How can a person be this damn stupid?
Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 5 months ago to Politics
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Ayn Rand explained the right of abortion and rejection of religion and conservatism very well. The kind of religious dogmatism in this post implying that Ayn Rand must also be "damn stupid" for not being a religious conservative, without even an attempt at rational discussion, does not belong here.
I love her comment about the Kentuckians brandishing their "crosses as if they were pitchforks." It's perfect.
If you watch the videos of the rally with Huckabee where they waved their crosses with mindless hymns and chants you can see it could get a lot worse than pitchforks. Fortunately they are a small minority, even in Kentucky. At least some of them at the rally may ordinarily be normal, independent, hard working rural people, but the emotionalism and irrational sloganeering shows how easy it is to stampede people with mixed premises and lack of education on basic principles.
Abortion is not a right. Recognizing that, what rights does Lawrence think are being denied women?
The right of a woman to have an abortion, at her own expense or that of someone who chooses to help her, if she chooses to not have a child, is absolute. It is her body and her life, not yours and not subject to your authoritarian religious injunctions demanding to interfere. Ayn Rand explained her own position on the right of abortion and rejection of religion, and both have been discussed on this forum extensively. Invoking or asserting the right of abortion is not "remarkably uninformed", not "ignorant", and not "damned stupid". It simply conflicts with and ignores as irrelevant your religious injunctions, which are arbitrary subjective impositions based on faith, not the "self evident". Please refer to Ayn Rand's article "Faith and Force" in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It.
You have not said why you are here. Presumably there is some good in you which has not shown up in your writing, and you were attracted to some aspect of Ayn Rand. If so, you should try to understand her philosophy, what made possible the characteristics you like, and how it made works such as Atlas Shrugged possible -- instead of assuming that the religious conservative baggage you brought with you is the basis of thought and discussion. It you want to try to understand and discuss her philosophy, and how and why it is so radically different from the intellectual status quo and its tradition, you will find a lot of help here, but this is not a place to push dogmatic religious politics, which are fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, and not the place for your snide comments attacking those who expect better than repetitious appeals to religion and snide personal attacks. Religious premises are not the basis of rational discussion
Then again, why do entertainers feel that the public really gives a damn about their opinions, anyway?
Such mindless, phrase-based reflexive outbursts become so much of the liberal's very person that they are immune to logic. They see any resistance to these branded in positions as personally threatening. They see first amendment rights applying only to those with "correct mindsets." Opposing views are deemed as the same as physically violent threats, and therefore criminal and worthy of suppression and punishment.
I can only hope that she, like I, grows out of the commie moocher lie and decides to work to make things better, rather than demand her just handouts alongside her adopted socialist moochmates. She's obviously hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Unlike her character - this is a sign of weakness, not strength, and of being a sheep, not a hero. Or better... Mocking the Mockingjay..
Since Lawrence's objections actually had reasons behind them - Women's rights and access to Birth Control - I think it is possible that if she realizes that there is an alternative to the D/R dichotomy, she may choose a third path. Her characterization of the Religious Right is unfortunately accurate. There are a lot of people who fit the depiction she gives of narrow-minded bible-thumpers who are ready to lynch anyone who does not agree with them. She does not see that this is also true of liberals, though their form of lynching might be more in line with brainwashing...
I do not agree with her but I think she might someday wake up to the fact that she does not have to conform to either standard.
Jan
The "religious right" are under assault and simply standing up for the right to not be forced to pay for abortions, support gay marriage, or whatever the pap of the day is.
Ironically, the "religious right" is the group advocating for freedom, liberty, and smaller government (Constitutionalists), while being accused of being narrow-minded and dogmatic by the truly narrow-minded on the left who seek to make us all conform to their view of what's best for us (what we should eat, drive, smoke, forced purchase of health insurance, etc.)... quite the case-study in projection.
As far as lynching, the actual lynchings (literal hangings) were done by Democrats. The KKK, Jim Crow laws, and segregated South were all Democrat organizations/laws. It took Republicans to abolish these horrific Democrat institutions.
