Say Anything Blog

I agree that Spitzer is no better than a monkey...of course, that goes for most Dems, IMO.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Strange, I have never seen a monkey sign a contract, make an oath, make a vow, or even a pledge.

But I did see one stick his finger up his but then smell it and fall off a tree!  (To be precise it was a Chimp not a monkey)

Perhaps we should all do that too, after all the left has been throwing its poo at us for years!
DKK

First it was the New York Times trying to excuse Eliot Spitzer’s infidelity by noting that monkeys aren’t monogamous.

The NYT better be careful on their analogy here. It’s OK to compare Spitzer to a monkey, but what about Paterson.

People want leaders who are evolved past the point of monkeys or other primitive creatures. After all, sniffing another creature’s ass, going into heat, and frigging on a whim are not acceptable human behavior, even in the democrat party..

After all, sniffing another creature’s ass, going into heat, and frigging on a whim are not acceptable human behavior, even
in the democrat party..

Actually, it sounds just like the Dems…

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

You Can Cheat On Your Wife But Still Be “Socially Monogamous”

hahaha sure you can

and it would only cost me half my assets

my wife isn’t as “liberated” as Hillary Clinton
(or as stupid)

Vitter is still in office, no?  Good old GOP family values.

Aren’t humans the most socially evolved creatures on the earth?  And if so, why would we want to lower ourselves to the standards of animals?

Where have you been Dave? Too busy reading Ayn Rand, I suppose. I can’t say that I missed your endless comments on the cruelty of eating meat, but you did have some nice debate. You, along with Modern Instances, used to offer up some good counter-arguements. Not to mention you were actually articulate, unlike most of dissenters that have been frequenting this blog lately.

It’s not like I’m at all wrong or even remotely controversial. Rob and so many other retarded omnivores justify their slaughter with arguments like “We’re at the top of the food chain!” or other such inanity, giving their sanction to the “if lower animals do it, it’s okay for humans”. If it’s all of a sudden wrong for humans to lower themselves to the standards of lower animals, Rob (and the other philistines) need a new rationale to justify the unjustifiable.

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong. Just that the debate always goes around in circles. Using your ethical framework, you’re right, there’s no way to justify eating animals. However, if you use another framework, then it is entirely justifiable. The same goes with abortion. The debate will go on and on because each side looks at it from an entirely different perspective and ethical framework.

The same goes with abortion.

False equivalence.  Humans are an intelligent consciousness inside the body of an omnivorous predator.  Abortion isn’t natural in any way of thinking.  It’s a leftie tactic to destroy society, which was originally concocted by eugenicists to rid their society of “undesirables”.  Trying to make an equivalence between a normal human diet and killing babies is ridiculous.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Trying to make an equivalence between a normal human diet and killing babies is ridiculous.

I never made that moral equivalence. I’m merely speaking of perspectives and moral frameworks and used abortion as an example. Anti-abortion advocates view abortion as a child right’s issue, whereas pro-abortion advocates view it as a women’s rights issue. If one were to use a Christian ethical framework, abortion would be wrong in all cases. However, if one were to use Ethical Egoism, abortion would be okay because it would benefit the individual having the abortion. This may make abortion right in the eyes of the advocate, but that does not mean that it is right or moral.

My view is this: Abortion is immoral and wrong. However, I don’t think it can be made illegal because there is a pretty even split between the two sides. I believe that anti-abortion advocates should not use their energy trying to make it illegal at this point, but instead educating the public and pushing for the issue to be returned to the state level through the overturning of Roe V. Wade.

I should also add, my intention wasn’t to compare the morality of the two, merely to point out that each side (in both vegetarianism and abortion) use different perspectives and ethical frameworks.

So, Andrew, you’re a moral relativist then, eh?

I have no problem making a distinct differentiation between killing babies, which is wrong, and eating a normal human diet, which simply makes sense.  I don’t really give a crap what immoral people may say to justify their wrong actions.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

However, I don’t think it can be made illegal because there is a pretty even split between the two
sides.

