Theresa May, Brexit and the like

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Aside from no one can pinpoint from where exactly life begins, there you have the crux of the problem. As carriers of life, it's ultimately the responsibility of the woman for bringing the child to this world. By extension is it not then society's moral duty to nurture values for women to make sure that they pick partners who can provide for them safety, both financially and emotionally, so that any child, accidental or not, is brought to this world with minimal suffering? 

 

 

Only if you find "more babies" to be a goal worthy of pursuing in and of itself.

Edited November 5, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I'm somewhat fuzzy on this I'll admit, but I half recall that there needed to be a parliamentary motion for the referendum to happen. So in a sense, wouldn't that have been the act of parliament for the results of that referendum to be valid if they needed one to hold it?

 

The ruling was that since it took an Act of Parliament to go into the EU you cannot use Royal Prerogative to leave since only Parliament can alter laws generated by Parliament; while RP can be used to make/ break treaties which is what HM'sG position is. I don't think they really thought through what would happen legislatively if 'leave' won as basically no one except Mark Carney seemed to have planned anything for that contingency and it was meant to be a rubber stamp.

 

If the Parliament already decided that they only need a referendum to leave, wouldn't that override whatever the court says as the Parliament is supreme in Britain? Or am I misunderstanding the British legal system?

 

 

I know this is the Declaration of Independence, but it says "we hold these following truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that amongst those are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

So, definitely gay marriage and arguably also abortion (I'd say it is so, but you might disagree) fall under the "pursuit of happiness" part, wouldn't you agree?

You'll excuse me, but that's an extremely dumb argument. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of principles, not law at all. By your reasoning, if a serial killer pursues his happiness by murdering people, that is legal under the Declaration of Independence. That is why laws are not written in such vague and broad terms.

 

Religious freedom is great.

 

Guns are not.

According to you. We use guns to defend our other freedoms. A man isn't a man if he can't defend himself. "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject". George Washington.

 

Also, you realise judges can not MAKE laws?

They do in the US. Read the link I posted previously about Posner. And that's the most influential Federal judge below the Supreme Court level. And the liberals on the Supreme Court say and believe similar things, although they won't admit it quite as explicitly as he.

 

Btw, I sorry I derailed this into an abortion thread, although good points have been made. My point was about the rule of law though, not abortion specifically.

[Ben No.3]

A man only needs a gun to defend himself if an other man has a gun as well.

 

The declaration of independence states the same principles that the constitution is set on, but sounds nicer.

 

About your murderer: A mans freedom ends where another mans freedom begins.

[Volourn]

"A man only needs a gun to defend himself if an other man has a gun as well."

 

Nonsense. If another man comes at me with a knife and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. If he is trying to run me over with a  car I'm gonna blow him away. If he tries to pull down my pants to rape me and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. All3  situations is self defense are is evidence that a gun cvan be useful even if your opponent does not have one.

 

Just ask any 5'0" 110lb woman  if they would want a gun if a  6'2" 225lb man came at them with a knife.

 

If you are anti gun you are sexist.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense. Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans carry on to the next generation.

Look, another thing we agree on: let's forget religion.

 

Look, a whole bunch of things we disagree on.

 

By prohibiting abortion you will disable victims of rape to abort they're child.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable poor women who did not intend to get pregnant from aborting the child. That woman may not be able to afford her own life, needless to say that of a child's. So, rather than saving one life by prohibiting abortion, you are ruining two lifes: that of the mother who needs to witness her child growing up in agony, and the child who grows up in agony itself.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable women who carry children with a major genetic disorder firm aborting the child.

 

So, what kind of existence are you saving? You may save a exitence, but you destroy potentially two, three, four or however big a family may be lifes. And one of those destroyed lifes, and in some cases the most destroyed life, is the one you were so keen on saving.

