my opinion on their actions.

you would oppose anyone trying to stop you watching football. That's all I have said...I would oppose anyone trying to make a law base on their moral values.
Why is it ok to say I will fight for your right to say something even if I disagree with what you say and not ok to say I will fight for your right to do something even if I disagree with what or why you are doing it?. I haven't once said lobbying should be banned I simply said I disagree with it when based on moral values.

I am not anti free speech if I don't think you should be saying something I am anti free speech if I stop you saying it. There are many things people shouldn't say but they have every right to say it anyway.

Like I said you have the right to lobby, I have the right to object. Freedom or speech and freedom of expression is not a one way street.

[Busyman]

I haven't missed anything by miles.

Many moral values are built into law. If I missed something you weren't conveying your points clearly. You harping on your right to object and whatnot.



Perhaps you should read what my posts say and not what jpaul says they say
Tbh I skipped JP's posts to an extent and responded just to yours,

Your posts are sounding like a big clusterfuck.

Most of us will agree with you regarding the article.

However, you keep harping on "you have the right to object."

On that note, no shit. You are in essence, lobbying. You are just on the other side of the issue.

Regarding "moral values being forced upon you." Sorry but that's where most of our laws came to fruition. :blink:

Hey I'd like to marry 3 women. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to fuck for money. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to smoke weed to get high at home. The law says I can't do it.
Some 30 year-old fella wants to fuck a 16 year-old girl. The law says he can't do it.
Some female wants to abort her baby 7-months into the pregancy. The law says she can't do it.
A family would like to eat a Poodle for dinner. The law says they can't do it.
I'd like to walk in my front yard naked. The law says I can't do it.
Men can run around outside with no shirt on. Some women would like to also. The law says she can't do it.

Tired of moral values being forced upon you? Fight for change or shut-up.....

..and force your moral values upon them 'cause that's all your doing. :dry:

[vidcc]

However, you keep harping on "you have the right to object."

I am responding to accusations how am i harping?

On that note, no shit. You are in essence, lobbying. You are just on the other side of the issue.
No shit sherlock, take a brain cell out of petty cash



Regarding "moral values being forced upon you." Sorry but that's where most of our laws came to fruition. :blink:

Does that make them right ?

Hey I'd like to marry 3 women. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to fuck for money. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to smoke weed to get high at home. The law says I can't do it.
Some 30 year-old fella wants to fuck a 16 year-old girl. The law says he can't do it.
Some female wants to abort her baby 7-months into the pregancy. The law says she can't do it.
A family would like to eat a Poodle for dinner. The law says they can't do it.
I'd like to walk in my front yard naked. The law says I can't do it.
Men can run around outside with no shirt on. Some women would like to also. The law says she can't do it.

Tired of moral values being forced upon you? Fight for change or shut-up.....
lets close the forum down as opinion should not be stated BTW . you know nothing of my past or present so your line here is bull crap
..and force your moral values upon them 'cause that's all your doing. :dry:

there is a difference between fighting against a law that stops you doing something in your own home that doesn't affect anyone but yourself and fighting for a law to stop your actions affecting others. You can walk around naked in your own home as much as you like If your fence is high enough that your actions do not affect others that's fine, walk around naked in my home and i'll set the dogs on you.

there are many unjust laws already... we don't need more.

[manker]

Vid, you definitely said that you disagree with people trying to get their moral values made law.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with people lobbying about values they hold true. If you disagree with people lobbying then you disagree with people expressing themselves politically about such values.

A moral value is not such a narrow definition to only encompass sexual or religious values, a moral value is a value one holds based on instinct regarding one's sense of right and wrong. Which is why my reference to Guantanamo Bay is valid. If I was a US citizen and lobbied for allowing inspections in Guantanamo in order to preserve the prisoners' rights, then I would be trying to make a small part of my moral values law.

Something you say you disagree with.


You say that you don't wish to stop people doing it but by merely expressing your disagreement you may well do that. If someone who respected you got wind of your stance then it may dissuade them.



If a person thought soccer corrupted children because of the violence and intended to lobby the govt (a bleeding heart liberal, for example).

I would say to him that if he truly believes that it would benefit society, he should lobby for a country-wide ban on soccer, wheras you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

[Rat Faced]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...

...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.

The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.

[manker]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...

...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.

The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.Nice one, RF. In part it's what I'm trying to say ... I agree with you entirely.

[vidcc]

Vid, you definitely said that you disagree with people trying to get their moral values made law.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with people lobbying about values they hold true. If you disagree with people lobbying then you disagree with people expressing themselves politically about such values.

A moral value is not such a narrow definition to only encompass sexual or religious values, a moral value is a value one holds based on instinct regarding one's sense of right and wrong. Which is why my reference to Guantanamo Bay is valid. If I was a US citizen and lobbied for allowing inspections in Guantanamo in order to preserve the prisoners' rights, then I would be trying to make a small part of my moral values law.

Something you say you disagree with.


You say that you don't wish to stop people doing it but by merely expressing your disagreement you may well do that. If someone who respected you got wind of your stance then it may dissuade them.



If a person thought soccer corrupted children because of the violence and intended to lobby the govt (a bleeding heart liberal, for example).

I would say to him that if he truly believes that it would benefit society, he should lobby for a country-wide ban on soccer, wheras you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute. going in circles here.

you are half right on one thing
I you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree. ii would indeed tell him I disagree, but I wouldn't tell him he cannot.

the rest is just the same circular argument.

[manker]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.


You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

Btw, spammer :dry:

[vidcc]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

.
Most laws I'd agree, but as I have said my objection is about personal moral values.
If I make "values" the wide scope manker suggests then for example you may think smoking should be banned in public places as it affects others. That is just.. it is unjust to ban smoking in private homes, that is infringing on personal freedoms.

the fact that laws were mostly based on someone's morals doesn't make them just and it's better to prevent an unjust law than have to repeal it.

[vidcc]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.


You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

Btw, spammer :dry:
i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.

[Busyman]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...

...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.

The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.Nice one, RF. In part it's what I'm trying to say ... I agree with you entirely.
Oh gawd. I basically said the same thing and now "you agree...entirely". :lol: :lol: :lol:

[manker]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.


You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

Btw, spammer :dry:
i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.Doesn't matter how little you think they mean, the fact that you've acknowledged that they mean something means that my assertion is correct.

You disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

[Busyman]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

.
Most laws I'd agree, but as I have said my objection is about personal moral values.
If I make "values" the wide scope manker suggests then for example you may think smoking should be banned in public places as it affects others. That is just.. it is unjust to ban smoking in private homes, that is infringing on personal freedoms.

the fact that laws were mostly based on someone's morals doesn't make them just and it's better to prevent an unjust law than have to repeal it.
Some of what I already stated has to do with "personal moral values." :dry:

[manker]

Nice one, RF. In part it's what I'm trying to say ... I agree with you entirely.
Oh gawd. I basically said the same thing and now "you agree...entirely". :lol: :lol: :lol:Meh, who reads your posts :snooty:






Jus' kidding, I have been typing and working a fair bit tonight, I prolly missed it as I was focusing on vid's. RF posted in a lull.

[vidcc]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.



Btw, spammer :dry:
i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.Doesn't matter how little you think they mean, the fact that you've acknowledged that they mean something means that my assertion is correct.

You disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute. nice try but you are wrong, perhaps i should rephrase...words mean nothing..actions or lack of mean everything.. try to refrain from pointing to the dictionary

[manker]

i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.Doesn't matter how little you think they mean, the fact that you've acknowledged that they mean something means that my assertion is correct.

You disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute. nice try but you are wrong, perhaps i should rephrase...words mean nothing.... try to refrain from pointing to the dictionary
Wriggle wriggle.

It's okay, you're off the hook. I'm going to bed ;)

[vidcc]

Doesn't matter how little you think they mean, the fact that you've acknowledged that they mean something means that my assertion is correct.

You disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute. nice try but you are wrong, perhaps i should rephrase...words mean nothing.... try to refrain from pointing to the dictionary
Wriggle wriggle.

It's okay, you're off the hook. I'm going to bed ;)

sleep is for wimps

[Busyman]

However, you keep harping on "you have the right to object."

I am responding to accusations how am i harping?

On that note, no shit. You are in essence, lobbying. You are just on the other side of the issue.
No shit sherlock, take a brain cell out of petty cash
Hmm. I didn't hear no shit when RF said it. :dry:


Regarding "moral values being forced upon you." Sorry but that's where most of our laws came to fruition. :blink:

Does that make them right ?
Who's says what's right then?
Hey I'd like to marry 3 women. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to fuck for money. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to smoke weed to get high at home. The law says I can't do it.
Some 30 year-old fella wants to fuck a 16 year-old girl. The law says he can't do it.
Some female wants to abort her baby 7-months into the pregancy. The law says she can't do it.
A family would like to eat a Poodle for dinner. The law says they can't do it.
I'd like to walk in my front yard naked. The law says I can't do it.
Men can run around outside with no shirt on. Some women would like to also. The law says she can't do it.

Tired of moral values being forced upon you? Fight for change or shut-up.....
lets close the forum down as opinion should not be stated BTW . you know nothing of my past or present so your line here is bull crapHey I don't like certain moral values made into law either but certain ones I do. However I don't disagree with folks trying to lobby ffs.
..and force your moral values upon them 'cause that's all your doing. :dry:

there is a difference between fighting against a law that stops you doing something in your own home that doesn't affect anyone but yourself and fighting for a law to stop your actions affecting others. You can walk around naked in your own home as much as you like If your fence is high enough that your actions do not affect others that's fine, walk around naked in my home and i'll set the dogs on you.

there are many unjust laws already... we don't need more.
Their are many laws that don't make allowances 'for your own home.'

Weed smoking is one them. Prostitution is another. I could easily go on.

On the real, you have a problem with folks lobbying for laws that you disagree with.

That's what this comes down to. :dry:

[vidcc]

Their are many laws that don't make allowances 'for your own home.'

Weed smoking is one them. Prostitution is another. I could easily go on.

I said there are unjust laws... if you wish to smoke weed in your home you should be allowed to.... you should not be allowed to smoke it in a public place where others can breathe your smoke and you should not be allowed to "drag and drive"... If you are a druggie and you commit a crime because you are high then the fact that you were high and didn't know what you were doing is no defence.

I see no harm in legalising prostitution, IF it would get it off the streets and under control so we don't have enforced prostitution (there is a slave trade in existence) or the "pimp" issue. Also regulation could reduce the health risks. Brothels should come under zoning laws so you don't have men going in and out of the "house next door"... there are many reasons why legalisation is justified... but it would need policing... and frankly I don't think we could stop "rouges" or underage walking the streets...that should always be illegal.

Neither of these things I agree with from a personal viewpoint. I am anti drug from a health point of view but if you want to harm yourself fine, as long as you harm nobody else. I have never nor would I ever use a prostitute. But it won't affect me if you did....so given the criteria above (not a total package) then smoke and screw away.


On the real, you have a problem with folks lobbying for laws that you disagree with.

That's what this comes down to. :dry:
No shit..... you really must be high tonight to be able to figure that out.... seeing as I only said it a gazillionquadbillion times.... I don't like the homosexual act, but as they don't affect me I am against any law that will deny them the right to be homosexual.

I see no difference to objecting to any attempt at making an unjust law that infringes personal freedom whatever the level the attempt is. I see no difference between my objection to them trying to make the law and lobbying against them to stop the succeeding.

Edit: BTW both you and Jpaul told the canuk he shouldn't be talking about dog welfare when there is a homeless person...... Are you both anti freespeech and anti freedom of expression?

[maebach]

i think we should slow down on mediacl advancements. think of this: people have evolved from monkeys or something, but we havent in the 5000 years. i think this could because of medical advancements and how nobody wants to die. this might be stoping us from eevolving to our next form. just a theory.

[bigboab]

there is a difference between fighting against a law that stops you doing something in your own home that doesn't affect anyone but yourself and fighting for a law to stop your actions affecting others. You can walk around naked in your own home as much as you like If your fence is high enough that your actions do not affect others that's fine, walk around naked in my home and i'll set the dogs on you.

there are many unjust laws already... we don't need more.
Their are many laws that don't make allowances 'for your own home.'

Weed smoking is one them. Prostitution is another. I could easily go on.

On the real, you have a problem with folks lobbying for laws that you disagree with.

That's what this comes down to. :dry:

Surely if someone lobby's for something I am against, then I am entitled to lobby with a case against what they are lobbying for. Once a law has been passed then everyone has to obey that law or face the consequences. Therefore the time to complain is before it reaches the deicision making.
It is too late to say everyone should obey the law, but it's OK for me to smoke pot. If that analogy fits the situation. :)

@ Vidcc please refrain from using other threads to try and prove that members sometimes forget what they said a few days ago. This is against the rules of 'This forum'. I will have you excommunicated. :ph34r:

[Busyman]

Their are many laws that don't make allowances 'for your own home.'

Weed smoking is one them. Prostitution is another. I could easily go on.

On the real, you have a problem with folks lobbying for laws that you disagree with.

