Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[StrangeLife]

I'm strangely turned on by Phelia's anger.

She's not angry - she's feisty, I think. Like a jalapeno marinaded in Tabasco and garnished with wasabi...

I'm still going to flash you, girlie. I know it sounds like one of those fake-horrible threats but this is a serious thread and you don't want my 980x550 tits popping up and filling your screen while you're trying to make a point.

You should post them in this thread. Any serious discussion should be concluded with boob-pics. Just imagine how C-Spans ratings would soar...

 

[Garnate]

She's not angry - she's feisty, I think. Like a jalapeno marinaded in Tabasco and garnished with wasabi...





You should post them in this thread. Any serious discussion should be concluded with boob-pics. Just imagine how C-Spans ratings would soar...

Feisty....sure.....that's the ticket......

I'd go to Fox News and flash up the joint so viewers are distracted from the stupidity but then my dad would see it and it would turn into a thing and my visits home would be awkward as hell.

 

[StrangeLife]

SL, I still think you are a silly monster and I would like to punch you in the spleen, but I appreciate these last two points. Thank you.

Although perhaps "leisure" is not the best choice of words?

Yeah - admitted. Probably poor choice of words. I am sure no woman takes an abortion lightly.

I was more referring to the idea, that the owner of the birth canal in question retains all command codes and decisive powers until an actual birth has taken place. There is no need for a group of crusty old guys in expensive suits to "fight for the rights of the unborn child" - that's the mothers job and hers alone.

 

[StrangeLife]

Feisty....sure.....that's the ticket......

I'd go to Fox News and flash up the joint so viewers are distracted from the stupidity but then my dad would see it and it would turn into a thing and my visits home would be awkward as hell.

Uh oh. Please don't boost Fox' ratings - they have too many viewers as it is. If you flash them they'll never go away...

 

[Phelia]

Every 4th word = you need to get snapchat ASAP. Please?

Looks like the tension is now diffused and all I had to do was threaten nudity.

Not the first time that worked.

Snapchat doesn't actually delete your private photos and they habitually ignore security flaws. Gonna have to put on my tinfoil hat for that one Let's just get naked in person instead?

Yeah - admitted. Probably poor choice of words. I am sure no woman takes an abortion lightly.

I was more referring to the idea, that the owner of the birth canal in question retains all command codes and decisive powers until an actual birth has taken place. There is no need for a group of crusty old guys in expensive suits to "fight for the rights of the unborn child" - that's the mothers job and hers alone.

I meant the last three points. I agree that sick people should receive treatment, both morally and pragmatically.

All the other shit you're saying though? Fucking insane. Government will control our fertility? Your "recreational sex means I shouldn't pay for birth control" arguments? Crazy bastard.

 

[phrodeau]

Uh oh. Please don't boost Fox' ratings - they have too many viewers as it is. If you flash them they'll never go away...

Let them stay stuck to the tube. They won't leave the house to vote then.

 

[Tryharder62]

I know I sound harsh, but you cannot keep inventing the facts of this case, and if you're going to use those inventions to disagree with me, I'm going to call you out on it.

You can disagree with me all you want-call me on whatever you want- but don't insinuate that I am insincere and deceitful.

 

[girlsmiley]

C'mon, Smiley.

Don't you like being told and/or reminded in somewhat coded language, that your womanhood and the worth of your vagina is less than his manhood and the worth of his penis?

http://www.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/week-in-review-james-franco-gifs-imgur.gif

He's a slimy fucker. It's gross.

 

[Phelia]

You can disagree with me all you want-call me on whatever you want- but don't insinuate that I am insincere and deceitful.

I haven't insinuated anything. I plainly and directly called you disingenuous and proceeded to explain exactly why. You didn't address that, and instead repeated an assertion that is incorrect. I think your religious convictions are sincere. I was questioning your arguments in this thread. If you claim otherwise, fine. I really have no choice but to take you at your word, and it has very little bearing on what we're discussing.

