Response and Comments to Amicus and his dislike of all minorities:

[vrosej10]

Vrosej -

To slightly paraphrase an immensely larger and more high-roaded mind than mine: "I will extend a hand if they are willing to unclench their fist."

My "hand" being a metaphor for my forgiving nature and goodwill. Which has its limitations, me not being a Buddha.

Their "fist" being a metaphor for their boxed, air-tight, reverse-tesseracts of a mind.

"They" being an allusion to Amicus and his ilk.

Outside of that, there's no embarrassment or loss of credit for making fun of them on their dime.

I just would like to know why they are so angry? In all seriousness, I am staggered by some of these posts.

 

[DeeZire]

I can't believe how many of you are seriously okay with the world seeing them as inbred, knuckledragging hillbillies. Aren't any of you embarassed by your small minds?

Some of us are embarrassed by the small minds of our fellow citizens, who insist on such things as the idea that our current president is not actually a US citizen. How else would you describe such a clueless mindset besides "knuckledragging hillbilly"? Would "information-challenged" be more palatable?

Granted, making generalizations is always going to malign the exceptions who don't fit the pattern, but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, is it wrong to assume that it actually is a duck?

A point of reference: over 50% of the US population believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, even after news reports debunked that theory. Again, "knuclkedragging hillbillies" seems to be an appropriate term to describe such a mindset.

ETA: I am angry because it's impossible to conduct civil discourse with these people when their reality is so far removed from the real world the rest of us live in. Plus, they vote, making matters even worse.

 

[vrosej10]

Some of us are embarrassed by the small minds of our fellow citizens, who insist on such things as the idea that our current president is not actually a US citizen. How else would you describe such a clueless mindset besides "knuckledragging hillbilly"? Would "information-challenged" be more palatable?

Granted, making generalizations is always going to malign the exceptions who don't fit the pattern, but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, is it wrong to assume that it actually is a duck?

A point of reference: over 50% of the US population believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, even after news reports debunked that theory. Again, "knuclkedragging hillbillies" seems to be an appropriate term to describe such a mindset.

ETA: I am angry because it's impossible to conduct civil discourse with these people when their reality is so far removed from the real world the rest of us live in. Plus, they vote, making matters even worse.

So glad I'm not an American right now. We have our idiots too. We had a politician called Pauline Hanson that would have given some extreme right-wingers a run for their money.

i wonder whether it is lack of education or disinterest in having their mindsets challenged?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

So glad I'm not an American right now. We have our idiots too. We had a politician called Pauline Hanson that would have given some extreme right-wingers a run for their money.

i wonder whether it is lack of education or disinterest in having their mindsets challenged?

A large part of it, along with those smaller parts you mentioned, is in being:

- lazy
- comfortable
- the accepting and enabling of the lowest common denominator in their lives
- indifferent

 

[scheherazade_79]

JBJ, I have to say that I find your statement about the "camps" of the Black community interesting and pretty close to at least my reality. I think there are perhaps more than just those two camps, or maybe just subgroups within each camp, but I do see agree that there is a split, and that obviously one camp tends to be more vocal than the other. I don't know that your friend Amicus would agree though.

Speaking of Amicus, I'm with Liar on this one. Although I dislike or disagree with what he has to say a majority of the time, I certainly do not want to see it censored. To do so would be to admit that anyone can censor what I have to say because it may offend someone. That's how we ended up with the ridiculous, sanitized, PC version of everything that we have now. Besides, I don't believe that keeping someone from expressing their disdain or hatred for me makes them like me more; it simply gives me one less clue that I should probably stay away from them.

I'm with Liar and Cerise.

I might not agree with everything Amicus has written, but he has a right to voice his opinions. And like it or not, whereas others launched into hysterical counter-rants, he at least attempted to provide sources and evidence for his ideas.

We're supposed to be a tolerant bunch in here. We support free speech, the rights of the individual and the struggle of the minority.

Amicus' ideas and his world philosophy are hardly mainstream, and it's not as though he's going to "convert" the entire forum with his posts. So why is it that everyone else should enjoy the freedom of speech, but not him?

What next? Are we going to launch a gang attack on the next Muslim who walks into the forum, just because they have the gall to say that homosexuality is a sin? What about the pro-life vegetarian, who claims that meat-eaters are evil and that condoms should be banned? Should we demand their silence too, just because their opinions don't fit in with our politically correct Disneyland?

