milk_manSet the country back decades in what aspect?

By putting religion back into government, where it shouldnt be. Conservatives just want more tax breaks and more brainwashed sheep, they don't want to progress our society.

eheathBy putting religion back into government, where it shouldnt be. Conservatives just want more tax breaks and more brainwashed sheep, they don't want to progress our society.

Progress our society in what ways?

eheathBy putting religion back into government, where it shouldnt be. Conservatives just want more tax breaks and more brainwashed sheep, they don't want to progress our society.

Woah! A gross generalization paired with a strawman argument! WHAT a great post!

milk_manProgress our society in what ways?

Look dude, im not gonna sit here and answer your failcies, you're just trying to take attention off of the fact that i completely called out what you believe in. The truth is that we already have a huge church and state problem and conservatives will just make it worse. I'm completely fine with people choosing to believe in whatever religion, but it has no place in politics. I mean bernie had to come forward and tell people hes christian because their were rumors hes an atheist (probably is) and that absolute bullshit that someone cant be the leader of our country unless they believe in god.

eheathLook dude, im not gonna sit here and answer your failcies, you're just trying to take attention off of the fact that i completely called out what you believe in. The truth is that we already have a huge church and state problem and conservatives will just make it worse. I'm completely fine with people choosing to believe in whatever religion, but it has no place in politics. I mean bernie had to come forward and tell people hes christian because their were rumors hes an atheist (probably is) and that absolute bullshit that someone cant be the leader of our country unless they believe in god.

It was just a question?

Btw.. it's a democracy and what the majority wants, the majority gets. You can say it sucks all you want but that's how it is

milk_manIt was just a question?

Btw.. it's a democracy and what the majority wants, the majority gets. You can say it sucks all you want but that's how it is

Well if Trump wins he will appoint a conservative judge, which in turn will overturn Roe V Wade. Despite MAJORITY of americans being pro choice. That's what is at stake this election, woman's health choice vs going back to the days of back room abortions, where woman died by the thousands each year. (not an exaggeration either, around 5000 woman died each year due to botched abortions prior to Roe V Wade.)

Trumps giving rich white guys like me a bad name and blowing up the spot. Going to force the Republicans to run Condoleeza Rice or some fucking beaner next election to have a chance at winning. I still hope he wins but whoever wins is out after 4 years both have too many downsides I don't really care.

milk_manSet the country back decades in what aspect?

Largely, it would be the interpretation of the constitution to establish what specific rights actually mean and the subsequent application of laws. Whether it's dealing with subjects like implicit privacy rights or the voting rights act, conservative values are inconsistent with modern ethics.

TRUMP BABY

stinky_peteI just don't see how anyone could be dumb enough to vote for trump.

if bernie was on the ballot, i'd vote for him. i don't support his policies necessarily, like socialism in America would not work, but he's at least an honorable guy.

But since he's not on the ballot, i'm going with hillary. There's no point in going for sanders because he has no chance, so might as well vote for hillary to help defeat trump.

oh my sig

S.J.WWell if Trump wins he will appoint a conservative judge, which in turn will overturn Roe V Wade. Despite MAJORITY of americans being pro choice. That's what is at stake this election, woman's health choice vs going back to the days of back room abortions, where woman died by the thousands each year. (not an exaggeration either, around 5000 woman died each year due to botched abortions prior to Roe V Wade.)

I really don't see a problem with this

S.J.WWell if Trump wins he will appoint a conservative judge, which in turn will overturn Roe V Wade. Despite MAJORITY of americans being pro choice. That's what is at stake this election, woman's health choice vs going back to the days of back room abortions, where woman died by the thousands each year. (not an exaggeration either, around 5000 woman died each year due to botched abortions prior to Roe V Wade.)

He also will roll back environmental regulations and further encourage the idiocy that global warming is a hoax. And he seeks to setback any same-sex marriage laws too. He has stated numerous times that he would get the most conservative judge possible to reach such goals.