 

[John Doe]

Sooo...no one wants discuss the nature of reality?

I haven't insinuated anything. I plainly and directly called you disingenuous and proceeded to explain exactly why. You didn't address that, and instead repeated an assertion that is incorrect. I think your religious convictions are sincere. I was questioning your arguments in this thread. If you claim otherwise, fine. I really have no choice but to take you at your word, and it has very little bearing on what we're discussing.

There is always a choice, though accepting statements at face value is generally the more attractive option.

 

[Bert_Fegg]

It looks like things are winding down here, which is good. I'd like to add my name to Ursula's fanclub though and also make the point that if you threaten boobs as a sanction against anger, then eventually, if your boobs are delicious enough, you're going to start a war - Still, if that's what it takes, I vote for boobs - Somebody pass me a fundamentalist and a hungry lion....

As far as SL's position goes, I can't believe he's a troll, because he's actually arguing his position - I suspect he's just arguing for the sake of it now, but my guess is that he has difficulty reconciling the perfect world his arguments apply to with the real one that we actually have to live in - also I suspect his math skills aren't great.

On the subject of State-controlled fertility - Here in the UK birth control has been available free of charge on the NHS for pretty much as long as it's existed - currently no eugenics programmes have been mooted, because [a] it's fucking stupid and a little thing we have over here called "political suicide" maybe you have it too?

As far as the rest of your argument goes it seems to be that BC pills cost money, which is covered by your premiums, and since one of the reasons women take them is to prevent pregnancy, and since recreational sex isn't a disease, you feel that provides a justification for dropping coverage from medical insurance plans.

Assuming your argument is, as you've stated, solely financial in nature then consider this: If people stopped taking birth control pills then the birth rate would increase. I mean there's a window during which emergency contraception is effective and there's a window in which a pregnancy test will give a result. These windows don't overlap, so on the one hand people having regular sex will be eating a lot of plan B in your perfect world, or getting a lot of abortions or having lots of expensive pregnancies. What do you think that will do to your premiums?

I also find it noteworthy that you're cool with your premiums being inflated by stuff like bonuses for boards of directors - but then I guess you're getting fucked by them, so your criterion for acceptability is presumably met there.

A debate that nobody seems to want to have is whether the healthcare of your nation is something you want to have in the hands of insurance companies. I've worked for a couple and the term "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. They want to maximise profits, which effectively means minimising cover. Over here the effects of increasing encroachment of private enterprise in our health service can be seen in a reduction in service levels and huge increases in cost. Your system is frequently pointed at over here as a thing to be avoided at all costs.

 

[Phelia]

Sooo...no one wants discuss the nature of reality?

There is always a choice, though accepting statements at face value is generally the more attractive option.

Yeah, not worth the battle.

And sorry!

There is no such thing as a fact, and what reality is (or whether there even is such a thing) is up for debate.

http://img.pandawhale.com/45822-Keanu-Bill-and-Ted-whoa-gif-Yr7D.gif

It looks like tings are winding down here, which is good. I'd like to add my name to Ursula's fanclub though and also make the point that if you threaten boobs as a sanction against anger, then eventually, if your boobs are delicious enough, you're going to start a war - Still, if that's what it takes, I vote for boobs - Somebody pass me a fundamentalist and a hungry lion....

As far as SL's position goes, I can't believe he's a troll, because he's actually arguing his position - I suspect he's just arguing for the sake of it now, but my guess is that he has difficulty reconciling the perfect world his arguments apply to with the real one that we actually have to live in - also I suspect his math skills aren't great.

On the subject of State-controlled fertility - Here in the UK birth control has been available free of charge on the NHS for pretty much as long as it's existed - currently no eugenics programmes have been mooted, because [a] it's fucking stupid and a little thing we have over here called "political suicide" maybe you have it too?