It seems to me that freedom of speech is no longer something we defend, but something we use as a weapon. An exclusive club, to which you can only subscribe if you hold certain 'acceptable' views. Which isn't really freedom of speech at all, is it?

Amicus has a right to air his views, no matter how despicable some of us might find them. Other AHers have a right to challenge those views and enter into debate. But I don't believe anyone has the right to silence an individual, or imply they had no right to voice those opinions in the first place.

Poor show.

 

[Teloz]

I'm with Liar and Cerise...

...Amicus has a right to air his views, no matter how despicable some of us might find them. Other AHers have a right to challenge those views and enter into debate. But I don't believe anyone has the right to silence an individual, or imply they had no right to voice those opinions in the first place.

Poor show.

I agree!

 

[Pure]

note to sheher and teloz

sheherI might not agree with everything Amicus has written, but he has a right to voice his opinions. And like it or not, whereas others launched into hysterical counter-rants, he at least attempted to provide sources and evidence for his ideas.

We're supposed to be a tolerant bunch in here. We support free speech, the rights of the individual and the struggle of the minority

Amicus' ideas and his world philosophy are hardly mainstream, and it's not as though he's going to "convert" the entire forum with his posts. So why is it that everyone else should enjoy the freedom of speech, but not him?
---
pure: I see no evidence that Ami has been denied free speech; just two days ago, in this thread, he thanked the instigators for giving his thoughts public showing. i've seen this weird bit of unreason for years. if you post "X's views are idiotic and here's why," someone always say "he had a right to his views." true. and since he posted them, everyone has a right, in turn, to say "brilliant" or "idiotic" and hopefully back up that judgement.


shehWhat next? Are we going to launch a gang attack on the next Muslim who walks into the forum, just because they have the gall to say that homosexuality is a sin? What about the pro-life vegetarian, who claims that meat-eaters are evil and that condoms should be banned? Should we demand their silence too, just because their opinions don't fit in with our politically correct Disneyland?

It seems to me that freedom of speech is no longer something we defend, but something we use as a weapon. An exclusive club, to which you can only subscribe if you hold certain 'acceptable' views. Which isn't really freedom of speech at all, is it?

pure: Silly. He posts what he likes. He's started half a dozen threads in the last week!


shehAmicus has a right to air his views, no matter how despicable some of us might find them. Other AHers have a right to challenge those views and enter into debate. But I don't believe anyone has the right to silence an individual, or imply they had no right to voice those opinions in the first place.

pure: Ami, silenced? Are you out of your mind? (see above).

==

As to your one factual point:

sheherwhereas others launched into hysterical counter-rants, he at least attempted to provide sources and evidence for his ideas.

pure: this is simply incorrect. his IDEA is of inferiority, innate, inescapable.
his stats as to, for example, unwed mothers, prove nothing except the obvious truism that poor people tend to reproduce earlier, and the males tend not to stick around.

shehPoor show.

it's a delightful show, and ami and lots of us are enjoying the hell out of it.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I almost never agree with Ami, but at least he's trying to think which puts him 100 steps above most of the wankers on this site.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So glad I'm not an American right now. We have our idiots too. We had a politician called Pauline Hanson that would have given some extreme right-wingers a run for their money.

i wonder whether it is lack of education or disinterest in having their mindsets challenged?

see, you had that politician-- past tense. We still have ours-- lots of them. They are in office because knuckle-draggers want to be led by knuckle-draggers.

The mindset is because of vigorous education, by people like Llimbaugh, O'Rielly, Savage, and all the other pundits who have flourished in the post-Gingrich years. About half of this country are leading the propaganda-controlled life we have always professed to despise-- Stalinism in obverse.

 

[Azshade]

Just read the OP only (so sorry if this has been covered already) but why is "pro-choice" seen as "pro-abortion"? I've very much pro-choice for a number of reasons, both personal and ethical, but that doesn't mean I look 'down' upon people that carry full term and give to adoption, or any other scenario. Choice is the operative word.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Just read the OP only (so sorry if this has been covered already) but why is "pro-choice" seen as "pro-abortion"? I've very much pro-choice for a number of reasons, both personal and ethical, but that doesn't mean I look 'down' upon people that carry full term and give to adoption, or any other scenario. Choice is the operative word.

Because he says so.

No matter what reasonable people like yourself say.

 

[Liar]

I'm with Liar and Cerise.