That's what this comes down to. :dry:

Surely if someone lobby's for something I am against, then I am entitled to lobby with a case against what they are lobbying for. Once a law has been passed then everyone has to obey that law or face the consequences. Therefore the time to complain is before it reaches the deicision making.
It is too late to say everyone should obey the law, but it's OK for me to smoke pot. If that analogy fits the situation. :)

Oh I got it biggy. Some others don't. :ermm:

[JPaul]

Surely if someone lobby's for something I am against, then I am entitled to lobby with a case against what they are lobbying for. Once a law has been passed then everyone has to obey that law or face the consequences. Therefore the time to complain is before it reaches the deicision making.
It is too late to say everyone should obey the law, but it's OK for me to smoke pot. If that analogy fits the situation. :)

@ Vidcc please refrain from using other threads to try and prove that members sometimes forget what they said a few days ago. This is against the rules of 'This forum'. I will have you excommunicated. :ph34r:
Exactly the point, everyone is allowed to lobby on any subject they want. Obviously anyone else is allowed to lobby against it :blink: To say that is wrong to try to influence the law to reflect your views is nonsense and a denial of freedom of expression. Indeed for our friends from the USA is that right not actually part of their Constitution, I have always taken it to be so.

As you say, when the law is enacted everyone is obliged to follow it. However people are still entitled to lobby and peacefully protest to have it changed. Again freedom of expression.

Re the other matter, that would have been the old freedom of expression thing again. One person expressing an opinion and another expressing something different.

[Busyman]

I said there are unjust laws... if you wish to smoke weed in your home you should be allowed to.... you should not be allowed to smoke it in a public place where others can breathe your smoke and you should not be allowed to "drag and drive"... If you are a druggie and you commit a crime because you are high then the fact that you were high and didn't know what you were doing is no defence.

I see no harm in legalising prostitution, IF it would get it off the streets and under control so we don't have enforced prostitution (there is a slave trade in existence) or the "pimp" issue. Also regulation could reduce the health risks. Brothels should come under zoning laws so you don't have men going in and out of the "house next door"... there are many reasons why legalisation is justified... but it would need policing... and frankly I don't think we could stop "rouges" or underage walking the streets...that should always be illegal.

Neither of these things I agree with from a personal viewpoint. I am anti drug from a health point of view but if you want to harm yourself fine, as long as you harm nobody else. I have never nor would I ever use a prostitute. But it won't affect me if you did....so given the criteria above (not a total package) then smoke and screw away.


On the real, you have a problem with folks lobbying for laws that you disagree with.

That's what this comes down to. :dry:
No shit..... you really must be high tonight to be able to figure that out.... seeing as I only said it a gazillionquadbillion times....

No you haven't. You said you have a problem with people forcing their moral values upon others. Yet you are a person and would like to force your moral values upon others. :blink:

I see no difference to objecting to any attempt at making an unjust law that infringes personal freedom whatever the level the attempt is. I see no difference between my objection to them trying to make the law and lobbying against them to stop the succeeding.

Now wtf? That's what everyone in this damn thread has been saying. Oh and now YOU say it. :lol: :lol: ....and you call me high? You deserve the NO SHIT award. :trophy: As I said, great post for the article. Other than that, moral values, even personal ones, make up most of our law.

Edit: BTW both you and Jpaul told the canuk he shouldn't be talking about dog welfare when there is a homeless person...... Are you both anti freespeech and anti freedom of expression?
The dog thingie was in relation to a homeless person. Canuk can talk about what he wants.

I was just at Universoul Circus this past weekend and the PETA folks were out in full force. They yelled, "Human and animal slavery is wrong". I then said, "Why focus on the people aspect first? You are investing massive amounts of energy into......animal slavery."

Me and JP just have a different school of thought on that matter is all. When an animal and human are side-by-side we have a different priority as to which one's important.
-----
You remarked about being naked in the front yard. One could argue that the person is on their property and is not harming anyone (I guess unless they look like :shit: ). Why can't women walk around topless when men can?
You being an atheist, I get where you are coming from....if it doesn't infringe on others then there is no problem.

What about polygamy?
Euthanasia?
Drinking age?
Age of consentual sex?
What age is a minor?

The mere fact that you want to regulate prostitution comes from your personal moral values. If person A wants to pay to fuck person B in their home, what does government have to with it? What makes it special versus selling an old tire? What constitutes underage for a prostitute?

[bigboab]

What makes it special versus selling an old tire?
Nothing really, its about the same size. Or so I am led to believe.:rolleyes:

[clocker]

What makes it special versus selling an old tire?

Nothing really.
Assuming that mounting and balancing are included, of course.

[JPaul]

What makes it special versus selling an old tire?

Nothing really.
Assuming that mounting and balancing are included, of course.
:glag:

[clocker]

http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/monty1a.jpg
nudge,nudge,wink,wink....

[Rat Faced]

What about polygamy?
Euthanasia?
Drinking age?
Age of consentual sex?
What age is a minor?

Why not? One is more than enough usually though ;)

Why Not? Why do we put animals down, but make humans suffer?

This is more than one question. You can drink at 5 years old in UK, but cant buy until 18.. whats the question?

This one doesnt work anywhere, i think that all these type of laws need to be looked at. A 17 year old sleeping with his 15 year old GF is a different thing than a 39 year old having a one night stand with a 15 year old.

That is linked to the above, and again.. doesnt work. When a girl has decided she will open her legs, there is no "Law" that is gonna stop her, and no shortage of volunteers for the offer. Education and peer pressure would make a better barrier than the Law ever will.

[vidcc]

No you haven't. You said you have a problem with people forcing their moral values upon others. Yet you are a person and would like to force your moral values upon others. :blink:
No i am not because my belief in freedom of expression is stronger than my dislike of their attempt to force me to follow their bible code. Again read what i say not what jpaul says i say


Now wtf? That's what everyone in this damn thread has been saying. Oh and now YOU say it. :lol: :lol: ....and you call me high? You deserve the NO SHIT award. :trophy: As I said, great post for the article. Other than that, moral values, even personal ones, make up most of our law.

Why lobby against them? to stop something you disagree with....I have said from the start..you have the right..I have the right to oppose. you lobby against things you don't like...I don't like laws that infringe on my personal freedoms so I said I would stand in their way. I said I don't like people trying to force me to live by their values, so of course I don't LIKE them lobbying for such laws..... anyone that says they like people lobbying for laws they disagree with is a liar. That doesn't mean they are against freedom of expression. It means they believe in a principle that is greater than things they dislike.

You don't like the KKK making racists speeches at their meetings, but you believe in freedom of speech and expression (don't you?)

freedom of expression isn't "absolute" in reality. The KKK can make their speeches in a private rally in a barn in Alabama, they cannot do it in the streets of Harlem, because it would cause a riot and infringe on the freedoms of others..


