PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Go ahead, get it off your chest.
User avatar
erik
Churchill
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:06 am
Submitting as: 15-16 puzzle
Location: Austin
Contact:

Post by erik »

user wrote:<b>15-16 puzzle said:</b>
Man, Nazis *AND* abortion. Awesome troll.
I can't believe you just called me a troll. Was there a specific point that I made that you found to be mere immature heckling, or are you just tired of coming up with intelligent responses?
Yes, specifically the points at which you compared someone to a Nazi, and the point at which you misrepresented someone as being pro-live-baby-killing.
user wrote:There's nothing I've said whose purpose was to be bothersome. I want people to see my side of the issue, because I believe that I'm more or less right, so I present it in what I believe to be a reasonable manner.

I see now that you're not really worth debating with, because the closer I get to changing your mind, the angrier you'll become.
Saying that I'm getting angrier is both ridiculous and diversionary. The reason I'm not worth debating because I don't like to do it; I merely point out things that don't make sense about what someone says.
user wrote:One more thing: Sure, Nazis aren't exactly an important issue here (I merely used Hitler as grossly exaggerated analagy to Bush, and you decided to pick on that), but are you really implying that <i>abortion</i> isn't something we should be talking about??? I mean, it's a pretty important fucking issue right now.
If you don't know the following things, let me tell them to you now:

1. Comparing someone to Hitler or other Nazi is generally seen as a trolly thing to do.

2. Wild exaggerations of opinions of people who do not share the same belief as you is often seen as a trolly thing to do.

3. Trolling has little to do with content, and quite a lot to do with how it's presented. In fact, a decent troll will have lots of actual things to say about relevant topics, he'll just present them in a dick way.


If you really didn't know that Nazi-comparisons and exaggerating make you seem trollish, now you do. Most everything else you've said paints you as more of a "debater" rather than a "troll".
c hack
Orwell
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by c hack »

Future Boy wrote:Regarding social security, his beef with Bush's social plan is that he doesn't think it'll work to allow young people to transfer their social money to their own savings account because the money they are putting in now is being used to pay out people currently getting social checks. He did offer that he'd been involved with fixing it once in the 90s and that they'd do it again if they had to. Again, can you really expect a totally detailed plan during a debate or a stump speech?
No, but he basically said "more of the same." He didn't even give a broad plan for that, or anything else. Granted, SS is just about the last thing I care about, but I dunno, it really seemed to me like he didn't have any real plan for anything, except to pay for most of it by rolling back the top 1% tax cut. Which I'm all for, of course. I do think he'd be more fiscally responsible though. But OTOH, Bush did inherit a recession -- so he's not totally to blame for the deficit. Gah, who knows?
<a href="http://www.c-hack.com">c-hack.com</a> | <a href="http://www.rootrecords.org">rootrecords.org</a>
jimtyrrell
Churchill
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:43 pm
Instruments: Guitar/bass/keys
Recording Method: Various. Mostly Garageband these days, actually.
Submitting as: Jim Tyrrell
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Post by jimtyrrell »

Jefff, I see your point. And I will say that Kerry addressed his own plans much better in the question that followed (which is amusing, since it was really a very pointed question: Is Bush entirely to blame for loss of jobs?
).
Perhaps it is not the candidates that really have me irked, but the nature of the debate itself. It appears there was a pattern of asking the question to the first candidate, and then giving the opponent his chance by simply saying "Mr. Kerry?" or "Mr. President?", and then allowing them to expound as they will. I think this led to instant rebuttals of whatever was said first. If, perhaps, the question had been reiterated to the second candidate, they would have talked more about what they were doing instead of what they disagreed with in the preceding statements. But then, maybe not.
My vote should not, and will not, be based on which candidate attacks his opponent more efficiently. But this seems to be the primary goal that these debates are designed (or at least used) to accomplish.
starfinger
Orwell
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:07 pm
Instruments: electricity
Recording Method: traveler mk1
Submitting as: starfinger
Contact:

Post by starfinger »

c hack wrote:He didn't even give a broad plan for that, or anything else.
he has repeatedly referred to johnkerry.com, where he does have what appear to be more embellished plans for these things.