Since this thread was rescurrected from the depths of oblivion, and I can't remember what I wrote, all I can say is that I do like the company.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just read the OP only (so sorry if this has been covered already) but why is "pro-choice" seen as "pro-abortion"? I've very much pro-choice for a number of reasons, both personal and ethical, but that doesn't mean I look 'down' upon people that carry full term and give to adoption, or any other scenario. Choice is the operative word.

Those people such as Ami, who are opposed to abortion, try to demonize pro-choice persons by saying they are pro-abortion, even though they know better.

I firmly believe that those, such as myself, who are pro-choice realize that it happens sometimes that a girl or woman finds herself pregnant and weighs the options, hopefully conferring with others who might be involved, such as her husband, her family or her boy friend. Sometimes the choices are all bad, so she decides on the one that is least bad, and sometimes that is to have an abortion. When that happens, I want her to be able to follow through on her choice, and do it safely and with as little fuss as possible.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you Box, you've said it for me as well

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

With respect to the guy in question, I really believe that he is just a sad and extremely loud member of the old guard. Those guys are almost all gone, and nobody reads what they say anymore because the days when such poppycock was acceptable are ending. That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to spew his propaganda. It just means I don't take him seriously. No one from that side of the coin ever goes down into the ground without a few final words. (Words I don't care about, and very few others care about anymore except as a kind of sad post-scriptum that reminds us of what used to pass for intelligence, if in fact it ever did.)


Think of the dinosaur exhibit. That's where his writings belong, filed in a closet under A for anachromism.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Think of the dinosaur exhibit. That's where his writings belong, filed in a closet under A for anachromism.

But speaking of dinosaurs, Les...you know what happened in Jurassic Park when they found that amber deposit, right?

*shudders for the future*

 

[amicus]

From Post #157:

"...Amicus' ideas and his world philosophy are hardly mainstream, and it's not as though he's going to "convert" the entire forum with his posts. So why is it that everyone else should enjoy the freedom of speech, but not him?..."

~~~

In reality, my ideas and world philosophy are indeed, 'mainstream'. It is the far left vocal minority on this forum who center on pro death, homosexuality and enforced equality on the population, that occupies a minority position.

Those who cherish life, as it begins at the instant of conception, are known as 'pro life', the antithesis of that position, to be accurate, would be, 'pro death', now, would it not?

Another poster sympathetic poster decried that a woman/girl, 'finding herself pregnant', ought to have a 'choice' to kill the baby.

Really?

How does one, 'find' they are pregnant? Immaculate Conception?

Gimme a break...

Language and conceptual thoughts are expressed within the confines of fundamental axioms and truths. Every human has an innate right to life; another human, by definition, cannot exercise a 'choice' to take that life without cause and due process.

Amicus

 

[lance gt]

From Post #157:

~~~

In reality, my ideas and world philosophy are indeed, 'mainstream'. It is the far left vocal minority on this forum who center on pro death, homosexuality and enforced equality on the population, that occupies a minority position.

Those who cherish life, as it begins at the instant of conception, are known as 'pro life', the antithesis of that position, to be accurate, would be, 'pro death', now, would it not?

Another poster sympathetic poster decried that a woman/girl, 'finding herself pregnant', ought to have a 'choice' to kill the baby.

Really?

How does one, 'find' they are pregnant? Immaculate Conception?

Gimme a break...

Language and conceptual thoughts are expressed within the confines of fundamental axioms and truths. Every human has an innate right to life; another human, by definition, cannot exercise a 'choice' to take that life without cause and due process.

Amicus

This comes from The Modern Man's Code of Morals and Ethics

Abortion

At no other time in history , has the issue of abortion become a topic of great discussion and deliberation. With the fact that two people are involved in the outcome, namely the mother and the fetus, it is a dilema as to who's rights supercede the other's.
In the case of un-planned pregnancies with teenage girls and single women, there are only two options. The first is to give birth and raise the child with a good deal of assistance, or secondly, give birth and give the child up for adoption. There is no right for her to choose abortion, as it was her choice to have un-protected sex, or take any precaution before or after the occurance.
In the case of rape, it then becomes the woman's right to choose, in the case of mental anguish to herself to give birth to the baby.
If it is diagnosed that the fetus is malformed or genetically deficient and will not be born into a life of any quality, it becomes the parents right to choose termination. No one parent can decide on their own, as they have equality in that decision.
If it is discovered that carrying the baby to term will endanger the mother's life, then she has the choice to terminate to save her own life.
There are no other reasons a pregnancy should be terminated.
I think that this answers for both sides, as to who is right or wrong in the debate of pro-choice or pro-life. We have our responsibilties to life and protect its existence.