As far as the rest of your argument goes it seems to be that BC pills cost money, which is covered by your premiums, and since one of the reasons women take them is to prevent pregnancy, and since recreational sex isn't a disease, you feel that provides a justification for dropping coverage from medical insurance plans.

Assuming your argument is, as you've stated, solely financial in nature then consider this: If people stopped taking birth control pills then the birth rate would increase. I mean there's a window during which emergency contraception is effective and there's a window in which a pregnancy test will give a result. These windows don't overlap, so on the one hand people having regular sex will be eating a lot of plan B in your perfect world, or getting a lot of abortions or having lots of expensive pregnancies. What do you think that will do to your premiums?

I also find it noteworthy that you're cool with your premiums being inflated by stuff like bonuses for boards of directors - but then I guess you're getting fucked by them, so your criterion for acceptability is presumably met there.

A debate that nobody seems to want to have is whether the healthcare of your nation is something you want to have in the hands of insurance companies. I've worked for a couple and the term "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. They want to maximise profits, which effectively means minimising cover. Over here the effects of increasing encroachment of private enterprise in our health service can be seen in a reduction in service levels and huge increases in cost. Your system is frequently pointed at over here as a thing to be avoided at all costs.

While I think he probably believes the nonsense he's spouting, SL also seems to be deliberately trying to rile people up. On some level, he's just trying to be a shithead because he likes the attention, which is a waste of effort, because his natural state appears to be come pretty damn close to the target.

I agree that healthcare coverage absolutely should not be tied to profit-based incentives, and I was personally disappointed in the compromises that dictated the final version of the ACA. At least it's a step in the right direction. This thread was merely intended to address the Supreme Court case at hand.

ETA: I do think that at some point, there needs to be a tiered system. I think that we can ask people to pay for premium services, like private hospital rooms, etc. Australia used to have a two-tiered system that was very effective. Not sure what they have now. Also believe that visits to the doctor should entail some sort of copay. A reasonably small amount that will de-incentivize people from going in for something like a hangnail.

 

[Bert_Fegg]

I agree that healthcare coverage absolutely should not be tied to profit-based incentives, and I was personally disappointed in the compromises that dictated the final version of the ACA. At least it's a step in the right direction. This thread was merely intended to address the Supreme Court case at hand.

ETA: I do think that at some point, there needs to be a tiered system. I think that we can ask people to pay for premium services, like private hospital rooms, etc. Australia used to have a two-tiered system that was very effective. Not sure what they have now. Also believe that visits to the doctor should entail some sort of copay. A reasonably small amount that will de-incentivize people from going in for something like a hangnail.

Yeah - Don't know why I added that - I wasn't trying to derail the debate - I think the point I had in mind, but didn't make, is that socialised healthcare is the most cost-effective option, given that SL professes to be motivated by cost.

Do you think if you and I were to squabble we might get boobs that way?

 

[about_average]

"Unwanted" pregnancy is somebody's fault Smiley. Well unless it's an accident. But it has to be one or the other. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be unwanted. Instead it would be deliberate and in that case birth control would not be an issue anyway.

It seems to me that your opposition is financial, not religious.

If insurance is covering birth control then you feel like that's money out of your pocket.
Yet you have no problem with insurance covering pregnancy care, child birth, and the medical care of the resultant child.

From a purely financial perspective, it's a lot cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control. Just like it's cheaper for insurance companies to cover yearly physicals/wellness exams. That's the reason they do it. In the big picture it saves money.

So I just don't get your opposition to it. It makes no sense, even from the basis of your argument.

 

[StrangeLife]

All the other shit you're saying though? Fucking insane. Government will control our fertility? Your "recreational sex means I shouldn't pay for birth control" arguments? Crazy bastard.

If you do something you don't have to do in order to...

- stay alive
- stay healthy
- make a living
- perform a duty

... it is "recreational."