The dog thingie was in relation to a homeless person. Canuk can talk about what he wants.
Me and JP just have a different school of thought on that matter is all. When an animal and human are side-by-side we have a different priority as to which one's important.


FFS is this a wind up.

You see a homeless person and you're biggest concern is whether the dog is properly looked after.

Stop feckin' anthropomorphizing, it's a dog. It needs food, water and exercise. If it doesn't get the proper food, tough. It's unlikely that the homeless person gets a proper diet either. Loads of animals don't get a proper diet. Loads of humans die every day from starvation, or disease.

In fact, here's an idea, let him eat the dog. Good meal for him and the dog out of it's misery.

Pish like this really gets my goat.

Person > Dog.

Your post agreed with jpaul...doesn't sound like you are saying he can "talk about what he wants" to me
-----
You remarked about being naked in the front yard. One could argue that the person is on their property and is not harming anyone (I guess unless they look like :shit:). Why can't women walk around topless when men can?
You being an atheist, I get where you are coming from....if it doesn't infringe on others then there is no problem.

What about polygamy?
Euthanasia?
Drinking age?
Age of consentual sex?
What age is a minor?
Do we have to go over EVERY SINGLE CASE YOU CAN THINK OF????
The mere fact that you want to regulate prostitution comes from your personal moral values. If person A wants to pay to fuck person B in their home, what does government have to with it? What makes it special versus selling an old tire? What constitutes underage for a prostitute?

I want to stop the parts that infringe on others. prostitution is a tricky one because it has so many areas that are not "personal". This is where the "as long as it affects nobody else" come in.

Marry as many women as you want, as long as you can afford it. Assisted suicide....if the safety nets are there to prevent murder...go for it.

It is all about personal moral values... Values on how one leads one's own life

[Busyman]

What about polygamy?
Euthanasia?
Drinking age?
Age of consentual sex?
What age is a minor?

Why not? One is more than enough usually though ;)

Why Not? Why do we put animals down, but make humans suffer?

This is more than one question. You can drink at 5 years old in UK, but cant buy until 18.. whats the question?

This one doesnt work anywhere, i think that all these type of laws need to be looked at. A 17 year old sleeping with his 15 year old GF is a different thing than a 39 year old having a one night stand with a 15 year old.

That is linked to the above, and again.. doesnt work. When a girl has decided she will open her legs, there is no "Law" that is gonna stop her, and no shortage of volunteers for the offer. Education and peer pressure would make a better barrier than the Law ever will.
Ahh but if a 30 year-old fucks a 16 year-old consensually, it's against the law. Why?

An 18 year-old is deemed an adult (in the US) yet can't drink alcohol. Why?

[Busyman]

No you haven't. You said you have a problem with people forcing their moral values upon others. Yet you are a person and would like to force your moral values upon others. :blink:
No i am not because my belief in freedom of expression is stronger than my dislike of their attempt to force me to follow their bible code. Again read what i say not what jpaul says i say


Now wtf? That's what everyone in this damn thread has been saying. Oh and now YOU say it. :lol: :lol: ....and you call me high? You deserve the NO SHIT award. :trophy: As I said, great post for the article. Other than that, moral values, even personal ones, make up most of our law.

I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values,

Hmmm but values make up our laws. :blink:

A person in their own front yard may just be sitting in a chair naked and can be seen from the street. Why is this illegal?
You seem to agree with this nudity "as long there is a high fence."

Marriage itself comes from moral values.
So does cursing in public.

Why lobby against them? to stop something you disagree with....I have said from the start..you have the right..I have the right to oppose. you lobby against things you don't like...I don't like laws that infringe on my personal freedoms so I said I would stand in their way. I said I don't like people trying to force me to live by their values, so of course I don't LIKE them lobbying for such laws..... anyone that says they like people lobbying for laws they disagree with is a liar. That doesn't mean they are against freedom of expression. It means they believe in a principle that is greater than things they dislike.

You don't like the KKK making racists speeches at their meetings, but you believe in freedom of speech and expression (don't you?)

freedom of expression isn't "absolute" in reality. The KKK can make their speeches in a private rally in a barn in Alabama, they cannot do it in the streets of Harlem, because it would cause a riot and infringe on the freedoms of others..


The dog thingie was in relation to a homeless person. Canuk can talk about what he wants.
Me and JP just have a different school of thought on that matter is all. When an animal and human are side-by-side we have a different priority as to which one's important.



Your post agreed with jpaul...doesn't sound like you are saying he can "talk about what he wants" to me
Yes I did agree with JP. I didn't say he can or can't talk about anthropomorphizing. I wished the PETA folks would have decided to go home instead wasting their time in front of the circus but I wouldn't have asked or wished the cops would haul them away.
-----
You remarked about being naked in the front yard. One could argue that the person is on their property and is not harming anyone (I guess unless they look like :shit:). Why can't women walk around topless when men can?
You being an atheist, I get where you are coming from....if it doesn't infringe on others then there is no problem.

What about polygamy?
Euthanasia?
Drinking age?
Age of consentual sex?
What age is a minor?
Do we have to go over EVERY SINGLE CASE YOU CAN THINK OF????
The mere fact that you want to regulate prostitution comes from your personal moral values. If person A wants to pay to fuck person B in their home, what does government have to with it? What makes it special versus selling an old tire? What constitutes underage for a prostitute?

I want to stop the parts that infringe on others. prostitution is a tricky one because it has so many areas that are not "personal". This is where the "as long as it affects nobody else" come in.

Marry as many women as you want, as long as you can afford it. Assisted suicide....if the safety nets are there to prevent murder...go for it.

It is all about personal moral values... Values on how one leads one's own life

I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values,

Hmmm but values make up our laws. :blink:

A person in their own front yard may just be sitting in a chair naked and can be seen from the street. Why is this illegal?
You seem to agree with this nudity "as long there is a high fence."

Marriage itself comes from moral values.
So does cursing in public.

[Rat Faced]

Why not? One is more than enough usually though ;)

Why Not? Why do we put animals down, but make humans suffer?

This is more than one question. You can drink at 5 years old in UK, but cant buy until 18.. whats the question?

This one doesnt work anywhere, i think that all these type of laws need to be looked at. A 17 year old sleeping with his 15 year old GF is a different thing than a 39 year old having a one night stand with a 15 year old.

That is linked to the above, and again.. doesnt work. When a girl has decided she will open her legs, there is no "Law" that is gonna stop her, and no shortage of volunteers for the offer. Education and peer pressure would make a better barrier than the Law ever will.
Ahh but if a 30 year-old fucks a 16 year-old consensually, it's against the law. Why?

An 18 year-old is deemed an adult (in the US) yet can't drink alcohol. Why?