I think you’re flat wrong there.  All we have to do is to act Constitutionally, overturn a wrongful SCOTUS decision(Roe v Wade) and return the matter to the States, as it should be.  Let the people decide, not a few lawyers.  It’s the American Way.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Abortion is immoral and wrong. However, I don’t think it can be made illegal because there is a pretty even split between the two sides.

I find that reprehensible.  You tolerate that which is wrong simply because a significant portion of the population feels otherwise?

Personally, I find it rather stupid to base one’s opinions on the feelings of the masses.  I am an individual.  I determine for myself what is right and wrong and will stand on that whatever the people around me think.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I determine for myself what is right and wrong and will stand on that whatever the people around me think.

You’re obviously not a moral relativist, Rob.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I find that reprehensible.  You tolerate that which is wrong simply because a significant portion of the population feels otherwise?

You didn’t read what I wrote:

However, I don’t think it can be made illegal because there is a pretty even split between the two sides.

I didn’t say I tolerated it, I said that I didn’t think it was possible at this point to make it illegal. Enough of the population needs to vote for it to make it illegal. At this point, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon. That’s why I think efforts should instead be focused on overturning Roe v. Wade, which would give the authority back to the states. That way at least it will be outlawed in some places. This would set precedent for similar laws in other states.

Personally, I find it rather stupid to base one’s opinions on the feelings of the masses.  I am an individual.  I determine for myself what is right and wrong and will stand on that whatever the people around me think.

Good for you, I feel the same way.

So, Andrew, you’re a moral relativist then, eh?

No. I clearly stated that just because someone uses a different perspective or ethical framework, does not mean their actions are right or moral. See for yourself:

This may make abortion right in the eyes of the advocate, but that does not mean that it is right or moral.

I have no problem making a distinct differentiation between killing babies, which is wrong, and eating a normal human diet, which simply makes sense.  I don’t really give a crap what immoral people may say to justify their wrong actions.

Sigh. I really don’t see why you insist on building up this straw-man. I never said that there was an equivalence in the morality or reasoning between eating meat and abortion. What I was saying is that the arguments and debates between the two different sides never go anywhere. Neither side will be convinced. This is because each side starts the debate with two sets of drastically different morals and values. I did not make a moral equivalence between the two issues, but made a comparison between the arguments.

Honestly though, what’s up with everyone’s reading comprehension? I’m basically agreeing with most of your points and I still get jumped on.

However, I don’t think it can be made illegal because there is a pretty even split between the two sides.

How can you possibly know that, when the American people have yet to be able to vote on the matter?
I wouldn’t be so sure, if I were you.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

You didn’t read what I wrote:

I misread, sorry.

For me, the reading comprehension thing has to do with the fact that I author most of the posts, get called out by commenters about a hundred times a day, so have a bad habit of scanning instead of reading.

My bad.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

How can you possibly know that, when the American people have yet to be able to vote on the matter?

I don’t know that for a fact. But I base this belief on most opinion polls and surveys I’ve ever seen. Not to mention my everyday encounters with people I meet. That may not be accurate, but it’s the only thing we currently have to measure support. I think that the best way to make it illegal is to have Roe v. Wade overturned and bring the issue to the states. I could be wrong or right, but I won’t change my opinion because someone else feels I’m wrong.

What solution would you suggest?

However, I don’t think it can be made illegal because there is a pretty even split between the two sides.

There’s the problem.  Most polls that involve hot button issues are agendized, and this is no different.  Most polls on the subject of abortion ask the question “Do you support a woman’s right to choose?”, not “Do you think feticide is an acceptable method of birth control?”, which would be getting to the truth of the matter.  See how that works?
If the truthful question would be asked, I would estimate about a 70% “no” vote.  In any case, polling is a crappy way to influence public opinion, IMO.

I believe I previously suggested my solution.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.