Josh__PeckI really don't see a problem with this

Human life is sacred except when mother's die? Nice logic. No one is stoked on abortions, they're not a good thing. But to put women's lives in danger and lose a potential child is a pretty reckless position to hold.

onenerdykidHuman life is sacred except when mother's die? Nice logic. No one is stoked on abortions, they're not a good thing. But to put women's lives in danger and lose a potential child is a pretty reckless position to hold.

5,000 lives < 700,000 lives

But I'm the reckless one

Josh__Peck5,000 lives < 700,000 lives

But I'm the reckless one

5,000 actual human lives vs. 700,000 potential human lives

There is surely something to be said for the moral value of potential human life, but to equate it to a fully formed, autonomous, rational, sentient human life is more than a false equivalence on your part. Moreover, to give no regard to those 5,000 actual human lives is on its own reckless.

onenerdykidfully formed, autonomous, rational, sentient human life

Why is it that sentinence, rationality, and autonomy are required to be considered human? By this logic, the disabled should not be considered fully human.

S.J.WWell if Trump wins he will appoint a conservative judge, which in turn will overturn Roe V Wade. Despite MAJORITY of americans being pro choice. That's what is at stake this election, woman's health choice vs going back to the days of back room abortions, where woman died by the thousands each year. (not an exaggeration either, around 5000 woman died each year due to botched abortions prior to Roe V Wade.)

Actually, he said it would be up to the states whether abortion would be legal or not. That would be a positive thing.

onenerdykidHe also will roll back environmental regulations and further encourage the idiocy that global warming is a hoax. And he seeks to setback any same-sex marriage laws too. He has stated numerous times that he would get the most conservative judge possible to reach such goals.

Human life is sacred except when mother's die? Nice logic. No one is stoked on abortions, they're not a good thing. But to put women's lives in danger and lose a potential child is a pretty reckless position to hold.

Potential child? We have the ability to tell how a pregnancy will likely go early on. It's not a potential life, that little baby with a beating heart has a life.. it's proven that after a certain age in the womb babies can feel pain.

Josh__PeckWhy is it that sentinence, rationality, and autonomy are required to be considered human? By this logic, the disabled should not be considered fully human.

Because if you don't use those qualifiers, you end up defining a human being the same as you would a chimpanzee. And we are clearly not chimpanzees. And by those same qualifiers that we do label someone as "disabled" and not "completely normal".

milk_manPotential child? We have the ability to tell how a pregnancy will likely go early on. It's not a potential life, that little baby with a beating heart has a life.. it's proven that after a certain age in the womb babies can feel pain.

Well, based on qualifying a human life vs non-human life, it doesn't seem to be that easy. A beating heart isn't enough to make an animal specifically human and not something else. And I don't deny that at a certain point pain starts to be felt.

onenerdykidWell, based on qualifying a human life vs non-human life, it doesn't seem to be that easy. A beating heart isn't enough to make an animal specifically human and not something else. And I don't deny that at a certain point pain starts to be felt.

According to that argument babies shouldn't be considered human until at least a few weeks after birth, maybe moths, maybe years. There isn't much different from a baby inside the womb and a newborn baby other than location and ways in which they are dependent. When does a baby become "human", then?

onenerdykidBecause if you don't use those qualifiers, you end up defining a human being the same as you would a chimpanzee. And we are clearly not chimpanzees. And by those same qualifiers that we do label someone as "disabled" and not "completely normal

So society should not grant the same rights to the disabled because they are not fully human?

milk_manAccording to that argument babies shouldn't be considered human until at least a few weeks after birth, maybe moths, maybe years. There isn't much different from a baby inside the womb and a newborn baby other than location and ways in which they are dependent. When does a baby become "human", then?

Josh__PeckSo society should not grant the same rights to the disabled because they are not fully human?

I honestly cant tell if you guys are completely brainwashed sheep or trolling haha 😂

eheathI honestly cant tell if you guys are completely brainwashed sheep or trolling haha 😂

I love how NS'ers resort to ad-hominem arguments so frequently. Go back to filming shitty edits

Josh__PeckI love how NS'ers resort to ad-hominem arguments so frequently. Go back to filming shitty edits

Im not trying to argue with you. Im going to just hope youre trolling because if what you post is actually how you feel then you are an awful person.

eheathIm not trying to argue with you. Im going to just hope youre trolling because if what you post is actually how you feel then you are an awful person.

