This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#167582 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:17 am
Geeze can anyone remember the days, or I guess I'm just that OLD.

Remember the good old days when people knew the meaning of the words,,,
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. HOW ABOUT NEIGHBORLY CONCERN, INSTEAD OF NEIGHBORLY CONTROL.

Until everyone across the country understands those simple words and starts to practice them,,,

LEAVE ME OUT OF IT unless,,,, YOU WANT TO SEE ME WHEN I HAVE NO HUMOUR LEFT. :evil:

#167650 by Starfish Scott
Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:02 pm
jimmydanger wrote:Scott you got sucked into the spinning vortex of ignorance and false reasoning. They are different issues, and substituting a more emotionally charged issue like abortion for one that is relatively benign (contraception) is an old trick. There is a huge difference between preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy. And let's face it, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to prevent pregnancy than to add another unwanted person to the public assistance dole.



Educate them, pass out free condoms, I don't care.

But if I have to pay for it, I am against it.

I mean, I didn't get her pregnant and these days, if you are having sex you need to know what's up or else run the risk of being involved to a degree that is not what you were thinking.
(perfect planning prevents poor performance)

The world does not want to pay for your children because you are a loser and do not know how to control yourself to avoid becoming accidentally pregnant.

Similar is I detest seeing welfare mothers having more kids so they can get more money and continue to starve and beat the children they already have. WTF is that about?

#167670 by PaperDog
Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:43 pm
jimmydanger wrote:Scott you got sucked into the spinning vortex of ignorance and false reasoning. They are different issues, and substituting a more emotionally charged issue like abortion for one that is relatively benign (contraception) is an old trick. There is a huge difference between preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy. And let's face it, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to prevent pregnancy than to add another unwanted person to the public assistance dole.


Jimmy I am calling bull sh*t on you .. Your arrogance and thick-headedness on this is astounding. What part of Sexual behavior, consequence and subsequent ownership of it ...don't you phucking understand?? Abortion or contraception, fully charged or inanely benign are behaviors by people , other than my self... whom you are insisting I have to pay for ??? WTF is the matter with you??? 8) :shock:

#167671 by jimmydanger
Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:50 pm
You forget to take your meds PD? I never said anything about you or anyone else paying for anything - go read my posts. Get this through your head because it's the last time I will say it - contraception and abortion are two different issues and any attempt to confuse them should not only be met with indifference but downright scorn and derision. Now go take your nap!

#167685 by PaperDog
Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:21 pm
jimmydanger wrote:You forget to take your meds PD? I never said anything about you or anyone else paying for anything - go read my posts. Get this through your head because it's the last time I will say it - contraception and abortion are two different issues and any attempt to confuse them should not only be met with indifference but downright scorn and derision. Now go take your nap!


Jimmy, I come from the planet earth, On my planet, educated people understand the correlation between contraception and abortion. If you decide to visit earth, read up on the concept of mutually exclusive, learn the difference between positive vs negative correlation (Oh ye touter of science mindedness) and since you brag about your "classical" tastes, why not inform yourself about the concept of null hypothesis model. Then come back and try to tell us the same story you want us to believe but nobody buys.. .. . I'm gonna go take my nap now... But you really should wake up from that coma you're under. :shock:

#167722 by jimmydanger
Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:18 am
The reason we have different words is because they stand for different ideas. If they were the same thing we would have one word for it. I'm not going to bother copying and pasting definitions or try to convince you that they are different, but I will ask you: why was it necessary for the Supreme Court to legalize abortion, while no such decision was required for contraceptives?

The Catholic Church views contraception and abortion as both morally wrong, and virtually the same (as you and Bob have alluded to). The Church has a lot of skeletons in their closets, and need to do some serious house cleaning before I would ever accept their interpretation of morality.

#167740 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:47 pm
jimmydanger wrote: substituting a more emotionally charged issue like abortion for one that is relatively benign (contraception) is an old trick. .



....that the Demo-libs have been playing for a long time

#167772 by PaperDog
Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:08 pm
jimmydanger wrote:The reason we have different words is because they stand for different ideas. If they were the same thing we would have one word for it. I'm not going to bother copying and pasting definitions or try to convince you that they are different, but I will ask you: why was it necessary for the Supreme Court to legalize abortion, while no such decision was required for contraceptives?

The Catholic Church views contraception and abortion as both morally wrong, and virtually the same (as you and Bob have alluded to). The Church has a lot of skeletons in their closets, and need to do some serious house cleaning before I would ever accept their interpretation of morality.



Well stated (Re The Church) , Jimmy... However... comma...

The Court 'weighed' the issue of abortion, because it does so to establish and enforce social convention, that results in acts in the prurient interest of society...

