…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That’s for sure. Guns too.
Good stuff, I think.
But consider: from a “rights perspective” none of that matters. It’s the woman’s right or it isn’t. It’s the fetus’s right, or it’s not.
Some of those things might have changed my life dramatically, who knows if for the best or not. I guess it’s all a matter of expectations but also about moral accountability: some of those things I would still change them even if they costed me
But what makes one goal better than another goal?
Mung,
Given that you have my position backwards, I am relieved that you find my logic horrendous. I suggest you read what I wrote.
And of course it doesn’t “follow” from what I wrote that there are not enough people who are willing to adopt. That’s a well-known and entirely uncontroversial fact.
With that one famous exception.
This would be so much easier if we were talking about football
🙂
You mean Andre and Mia? Or Brad and Angelina?
So was FMM’s, sometimes one herring deserves another.
Babe Ruth.
Sorry, I meant Andre and Mia.
But think about it. If there are no such things as natural rights, in order to tell whether abortion is allowable or not (or who gets to decide this or whatever), we have to know what’s valuable. Is it the mother’s preferences? The fetus’s likely future life as a human being? Some optimal societal result? If we don’t have any position on that stuff, we really have no idea what the basis is for our answer.
Positing “rights” makes it easy. Without them, I don’t see that there’s any way to avoid doing some value theory (which, yeah, is hard).
Ah, makes complete sense, thanks Walto.
Seems to me even someone who believes in rights might be forced to decide which rights should take precedence (are somehow more valuable) in this case, unless they believed that unborns have no rights, but then I guess they would have no basis to criticize a woman that smokes and drinks while pregnant, for example
Got an email today with the subject
Which one of you nimrods is responsible for spamming that shit? X>{
lol
Rest a very heavy bible on your gut and flex your abdominal muscles?
Over at UD kariosfocus justifies death as a punishment for adultery
But should a woman have an abortion then:
To sum up: Killing women is OK, the men of the clan have a right to do that to protect the clan, but the woman has no right to abort an unwanted fetus.
You’re an idiot.
Takes one to know one. But why am I an idiot? That’s what KF said. Women can be killed for the good of the tribe. Where did I get it wrong?
I missed this before.
What nonsense. A fetus is dependent on the mother. A fetus has no right of existence at conception, just a chance of existence. I’ll allow that once a fetus has a chance of independent existence, then the balance shifts. But I still would like anyone to denies a choice to a woman to carry or not carry a fetus to term,
to explain how do you enforce a woman who does not want to be pregnant to continue that pregnancy under any circumstances.
The Irish nation moved from the ridiculous “there’s a fetal heartbeat so no abortion” to a sensible 12 weeks.
Let’s see where the US end up after Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court.
Do you think the Irish people punished (at least to a degree) the Catholic Church for sex abuse scandal by voting for abortion rights? You are not Irish, are you?
It’s called abstinence… I think some of the retirees here might remember what that means…keiths? OMgut?
Of course. Understandably, in view of the mendacity and incompetence of the Church hierarchy.
Not within the last few generations.
Enforced abstinence? On men? It might work!
Hmm! Brett Kavanugh? Should be fun!
It was enforced – abortion was illegal and punishable. It worked as good or as bad as any other legal regulation.
Erik,
Infanticide was the norm in Classical Greece and Rome.
No, it was not. It was rampant, but punishable – like in India or sub-Saharan Africa today.
Also, homosexuality was not the norm in Antique era. It was “celebrated” if you wish, but nobody demanded “equal marriage rights” on that basis.
You need to get a grip on the concept of norm.
Looks like OMagain blew a fuse. Why aren’t other people treating him like he treats them?
The society has changed… People want to sleep around but they don’t want to face the consequences…Therefore they demanded the change to suit their selfish pursuits…
It’s the society driven by instant gratifications…
It can’t last…IMV…
Yeah! I blame the ready availability of contraceptives. We need to go back to the good old days, when slutty women always got pregnant, so we could identify them and shame them. Dammit!
</incel mode>
My point was that for some women, choices have widened since Classical times.