-craig
"Starfinger for president!!!" -- arby
"I would 100% nominate you for the Supreme Court." -- frankie big face
c hack
Orwell
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by c hack »

15-16 puzzle wrote:3. Trolling has little to do with content, and quite a lot to do with how it's presented. In fact, a decent troll will have lots of actual things to say about relevant topics, he'll just present them in a dick way.
And a really good troll will, in a perfectly gentle manner, bring up an issue that has been beat to death and get the two sides to flame each other to death, a la Yojimbo.

Like "I wanted to get a computer the other day, and I looked at the Macs. They look nice, but they're so slow and so much more expensive. so I'll probably get a PC."

To User's credit, he compared the guy he was arguing for to Hitler. Which is less trolly.
<a href="http://www.c-hack.com">c-hack.com</a> | <a href="http://www.rootrecords.org">rootrecords.org</a>
Jefff
Attlee
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:23 pm
Submitting as: PPV
Pronouns: he/him
Location: Denver, CO, US
Contact:

Post by Jefff »

c hack wrote:
Jefff wrote: If your side of the issue is "abortion is killing babies!" then you haven't the slightest understanding of the other side of the issue.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
How so?
c hack
Orwell
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by c hack »

Jefff wrote:
c hack wrote:
Jefff wrote: If your side of the issue is "abortion is killing babies!" then you haven't the slightest understanding of the other side of the issue.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
How so?
Well, first of all, your position on something has no bearing on your understanding of the other side. And second, "abortion is killing babies" isn't a side, it's a description, unless you define "baby" as only being something out of the womb. But the killing part isn't contested. At least legally, the issue isn't whether or not you're killing something, it's whether or not you have a right to kill it.
<a href="http://www.c-hack.com">c-hack.com</a> | <a href="http://www.rootrecords.org">rootrecords.org</a>
Jefff
Attlee
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:23 pm
Submitting as: PPV
Pronouns: he/him
Location: Denver, CO, US
Contact:

Post by Jefff »

c hack wrote:Well, first of all, your position on something has no bearing on your understanding of the other side. And second, "abortion is killing babies" isn't a side, it's a description, unless you define "baby" as only being something out of the womb. But the killing part isn't contested. At least legally, the issue isn't whether or not you're killing something, it's whether or not you have a right to kill it.
Ok. I should have said that if his argument (not position) is "abortion is killing babies!" then he doesn't understand the issue and therefore blah blah blah.

Because User's statement relied solely on the power of the idea of killing a baby. And you're right, this is a description not an argument because it doesn't address the issue (which doesn't exist without the "other side").

I guess my gist is that I wanted to point out that User was in fact trolling because he was just pushing emotional buttons rather than speaking to the real issue with abortion.
Jefff
Attlee
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:23 pm
Submitting as: PPV
Pronouns: he/him
Location: Denver, CO, US
Contact:

Post by Jefff »

Though actually, I would argue that an opposing argument does have a bearing on your position on an issue. First of all, it's not an issue if it doesn't have at least two sides. Second of all, you can't choose one side unless you know what the other side is.
c hack
Orwell
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by c hack »

Oh, I see what you meant. Yeah, I agree -- if you want to talk about abortion (which is generally a bad idea, b/c no one's gonna change anyone's minds), you've got to make sure your language is very precise and not emotional at all, or it'll turn into a stupid flame war.

edit:
Jefff wrote:Though actually, I would argue that an opposing argument does have a bearing on your position on an issue. First of all, it's not an issue if it doesn't have at least two sides. Second of all, you can't choose one side unless you know what the other side is.
I can see that, but you (knowing nothing else about him) implied that User, in thinking abortion was wrong, had no understanding of the other side. Which of course doesn't make any sense. I think we're arguing semantics here.
<a href="http://www.c-hack.com">c-hack.com</a> | <a href="http://www.rootrecords.org">rootrecords.org</a>
Poor June
Orwell
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:43 am
Location: Walkertown, NC
Contact:

Post by Poor June »

c hack wrote:Oh, I see what you meant. Yeah, I agree -- if you want to talk about abortion (which is generally a bad idea, b/c no one's gonna change anyone's minds), you've got to make sure your language is very precise and not emotional at all, or it'll turn into a stupid flame war.

edit:
Jefff wrote:Though actually, I would argue that an opposing argument does have a bearing on your position on an issue. First of all, it's not an issue if it doesn't have at least two sides. Second of all, you can't choose one side unless you know what the other side is.
I can see that, but you (knowing nothing else about him) implied that User, in thinking abortion was wrong, had no understanding of the other side. Which of course doesn't make any sense. I think we're arguing semantics here.
what he said O_o...

i'm against... but i don't care to argue... cause i know it wouldn't change my mind... and i know it wouldn't change anyone elses either... so i'll just leave it at that... much love....

and heavy petting
"You haven't been really bad in a long time." - jim of seattle

<a href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/poorj ... htm">music page</a>
Mogosagatai
Goldman
Posts: 717
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 3:09 pm

Post by Mogosagatai »

Alright, I'm back from class, and much has been said.

Firstly: I am <i>not</i> against abortion. I <i>strongly</i> believe in a pro-choice society. I <i>was</i> strongly against partial-birth abortions (those in which the baby is killed during labor, and is hence "partially" born). However, Future Boy has presented such abortions in a light in which I have never seen them, and if the reasons he gave are really the way it works, then I stand corrected. I read the article, and it makes sense. I still don't like the part about doing it to live, healthy babies just because their mothers are suicidally depressed. If the mother let it go this far, value the baby's life over hers.

This does not affect my stance that Kerry is a spineless bastard, and the whole gay thing still stands.

Now lemme address this whole "You said Hitler so you're a troll" business. The only point I was trying to make was that <i>having a spine is not, in and of itself, a fully redeemable quality.</i> To prove this point, I said, "Hitler had a spine," as an obvious counterexample to anyone who might argue the point. The implication was not that Bush is some sort of neo-Hitler, but that, Bush, like Hitler, has a spine but is still not a quality leader because of his wrong ideas. This is not an exaggeration--the exaggeration was in my choice to pick such an obviously evil leader that everyone would understand the point. However, it seems that very few people understood. Now you know. Anyone who was offended by that statement can either remain offended, or reconsider.

If comparing someone to Hitler, even very lightly in order to make one small point, is a trolly thing to do, then I am, at least partially, a troll. I offer no apologies, but will gladly accept any.

If wild exaggerations of people who do not share the same belief as you, such as calling them a troll, is a trolly thing to do, then 15-16 puzzle is, at least partially, a troll.

To everyone who somehow misread my posts to mean that I'm against abortions, don't just pick the key words next time. I have plainly stated that one of the two major things I hate about Bush is his stance on abortion.
c hack
Orwell
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by c hack »

user wrote:To everyone who somehow misread my posts to mean that I'm against abortions, don't just pick the key words next time.
my bad
<a href="http://www.c-hack.com">c-hack.com</a> | <a href="http://www.rootrecords.org">rootrecords.org</a>
Poor June
Orwell
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:43 am
Location: Walkertown, NC
Contact:

Post by Poor June »

ok now we are on abortion... for one reason alone i do see abortion period alone... is wrong...
true i believe that a lot of things should be choice...

but to think if it is started... then it is... goin' walk... and breeth... and live... wether or not it's called a 'fetus'...

and maybe i should have been aborted... but to think... if i was aborted... then i would never get to experience anything i do... and that would fuckin' blow...

and it wouldn't have been my choice... so would it have been a pro-choice... there are other options like adoption and the likes... yea so what if the baby comes back...

so what if you were raped... killin' an innocent life... doesn't take away the memories... the least you can do... is allow somethin' good to come from it... or give it up for adoption if it really was that bad...