 

 

Aside from no one can pinpoint from where exactly life begins, there you have the crux of the problem. As carriers of life, it's ultimately the responsibility of the woman for bringing the child to this world. By extension is it not then society's moral duty to nurture values for women to make sure that they pick partners who can provide for them safety, both financially and emotionally, so that any child, accidental or not, is brought to this world with minimal suffering? And for the men to be virtuous and choose women who have these values when they look a partner for their future family that they have to provide? 

 

Sadly these kinds of discussions have been pushed away from pop-culture and can only be found in the domain of the religious. 

 

yes, but sadly our society does not do so. So, how should the woman choose right now?

 

I'm atheist btw...

 

 

It requires a change of culture and that requires people to step up as role models for the generations to come. It's a slow process, but as the revolution of the 60's showed, nothing is impossible as long as there is a will.

[Meshugger]

 

Aside from no one can pinpoint from where exactly life begins, there you have the crux of the problem. As carriers of life, it's ultimately the responsibility of the woman for bringing the child to this world. By extension is it not then society's moral duty to nurture values for women to make sure that they pick partners who can provide for them safety, both financially and emotionally, so that any child, accidental or not, is brought to this world with minimal suffering? 

 

 

Only if you find "more babies" to be a goal worthy of pursuing in and of itself.

 

 

Your sardonic downplaying of having a family aside, I took that premise as a given. The nuclear family unit is the cornerstone of society.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

*cough* overpopulation *cough*

[Volourn]

Not according to the pro illegal immigration. 'We need to let them in because we're dying out.' L0L

[Meshugger]

*cough* overpopulation *cough*

 

Not in the western world it ain't.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

*cough* overpopulation *cough*

 

Not in the western world it ain't.

 

 

The planet isn't going to get less ****ed if we breed like rabbits, too.

[Volourn]

The planet is fine. Barringa  SW style weapon or an asteroid, the planet will be fine. Stop with the fake sympathy for the planet. The planet isn't in any danger from overpopulation unless you think there will be so many humans piled up on top of one another the planet will fall. LMAO

[Meshugger]

 

 

*cough* overpopulation *cough*

 

Not in the western world it ain't.

 

 

The planet isn't going to get less ****ed if we breed like rabbits, too.

 

 

Actually the planet is quite fine.

 

Volourn beat me to it.

[Zoraptor]

 

The ruling was that since it took an Act of Parliament to go into the EU you cannot use Royal Prerogative to leave since only Parliament can alter laws generated by Parliament; while RP can be used to make/ break treaties which is what HM'sG position is. I don't think they really thought through what would happen legislatively if 'leave' won as basically no one except Mark Carney seemed to have planned anything for that contingency and it was meant to be a rubber stamp.

If the Parliament already decided that they only need a referendum to leave, wouldn't that override whatever the court says as the Parliament is supreme in Britain? Or am I misunderstanding the British legal system?

 

They didn't/ couldn't specify that only the referendum was needed to leave, that's the problem. Probably didn't, and probably deliberately, since we have the same (general) system and our binding referenda can automatically apply legislation, eg electoral reform here did not require a new parliamentary vote. They tried pretty hard to get the 'correct' result of the status quo/ fptp rather than proportional representation, but once the vote was held they had no option and no vote was required. But in any case unless they make the referendum properly binding at the time its legislation is passed it's open to challenge.

 

There shouldn't really be an issue since the legitimacy of the referendum is not in doubt and it therefore should be passed by acclamation anyway- unless there are a lot of paternalistic euroweenie bad losers who want to overrule a popular vote in the Brit parliament, of course.

[HoonDing]

Just learn to pull out in time.

[Volourn]

Famous last  words.

[Chippy]

 

 

 

*cough* overpopulation *cough*

 

Not in the western world it ain't.

 

 

The planet isn't going to get less ****ed if we breed like rabbits, too.

 

 

Actually the planet is quite fine.

 

Volourn beat me to it.

 

Am pretty sure George Carlin beat both of you to it - and all he got was people laughing at him.