Without goin too deep here... The court had to decipher an entity called a fetus, (which, as we know... is an advanced development of a union of (smaller) entities called sperm cell and eggs. ) A fetus, being the summation of the aforementioned... warranted different consideration surrounding the protection of its interest over that of egg and cell. The 'COMMON' , defining apex in the issue between Fetus Vs Sperm and Egg cell) was called Viability. The court had to examine (and has since defined) the properties of viability. It discovered that a fetus, before a threshold of development (i,e 2nd Trimester) could not maintain any degree of autonomous viability outside of a womb, and was thus dismissed by the court as a "non-person, bearing no rights to any protection from the law of the people.

And all the while you thought the courts were arguing about a woman's rights... Which Ironically is a third word, unrighteously being used in the definition of Abortion Vs Contraception arg.

Its not important whether you and I agree on the moral issues...cause this aint about the moral issues...Whats important here is where you and I, as american citizens agree to how a woman's rights are gonna get paid for...How an abortion and /or contraception is gonna get paid for.

You remember the part about "non-person"? Well , a lot women out there (Despite whether they are aware of their rights or not) are taking that as their green light to use abortion in lieu of contraception...for the same purpose... which is... ultimately the avoidance of parental/economic responsibilities.


I refuse to pay for or fund that behavior. I'd rather spend the money on more awareness programs than on what amounst to another 'needle exchange" model.

#167818 by Kruliosis
Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:15 am
The government should start handing out chastity belts. Kids are having sex too early these days without being educated. It's just too damn dangerous. I mean, you can die from it...and that should be a bigger concern these days.

There really isn't anything "safe" about sex unless you have one person to share it with...cause crotch crickets are everywhere! A piece of latex is about as safe as a bungie cord. When I was in high school I had one rip on me. Scared me for a bit when the girl said she "missed" her cycle.

#167826 by Starfish Scott
Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:57 pm
Kruliosis wrote:The government should start handing out chastity belts. Kids are having sex too early these days without being educated. It's just too damn dangerous. I mean, you can die from it...and that should be a bigger concern these days.

There really isn't anything "safe" about sex unless you have one person to share it with...cause crotch crickets are everywhere! A piece of latex is about as safe as a bungie cord. When I was in high school I had one rip on me. Scared me for a bit when the girl said she "missed" her cycle.



Hence the term "peeled bandanna" lol

#167838 by KLUGMO
Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:36 pm
You know, I read and observe a lot of the political and religeous coments
all over here and it seems to me in my simplistic way of looking at things
that we do and should all want the same things.
There is a lot of seperation here.
When things get complicated and gray. The fundamentals are usually
a good place to go and get straightened out. Our fundamental political
origins have been mutated and misinterpreted. The politicians of this age
are not politicians. They are competative winners and loosers. They are bought
and sold and cheated and manipulated by corporations and others that
have profit as their goal not the betterment of our country. The
Constitution and Bill Of Rights has everything we all needed to make it all work out.
I believe the problem started long ago when some with money and different
opinions than our forefathers originally manipulated the original
guidelines. Then it was off to the races when others saw that happening
and wanted a piece of that action. Many years later, here we are.

The other countries on this planet, I think as in nature the strong will survive and
their civilians must stand on their own feet and develope their own
fundamentals as we did. The exception I think would be weapons like
nuclear and biological that effect those not involved in their particular conflict.
In those cases we should police as we see fit because of our evolution
as the sole super power. That is a label of pride and responsability.

The religeous stuff, they all have good and bad points and should not be
politicized. Each man and woman is a temple unto themselves eventually.

One thing I have said before here is that the No.1 problem that is
systemic and far reaching within all countries and societies is
BAD PARENTING.
Solve that and you are well on your way to solving most other problems.
JMHO

#167841 by Starfish Scott
Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:12 pm
KLUGMO wrote:The other countries on this planet, I think as in nurture the strong will survive and
their civilians must stand on their own feet and develop their own
fundamentals as we did. The exception I think would be weapons like
nuclear and biological that effect those not involved in their particular conflict.
In those cases we should police as we see fit because of our evolution
as the sole super power. That is a label of pride and responsibility.


That's very eloquent and truthful.

We all should be ONE WORLDERS, because we are all human and live on the same world.

Do we actually have to have a tragedy or disaster to bring us all together?
It might be too late by the time we figure it out.

#167845 by KLUGMO
Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:21 pm
I'm afraid being a one worlder will be the only way to survive because
that is the only way the slow planet killing problem of pollution can
be solved. Humans have always been their own worst enemies. :( [/b]

#168482 by SaxManStan
Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:32 am
The contraceptive topic is just a distraction from the main question which is: Who the hell gave the government the authority to tell us what should be in our private health insurance policies - or to be required to buy health insurance in the first place? We now have a partisan hack (Sebelius) dictating her personal beliefs into policy. One would think that it would make sense for the government to specify only a bare minimum coverage policy so that there could be a wide variety of policies and price points. ObamaCare is unconstitutional on multiple fronts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests