Ukraine K-1 initial denial - next steps to fix

[slim 1,525]

To say that laws aren't based on any morals is really absurd. There is an argument to be made concerning when the rights of a person begin that has nothing to do with religion and well within a Libertarian philosophy. The reason a person can not legally bash your skull in and take your stuff is based on a moral concept whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Otherwise it'd be survival of the fittest. "I'm bigger and stronger than you so I'm taking your stuff." Since we're not really into that anymore, morals have to come into play. Sharing is exactly what makes us civil.

The law that allows abortion exists, so why don't we all stfu on the morals, because it exists specifically so individuals can choose whether they want to do it or not.

I have zig-zag line belief system, for example: pro guns, pro-choice (not pro-abortion, that's what the nuts in this country are for), etc.

I had a buddy that I talked guns with all the time at my job. Really nice guy and we'd hang out and go shooting, shoot the bull, etc. Well, one day we were sitting around at work and the abortion topic came up. When I expressed my views on being pro-abortion he was flabergasted. "How can you call yourself a conservative and then let them kill little babies?"

I had to explain that number one, I wasn't a conservative. Number two, they weren't "babies." And number three, all those so-called "babies" that he wanted to save were the ones eating up tax dollars on social programs that are the root cause of govt.'s fiscal irresponsibility. "Who's going to pay for all these "babies" that mothers can't afford to take care of?"

"uuhhhhhh, uhhhh, ummmm...... well, the democrats just keep spending money."

And so the cycle continues. Until we grow the cojones to make the tough decisions and hold people accountable for their own actions, we're going to continue down this spiral of destruction and the sad part is those who could do something about it are misled into thinking they are doing something already when in fact, they're really the ones speeding the process along.

Come on, people. Stop. Think. Choose wisely. Stop doing things just because everyone else is doing them or that's what you heard on the radio or American Idol or whatever. I know you're not that stupid.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The law that allows abortion exists, so why don't we all stfu on the morals, because it exists specifically so individuals can choose whether they want to do it or not.

I have zig-zag line belief system, for example: pro guns, pro-choice (not pro-abortion, that's what the nuts in this country are for), etc.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, you've put some words into my mouth by saying that I said murder was wrong in all instances. I never said that. Let me clarify.

I'm not pro-life. I am anti-murder of innocents. Admittedly, how innocents is defined is subjective. And I suppose that if you think that babies conceived in rape are guilty little bastards, then you have an argument, albeit a twisted one.

But if you look at everything I've said in the light of anti-murder of innocents, it's all very consistent. I support killing of rapists caught in the act (they're not innocent). I don't have a problem with the death penalty so long as I have confidence in the court (so I know that no innocents are being killed, in practice, I don't think the death penalty is worth while given the horrible state of our courts, both in terms of efficiency and in terms of justice). I am against the killing of unborn children since I consider them all to be innocent regardless of the circumstances of conception.

Anyone who is against the injection of morality into law is either a complete anarchist or has simply deluded themselves into thinking that law has a meaning outside of morality. All laws in existence are the projection of someone's morals onto society. Some of these are very basic moral ideals that are almost universal such as the basic ideas of life, property, choice, and justice. Some laws go deeper into the idea that you can't take certain actions that inherently force risk onto others (like speeding, certain types of financial trading, or how you store hazardous materials). Disputes often arise when these ideas interfere. But in the end, take away morality and these are an arbitrary set of rules.

You may argue that this arbitrary set of rules is designed for the good/benefit of society. But exactly what the benefit of society is, is a subjective moral judgment. Hitler thought that killing all the Jews was the benefit of society. Or to the discussion at hand, some people think that not killing babies benefits societies while others think that giving choice benefits society.

The decision to not force your morals onto others is in fact a moral judgment. And by expecting or advocating that others do so, you are pushing your morality onto other people.

Great. Now that we clarified THAT all we have to do is make ALL people comply with what YOU believe by making it a LAW. Silly me. why don't we just trash the whole Representative Republic thing and let YOU decide what our morals will be? Sounds simple.

Actually, my vote goes to Mart for who gets to choose how I live...NO, it goes to ME!

Stay out of my Doctor's Office aND STAY OUT OF MY WIFES UTERUS! Then stay out of my refrigerator and my gun cabinet and my garage and my bedroom. Treat like a common bee. You know those little bees that fly around your flowers...just leave me alone I will fly around not hurting anyone...ok? Didn't your father ever teach you that? "leave them alone and they will leave YOU alone"

Apply YOUR morals to YOUR family, you have my blessing.

[Martyshk 137]

I had a buddy that I talked guns with all the time at my job. Really nice guy and we'd hang out and go shooting, shoot the bull, etc. Well, one day we were sitting around at work and the abortion topic came up. When I expressed my views on being pro-abortion he was flabergasted. "How can you call yourself a conservative and then let them kill little babies?"

Yeah, I love it how being pro-guns makes everyone think you are a conservative. Hell, I know tons of so-called democrats (don't mistake democrat for liberal, not all are) own guns.

Views of an individual do not have to align with the policies of the two parties we have, period. It's up to each one of us decide what is right for us, but I am PRO-choice in everything: i.e. I want there to be a law that allows people to own guns, I want there to be a law that allows people to have an option to have an abortion, and so on.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yeah, I love it how being pro-guns makes everyone think you are a conservative. Hell, I know tons of so-called democrats (don't mistake democrat for liberal, not all are) own guns.

Views of an individual do not have to align with the policies of the two parties we have, period. It's up to each one of us decide what is right for us, but I am PRO-choice in everything: i.e. I want there to be a law that allows people to own guns, I want there to be a law that allows people to have an option to have an abortion, and so on.

This always happens when people try to pidgeonhole others with their morals or their beliefs and it is why it is deadly.

Vermont is often called "the most liberal state in the US" and the ONLY one with a Socialist Senator and Republican governor I am proud of that for some strange reason

But we allow and have always allowed ANY person over age 18 to carry concealed handguns with no permit or license at all. They will not ban cell phone use while driving or require helmets for motorcycles, AND we have a law forbidding abortion on the books! Yep, abortion WAS illegal in Vermont and if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow it still would be! (New York is a 1 hour ferry ride away) But Gays can get married and if you want to get arrested for smoking pot you have to walk down the street doing it...naked...AND throw rocks through windows. You will be arrested for throwing rocks.

I am with Mart...Pro-choice, On everything!

Edited October 27, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[SMR 368]

Great. Now that we clarified THAT all we have to do is make ALL people comply with what YOU believe by making it a LAW. Silly me. why don't we just trash the whole Representative Republic thing and let YOU decide what our morals will be? Sounds simple.

Actually, my vote goes to Mart for who gets to choose how I live...NO, it goes to ME!

Stay out of my Doctor's Office aND STAY OUT OF MY WIFES UTERUS! Then stay out of my refrigerator and my gun cabinet and my garage and my bedroom. Treat like a common bee. You know those little bees that fly around your flowers...just leave me alone I will fly around not hurting anyone...ok? Didn't your father ever teach you that? "leave them alone and they will leave YOU alone"

Apply YOUR morals to YOUR family, you have my blessing.

I never said that we should apply my morals to everything. I said that without morality, society as we know it collapses. But you're ignoring the point. Unless you believe that there should be no laws or government, then you believe in the restriction of choice. And as you go back the why-chain, you always eventually get to, "just because."

This always happens when people try to pidgeonhole others with their morals or their beliefs and it is why it is deadly.

Vermont is often called "the most liberal state in the US" and the ONLY one with a Socialist Senator and Republican governor I am proud of that for some strange reason

But we allow and have always allowed ANY person over age 18 to carry concealed handguns with no permit or license at all. They will not ban cell phone use while driving or require helmets for motorcycles, AND we have a law forbidding abortion on the books! Yep, abortion WAS illegal in Vermont and if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow it still would be! (New York is a 1 hour ferry ride away) But Gays can get married and if you want to get arrested for smoking pot you have to walk down the street doing it...naked...AND throw rocks through windows. You will be arrested for throwing rocks.

I am with Mart...Pro-choice, On everything!

Due to the nature of the universe, everyone has a choice. Choice is really not the point. The point is which choices should have consequences attached to them by the ruling bodies of society.

Do you believe that I should have the choice to take your car, that your bank should have the choice to simply forget that you have any money, that the police should have the choice to burn your house down, that your employer should have the choice not to pay you, and that your neighbors should have the choice to murder your children? (As I said, they of course have those choices inherently. The real question is, should society impose consequences).

If this is not the case that you think there should be no consequences imposed by society for those choices, please explain how we determine which choices we should be "pro-choice" on and which choices consequences should be imposed. If possible, do this without relying on any sort of moral structure since laws should not be based on morality (supposedly).

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I never said that we should apply my morals to everything. I said that without morality, society as we know it collapses. But you're ignoring the point. Unless you believe that there should be no laws or government, then you believe in the restriction of choice. And as you go back the why-chain, you always eventually get to, "just because."

Due to the nature of the universe, everyone has a choice. Choice is really not the point. The point is which choices should have consequences attached to them by the ruling bodies of society.

Do you believe that I should have the choice to take your car, that your bank should have the choice to simply forget that you have any money, that the police should have the choice to burn your house down, that your employer should have the choice not to pay you, and that your neighbors should have the choice to murder your children? (As I said, they of course have those choices inherently. The real question is, should society impose consequences).

If this is not the case that you think there should be no consequences imposed by society for those choices, please explain how we determine which choices we should be "pro-choice" on and which choices consequences should be imposed. If possible, do this without relying on any sort of moral structure since laws should not be based on morality (supposedly).

Stop being ridiculous. You are anti-abortion and think everyone should be forced to do what you say and believe on that issue. Just admit it.

the rest is just an attempt to justify an unjustifiable position. You are the same as the liberals that argue since we can't own nuclear weapons we shouldn;t be allowed a .22 rifle. Give me a break.