*that may sound cold hearted... i've had my history i've had a lot of shit happen to me... but i'd never kill an innocent person over it*...

and i shall stop my ranting... was in the mood... and now you can state your reasons... or what not... and it will again thus not change my mind... but it could be cool to see another persons point of view... (just figured i'd share my views) since it wouldn't lead me to vote either way...

maybe bush is against abortion and i like that... but at the sametime... he's sendin' people over to iraq everyday for no apparent reason to die... so there we have it...
"You haven't been really bad in a long time." - jim of seattle

<a href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/poorj ... htm">music page</a>
User avatar
Leaf
Churchill
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:19 pm
Instruments: Drums, guitar, bass, vocals.
Recording Method: Cubase
Submitting as: Leaf 62, Gert, Boon Liver, Leaf and Twig, Tom Skillman, A bunch of other stuff.
Location: Campbell River, B.C.
Contact:

Post by Leaf »

I think poor people should have mandatory abortions.




Now who's the troll fuckers?????




kidding.
Jefff
Attlee
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:23 pm
Submitting as: PPV
Pronouns: he/him
Location: Denver, CO, US
Contact:

Post by Jefff »

c hack wrote:I can see that, but you (knowing nothing else about him) implied that User, in thinking abortion was wrong, had no understanding of the other side. Which of course doesn't make any sense. I think we're arguing semantics here.
I was saying that if the one thing was true (if that were his argument) then the other is true (he doesn't understand what he's arguing against), and I stand by that. It doesn't have to do with if he thinks abortion is wrong. It's about how he discusses it.
Jefff
Attlee
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:23 pm
Submitting as: PPV
Pronouns: he/him
Location: Denver, CO, US
Contact:

Post by Jefff »

user wrote:To everyone who somehow misread my posts to mean that I'm against abortions, don't just pick the key words next time. I have plainly stated that one of the two major things I hate about Bush is his stance on abortion.
In case you're referring to me, I didn't necessarily say anything about how you felt about abortions. I was pointing out that talking about killing babies does nothing to further discussion on the topic and therefore is trollish.
Mogosagatai
Goldman
Posts: 717
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 3:09 pm

Post by Mogosagatai »

Killing babies would be a bit naive to talk about if I was talking about abortions in general, but I was talking about <i>partial-birth</i> abortion, which <i>is</i>--unless the baby is already dead--killing babies. Unquestionably. I suspect you misinterpreted my post to say that any abortion is baby murder. Sorry if I'm wrong about your interpretation.

But now that we're on abortion, I'll have a go at it:

The important question for most people is not whether or not taking an innocent life is wrong--I think we can all agree that that is wrong. Anyone who disagrees, well, that's fucked up. I can understand the occasional necessity to take one innocent life instead of another, and therefore to be faced with a terrible decision, but that's for another discussion.

So the real issue is, when does an abortion become killing a baby? When does a clump of organic tissue become a sentient being, or get a soul, or become a truly living creature?

I don't think that happens upon conception. Yes, conception is the beginning of a growth that will eventually grow into a new person, but initially, it's still just a clump of cells. I think that clump of cells doesn't become a person until the brain really gets rolling, and it becomes sentient, and, while still primarily dominated by instinct and biological processes, it begins to <i>consider</i> things.

So when does this sentience begin? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't happen during the first trimester, and quite doubtfully during the second. Now, once you get to the third, well, you really should have made your decision by then.

So, ultimately, a lump of cells, no matter how important, is still just a lump of cells, no more alive than a new batch of skin cells growing over an old scrape. But if you think you oughta get an abortion, don't wait 6 months to make your decision, cuz by then, that lump of cells may actually be thinking when you kill it.
User avatar
erik
Churchill
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:06 am
Submitting as: 15-16 puzzle
Location: Austin
Contact:

Post by erik »

user wrote:If comparing someone to Hitler, even very lightly in order to make one small point, is a trolly thing to do, then I am, at least partially, a troll. I offer no apologies, but will gladly accept any.

