daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 5:09 am
Because I assessed the previous statements and decided to. I could have chosen others as well.
But, you didn't, because you couldn't. Action defines, not speculation, and neither does fantasies about what could have been. If after the fact, you tell yourself that you could have done all kinds of other things, you're deluding yourself.
djl wrote:Just because you dislike or disagree with a response doesn't make it a non-answer.
That is correct. The concept of "choice," makes it a non-answer.
When you say you do something because you chose to do it, or because that was your determination, that doesn't say squat about why you did it, or said it.
Walker wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 5:19 am
But, you didn't, because you couldn't. Action defines, not speculation, and neither does fantasies about what could have been. If after the fact, you tell yourself that you could have done all kinds of other things, you're deluding yourself.
When you say you do something because you chose to do it, or because that was your determination, that doesn't say squat about why you did it, or said it.
I certainly could have. I didn't because I did not wish to write a three paragraph essay length response covering all possible points. That was my choice.
And you seem to be skipping over the appraisal part.
Walker wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 5:19 am
But, you didn't, because you couldn't. Action defines, not speculation, and neither does fantasies about what could have been. If after the fact, you tell yourself that you could have done all kinds of other things, you're deluding yourself.
When you say you do something because you chose to do it, or because that was your determination, that doesn't say squat about why you did it, or said it.
I certainly could have. I didn't because I did not wish to write a three paragraph essay length response covering all possible points. That was my choice.
And you seem to be skipping over the appraisal part.
Why did you not wish to write a three paragraph essay? To say it was your choice, doesn't say why. If you now do write a three-paragraph essay, or even four, an element determining what would be a new response, will be the new circumstance of this additional dialogue that did not exist when you had to assert that reality could be other than what you made it with the writing you did, an otherness that is filled with ifs and fantasies of what could have been, after the fact of what is.
Why are you more concerned with what I'm not saying, than with what I am saying? If you say it's because of your determination, that doesn't say why.
However, if you ask me why I asked the last question, I know it's because I had to. I had no other choice because I've noticed that folks often shift attention to what could have been, rather than what they did, and pointing this out as it happens, makes for the best example of folks doing what had to been done within the context of an intellectual transmission, which is the primary if not secondary definition of existence under these circumstances of conceptualization where we now find ourselves, and not because of choice.
Still, one can lead a horse to the water-trough of understanding, but until* truth is seen it can't been unseen, can it ... and I need to say that because clever me finds fun in mixing metaphors when opportunity invites.
Respond as you must, or don't respond as you must. You will find after the doing, that you had no choice in the doing or not doing, although speculation towards what that will be, may ensue.
See if you can make me write something.
* I discovered a necessary edit. Unless had to be changed to until, according to my determination.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:27 pm
So you won't win here. I wish you could. You can't.
I'll take that as a plural "you."
The way I figure it, the idiocy of the Left has been accelerating at a rate and to extremes that will cause the inevitable pendulum to eventually swing, and it’s likely to swing hard enough to make abortion the legal crime that it morally is. I provided a likely, legal-based portal of justice for justice. Perhaps the politics will catch up to what's right.
Walker wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 6:13 am
Why did you not wish to write a three paragraph essay?
Didn't feel like it.
Nor did I find it worth the effort.
Knowledge of worth is caused.
A baby is born with the ability to nurse.
Based on that innate ability, to assume that a baby is born without the capacity to protest its own demise, or to sing its last song before it even sings its first, speaks more to the insensitivity of the listener, or perhaps more to the listener’s mastery of double-think, or perhaps more to the listener’s lack of curiosity caused for whatever reason, than to the physical responses caused by irreparable trauma, responses that are logically inevitable when such choiceless action is taken, taken by an agent of Must.
Surely from this, any disagreement that exists must be caused by understanding that is successfully eluding comprehension.
Assuredly, to wallow in the pleasure of words when opportunity presents, even if they be only six, is a choiceless consequence of satchitananda.
'Samuel Alito’s antediluvian draft opinion is the Puritans’ greatest victory since they expelled Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
'Alito is a familiar type in American literature: the holier-than-thou preacher, so overzealous in his attempts to rein in female sexuality and slap on a scarlet letter that one suspects he must be hiding some dark yearnings of his own.
'That was certainly the case with Clarence Thomas, another of the justices wanting to turn America into Saudi Arabia. (Saudi Arabia at least allows abortions if the woman’s physical or mental health is at risk.) Thomas — married to the off-the-wall right-wing activist Ginni — got on the court with the help of Republican senators who smeared Anita Hill as a pervy liar when they knew all along that Thomas was the pervy liar. The senators claimed Thomas could not possibly have been talking about porn in the office, as Hill said, even though they knew from his D.C. video store visits that he was indeed a connoisseur of so-called “freak-of-nature” porn, especially the movies of Bad Mama Jama, a porn star so sadly obese she could barely move.