How am I an awful person? Read my posts in context

hate them all 2016

milk_manAccording to that argument babies shouldn't be considered human until at least a few weeks after birth, maybe moths, maybe years. There isn't much different from a baby inside the womb and a newborn baby other than location and ways in which they are dependent. When does a baby become "human", then?

Which is why we as the rational beings see their potential and guard this for their well-being. And thus you see the difficulties of this topic in general. If you try to find those qualities which are specific to humans and therefore what separate us from other animals, you will see that babies do not have these traits yet. They lack rational thought, self-consciousness, autonomy, etc. but possess sentience. In this regard they lack the very characteristics that separate humans from non-human animals. But what they certainly do have is the potential to become to become a human. We ought to protect a new born baby for this very reason.

I'm very open to extending this potentiality argument all the way back to the moment of conception, but it does strike me as odd that people want to say that 2 cells have the same exact rights as a fully functioning, rational, autonomous human being. At the very best, protecting these 2 cells is an argument for indirect moral duties (autonomous agents vs. non-autonomous agent) rather than direct moral duties (autonomous agent vs. autonomous agent).

A direct duty, for example, recognizes that my action directly wrongs you and it is in itself (or inherently) immoral. With an indirect duty, my action may cause the other being harm but it does not wrong that other being- still I should refrain from doing so because I judge that through such an action I become a bad/heartless/cruel person.

Josh__PeckSo society should not grant the same rights to the disabled because they are not fully human?

In some instances, they assuredly lack them just as a fully brain-dead person would (both might have social contract rights still). In many of these instances you are dealing with indirect duties rather than direct duties. As such, a disabled person is very much a being within our moral concern.

eheathConservatives just want more tax breaks and more brainwashed sheep, they don't want to progress our society.

Get a job you dirty hippy

onenerdykidWhich is why we as the rational beings see their potential and guard this for their well-being. And thus you see the difficulties of this topic in general. If you try to find those qualities which are specific to humans and therefore what separate us from other animals, you will see that babies do not have these traits yet. They lack rational thought, self-consciousness, autonomy, etc. but possess sentience. In this regard they lack the very characteristics that separate humans from non-human animals. But what they certainly do have is the potential to become to become a human. We ought to protect a new born baby for this very reason.

I'm very open to extending this potentiality argument all the way back to the moment of conception, but it does strike me as odd that people want to say that 2 cells have the same exact rights as a fully functioning, rational, autonomous human being. At the very best, protecting these 2 cells is an argument for indirect moral duties (autonomous agents vs. non-autonomous agent) rather than direct moral duties (autonomous agent vs. autonomous agent).

A direct duty, for example, recognizes that my action directly wrongs you and it is in itself (or inherently) immoral. With an indirect duty, my action may cause the other being harm but it does not wrong that other being- still I should refrain from doing so because I judge that through such an action I become a bad/heartless/cruel person.

In some instances, they assuredly lack them just as a fully brain-dead person would (both might have social contract rights still). In many of these instances you are dealing with indirect duties rather than direct duties. As such, a disabled person is very much a being within our moral concern.

So let me get this straight. Rationality, sentinence, etc, are required to be considered fully human. Many members of the disabled population lack these requirements. Yet they are still to be considered fully human. You just contradicted yourself

Josh__PeckSo let me get this straight. Rationality, sentinence, etc, are required to be considered fully human. Many members of the disabled population lack these requirements. Yet they are still to be considered fully human. You just contradicted yourself

I didn't say that they were fully human, so no contradiction. I actually said they would lack the same rights that a fully "normal" human being had but we normal human beings would still have indirect moral obligations to those disabled people.

eheathI honestly cant tell if you guys are completely brainwashed sheep or trolling haha 😂

That definitely gets old after awhile. Probably 500 of your 50,000 posts are calling people brainwashed sheep. Why not put forth a good argument like onenerdykid does? I disagree with him but at least he discusses it

onenerdykidI didn't say that they were fully human, so no contradiction. I actually said they would lack the same rights that a fully "normal" human being had but we normal human beings would still have indirect moral obligations to those disabled people.