 

[Boxlicker101]

From Post #157:

~~~

In reality, my ideas and world philosophy are indeed, 'mainstream'. It is the far left vocal minority on this forum who center on pro death, homosexuality and enforced equality on the population, that occupies a minority position.

Those who cherish life, as it begins at the instant of conception, are known as 'pro life', the antithesis of that position, to be accurate, would be, 'pro death', now, would it not?

Another poster sympathetic poster decried that a woman/girl, 'finding herself pregnant', ought to have a 'choice' to kill the baby.

Really?

How does one, 'find' they are pregnant? Immaculate Conception?

Gimme a break...

Language and conceptual thoughts are expressed within the confines of fundamental axioms and truths. Every human has an innate right to life; another human, by definition, cannot exercise a 'choice' to take that life without cause and due process.

Amicus

I would say that being pro-life would be believing that every pregnancy should run its course, which would end with the female giving birth or with a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. The opposite of the pro-life belief, that of pro-death, would be insisting that ALL pregnancies be terminated in induced abortions. I dno't know of anybody in the US who believes the latter would be the proper way to go.

Pro-choice is in the middle. It is a belief that a woman should have the right to have an induced abortion or to continue her pregnancy to its natural conclusion, whatever that may be. The woman should be the one who makes the final choice, preferably with input from others who are involved, such as her parents, husband, boy friend, her other children, doctor, clergymember, and any other person she may consult.

I have never been pregnant, of course, nor have I ever had a spouse or daughter who was pregnant, to my knowledge. However, I believe the usual clue is when her menses do not start when they should. A few days from that time, she consults her physician or uses a pregnancy testing kit from the drug store. That would be how she finds that she is pregnant.

I rather doubt that the mother of Mary used either of these methods. I don't know how she learned of her pregnancy with the daughter who would be named Mary.

 

[amicus]

This comes from The Modern Man's Code of Morals and Ethics

Abortion

At no other time in history , has the issue of abortion become a topic of great discussion and deliberation. With the fact that two people are involved in the outcome, namely the mother and the fetus, it is a dilema as to who's rights supercede the other's.
In the case of un-planned pregnancies with teenage girls and single women, there are only two options. The first is to give birth and raise the child with a good deal of assistance, or secondly, give birth and give the child up for adoption. There is no right for her to choose abortion, as it was her choice to have un-protected sex, or take any precaution before or after the occurance.
In the case of rape, it then becomes the woman's right to choose, in the case of mental anguish to herself to give birth to the baby.
If it is diagnosed that the fetus is malformed or genetically deficient and will not be born into a life of any quality, it becomes the parents right to choose termination. No one parent can decide on their own, as they have equality in that decision.
If it is discovered that carrying the baby to term will endanger the mother's life, then she has the choice to terminate to save her own life.
There are no other reasons a pregnancy should be terminated.
I think that this answers for both sides, as to who is right or wrong in the debate of pro-choice or pro-life. We have our responsibilties to life and protect its existence.[/

QUOTE]

~~~

lance gt, a post deserving a response...

I suppose it is/was easier to be a Catholic, wherein God created life and each was sacred and thus protected.

Lacking a God and any remaining heterosexual Catholics, the question now becomes one of objective ethics and morals.

Your quote is one of situational ethics, or relatavistic morals and does not once mention human life or the intrinsic value of life.

Abortion is an issue, not just in the 20th century, although the advent of birth control chemicals and feminine independence exacerbated the debate over the primacy of human life.

The best attempt perhaps, Humanist philosophy, to provide non deist people with a moral and ethical code, dropped the ball on the definition and value of human life.

It remains a sticky issue as tens of thousands of infertile couples are desperate to adopt any or all of the millions of lives taken each year.

That code would approve of the mother of a damaged child, like the former Governor of Alaska, destroying that child in the womb. It would also approve of destroying a child that is the product of a rape, disregarding the innate right of that unborn life, to live.

We either value human life at every stage, from conception to death, or we do not.

That we do not opens the way for genocide both in the womb and to the elderly, who are no longer, 'cost effective'.