Anyway, as there are no female members currently contributing let me link to this article by Jean Hannah Edelstein in today’s Guardian for a detailed and realistic view on abortion and whether Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination may be bad news for women.
Pope John-Paul visited Ireland in 1979 and was received like a minor god. Pope Francis is visiting in August this year. I suspect his reception will be less enthusiastic and less universal. See this Guardian article
That’s a seismic shift in a nation’s outlook on religion in less than 40 years that might be encouraging to those thinking the grip that fundamentalism has on a large proportion of Americans is not set in stone.
I’m not surprised…
I’ve read somewhere that when the sex abuse scandal was exposed in Ireland in 2009 or so, the Sunday mass attendance dropped from 90% to 10 %…
I’m not sure how it is applied, but a priest is not supposed to be one-on-one with a minor…
I just feel sorry for priests and nuns who are not guilty but they are constant suspects… A lot of them leave the church…
While religion, or more to the point, the political influence of the Catholic Church, is on the decline, figures don’t support such a drop in religious belief. Here, for instance.
and his superiors should not be covering up and exacerbating the problem by moving him on to a new parish.
Well, I would say that is a god thing. Good for them to have a more normal life, escaping “enforced” celibacy, good for those who will no longer encounter them in a Catholic environment.
Religion and politics often go hand in hand…but if a religion loses the support of its members, it also loses the support of the politicians and its influence…
There are tens of thousands of churches for sale all over US and Canada, many of them for $1..
What’s more normal life???
Barbeques and ballgames?
This, maybe?
What are you? Seventeen? Or would like to be, again?
I’m taking a poll.
What do people think of Sascha Baron Cohen’s new show on Showtime? (Or if they can’t get that, of his previous work as Borat, Ali G, etc.)
Do you think it’s funny?
Do you think it’s valuable socially? (E.g., it’s knocked a racist out of Congress, apparently.)
Any other thoughts about this you’d like to share?
Haven’t seen it.
Roy Moore and the “pedophile detector”
What about his earlier stuff?
Snippets on Youtube. I recall the famous (well, in the UK at least) interview with Tony Benn (A left-wing politician). “It’s coz I’ze black, innit. Here’s Benn’s take.
Regarding Borat some stuff was hilarious, loved the bear, some was excruciating (the masseur).
Worth it just for that, no?
Er… not off-hand. 🙂
Watched the first episode as I was have a slack day (cf my other posts today).
I found the Sanders interview and the kinder-guardian stuff funny. But I gave up on the other sketches (dinner, fecal art) which I found cringeworthy, not funny.
As a ketchup-loving inhabitant of the GWN, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the social value of the show in the US. Not so much here, I suspect.
I’m a fan, cracks me up.
I just watched the first episode. I’m speechless
Thanks to those who have responded. FWIW, I remember thinking it was kind of cringey funny when Ali G. asked Waldheim whether Disneyland was a member of the United Nations and when he asked a bunch of high-ranking clergy why so many nuns are prostitutes. But I didn’t like him taking advantage of their innocence that way. The Chomsky segment was particularly painful for me to watch. I could get through the Borat movie only by leaving the room occasionally, and I couldn’t watch the new interview with Bernie Sanders at all.
So I guess I’m too much of a Pollyanna to really enjoy his stuff. Also, while I like that he’s recently gotten some racist Republican member of Congress to resign his office, I think his humiliation tactics are further polarizing and generally bad for society. But, obviously, others’ mileage may vary.
I guess one needs to be a bit of a punk to enjoy it.
Do you think that’s also true of guys like George Carlin, Bill Hicks or Don Rickles? Just curious
Probably not to the same extent. I mean the right hated Carlin and Bruce of course, but those guys weren’t trying to humiliate individuals in front of thousands of jeering fans. They’d say, ‘how stupid can these dipshits be?’ And their audiences would laugh, but it’s more painful to be personally made a laughingstock because of one’s gullibility, I think. And Tickles calling someone a fat hockey puck seems different. It wasn’t political, certainly.
Interestingly, I don’t mind the show ‘Nathan for you’ so much since I saw the final episode in which Fielder makes fun of his own ingenuousness and other flaws. It’s sweet–and sad.