I have no more interest in Conservatives controlling my life than I have liberals controlling my life.

[slim 1,525]

I have no more interest in Conservatives controlling my life than I have liberals controlling my life.

So, moderates, eh?

[SMR 368]

Stop being ridiculous. You are anti-abortion and think everyone should be forced to do what you say and believe on that issue. Just admit it.

I admit that I am anti-abortion. Don't have much against the term so long as everyone takes it for what it is. I do believe that there should be consequences for everyone who doesn't do what I say and believe on the issue (this may seem like a nuance but I think it's important to understand the nature of choice and that you can't actually force anyone to do anything. You can only impose consequences and possibly limit options).

the rest is just an attempt to justify an unjustifiable position. You are the same as the liberals that argue since we can't own nuclear weapons we shouldn;t be allowed a .22 rifle. Give me a break.

I have no more interest in Conservatives controlling my life than I have liberals controlling my life.

The rest is an attempt to justify my position. I thought that was pretty obviously my intent. Whether or not the position is unjustifiable is pretty much the point of the discussion and assuming that as the premise from the start simply means you are unwilling to discuss the issue. If that's the case, so be it. But it doesn't prove squat about anything other than your own attitude.

I'll admit your analogy about nukes and .22's escapes me. I don't see the relevance.

But just to clarify, you're claiming that you are pro-choice on everything yet you think I am the one being ridiculous. I'll repeat a pretty direct question: Does that mean you believe there should be no laws or enforcement of such? If not, how do you determine which choices will have consequences attached to them (ie. Which choices will be outlawed by law)? Moreover, how do you determine this without basing your position on morality, since you have said laws should not be based on morality?

[slim 1,525]

Does that mean you believe there should be no laws or enforcement of such?

I believe abortion should be a moot point because everyone should be sterilized until they're permitted by the government to reproduce. We should be licensed and certified to have children and those who don't meet the requirements should not be permitted to do so.

Morality aside, it would work.

[LvivLovers 39]

I believe abortion should be a moot point because everyone should be sterilized until they're permitted by the government to reproduce. We should be licensed and certified to have children and those who don't meet the requirements should not be permitted to do so.

Morality aside, it would work.

Too much government control. That said, it would be nice if before being allowed to be parents, they had to pass basic intelligence tests and also show the means of support. Actually, wouldn't mind extending intelligence tests to most things...voting, being able to get a mortgage, etc. I think we'd have a lot less problems...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I admit that I am anti-abortion. Don't have much against the term so long as everyone takes it for what it is. I do believe that there should be consequences for everyone who doesn't do what I say and believe on the issue (this may seem like a nuance but I think it's important to understand the nature of choice and that you can't actually force anyone to do anything. You can only impose consequences and possibly limit options).

The rest is an attempt to justify my position. I thought that was pretty obviously my intent. Whether or not the position is unjustifiable is pretty much the point of the discussion and assuming that as the premise from the start simply means you are unwilling to discuss the issue. If that's the case, so be it. But it doesn't prove squat about anything other than your own attitude.

I'll admit your analogy about nukes and .22's escapes me. I don't see the relevance.

But just to clarify, you're claiming that you are pro-choice on everything yet you think I am the one being ridiculous. I'll repeat a pretty direct question: Does that mean you believe there should be no laws or enforcement of such? If not, how do you determine which choices will have consequences attached to them (ie. Which choices will be outlawed by law)? Moreover, how do you determine this without basing your position on morality, since you have said laws should not be based on morality?

You make excellent points SMR and I will concede the argument. You win. We should use morals to make laws. We will use MY morals. I will decide which choices are outlawed. I have the only TRUE and correct morals. Mine is the way, the light and the truth. I will hand down my laws on stone tablets and ALL will obey them and they will be saved!

Too much government control. That said, it would be nice if before being allowed to be parents, they had to pass basic intelligence tests and also show the means of support. Actually, wouldn't mind extending intelligence tests to most things...voting, being able to get a mortgage, etc. I think we'd have a lot less problems...

Simultaneously bomb all the Walmarts. Job done.

[baron555 934]

Too much government control. That said, it would be nice if before being allowed to be parents, they had to pass basic intelligence tests and also show the means of support. Actually, wouldn't mind extending intelligence tests to most things...voting, being able to get a mortgage, etc. I think we'd have a lot less problems...

I've said before that doing a K-1 including interview would vet out the undesirables.

[LvivLovers 39]

Simultaneously bomb all the Walmarts. Job done.

I shop at Walmart....Target too. Hard to beat the prices/convenience on many things.

[TBoneTX 45,309]

Simultaneously bomb all the Walmarts. Job done.

Now this is one of the most succinctly hilarious things that I've ever read on VJ, si man. Good one, Gary!

Unrelated sidebar: I continuously wonder whether (& why) 99.44% of all Russian women seem to be named Alla, si man.

Edited October 28, 2010 by TBoneTX