In parts of the USA, which has possibly the highest "Age of Consent" in the free world :P

Thats why i said 15, as this covers the UK and most of the States... although not some other countries i can think of.

As to the alcohol, think yourself lucky... there was a time it was illegal altogether there ;) (Its 18 to buy alcohol in UK, although perfectly legal to drink it from age 5 under supervision and if it wasnt bought specifically for you or in a licensed premises/public place)

[Busyman]

Ahh but if a 30 year-old fucks a 16 year-old consensually, it's against the law. Why?

An 18 year-old is deemed an adult (in the US) yet can't drink alcohol. Why?

In parts of the USA, which has possibly the highest "Age of Consent" in the free world :P

Thats why i said 15, as this covers the UK and most of the States... although not some other countries i can think of.

As to the alcohol, think yourself lucky... there was a time it was illegal altogether there ;) (Its 18 to buy alcohol in UK, although perfectly legal to drink it from age 5 under supervision and if it wasnt bought specifically for you or in a licensed premises/public place)
What states? Must be the midwest. :lol: :lol:

Personal morals are "forced" upon all of us. It's sometimes called law. There usually is a consensus though.

[vidcc]

Now wtf? That's what everyone in this damn thread has been saying. Oh and now YOU say it. ....and you call me high? You deserve the NO SHIT award. :trophy: As I said, great post for the article. Other than that, moral values, even personal ones, make up most of our law.

I've been saying it from the very begining but because i said i don't like people trying to legislate their values on me I get accused of being anti free expression. Which is bull crap, eveyone dislikes having laws they disagree with forced upon them...lobbying is just a part of the whole process.


Originally Posted by vidcc
I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values,
Yes but no different than you saying you don't like the law and wish it were different and no different from you lobbying to try to counter their attempt.


Hmmm but values make up our laws.

And the ones that protect others such as murder are just because it invloves a victim.
One like the one in this thread is unjust because they wish to deny people medicine because they feel that promiscuity is a "moral crime"... but where is the victim?


A person in their own front yard may just be sitting in a chair naked and can be seen from the street. Why is this illegal?
You seem to agree with this nudity "as long there is a high fence."

Without the high fence you are inflicting your nudity on others..therefore a victim is involved.... you have the right to walk around naked if you wish but it has to be in private or you infringe on the rights of others. I don't understand what is so immoral about the human body, we all have one, some have better bodies than others. But some people are offended by it so you forcing them to see it is unjust. You would be denying them their choice not to see you naked.

Same with pornography...watch as much as you want, but if you have it playing on the tv in your teams bus so eveyone that passes or is driving behind you sees it...then you are creating a victim.

You have the right to have guns, you do not have the right to shoot at random people.


Marriage itself comes from moral values.
So does cursing in public.

So????

[JPaul]

The bottom line is that you see yourself as someone who is an advocate of freedom of expression and you are not.

You cannot deal with the idea that you must support everyone's rights, no matter how much you disagree with them.

This subject is an example of that. You cannot accept that the people who disagree with this vaccination have a right to try to get it banned.

[vidcc]

The bottom line is that you see yourself as someone who is an advocate of freedom of expression and you are not.

utter incorrect rubbish...


You cannot deal with the idea that you must support everyone's rights, no matter how much you disagree with them.
utter incorrect rubbish again


This subject is an example of that. You cannot accept that the people who disagree with this vaccination have a right to try to get it banned.

the bottom line is that you are a wrong. the bottom line is you ignored what was written again and again.

the homeless person with a dog was a fantastic example that you are what you accuse me of being...someone against freedom of expression.

[Busyman]

I've been saying it from the very begining but because i said i don't like people trying to legislate their values on me I get accused of being anti free expression. Which is bull crap, eveyone dislikes having laws they disagree with forced upon them...lobbying is just a part of the whole process.


Originally Posted by vidcc
I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values,
Yes but no different than you saying you don't like the law and wish it were different and no different from you lobbying to try to counter their attempt.
What are you talking about? That is completely different. Not liking a law and denying rights are entirely different. You could not be a judge. You want to deny people's rights.


Hmmm but values make up our laws.

And the ones that protect others such as murder are just because it invloves a victim.
One like the one in this thread is unjust because they wish to deny people medicine because they feel that promiscuity is a "moral crime"... but where is the victim?
The people are perceived as victims.


A person in their own front yard may just be sitting in a chair naked and can be seen from the street. Why is this illegal?
You seem to agree with this nudity "as long there is a high fence."

Without the high fence you are inflicting your nudity on others..therefore a victim is involved.... you have the right to walk around naked if you wish but it has to be in private or you infringe on the rights of others. I don't understand what is so immoral about the human body, we all have one, some have better bodies than others. But some people are offended by it so you forcing them to see it is unjust. You would be denying them their choice not to see you naked.
Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

Same with pornography...watch as much as you want, but if you have it playing on the tv in your teams bus so eveyone that passes or is driving behind you sees it...then you are creating a victim.

You have the right to have guns, you do not have the right to shoot at random people.


Marriage itself comes from moral values.
So does cursing in public.

So????
So victims are perceived and all it takes is for enough people to think the same way to put a law on the books. I can say Jewhewgadoo but can't say vid is an lowmoralatheist bee0000tch without a passerby being offended. What if just Jewhewgadoo was just as offensive.?

People were offended by a dance called the Crip Walk and it was made into law that the dance was illegal. Was that just?

'As long as hurts no one' else doesn't work all the time. The UK thought so and banned guns. Why? Because every so often someone gets pissed and kills someone in a rage with one. Kids sometimes get a hold of one.

We've made doing PCP illegal. People sometimes go out and kill when they are on it. Kids sometimes get a hold of it.

18 year-olds can't legally drink liquor here. They are perceived as not being responsible enough to handle it yet are considered adults. They can vote and everything and even.

17 year-olds (nd under) are considered minors here. Our personal moral center deemed it this way and made it law. However, other countries may have different ages.

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still wouldn't deny them their rights like you would.

[vidcc]

What are you talking about? That is completely different. Not liking a law and denying rights are entirely different. You could not be a judge. You want to deny people's rights.
what rights am i denying? Think about it.....

I am fighting for rights... by your definition you are denying rights because you seem to be saying that if you disagree with anything you are denying rights. I disagree with things. YOU disagree with things. Disagreeing doesn't mean denying

disagree: To have a differing opinion

deny: To decline to grant or allow.

I am disagreeing not disallowing.


The people are perceived as victims.

how? victims of what?

they make the choice to sleep around, they are not forced to and are not forcing anyone to sleep with them.


Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

No... I consider them victims because of THEIR basis of morality. Yes people can be offended by anything. Some in my opinion are offended too easily. They have every right to object by things in their face, but they shouldn't be stopping things that are not ( I realise you will now try to find some extreme counter).
In the gun debate you objected to the views that some had that you don't need or should be allowed to have your guns. Constitution aside you would object and fight any attempt to remove your guns.
Don't make yourself to be any different from me or anyone else. We ALL object to things.

to the rest of your post. How many other examples of "unjust" laws on the books are you going to post?
I already said we have too many unjust laws already.

Edit:

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still would deny them their rights like you would.
So you are against their rights?
How am i denying them... am i lobbying to stop the lobby? Am i putting a gun to their heads? how am i denying them? apart from not liking them doing it.

[Busyman]

.
what rights am i denying? Think about it.....

I am fighting for rights... by your definition you are denying rights because you seem to be saying that if you disagree with anything you are denying rights. I disagree with things. YOU disagree with things. Disagreeing doesn't mean denying

disagree: To have a differing opinion

deny: To decline to grant or allow.

I am disagreeing not disallowing.
Dude you are the one who talked about denying rights.


The people are perceived as victims.

how? victims of what?

they make the choice to sleep around, they are not forced to and are not forcing anyone to sleep with them.


Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

No... I consider them victims because of THEIR basis of morality. Yes people can be offended by anything. Some in my opinion are offended too easily. They have every right to object by things in their face, but they shouldn't be stopping things that are not ( I realise you will now try to find some extreme counter).
A person in their own yard is not in their face. I gathered that you personally would be offended.
In the gun debate you objected to the views that some had that you don't need or should be allowed to have your guns. Constitution aside you would object and fight any attempt to remove your guns.
Don't make yourself to be any different from me or anyone else. We ALL object to things.
Yes Captain Obvious. :1eye: Don't make yourself different either. I'm sure you agree with some of these personal moral values that have been attached to law. If not then I'm sure you wouldn't object to the drinking age being lowered to 12, the age of minors lowered to 11, and since adults are now age 12 and up, so is consensual sex and gambling.

to the rest of your post. How many other examples of "unjust" laws on the books are you going to post?
I already said we have too many unjust laws already.
You consider them unjust.

People come up with these laws to curb further crimes. The home druggy may likely take his abuses outside the home. Prostitution may lead to organized crime (like gambling). Hightened sexual activity may lead to a wider spread of diseases. I know will probably say, "Let it go." I personally think it will lead to anarchy and ultimately a lower moral standard. (I don't agree with withholding medical treatment).

Edit:

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still wouldn't deny them their rights like you would.
So you are against their rights?
An obvious typo but you probably knew that. :( Consider it corrected. :)

How am i denying them... am i lobbying to stop the lobby? Am i putting a gun to their heads? how am i denying them? apart from not liking them doing it.
Dude you said the shit. That's why everyone was questioning your posts. :blink:

[vidcc]

.
what rights am i denying? Think about it.....

I am fighting for rights... by your definition you are denying rights because you seem to be saying that if you disagree with anything you are denying rights. I disagree with things. YOU disagree with things. Disagreeing doesn't mean denying

disagree: To have a differing opinion

deny: To decline to grant or allow.

I am disagreeing not disallowing.
Dude you are the one who talked about denying rights.



how? victims of what?

they make the choice to sleep around, they are not forced to and are not forcing anyone to sleep with them.


Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

No... I consider them victims because of THEIR basis of morality. Yes people can be offended by anything. Some in my opinion are offended too easily. They have every right to object by things in their face, but they shouldn't be stopping things that are not ( I realise you will now try to find some extreme counter).
A person in their own yard is not in their face. I gathered that you personally would be offended.
In the gun debate you objected to the views that some had that you don't need or should be allowed to have your guns. Constitution aside you would object and fight any attempt to remove your guns.
Don't make yourself to be any different from me or anyone else. We ALL object to things.
Yes Captain Obvious. :1eye: Don't make yourself different either. I'm sure you agree with some of these personal moral values that have been attached to law. If not then I'm sure you wouldn't object to the drinking age being lowered to 12, the age of minors lowered to 11, and since adults are now age 12 and up, so is consensual sex and gambling.

to the rest of your post. How many other examples of "unjust" laws on the books are you going to post?
I already said we have too many unjust laws already.
You consider them unjust.

People come up with these laws to curb further crimes. The home druggy may likely take his abuses outside the home. Prostitution may lead to organized crime (like gambling). Hightened sexual activity may lead to a wider spread of diseases. I know will probably say, "Let it go." I personally think it will lead to anarchy and ultimately a lower moral standard. (I don't agree with withholding medical treatment).

Edit:

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still wouldn't deny them their rights like you would.
So you are against their rights?
An obvious typo but you probably knew that. :( Consider it corrected. :)

How am i denying them... am i lobbying to stop the lobby? Am i putting a gun to their heads? how am i denying them? apart from not liking them doing it.
Dude you said the shit. That's why everyone was questioning your posts. :blink:

Despite every post I made you haven't taken one word in. So fire up that brain cell and read.

I would deny them their wish to make a law such as the thread subject by opposing it. Because I don't want their values forced upon me
How do we oppose people who try to make laws such as this ?..... We fight the bill, we lobby against the bill. We make our opinions known so that others can see what these people are trying to do. That's how I will "stand in your way" and "deny your right"..it all there for you to see.

It's not rocket science. :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

By denying someone you are forcing your values on them.

It cuts both ways.

[clocker]

It's not rocket science. :rolleyes:
No, it's not...rocket science is less convoluted.

All the different colored quotes are impressive, BTW.

[vidcc]

By denying someone you are forcing your values on them.

It cuts both ways.
So seeing as i am not lobbying to ban them lobbying how am i trying to force them. The only thing i am attempting to do by resisting their attempts at making laws if forcing them to let me live my life by my values not theirs..... And i use no different methods than you use.
So if i am anti freedom of expression by your methods then you are too

[JPaul]

By denying someone you are forcing your values on them.

It cuts both ways.
So seeing as i am not lobbying to ban them lobbying how am i trying to force them. The only thing i am attempting to do by resisting their attempts at making laws if forcing them to let me live my life by my values not theirs..... And i use no different methods than you use.
So if i am anti freedom of expression by your methods then you are too
No, I fully support your right to try to influence the law.

You do not do the same.

This is where we started "..they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to do just that, you have every right to oppose them.

[vidcc]

So seeing as i am not lobbying to ban them lobbying how am i trying to force them. The only thing i am attempting to do by resisting their attempts at making laws if forcing them to let me live my life by my values not theirs..... And i use no different methods than you use.
So if i am anti freedom of expression by your methods then you are too
No, I fully support your right to try to influence the law.

You do not do the same.

This is where we started "..they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

They have every right to do just that, you have every right to oppose them.


Yes i don't think they should have a say in my personal life.... i haven't said otherwise, but i have not said i will deny them the right to try....i said i try to deny them success.

you don't believe freedom of expression is absolute.

[JPaul]

"..they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

"but i have not said i will deny them the right to try"

The former says they you do not afford them the right, the later says that you do.

Non Seguitur.

[vidcc]

"..they have no right objecting to anyone else being vaccinated."

"but i have not said i will deny them the right to try"

The former says they you do not afford them the right, the later says that you do.

Non Seguitur.

I don't believe they have the right to interfere in my personal life...that's an opinion.... if i did i wouldn't try to stop them when they use the freedoms granted to them as a tool to deny freedoms to others. I don't want to end the freedom of lobbying, but because i don't believe they should be trying to interfere in my personal rights i will oppose them and try to deny them success.
That's what everyone does.

The first is an opionion the second an action.

[JPaul]

No

In the first you said they did not have the right.

In the second you said they did.

That's what's causing confusion. Either that or you have changed your position, which is fair enough.

[vidcc]

They have no right as in it is none of their buisness, we all know they have the right through freedom of expression.

The reason you get confused is because you pick up on one thing and decide what someone means and no matter how many times it is reworded or rephrased you can't get off the fact that you have decided something. You think it is impossible that you could have misunderstood the first time.

[JPaul]

The reason you get confused is because you pick up on one thing and decide what someone means and no matter how many times it is reworded or rephrased you can't get off the fact that you have decided something. You think it is impossible that you could have misunderstood the first time.
Moving away from the point, nice one.

To write something entirely different to what you started with is not re-wroding or re-phrasing. If I misunderstood it is because I took the words to mean what they said. As I have said before, I can only go by what you write.

Perhaps you may accept that sometimes you (or anyone else) do not express your thoughts properly. You will have seen others, including me saying things like "Sorry, my mistake, what I meant was ...." or "My fault, I didn't write that particularly well."

Anyway can you not see the poor logic in your thinking.

1. - It is wrong to try to impose your moral vaues on others.

2. - 1. is a moral value.

3. - So any time you try to stop people imposing a moral value you are imposing a moral value.

[vidcc]

Moving away from the point, nice one.
No just responding to what you wrote

To write something entirely different to what you started with is not re-wroding or re-phrasing. If I misunderstood it is because I took the words to mean what they said. As I have said before, I can only go by what you write.

It wasn't re worded with a different meaning, you just couldn't accept that it has been clarified. You are such a sad person you cannot go past one tiny little thing. It's impossible for you to accept that you misunderstood so it's impossible for you to accept any clarification.

Perhaps you may accept that sometimes you (or anyone else) do not express your thoughts properly. You will have seen others, including me saying things like "Sorry, my mistake, what I meant was ...." or "My fault, I didn't write that particularly well."

you misunderstood so i reworded it, What more do you need? It's not my fault that you totally ignored it. It's not like you have earned respect so that i need to tilt my cap

Anyway can you not see the poor logic in your thinking.

1. - It is wrong to try to impose your moral vaues on others.

2. - 1. is a moral value.

3. - So any time you try to stop people imposing a moral value you are imposing a moral value.

That's called democracy... it has levels comrade , you have to break eggs to make an omlette(

[JPaul]

Anyway can you not see the poor logic in your thinking.

1. - It is wrong to try to impose your moral vaues on others.

2. - 1. is a moral value.

3. - So any time you try to stop people imposing a moral value you are imposing a moral value.

That's called democracy... it has levels comrade , you have to break eggs to make an omlette(

That's just drivel.

[vidcc]

That's called democracy... it has levels comrade , you have to break eggs to make an omlette(

That's just drivel.

I'll take your word for that, you put out so much yourself you have to be an expert.

[JPaul]

That's just drivel.

I'll take your word for that, you put out so much yourself you have to be an expert.
:lol:

My big brother can batter your big brother.

No, really he can.

[Rat Faced]

That's called democracy... it has levels comrade , you have to break eggs to make an omlette(

In the context of this argument, i dislike that expression..

It brings to mind "the end justifies the means", which i wholley disagree with.

2 wrongs never make a right.

[vidcc]

That's called democracy... it has levels comrade , you have to break eggs to make an omlette(

In the context of this argument, i dislike that expression..

It brings to mind "the end justifies the means", which i wholley disagree with.

2 wrongs never make a right.

so how would you suggest it be handled? Or what phrase would you use? how would you oppose a bill if you believed people shouldn't be forcing you to live by their "values"?.... you can't use the word compromise because the "breaking eggs" phrase is a compromise.

How would you fight someone that believes freedom should be limited if you believed in freedom for all?.

or do you think one should just let it happen? I'm for personal freedom for all, but I am for my own personal freedom first... We all compromise in life, we just decide what has the most importance.

[Rat Faced]

I'd fight it...

If I lost, i'd ignore it.

I stated earlier that I ignore Laws I consider unjust or stupid.. and thats my Morality.

However, as Heinlein stated...

If the Natives rub blue paint in their belly buttons, then you must too on the surface, or risk being burnt at the stake.

[bigboab]

I'd fight it...

If I lost, i'd ignore it.

I stated earlier that I ignore Laws I consider unjust or stupid.. and thats my Morality.

However, as Heinlein stated...

If the Natives rub blue paint in their belly buttons, then you must too on the surface, or risk being burnt at the stake.

Not the best attitude to maintain Law and Order.:ph34r: I know people who think it is their right to travel free on public transport, despite the fact that it no longer exists. To steal from anyone who they think can afford it. Your morality is verging on granting them immunity. :ph34r:

[Busyman]

Despite every post I made you haven't taken one word in. So fire up that brain cell and read.

I would deny them their wish to make a law such as the thread subject by opposing it. Because I don't want their values forced upon me
How do we oppose people who try to make laws such as this ?..... We fight the bill, we lobby against the bill. We make our opinions known so that others can see what these people are trying to do. That's how I will "stand in your way" and "deny your right"..it all there for you to see.

It's not rocket science. :rolleyes:
Well shit fuck piss. That's what EVERYONE has been saying all along (except you)....lobby against what you disagree with.

[Busyman]

The reason you get confused is because you pick up on one thing and decide what someone means and no matter how many times it is reworded or rephrased you can't get off the fact that you have decided something. You think it is impossible that you could have misunderstood the first time.
Moving away from the point, nice one.

To write something entirely different to what you started with is not re-wroding or re-phrasing. If I misunderstood it is because I took the words to mean what they said. As I have said before, I can only go by what you write.