Then why do we not have indirect moral obligations to the unborn?

Furthermore, why do we use rationality and sentinence as a standard for humanity, and who is justified in setting that standard?

milk_manThat definitely gets old after awhile. Probably 500 of your 50,000 posts are calling people brainwashed sheep. Why not put forth a good argument like onenerdykid does? I disagree with him but at least he discusses it

Because I don't give a fuck dude, if you wanna be religious and conservative, that's great, but for sake of our society we need to separate church and state. All the religious right want is to take your money and digress society. You know how much more successful the churches were before technology and free thinking came along? That's what you, the religion conservate person wants and I think that is bullshit.

If someone wants to be religious that's fine, but then pushing religion into your political views about abortion is the biggest problem we have in our country today.

milk_manProgress our society in what ways?

by putting all the jesus loving retards on a barge and sending them back to the middle east to live with the rest of the regressive and violent people in the world

eheathBecause I don't give a fuck dude, if you wanna be religious and conservative, that's great, but for sake of our society we need to separate church and state. All the religious right want is to take your money and digress society. You know how much more successful the churches were before technology and free thinking came along? That's what you, the religion conservate person wants and I think that is bullshit.

If someone wants to be religious that's fine, but then pushing religion into your political views about abortion is the biggest problem we have in our country today.

My basic human dignity is what gives me empathy for the unborn, not religion. Maybe religion is what shapes my basic human dignity? If we truly want to separate church and state completely we need to sift through our laws and get rid of all laws that have similarities with religious law, and make laws based solely on "ethics." Im sure that'll turn out fine.....

GORILLAWALLACEby putting all the jesus loving retards on a barge and sending them back to the middle east to live with the rest of the regressive and violent people in the world

You're saying that we are the violent and oppressive ones and yet you're the one bringing up the idea of treating us like animals and shipping us away.

I bet this irony means nothing to you ha..

eheathBecause I don't give a fuck dude, if you wanna be religious and conservative, that's great, but for sake of our society we need to separate church and state. All the religious right want is to take your money and digress society. You know how much more successful the churches were before technology and free thinking came along? That's what you, the religion conservate person wants and I think that is bullshit.

If someone wants to be religious that's fine, but then pushing religion into your political views about abortion is the biggest problem we have in our country today.

It is funny that so many people are against the politicization of Islam, yet when it comes to Christianity it is all OK. Religious conservatism, regardless of which religion it comes from, has no place in a modern society.

GORILLAWALLACEmiddle east to live with the rest of the regressive and violent people in the world

Hahaha aren't you the same cuck that cries whenever someone says they don't want to take in refugees or whenever someone says something mildly islamaphobic.

GORILLAWALLACEby putting all the jesus loving retards on a barge and sending them back to the middle east to live with the rest of the regressive and violent people in the world

That would be nice... let them duke it out over their imaginary friends in the sky.

Meanwhile, smart, forward-thinkers actually solve the world's problems. Hmmmm, you may be onto something here, let's get this rolling...

Josh__PeckThen why do we not have indirect moral obligations to the unborn?

Furthermore, why do we use rationality and sentinence as a standard for humanity, and who is justified in setting that standard?

In my reply to milk man, I argued that we might and I would be open to that. I would argue that there are some instances where having an abortion would be immoral (I think most people would argue that this is a possibility, especially very late in the development cycle) but then there are some where it would be very difficult to argue that an abortion would be immoral (simply getting rid of 2 cells from the body). If we are concerned with what gives us moral obligations and what does not give us moral obligations, the topic of abortion is not a simple open and shut case.

