Crystal Lake man, 18, killed kitten over fight about bong: prosecutor

BaBaBlacksheep

Bears & Cankles.
Staff member
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
44,319
Liked Posts:
53,616
Because generally speaking, pro-life isn't really about caring for babies, it's about controlling women.

That's horse shit. I know I've told you this before but I'm going to keep calling you out when you say something this fucking stupid repeatedly. You know you're one of my favorite posters but on this issue you're just dead fucking wrong.
 

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,894
Liked Posts:
41,321
That's horse shit. I know I've told you this before but I'm going to keep calling you out when you say something this fucking stupid repeatedly. You know you're one of my favorite posters but on this issue you're just dead fucking wrong.

So you say, but the evidence suggests it's true.

Exhibit A: Camden's point regarding the inconsistency of interest pre and post birth (most pro-lifers tend to be the same groups who complain about food stamps, oppose welfare, etc).

Exhibit B: The majority of pro-lifers hold religious beliefs (Abrahamic religions) of a generally patriarchal nature.

Exhibit C: The invective which is involved in these cases tends to be largely of a "slut-shaming" nature.

There are others, but these are strong enough for now.

Now, I'm not saying that this applies to every single individual who is against abortion, but that's why I specifically said "generally", because I think the majority of it certainly is.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
64,173
Liked Posts:
40,931
Most people would be surprised how advanced mammals in particular are. Dogs and cats (the most common pet animals) have extremely highly developed sentience, equivalent to that of a small child, and I don't know anyone who thinks it's ok to physically or mentally abuse or mistreat a small child. They deserve compassion and respect just as humans do.

Personally, I'm angered even more by abuse to animals than to (adult) humans for the simple reason that humans can understand why something is happening. They have the intellectual capacity to reason and the ability to communicate their problems and fears via language, whereas animals (and small children to a degree) do not.

I will also admit to judging humans largely on their treatment and empathy towards animals. Anyone who lacks compassion for them, I cannot respect, even if they share my views on everything else. Likewise, those who are completely the opposite of me in terms of how they think or believe politically/religiously/whatever, I can still hold them in massively high regard if they have empathy and compassion towards animals.

But this holds true of animals we routinely slaughter for food. Not saying you shouldn't feel compassion but it's all a bit arbitrary that for whatever reason we decided that Cats and Dogs and other pets somehow get special treatment over all the other mammals we gladly butcher. Point being, the inherent worth of an animal is not set in stone but merely based on whether we have decided it's a pet vs food.

Then again maybe I am just jaded. I used to go to my grandparents farm during the summers and as a kid considered a lot of those animals pets until one day my grandfather strung Buster (goat) up by its hind legs, slit its throat to drain the blood and sliced open its stomach. I was pissed at him for about a year and refused to go back their the next summer but eventually came to the realization that gramps had to make a living.
 

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,894
Liked Posts:
41,321
But this holds true of animals we routinely slaughter for food. Not saying you shouldn't feel compassion but it's all a bit arbitrary that for whatever reason we decided that Cats and Dogs and other pets somehow get special treatment over all the other mammals we gladly butcher. Point being, the inherent worth of an animal is not set in stone but merely based on whether we have decided it's a pet vs food.

To an extent, yes. I used cats and dogs as the example simply because they're the most common pet, and are the most intelligent of commonly owned pets, as opposed to goldfish for example.

Pigs are just as intelligent. Herbivores like cows and sheep a bit less so, but still sentient. Chickens and fish (99% of the meat I consume) much less so.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,721
So people are MORE valuable than animals.

To me, no.

I'd much prefer raising a Bengal tiger to 3 children. And tigers must be hand fed for life.:lol:

To God, of course. To think otherwise would negate the entire New Testament, but this does not mean we as humans can turn the other cheek. If we could, our entire civil court system would be rendered moot.
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
So you say, but the evidence suggests it's true.

Exhibit A: Camden's point regarding the inconsistency of interest pre and post birth (most pro-lifers tend to be the same groups who complain about food stamps, oppose welfare, etc).

Exhibit B: The majority of pro-lifers hold religious beliefs (Abrahamic religions) of a generally patriarchal nature.

Exhibit C: The invective which is involved in these cases tends to be largely of a "slut-shaming" nature.

There are others, but these are strong enough for now.

Now, I'm not saying that this applies to every single individual who is against abortion, but that's why I specifically said "generally", because I think the majority of it certainly is.

That all may be true or it all may be your subjective opinion. You bring no statistics to your argument.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,554
Liked Posts:
35,246
That all may be true or it all may be your subjective opinion. You bring no statistics to your argument.

Stats are for Science-Witch-Devils.... wtf Monk
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
To Mick's exhibits:

Just because a person is against welfare and food stamps does not mean they value post birth life less. I could argue that the same religious people are the ones running soup kitchens and holiday toy stores for underprivileged families and kids.