Perhaps you may accept that sometimes you (or anyone else) do not express your thoughts properly. You will have seen others, including me saying things like "Sorry, my mistake, what I meant was ...." or "My fault, I didn't write that particularly well."

Anyway can you not see the poor logic in your thinking.

1. - It is wrong to try to impose your moral vaues on others.

2. - 1. is a moral value.

3. - So any time you try to stop people imposing a moral value you are imposing a moral value.
As I thought..way back...vid's posts were clusterfucks. :dry:

[vidcc]

Well shit fuck piss. That's what EVERYONE has been saying all along (except you)....lobby against what you disagree with.


Rubbish.....i've said that all along, you just had your head so far up jpauls ass you couldn't see it.



As I thought..way back...vid's posts were clusterfucks. you haven't got an original thought in that brain cell have you. I already answered that

[Busyman]

Rubbish.....i've said that all along, you just had your head so far up jpauls ass you couldn't see it.



As I thought..way back...vid's posts were clusterfucks. you haven't got an original thought in that brain cell have you. I already answered that
You answered shit motherfucker.

Oh my bad you changed your answer to look like what everyone else posted.

You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. That's why 3 different people questioned you on it and your answer migrated to what we were posting. :lol: :lol:

And don't blmea ti on lysdexia :1eye:

Saying you want to deny rights ain't the same as saying, "Oh I would just lobby against it" ya dipshit.

I can't help that jpaul makes sense and you don't....


Perhaps you may accept that sometimes you (or anyone else) do not express your thoughts properly. You will have seen others, including me saying things like "Sorry, my mistake, what I meant was ...." or "My fault, I didn't write that particularly well."

Sorry if that post spoke volumes and yours spoke volumes of shit. :mellow:

[vidcc]

Rubbish.....i've said that all along, you just had your head so far up jpauls ass you couldn't see it.


you haven't got an original thought in that brain cell have you. I already answered that
You answered shit motherfucker.

Oh my bad you changed your answer to look like what everyone else posted.

You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. That's why 3 different people questioned you on it and your answer migrated to what we were posting. :lol: :lol:

And don't blmea ti on lysdexia :1eye:

Saying you want to deny rights ain't the same as saying, "Oh I would just lobby against it" ya dipshit.

I can't help that jpaul makes sense and you don't....


Perhaps you may accept that sometimes you (or anyone else) do not express your thoughts properly. You will have seen others, including me saying things like "Sorry, my mistake, what I meant was ...." or "My fault, I didn't write that particularly well."

Sorry if that post spoke volumes and yours spoke volumes of shit. :mellow:http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/di.gif

[Rat Faced]

Cool it guys..

Boab,

As i said earlier, all Laws are about morals.

Some widespread such as murder, some very narrow..

Morals are not universal... Im damned if i'll follow someone elses on something i dont agree with. The example you brought up is theft...

On a filesharing forum, i'm sure that people have different ideas about what THEY consider to be theft, and whether what they undertake falls into that catagory.

Strictly speaking, no-one can deny that downloading files is theft in the legal sense. However many download in order to find out whether its worth spending their money to watch a movie on the Big Screen... is that theft in the moral sense? It will be to some, and not to others.

If someone breaks the Law, they risk the consequences, its that simple.

Its up to the individual and his/her own moral beliefs as to whether they break the law, so im no different to anyone else apart from sheep and paladans.

[Busyman]

Cool it guys..

Boab,

As i said earlier, all Laws are about morals.

Some widespread such as murder, some very narrow..

Morals are not universal... Im damned if i'll follow someone elses on something i dont agree with. The example you brought up is theft...

On a filesharing forum, i'm sure that people have different ideas about what THEY consider to be theft, and whether what they undertake falls into that catagory.

Strictly speaking, no-one can deny that downloading files is theft in the legal sense. However many download in order to find out whether its worth spending their money to watch a movie on the Big Screen... is that theft in the moral sense? It will be to some, and not to others.

If someone breaks the Law, they risk the consequences, its that simple.

Its up to the individual and his/her own moral beliefs as to whether they break the law, so im no different to anyone else apart from sheep and paladans.
....and personal morals dictated what constitutes a minor and who they could fuck under the law.
Personal morals also dictate how naked in public a man can be versus a women can be under the law.

[Busyman]

Wow.

This is a really long thread.
Why thank you. :D

[Rat Faced]

Cool it guys..

Boab,

As i said earlier, all Laws are about morals.

Some widespread such as murder, some very narrow..

Morals are not universal... Im damned if i'll follow someone elses on something i dont agree with. The example you brought up is theft...

On a filesharing forum, i'm sure that people have different ideas about what THEY consider to be theft, and whether what they undertake falls into that catagory.

Strictly speaking, no-one can deny that downloading files is theft in the legal sense. However many download in order to find out whether its worth spending their money to watch a movie on the Big Screen... is that theft in the moral sense? It will be to some, and not to others.

If someone breaks the Law, they risk the consequences, its that simple.

Its up to the individual and his/her own moral beliefs as to whether they break the law, so im no different to anyone else apart from sheep and paladans.
....and personal morals dictated what constitutes a minor and who they could fuck under the law.
Personal morals also dictate how naked in public a man can be versus a women can be under the law.

I agree.

However, like any other Law that is broken, you takes your chances if your personal morals dont agree with those in power.

[Busyman]

....and personal morals dictated what constitutes a minor and who they could fuck under the law.
Personal morals also dictate how naked in public a man can be versus a women can be under the law.

I agree.

However, like any other Law that is broken, you takes your chances if your personal morals dont agree with those in power.
Agreed. Years ago, it was immoral for a black man to use the same toilet as whites.

Cue teh boycotts, sit-ins, and protests.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I agree.

However, like any other Law that is broken, you takes your chances if your personal morals dont agree with those in power.
Agreed. Years ago, it was immoral for a black man to the same toilet as whites.

Cue teh boycotts, sit-ins, and protests.
Changing the law you don't agree with thro' peaceful protest.

American civil rights protests a great example.

[Rat Faced]

I agree.

However, like any other Law that is broken, you takes your chances if your personal morals dont agree with those in power.
Agreed. Years ago, it was immoral for a black man to use the same toilet as whites.

Cue teh boycotts, sit-ins, and protests.

I'm not sure what would be the most distasteful..

A Boycot of Toilets or a sit-in ;)

[Busyman]

Agreed. Years ago, it was immoral for a black man to use the same toilet as whites.

Cue teh boycotts, sit-ins, and protests.

I'm not sure what would be the most distasteful..

A Boycot of Toilets or a sit-in ;)
Watch the Chappelle Show....the one about mudbutt. :lol: :lol:

[Rat Faced]

We dont get it here :(

Watched it last year whilst over there though... very funny show :)