I argue that using simple sentience for a defining characteristic is incorrect, as there are many other animals capable feeling pain/pleasure, therefore it is not something unique to us, that only we possess. We use rationality since we are (with some slight exceptions) the only beings capable of having this conversation. The use of language, rational thought, and autonomy are inseparably linked together- it is basically impossible to have one without the other. These characteristics (specifically autonomy) set the stage for moral rights. Without autonomy the argument for rights is quite difficult to arrive at.

milk_manYou're saying that we are the violent and oppressive ones and yet you're the one bringing up the idea of treating us like animals and shipping us away.

I bet this irony means nothing to you ha..

just think of it as noah's arc 2.0

maybe that hillbilly from the midwest will let you use his arc.

Josh__PeckHahaha aren't you the same cuck that cries whenever someone says they don't want to take in refugees or whenever someone says something mildly islamaphobic.

no. sort yourself out.

I don't like the idea of the government substituting it's judgement for that of the individual. There's too much grey area for there to just be a straight up ban on abortion. This is one of those areas where conservatives throw their small government don't tread on me principles out the window and I never really understood that. We are for liberty... except with abortion we want a police state.

onenerdykidIn my reply to milk man, I argued that we might and I would be open to that. I would argue that there are some instances where having an abortion would be immoral (I think most people would argue that this is a possibility, especially very late in the development cycle) but then there are some where it would be very difficult to argue that an abortion would be immoral (simply getting rid of 2 cells from the body). If we are concerned with what gives us moral obligations and what does not give us moral obligations, the topic of abortion is not a simple open and shut case.

I argue that using simple sentience for a defining characteristic is incorrect, as there are many other animals capable feeling pain/pleasure, therefore it is not something unique to us, that only we possess. We use rationality since we are (with some slight exceptions) the only beings capable of having this conversation. The use of language, rational thought, and autonomy are inseparably linked together- it is basically impossible to have one without the other. These characteristics (specifically autonomy) set the stage for moral rights. Without autonomy the argument for rights is quite difficult to arrive at.

Solid rebuttal but you haven't answered my last question; Who has the authority to set standards for humanity?

Please don't write in Bernie Sanders! this won't help anything, theres no chance of him being elected at this point! even if you don't like Hillary a vote for her is a vote against Trump

GORILLAWALLACEjust think of it as noah's arc 2.0

maybe that hillbilly from the midwest will let you use his arc.

Bill Clinton has an ark? That's news to me

NEPTRPlease don't write in Bernie Sanders! this won't help anything, theres no chance of him being elected at this point! even if you don't like Hillary a vote for her is a vote against Trump

A vote for Bernie is a vote against Hillary and trump. That's a win win in my book

Charlie_KellyA vote for Bernie is a vote against Hillary and trump. That's a win win in my book

throwing out your ballot would also achieve the same, pull your head out of your ass and come to your senses. Hillary is the most qualified person to ever run for president, If you want to risk a man that will try and deport millions of people spends millions of dollars on a wall that would literally deter no one from entering the us and has raped woman than your no better than him.

El_Barto.oh my sig

yeah that's right

NEPTRthrowing out your ballot would also achieve the same, pull your head out of your ass and come to your senses. Hillary is the most qualified person to ever run for president, If you want to risk a man that will try and deport millions of people spends millions of dollars on a wall that would literally deter no one from entering the us and has raped woman than your no better than him.

you...you are an idiot. I aint evengonna say why

NEPTRHillary is the most qualified person to ever run for president,.

Yeah dude Hillary is waaayyy older than 35, and she rocks being a natural born citizen so well! So qualified!!!!

Josh__PeckSolid rebuttal but you haven't answered my last question; Who has the authority to set standards for humanity?

The majority. You know, democracy. You can be against abortion, fine. But it's not your choice to make. It's her, and hers alone. 50% of Americans are pro choice, 46% are pro life, and 4% are undecided.

S.J.WThe majority. You know, democracy. You can be against abortion, fine. But it's not your choice to make. It's her, and hers alone. 50% of Americans are pro choice, 46% are pro life, and 4% are undecided.

What gives the majority the right to set those standards?

NEPTRHillary is the most qualified person to ever run for president

No bud I think you're the one who needs to pull their head out of their ass