[Volourn]

Yet all these years later the planet is still here. And, it will be here when all of us spamming this thread are dead.

[Chippy]

Didn't explain myself well - I agree and thought George Carlin was at the top of his game. I think he said: "The planet needs us to produce plastic", I'd just add that the planet might be the one ******* us out of existance, and needs plastic like a condom. Just a thought to spam the thread.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Chippy

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It's funny that you invoke Carlin here, because what he said is "the planet is fine - the people are ****ed".

[HoonDing]

lol at all those sjw NAzi treehuggers. Nothing wrong with oil and plastic, it's just carbon.

[BruceVC]

lol at all those sjw NAzi treehuggers. Nothing wrong with oil and plastic, it's just carbon.

Hoon do you realize the future of most of what you enjoy is aligned to the sustainability of the USA?

 

In other words lets say some almost impossible occurs and the USA becomes 100 % isolationist and the EU is on its own....how do you think that would personally impact you? 

[Wrath of Dagon]

"A man only needs a gun to defend himself if an other man has a gun as well."

 

Nonsense. If another man comes at me with a knife and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. If he is trying to run me over with a  car I'm gonna blow him away. If he tries to pull down my pants to rape me and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. All3  situations is self defense are is evidence that a gun cvan be useful even if your opponent does not have one.

 

Just ask any 5'0" 110lb woman  if they would want a gun if a  6'2" 225lb man came at them with a knife.

 

If you are anti gun you are sexist.

God made men, Colt made men equal.

[BruceVC]

 

"A man only needs a gun to defend himself if an other man has a gun as well."

 

Nonsense. If another man comes at me with a knife and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. If he is trying to run me over with a  car I'm gonna blow him away. If he tries to pull down my pants to rape me and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. All3  situations is self defense are is evidence that a gun cvan be useful even if your opponent does not have one.

 

Just ask any 5'0" 110lb woman  if they would want a gun if a  6'2" 225lb man came at them with a knife.

 

If you are anti gun you are sexist.

God made men, Colt made men equal.

 

 

[Volourn]

So.. bruce, you have  a choice to make;. Are you pro gun and therefore pro woman or are you anti gun and therefore anti woman? Let's watch your mind explode sicne we know  your precious Clinton  is anti gun AND anti woman as evidenced by her laughing at female rape victims and blaming them for being raped. If only that girl had a gun.

[Ben No.3]

 

"A man only needs a gun to defend himself if an other man has a gun as well."

 

Nonsense. If another man comes at me with a knife and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. If he is trying to run me over with a car I'm gonna blow him away. If he tries to pull down my pants to rape me and I have a gun I'm gonna blow him away. All3 situations is self defense are is evidence that a gun cvan be useful even if your opponent does not have one.

 

Just ask any 5'0" 110lb woman if they would want a gun if a 6'2" 225lb man came at them with a knife.

 

If you are anti gun you are sexist.

God made men, Colt made men equal.

1) there is no God

2) there are two reasons guns and really any sort of weapons create problems:

1. The possibility to legally posses guns makes it easy for criminals to aquire heavy weapons, thus making them much more dangerous

2. Due to the former reasons, a general opinion is created that one must own a weapon to defend himself, whereas of weapons would not be legal in the first place, that general sense wouldn't be there.

The government should have a monopoly of violence.

 

And here is why your argument that weapons make men equal is flawed: they don't! Really, any kind of limited resource creates inequality: there are those who possed the recourse and those who don't. And that is a huge problem, and any attempt to work around it has failed so far. Take for example kommunism. While on a purley philosophical level it is a great idea, in reality it does not work out. However, this does not mean that we should totally avoid fighting against any form of this inequality I previously described.

 

And this is especially true for weapons. See, aside from money, I know no good where the gap between those who have it and those who don't is so big as it is with weapons. It creates a situation where having them is the clear advantage. But if everyone has weapons, that only causes the problems I earlier described.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Ben No.3