Jan
The religious right is not just objecting to paying for abortions and "supporting" gay marriage, it is demanding to impose its positions by force of law, including a long and sordid history of banning both abortion and contraception.
Exactly. My contention was it's easyer to become a sheep and bleat with them tan to stand as a lone wolf (like her character did) and make both a stand and a difference.
Apparently she's been hanging out with the wrong crowd, some pretty unsavory characters. I just hope eventually she realizes she need not be a sheep of the flock. And I hope it doesn't take her until she's in her 40's...
and moochers. . JL didn't have to change party --
just alphabit. -- j
.
shoulda said alphabytes, instead. -- j
.
The center of the left is not the center.
Republicans are the right wing of the left. Demos are the left wing of the left.
The real question should be to Hillary: Mrs. Clinton, how can we look at you with a straight face regarding women's advocacy when you were in charge of the bimbo-eruption squad? How could you allow women's reputations to be dragged through the mud when you knew that claims about your husband were true?
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
Rape is one thing, but accountability is another. Not to mention, The repubs did not create nor endorse the "War on Women" like all else these days...it's a 'Progressive invention...going waaaaaay back in history.
Oh, the truth is out...PP doesn't do anything remotely nice unless it's in their best interest; which is to be rich at tax payer and illegal body parts selling expense. and screw those that really need a helping hand.
for free" tome -- courtesy: ignoramus. . Santa Claus
is now parading openly as a D. -- j
.
I liked that part about an abortion mill offering "reproductive services to women."
Even if adoption is the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, what about those medical risks?
Do many people know that approximately 35% of early pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? Is Mother Nature then guilty of infanticide?
I think of unwanted pregnancy as nine months of cruel and unusual punishment, followed by 18 years of involuntary servitude.
All for the glorification of an unviable fetus?
I do agree that after viability is likely (not the 20 weeks they talk about now, more like 24) the issue becomes murkier.
Life with the extremely high likelihood of serious physical and/or neurological difficulties raises other questions. Of course, if the parents are willing and able to assume all physical, emotional, and monetary costs of such disabilities, that's one thing....
I have relatives who have chosen to accept such costs, albeit with government assistance.
Your stats are faulty, as the rate of miscarriage is about 2%. Do some research. A miscarriage is when naturally a baby becomes unsustainable in the womb and dies. Abortion is when something, a pair of surgical scissors, is introduced to killed the baby. Miscarriage in no way equals abortion. That is simply reaching for an excuse to validate the action.
If the pregnancy isn't the desired outcome then the woman should refrain from the practice that makes the outcome. And generally a Mother doesn't look on raising her child as servitude. That sounds more like Planned Parenthood BS.
Unviable fetus?????? Why then when a woman is murdered who is pregnant is the perp charged with a double homicide??? Another stupid invalid argument.
As for viability, the DNA of the human at conception is the same DNA as the human will have at death 60, 70 , or 80 years later. Your argument is invalid.
As I stated above, if a woman does not want a pregnancy then she must refrain from the activity that can create that outcome. Anything else is murder for her selfish convenience. If I don't want a tree growing in my driveway I don't plant one. Therefore a woman shouldn't allow it to be planted nor should a man plant something he doesn't want.
So, DNA has precedence over a living, breathing, conscious being? Who may have been the victim of rape, incest, or contraceptive failure? Do you consider the use of spermicides murder? Or barrier forms of contraception?
If a woman does not want to have, or raise, a child, and is forced to do so against her will, is this not involuntary servitude?
I happen to believe that all children should be wanted and planned for, and that they deserve a decent start in life. When these criteria are not met, one can see the negative consequences to society.
I see that you equate sex without parental intent as murder. At least on the part of women.
I have given my opinion on all you state. To continue to kick this horse is not productive. And it probably hurts the horse. But I suppose if killing a baby is not an issue neither is hurting a horse.
Rand was a great intellect, but she was not infallible. Some in the forum seem to react to any straying from Rand as blasphemy, rather than an opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.