If wild exaggerations of people who do not share the same belief as you, such as calling them a troll, is a trolly thing to do, then 15-16 puzzle is, at least partially, a troll.
It's not a wild exaggeration to say that Nazi-comparisons and phrases designed to push buttons are looked down upon by a majority of people. Most people don't like these things. I'm not exaggerating when I say this.
c hack
Orwell
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by c hack »

Jefff wrote: I was saying that if the one thing was true (if that were his argument) then the other is true (he doesn't understand what he's arguing against), and I stand by that. It doesn't have to do with if he thinks abortion is wrong. It's about how he discusses it.
If you mean that saying it's about killing babies means that you don't know what it's about, because it in fact is about the right to kill babies (which is what you're saying, right?), then I get what you mean, and I agree.
Poor June wrote: maybe bush is against abortion and i like that... but at the sametime... he's sendin' people over to iraq everyday for no apparent reason to die... so there we have it...
Ah crap, now I've got to say my piece.

Way I see it, killing anything is a bad idea. Plants, bugs, animals, people, time, you name it -- bad idea. But we've got to kill plants and animals (well maybe not animals -- that's another debate I don't want to get into) to stay alive -- that's just one of life's many contradictions. But ending a human life is a bazillion times worse than ending another kind of life. In my mind, human life is something you don't fuck with. Maybe it's okay if you're keeping yourself from getting killed -- I don't know, but I think so. Maybe it's okay if you're keeping someone else from getting killed -- I don't know, but I think so. Maybe it's okay if you're stopping an out-of-control dictator like Hitler (or, you could argue, Hussein) -- I don't know, but I think so. Some people think that it's okay to kill someone because they've killed someone else in the past. I don't think so. Some people think that it's okay to create a life, keep it frozen for years (who knows what that does to the subconcious, or the consciousness that Buddists believe continues through reincarnation that I can't remember what it's called), harvest cells from it in order to do research that might save other lives in the future, and toss it into the trash. I don't think so.

And some people think that it's okay, under the guise of women's rights, to kill a living human being that's completely dependent on them, that they helped bring into the world, purely for the sake of convenience. I'm not talking about pregnancies from rape here. I'm talking about how it's completely legal to use abortion as a means of birth control. So I'm saying it should be illegal? Yes. Why? Becauses it's wrong. But isn't that forcing my morality on other people? Yes, it is. But I also believe killing people after they're born is wrong and should be illegal, doing heroin is wrong and should be illegal, and stealing other people's stuff is wrong and should be illegal. The lawmakers tend to agree, because all these other things are in fact illegal. So it's long been established and agreed upon that we have to, to some extent, force our morality on everyone else. So what does "wrong" mean? I think it generally means that the act does harm either to yourself or to other people.

Well, in the case of abortion, the harm goes both ways. You're taking someone else's life, so obvoiusly you're harming someone else. You could argue that they're not aware enough to care, but couldn't you also make the same argument with someone in a catatonic state, or a heavily retarded person? But you're also hurting yourself, much of the time in ways you're not aware of. I know two women who have had abortions. One told me about how she got pregnant whan she was 19 and it was just assumed she'd get an abortion. I couldn't get a good read on how it affected her. She was kinda screwed up in general. The other one had an abortion for basically the same reason, and now, like 10 years later, it turns out that the procedure made her barren. All she wants now is a simple white-picket fence type life, and she can't have it, and she's pretty pissed (why she doesn't adopt, I have no idea).

So my first big criticism is that if abortion is gonna be legal, there needs to be all sorts of information about the possible side effects -- both physical and mental -- so women know what they're getting into. I dunno, maybe there is now, but there wasn't for these women, and I think they're the worse for it.

My second big criticism is the overwhelming lack of respect for any kind of life in this country. Death is filmed and sold for $19.95 (remember the "faces of death" videos?). It's disgusting the way we treat cows and chickens. We feed cows the ground up bits of other cows, and are shocked when it results in mad cow disease. But it's okay, because we don't see whats going on. Someone (I want to say Voltaire, but that's wrong) said "anyone who's ever seen an animal slaughtered would never eat meat again." Well, I haven't seen an animal slaughtered, but I have seen a deer killed and skinned, gutted, quartered, etc. I tell you, it's something. You get a lot more aware of the craziness of life and death.