You can't assume a person values life less because they are against government assistance.
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,894
Liked Posts:
41,321
To Mick's exhibits:

Just because a person is against welfare and food stamps does not mean they value post birth life less. I could argue that the same religious people are the ones running soup kitchens and holiday toy stores for underprivileged families and kids.

You can't assume a person values life less because they are against government assistance.

That just addressed one of the points I made.

But to answer your point, if someone claims to care about the welfare of children but wishes to see them denied food and shelter that they need if their parents lose everything or are dirt poor, then I'd say they have some explaining to do (actually I'd say they're full of shit and don't really give a shit about the kids, and that their pro-life stance is more about patriarchy/misogyny/controlling women, which I strongly suspect that most pro-life sentiment is, but I'm rolling with this for the sake of your argument).

Private charity obviously isn't enough, since it isn't even currently enough to supplement the needy even WITH government aid existing. So if you remove the aid, and you think private charity has the ability to satisfy all these needs, think again.
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
That just addressed one of the points I made.

But to answer your point, if someone claims to care about the welfare of children but wishes to see them denied food and shelter that they need if their parents lose everything or are dirt poor, then I'd say thy have some explaining to do. Private charity obviously isn't enough, since it isn't even enough to supplement the needy even WITH government aid existing. So if you remove the aid, and you think private charity has the ability to satisfy all these needs, think again.

That all has nothing to do with a persons value of another's life though.
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
Mick, I'm going to need your address for the burning at the stake thing Ares and I have planned.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,554
Liked Posts:
35,246
That all has nothing to do with a persons value of another's life though.

Point is, too many pro-lifers are fake Christians who don't really care about the life... they care about their side being right and being in control.

If they truly cared about life, they would be pushing hard for agendas that improve the lives of those babies after they are born, often to poor/young parent(s).

I don't doubt there are truly pro-life Christians who do good works in addition to being anti-abortion, but I don't think they make up a majority of the people rallying outside Planned Parenthood or setting up signs on Adams street for me to look at as I walk to my train. Truly pro-life Christians, good people, are working at the fucking soup kitchen or taking care of their kids.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,554
Liked Posts:
35,246
Mick, I'm going to need your address for the burning at the stake thing Ares and I have planned.

you bring da wood, I will bring da gasoline.... sorry Mick, can't have witches
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
Point is, too many pro-lifers are fake Christians who don't really care about the life... they care about their side being right and being in control.

If they truly cared about life, they would be pushing hard for agendas that improve the lives of those babies after they are born, often to poor/young parent(s).

I don't doubt there are truly pro-life Christians who do good works in addition to being anti-abortion, but I don't think they make up a majority of the people rallying outside Planned Parenthood or setting up signs on Adams street for me to look at as I walk to my train. Truly pro-life Christians, good people, are working at the fucking soup kitchen or taking care of their kids.

No, the point is, "I don't think they make up the majority" is not good evidence. It may or may not be true. I would tend to agree with it, but it is by no means conclusive.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,554
Liked Posts:
35,246
No, the point is, "I don't think they make up the majority" is not good evidence. It may or may not be true. I would tend to agree with it, but it is by no means conclusive.

Sure.... I mean we are just expressing our view on the subject.

Unless you have teams go out to every anti-abortion rally and do some random sampling of the people and somehow figure out whether they are good charitable people or assholes, you can't have statistical evidence.

I suppose someone could do it, but I have never seen it.

EDIT: And to tack on... if you did that.... the results would be very questionable.... how can you determine whether the people you sample are good Christians or fake Christian assholes? Its not like you can ask a question like that and expect people to fess up.... and your sampling would get fucked up because people wouldn't be equally willing to participate.

Need to write a paper called "How to Scientifically Prove Who Is a Fake Christian Douchebag"
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
Sure.... I mean we are just expressing our view on the subject.

Unless you have teams go out to every anti-abortion rally and do some random sampling of the people and somehow figure out whether they are good charitable people or assholes, you can't have statistical evidence.

I suppose someone could do it, but I have never seen it.

I'm in statistical process control training at the moment. Therefore I am being a stickler.
 

Urblock

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
19,167
Liked Posts:
12,242
you bring da wood, I will bring da gasoline.... sorry Mick, can't have witches
Me and my dog will help you Mick. We need a witch that can save cats and dogs. :yep:
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,554
Liked Posts:
35,246
I'm in statistical process control training at the moment. Therefore I am being a stickler.

It is an interesting problem, I feel like you see it all the time.

Seems like a vaguely homogeneous group of people may in majority share certain beliefs or attributes.... and while it appears obvious, it is nearly impossible to "prove" in any meaningful way.
 

Top