'Newt Gingrich pursued Bill Clinton like Javert, even as he was having an affair with a young political aide (whom he later married). And prissy Ken Starr hounded Monica Lewinsky, producing a seven-volume report that read like a panting bodice-ripper, full of lurid passages about breasts, stains and genitalia. The Pharisaic Holy Roller, who sang hymns while he jogged, became fixated on Bill Clinton’s sex life in a warped way.
'The 1999 version of Donald Trump, when he was still a fan of the Clintons and boasting that he was “pro-choice in every respect,” was appalled. “Starr’s a freak,” he told me back then. “I bet he’s got something in his closet.” It was no surprise last year when Judi Hershman, who worked with Starr on P.R. through that shameful period, wrote that she had an affair with Rev. Ken Dimmesdale.
'Like Reagan, Trump was a Democrat who turned conservative, latching onto the Christian evangelical electorate. As Carl Hulse reported in “Confirmation Bias,” Trump soothed conservatives uneasy with his lax morality by promising to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, chosen from a Federalist Society-approved list. The libertine who transgressed with women traded off their rights to nail down a base.
'Now pervy Matt Gaetz tweets: “How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are overeducated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no Bumble matches?” This is a man under investigation over whether he had sex with a 17-year-old and was a sex trafficker.
'And let’s not even start on Madison Cawthorn’s fantasies of drug-fueled orgies.
'This week’s stunning reversal on women’s rights is the apotheosis of the last 40 years, through Reagan, Schlafly, Meese, Rehnquist and Scalia, climaxing in Mitch McConnell, who made a Faustian bargain to support chuckleheaded Trump to get a conservative court. Because of McConnell’s machinations blocking Merrick Garland and ramming through Amy Coney Barrett, Trump was able to name three anti-abortion conservatives to the court, all of whom prevaricated under oath before the Senate about their intentions on Roe.
'When will the Democrats stop being betas? As an emotional Gavin Newsom said at Planned Parenthood’s L.A. headquarters, “Where the hell’s my party? Where’s the Democratic Party? Why aren’t we standing up more firmly, more resolutely?”
'The founding fathers would be less surprised that there’s a popular musical about Alexander Hamilton than they would be that, in an age of space travel, the internet, Netflix and in vitro fertilization, the majority of the court is relying on a literal interpretation of a document conceived in the agrarian 1780s.
'They would be devastated that the court is just another hack institution with partisan leaks. Alito helped open the door to dark money and helped gut the Voting Rights Act; but he wants to ban abortion largely because, he says, the Constitution doesn’t expressly allow it. That’s so fatuous. The Constitution doesn’t mention an awful lot of things that the court involves itself with. But while it expressly prohibits state-sanctioned religion, this court seems ready to let some rebel public school football coach convene a prayer session after games. These rogue justices are always ready to twist the Constitution to their purposes.
'They are strict constructionists all right, strictly interested in constructing a society that comports with their rigid, religiously driven worldview. It is outrageous that five unelected, unaccountable and relatively unknown political operatives masquerading as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives.
'Chief Justice Roberts has been trying to protect the court’s reputation by working to split the difference on some of these explosive decisions. He may be doing that in this case. But he has lost control of a lost-its-marbles majority. To borrow an image from the great Mary McGrory, Roberts seems like a small man trying to walk a large dog. At this point, he can’t even see the end of the leash.'
Yes, my own political prejudices "here and now" are more or less aligned with hers. Though I do recognize them as basically subjective prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.
On the other hand, while the points she raises have validity in my view, let's not forget that there are those who oppose abortion simply because they believe that in the womb the unborn zygote, embryo, fetus is in fact a human being. And abortion is the killing of this human being.
I believe this myself. But I also believe that forcing women to give birth would negate any real possibility of political equality between men and women out in the real world.
So, I take my own existential leap of faith to the pro-choice side.
That's what being "fractured and fragmented" is all about. You know, for all practical purposes.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 8:38 pm
Here's the thing I'm still fuzzy about...
Can the Congress then pass legislation that literally makes all abortions illegal? Legislation the president then signs and enforces. Law that is then backed by the Supremes?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:19 pmThat's not what they've done. It's not even what anybody has tried to do.