This first woman I mentioned who had an abortion, she told me about it. She said after the doctor did his thing, he had her sit on a toilet, and every time she heard something fall, to flush the toilet and whatever you do, don't look down. I wonder how many women would still have an abortion if they knew that this is what they would have to go through? I feel pretty certain that almost no one would have an abortion if they were made to watch the concequences of it, if they had to watch the little fingers and toes swirl down into the septic system, the life that was inside them treated literally like a piece of shit. No, I'm not saying that women who have abortions should be forced to watch what happens to their baby -- Lord knows they have to go through enough shit as it is, but isn't there something fundamentally wrong with having a procedure done that you wouldn't be able to stomach seeing the results of?

Of course, if I was a woman in the same situation, I don't know what I'd do. There's no possible way for me to know -- I'm a guy. I have neither the privilege of carrying life, or the responsibility of what to do with it while it's in me. And in no way do I knock anyone who's had an abortion, I hope it goes without saying.

Well, there you have it. I've made half of you hate me, and the other half probably never liked me in the first place. But my viewpoint is based on a lot of thought, and even a little personal experience. So, I dunno, maybe it'll be helpful to someone else.

Man, my brain hurts from too much time on this message board. Well, go ahead and flame on.
<a href="http://www.c-hack.com">c-hack.com</a> | <a href="http://www.rootrecords.org">rootrecords.org</a>
User avatar
mkilly
Niemöller
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:22 am
Instruments: guitar
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by mkilly »

c hack wrote:That's my biggest problem with Kerry. he criticizes Bush all the time, but never says what he would do instead. He says he wouldn't have gone into Iraq (despite voting for it), but when asked if Hussein would still be in power if he were president, he dodges the question. He never gave us a solid plan for what he wants to do with Iraq, despite being asked a bazillion times. He says Bush's social security plan is no good, but doesn't say how he would fix it. At least with Bush, we know what we're getting. Most of it might suck, but at least we know.
I disagree. I find Kerry's positions to be as opaque as Bush's are. He says he wouldn't have gone into Iraq as Bush did; his position is that Saddam was a threat, based on the intelligence the senators and the President were fed, and that the threat of force was a justifiable and proper authority for the President to have, but he misused force, going into Iraq without an adequate exit strategy, and going into Iraq without making it clear the reasons why, and without having exhausted all diplomatic options. He also didn't go to the UN Security Council for a vote, as he promised he would. How else could he respond to the question "Would Saddam be in power if you were elected president in 2000?" It's a purely hypothetical question, one that's complex and rather loaded. If the UN inspectors (who were forced to leave by Bush, not Saddam) found no evidence of WMDs, as we now know was the case, then Saddam might still be in power. If Saddam continued to act in breach of regulations and the Security Council voted to authorize forced removal of Saddam, he likely wouldn't be in power. Ugh. Go to John Kerry's motherfucking web site.

JOHN KERRY ON FUTURE IRAQ POLICY. Second link down on a Google search for "john kerry iraq". Consistent with what he's said in the debates.

JOHN KERRY ON FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY. First Google result for "john kerry social security". Exactly as he diagramed in last night's debate.
c hack wrote:Now aside from bringing up Cheney's daughter (which was completely innappropriate and just plain rude), everything he said seemed to make sense.
Here's a link from a gay conservative blogger regarding Mary Cheney. He brought her name up as an example of an outed, public lesbian who would likely say that she did not choose to be a lesbian, but that she simply is drawn to women.

Your "wrapping up" is something I could address but won't. It's pretty absurd in its generalities, though.
Last edited by mkilly on Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards." Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
mkilly
Niemöller
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:22 am
Instruments: guitar
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by mkilly »

Also, Jefff and C Hack and others, I'd really like it if you could talk about abortion privately or if you want to start a new thread that'd be fine too.
"It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards." Søren Kierkegaard
Post Reply