And despite those LifeTime flicks where the ruggedly handsome 6"2 doctor, with smouldering dark brown eyes, a chin as square as a brick and hair that never gets messed up regardless of the weather, grabs the beautiful nurse and whispers hoasely "I must have you now or I will surely die!"...

... you don't actually die from lack of sex. If you did, over half the women in the country would be incarcerated for killing their husbands or boyfriend.

- "Sorry, not tonight honey. I've got a headache."
- "Arrrrgh" *wheeze* *cough*
- "EDGAR! Oh GOD! what I have I done!"

So yes - sex for fun and pleasure is recreational.

So is waterskiing, kite flying, backgammon, koi breeding, serial killing, soccer, drag racing, graffiti painting, cow tipping... and a million other fun activities people like to engage in. Stuff that people pay for out of their own pocket. That's what you normally do. And compared to a golf membership, having sex as a hobby is so cheap, provided you've got the girl hanging around anyway.

I mean, have you seen what a set of football gear costs these days? Or hockey skates? You could have sex non-stop from now and till the stars flicker out for the price of a complete brand-name hockey uniform. But playing hockey without proper gear will get your teeth knocked out pretty quickly...

...and having recreational sex with Club-Rat Of The Week without birth control will cause the next two decades of your life to suck worse than Highlander 3, Plan V From Outer Space and Meet Joe Black combined!

So sex is a very cheap activity and the consequences of doing it without the proper gear are very dire and very well documented. So if you can't come up with the cash for your own birth control given the power of the motivational factors I just mentioned, you are a... a...

Well, I don't mean to put anybody down Phelia, but how many times can you implore somebody to "please don't jump from that cliff" before you get to the point where you become like: "Ok, go right ahead and jump. Try not to damage the rocks when you hit them."?

It's really not the money as far as I am concerned. I sponsor my local Planned Parenthood anyway - hell, it'll probably be cheaper to pay through the insurance. But it goes against my principles that I am being forced to pay other people for doing something they ought to have every incentive and funds to do already.

See my point?



Oh, as far as the conspiracy thing goes, don't even get me started. I may not be a religious nut, but I'm still a nut.

However the basis of my claim can be easily illustrated in 59 seconds by this guy. (Don't worry - it's not a cock picture. I only send those out for Christmas to family and close friends).

 

[Bert_Fegg]

I have some bad news for you SL You're not paying for anyone's recreational sex. You're paying for the service you get from your insurance company - once you hand over your premium it's not your money any more and what the company does with their money, is really fuck all to do with you. If you don't like what they're covering then why not gird your loins with the courage of your convictions and just stop giving them money. That way when [heaven forfend] you need medical attention, you can pay for it yourself and take full responsibility for your life.

to be honest I suspect your issues might be more with control than ethics or responsibility.

 

[smallgirl]

It looks like things are winding down here, which is good. I'd like to add my name to Ursula's fanclub though and also make the point that if you threaten boobs as a sanction against anger, then eventually, if your boobs are delicious enough, you're going to start a war - Still, if that's what it takes, I vote for boobs - Somebody pass me a fundamentalist and a hungry lion....

As far as SL's position goes, I can't believe he's a troll, because he's actually arguing his position - I suspect he's just arguing for the sake of it now, but my guess is that he has difficulty reconciling the perfect world his arguments apply to with the real one that we actually have to live in - also I suspect his math skills aren't great.

On the subject of State-controlled fertility - Here in the UK birth control has been available free of charge on the NHS for pretty much as long as it's existed - currently no eugenics programmes have been mooted, because [a] it's fucking stupid and a little thing we have over here called "political suicide" maybe you have it too?

As far as the rest of your argument goes it seems to be that BC pills cost money, which is covered by your premiums, and since one of the reasons women take them is to prevent pregnancy, and since recreational sex isn't a disease, you feel that provides a justification for dropping coverage from medical insurance plans.