One can regret that a woman 'finds' she is pregnant with an unwanted child and even have sympathy for that situation. But to permit a human life to be sacrificed to, 'choice', is an immoral and unethical act and in my eyes, a criminal act and should be prosecuted.

This is not a minority position; it is very mainstream and reflects the basic nature of all humanity who act to protect and preserve life at all levels.

Amicus

 

[lance gt]

I understand your point of preserving every life. What it is saying is allowing a woman the right to her own life. If we must allow every conception to come to full term, what happens to the woman who is raped and suffers a life of mental trauma, driving her further into a much more distressed state and her rejection of the child. That child will never know its history or the value of having its natural family, but most likely being put up for adoption to a childless couple. Where then is the respect for that person's choice. It was taken away when she was raped and now is expected to give birth to a child she doesn't and didn't want in the first place. When did her rights to her choice become an issue for others to determine. She didn't want to have sex, it was forced. She doesn't want to have a baby, but people like you feel she has to. Imagine that you are a woman and have to face that. Being males, it's hard to fully appreciate their position as the sole bearer of responsibility to create a life after conception. When do you get to option your choice?

 

[amicus]

I understand your point of preserving every life. What it is saying is allowing a woman the right to her own life. If we must allow every conception to come to full term, what happens to the woman who is raped and suffers a life of mental trauma, driving her further into a much more distressed state and her rejection of the child. That child will never know its history or the value of having its natural family, but most likely being put up for adoption to a childless couple. Where then is the respect for that person's choice. It was taken away when she was raped and now is expected to give birth to a child she doesn't and didn't want in the first place. When did her rights to her choice become an issue for others to determine. She didn't want to have sex, it was forced. She doesn't want to have a baby, but people like you feel she has to. Imagine that you are a woman and have to face that. Being males, it's hard to fully appreciate their position as the sole bearer of responsibility to create a life after conception. When do you get to option your choice?[/QUOTE]

~~~

That is not really a legitimate question, lance-gt, as respect for all human life does not address how it was conceived.

And I know my viewpoint will be viewed as cruel and inhuman and probably misogynistic, nonetheless...

Something 'universal' in every human society I am aware of, is that each acted to protect the virture and safety of the women and girls of that society.

I have five daughters, all grown now, but I would have killed any bastard that attempted to force any of them. I suspect most fathers on the planet feel the same way.

We codify and institutionalize that anger over forced sexual intercourse with laws and police forces to act on our behalf.

None of that addresses the basic issue: that of the value of human life.

I do not know of a single person that condones or justifies rape, do you?

But I know of many who justify taking an innocent life because of rape.

The value of human life is not amenable to whim or situational ethics or, 'choice', as some would have it. Human life is either the primary value of existence or it is not and despite all the apologetic rhetoric offered, 'human life' begins at the instant of conception; it can be nothing else.

It was said and still may be, of Asian cultures, 'life is cheap'. When life, or anything, is 'cheap' it loses value. When human life loses value in a society, that society is doomed to fail.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

note to lance.

ami's position on abortion makes *some* sense; it's the pope's position, after all (but not ayn rand's).

your maunderings about some standard exceptions (e.g those embraced by Ronald Reagan), are incoherent and clueless, whatever their seeming 'liberalism' or alleged 'pro woman' cast.

this "Modern Man's Code of Morals and Ethics" is a bit of pompous stupidity, wherein Lance--the self styled Modern Man-- tells women what he's figured out is best for them

 

[lance gt]

ami's position on abortion makes *some* sense; it's the pope's position, after all (but not ayn rand's).

your maunderings about some standard exceptions (e.g those embraced by Ronald Reagan), are incoherent and clueless, whatever their seeming 'liberalism' or alleged 'pro woman' cast.

this "Modern Man's Code of Morals and Ethics" is a bit of pompous stupidity, wherein Lance--the self styled Modern Man-- tells women what he's figured out is best for them

That would be your opinion and you're entitled to it. I believe a person's rights shouldn't be impeded by someone elses feelings. We have the right to choose what we want, especially when it concerns our bodies and minds. I found it very coherant and maintains a respect for a person's life.

 

[amicus]

It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths that Pure will go to avoid thinking.

Pure is an admitted Marxist, yet, rather than dismiss his thoughts as merely that, I address the basic issues of a collectivist society and illustrate the repeated demonstrations of the inhumanity of Socialism.

So the Pope shares my position?

So what?

Amicus