All the Supreme Court has said is that R v. W. was not a federal issue, one over which the federal government had rightful say. They haven't said that they are planning to ban abortion, or that the individual states will do so. They've just said, essentially, that provision of abortions is a matter that has to be decided at the state level.
But my question was once the Supremes overturn Roe, can a Republican Congress and Presidency down the road -- a re-elected Trump? -- pass legislation that does make all [or almost all] abortions illegal? The states be damned? The Supremes are then there to deflect any court challenges.
And please, as Maureen Dowd notes here -- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/opin ... anism.html -- what is construed to be or not to be a "federal issue" or "Constitutional" is always far more about political prejudices than "the rule of law".
In fact I excerpted most of her argument on this thread.
But, two or three years from now, can that all be voided by the Congress and the White House?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:19 pmNo, since it would no longer be a federal matter to decide either way. The Supreme Court is an independent judiciary.
How on earth is the Congress and a re-elected Trump making all [or almost all] abortions illegal not a "federal matter"? Although, sure, I may not be understanding the "technical" issues here correctly.
And, of course, as with the fiercely Christian majority now accounting for the majority of the Court here and now [hypocrites or not], with abortion they are wholly in sync with your own Christian dogma.
Right?
But, okay, you tell me where, in regard to abortion, you yourself draw the line here between the Bible and the Constitution.
Same with rights afforded homosexuals and others noted by Newsome?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:19 pmThe SC ruling doesn't even address that. It makes no mention of sexual practices, or even of the abortion issue itself. It just says that R V W was decided by the wrong level of government. The individual states have to decide, because it's a federal system. That's all. But so far as the SC is concerned, the states, once they have the power back, can make any decision about that that they want.
Right, keep telling yourself that. It's all about the law. The fact that Trump and his MAGA minions in Congress put Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on the Court? What on earth does that have to do with politics?!!!
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:07 am
Religious fuckturds don't give a rat's arse about embryos, just as woke fuckturds don't give a rat's arse about people. They are all frauds following religious dogma. Two sides of the same puritanical coin. Why don't they just try being honest for once in their pathetic, shallow little lives? Say what they REALLY think? Now that would be interesting. Enough of the boring, generic, predictable bullshit.
Don't be shy Mr. Lavender. Free yourself. Just say how much you hate women. How powerless you feel around them. How unattractive and awkward. It's only the internet. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not against free speech.
Nor am I singling out any particular gender.
You lying little nonentity. You do realise that a large percentage of abortions are performed on women in monogamous relationships don't you? Even 'good, married, kristian' relationships? You certainly don't seem to have a clue about biology and in particular reproduction.
Do you think married couples should all be celibate, as a way of avoiding any chance of an unwanted pregnancy?
Your judgementalism and self-righteous moralising oozes through your creepy posts. You can't hide it behind what I can only assume is a deliberately incoherent writing 'style'.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 7:23 pm
You lying little nonentity. You do realise that a large percentage of abortions are performed on women in monogamous relationships don't you? Even 'good, married, kristian' relationships? You certainly don't seem to have a clue about biology and in particular reproduction.
Do you think married couples should all be celibate, as a way of avoiding any chance of an unwanted pregnancy?
Your judgementalism and self-righteous moralising oozes through your creepy posts. You can't hide it behind what I can only assume is a deliberately incoherent writing 'style'.
Where is the data supporting this claim?
Again, if people become pregnant only to abort that is evidence of lack of forethought.
And you skipped over this part of the comment:
daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 3:36 am
I'm not addressing the issue of abortion here as much as I am the issue of senseless, carnal animality and the complications arising from it.
Carnal animality applies to all genders.
Women can't be whores without partners, and those partners are often men.
Last edited by daniel j lavender on Sat May 07, 2022 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm prettty sure that American women are not going to sit back and tolerate having the clock turned back decades, especially not by a handful of imbecilic kristian hypocrites.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 7:23 pm
You lying little nonentity. You do realise that a large percentage of abortions are performed on women in monogamous relationships don't you? Even 'good, married, kristian' relationships? You certainly don't seem to have a clue about biology and in particular reproduction.
Do you think married couples should all be celibate, as a way of avoiding any chance of an unwanted pregnancy?
Your judgementalism and self-righteous moralising oozes through your creepy posts. You can't hide it behind what I can only assume is a deliberately incoherent writing 'style'.
You skipped over this part of the comment:
daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 3:36 am
I'm not addressing the issue of abortion here as much as I am the issue of senseless, carnal animality and the complications arising from it.
Carnal animality applies to all genders.
Women can't be whores without partners, and those partners are often men.