Assuming your argument is, as you've stated, solely financial in nature then consider this: If people stopped taking birth control pills then the birth rate would increase. I mean there's a window during which emergency contraception is effective and there's a window in which a pregnancy test will give a result. These windows don't overlap, so on the one hand people having regular sex will be eating a lot of plan B in your perfect world, or getting a lot of abortions or having lots of expensive pregnancies. What do you think that will do to your premiums?

I also find it noteworthy that you're cool with your premiums being inflated by stuff like bonuses for boards of directors - but then I guess you're getting fucked by them, so your criterion for acceptability is presumably met there.

A debate that nobody seems to want to have is whether the healthcare of your nation is something you want to have in the hands of insurance companies. I've worked for a couple and the term "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. They want to maximise profits, which effectively means minimising cover. Over here the effects of increasing encroachment of private enterprise in our health service can be seen in a reduction in service levels and huge increases in cost. Your system is frequently pointed at over here as a thing to be avoided at all costs.

Very well said. Birth control is the cheaper option. I personally don't like the thought of how much premiums would rise from all the pregnancies if birth control wasn't covered.

 

[Bert_Fegg]

Oh yeah - apropos of nothing much, I did have an idea for a cheap, albeit imperfect campaign to prevent unwanted pregnancies - I even came up with a snappy slogan, which would look great on a T shirt.

Response wasn't great - but I ask you - what's wrong with "Anal - the way forward."?

 

[norfolklad]

As I said in another thread, sometimes, just sometimes, I am so proud of the country in which I live.

Contraceptives, including the morning after pill, are free here, provided by the state, and readily available. No-one thinks anything about it. It's just the way things are. If you oppose contraceptives on religious grounds then no-one forces you to use them. Similarly, no-one expects you to object to others having access to them. In this country we want every child to be planned and wanted.

 

[Bert_Fegg]

As I said in another thread, sometimes, just sometimes, I am so proud of the country in which I live.

Contraceptives, including the morning after pill, are free here, provided by the state, and readily available. No-one thinks anything about it. It's just the way things are. If you oppose contraceptives on religious grounds then no-one forces you to use them. Similarly, no-one expects you to object to others having access to them. In this country we want every child to be planned and wanted.

You know I actually heard "Land of Hope and Glory" while I was reading this

Mind you I feel the exact same way. No matter what's wrong with this fair land of ours, The NHS Rocks - Nye Bevan was a Giant. Tony Blair wasn't fit to pick his winnets.

 

[phrodeau]

Apparently, StrangeLife never got laid in the Sixties.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Whoa Botany! That was taken out of a context where both Lori and Phelia apparently had me mixed up with Julybaby04 and her religious fervor. I was therefore falsely accused of "slut shaming" and of "wanting to deny Plan B to rape vicitims". I have never expressed either tendency, so I felt the need to defend myself and clarify my position, despite drifting slightly off topic.

Try again....you pretty clearly stated.

You only need birth control for recreational sex (although I suppose you could make a case for "practice before the real event" )

Not really any if, and or butt's about it. This is a common belief among the throngs of homeskool type republicans and I'm point blank calling it bullshit.

 

[norfolklad]

You know I actually heard "Land of Hope and Glory" while I was reading this

Mind you I feel the exact same way. No matter what's wrong with this fair land of ours, The NHS Rocks - Nye Bevan was a Giant. Tony Blair wasn't fit to pick his winnets.

I sometimes feel when reading GB that maybe things aren't quite as bad over here as we sometimes make out.

 

[FGB]

" women's reproductive rights."

When and where did these come?

Are they from man? God?

What are they?

What "RIGHT" is this?

And why should other people pay for them?

Smells it does...

 

[Disgustipated]

" women's reproductive rights."

When and where did these come?

Are they from man? God?

What are they?

What "RIGHT" is this?

And why should other people pay for them?

Smells it does...

I was gonna post about all the dumb in this thread and you topped them all. Congrats!