Donald Trump has accepted Christ

[PsyOps]

Wait, you think everything is great now? YOu think because there was slavery in the past, America wasn't great; but today we have exceptionally-different unemployment rates based on race, we have a national debt that rivals the GDP, we have an exceptionally-divisive populace....you think these things are GREAT?

Or, do you believe that the past was great too, even when there was no small pox vaccine or A/C, but bring those things up as arguments to say we were never great? If we weren't great then, and things are not exactly utopian now, how could we be great now?

I'm not sure one of understands....

The only way to measure it is against other countries. Despite our flaws, we are looked to by other countries during crises. “Yeah, you had slavery; be we trust to you help us out”. “Yeah, you guys have your civil problems, but we could sure your help in the refugee problem”.

While our actions are often misguided, Americans are largely very charitable, and even willing to die for other nations. That’s what I think makes us great.

 

[Larry Gude]

Wait, you think everything is great now? YOu think because there was slavery in the past, America wasn't great; but today we have exceptionally-different unemployment rates based on race, we have a national debt that rivals the GDP, we have an exceptionally-divisive populace....you think these things are GREAT?

Or, do you believe that the past was great too, even when there was no small pox vaccine or A/C, but bring those things up as arguments to say we were never great? If we weren't great then, and things are not exactly utopian now, how could we be great now?

I'm not sure one of understands....

Well, if you define America's greatness based on how many people of each skin color are working at jobs you approve of and the deficit, I'll leave it to you to make that call.

In terms of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we've never been better in terms of the general population. So, I suppose that's the score I'd use, the well being of we, the people on those three major issues.

 

[Larry Gude]

The only way to measure it is against other countries. .

Disagree.

We have our mission statement, the Declaration of Independence; Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's the measure of how we're doing and not compared to other nations. Compared to OUR principles and our standards.

 

[This_person]

Well, if you define America's greatness based on how many people of each skin color are working at jobs you approve of and the deficit, I'll leave it to you to make that call.

In terms of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we've never been better in terms of the general population. So, I suppose that's the score I'd use, the well being of we, the people on those three major issues.

With respect to life, we allow women and doctors to kill people because they're inconvenient. That seems pretty ####ty, and not "great".

With respect to liberty, the fourth amendment no longer applies in general daily life, IAW the NSA and the TSA and even local police stations. That's not "great".

With respect to the pursuit of happiness, I guess it depends on how one defines happiness. As we've been told, the caged bird sings, so I guess even prisoners (of which we have more per capita than any other nation) can be happy.

One outta three ain't bad, I guess.

 

[This_person]

I don't want you to get me wrong; I think America is great now, and could be even greater. I just think if we're going to use times when all of global society was different than it is now that we weren't great because we (like everyone else in the world) didn't have A/C, or a vaccine, or we allowed slavery, or any other thing made us not great then, well then we have to say we're not great now. In other words, if we're going to use stupid criteria, that criteria has to apply now, too.

 

[PsyOps]

Disagree.

We have our mission statement, the Declaration of Independence; Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's the measure of how we're doing and not compared to other nations. Compared to OUR principles and our standards.

You cannot know that hot is hot unless you can compare it to cold. If I run around telling everyone I'm the greatest boxer in the world, that means nothing unless I prove it against other boxers. We can't just say we stand alone in greatness, without having other nations to compare us to.

 

[Larry Gude]

You cannot know that hot is hot unless you can compare it to cold. If I run around telling everyone I'm the greatest boxer in the world, that means nothing unless I prove it against other boxers. We can't just say we stand alone in greatness, without having other nations to compare us to.

Maybe you can't. I use history books and philosophy to fill in as many blanks as I can. Throw in some age and life experiences and there are all sorts of ways to come to understand hot without jumping in a fire. We have given up life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as our bedrock purpose and replaced it with 'safety, security and someone else to blame'.

 

[Larry Gude]

With respect to life, we allow women and doctors to kill people because they're inconvenient. That seems pretty ####ty, and not "great".

It is far superior, in a supposedly free land, than controlling women's bodies and prohibiting abortion. That they may choose is a great thing. I'd think it even better if they choose to keep their baby and raise it well, but them not having the choice is not great. It's totalitarian in nature.

 

[This_person]

It is far superior, in a supposedly free land, than controlling women's bodies and prohibiting abortion. That they may choose is a great thing. I'd think it even better if they choose to keep their baby and raise it well, but them not having the choice is not great. It's totalitarian in nature.

So, "Life (unless you are a baby and your momma don't want ya), liberty (unless it conflicts with feeling safe), and the pursuit of happiness" should be the new rallying cry?

 

[This_person]

Maybe you can't. I use history books and philosophy to fill in as many blanks as I can. Throw in some age and life experiences and there are all sorts of ways to come to understand hot without jumping in a fire. We have given up life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as our bedrock purpose and replaced it with 'safety, security and someone else to blame'.

You're saying you know what cold is because you can compare it to something. Frank is saying you can only know what hot is by comparing it to cold.

You're saying the same thing.

You're just saying it from the point of view of reading about it, and Psy is saying it from the point of view of direct comparisons to the "it" you are reading about.

 

[This_person]

It is far superior, in a supposedly free land, than controlling women's bodies and prohibiting abortion. That they may choose is a great thing. I'd think it even better if they choose to keep their baby and raise it well, but them not having the choice is not great. It's totalitarian in nature.

You do get that no one wants to control the woman's body, right? They simply don't want the woman to hire someone to kill the person she willingly put there.

Very different thing. No one is forcing the woman to get pregnant, or forcing her to have sex risking getting pregnant - just saying she can't kill somebody because she did and may not want to for some reason (elective).

 

[PsyOps]

You do get that no one wants to control the woman's body, right? They simply don't want the woman to hire someone to kill the person she willingly put there.

Very different thing. No one is forcing the woman to get pregnant, or forcing her to have sex risking getting pregnant - just saying she can't kill somebody because she did and may not want to for some reason (elective).

That's a pretty interesting way of putting it. I have long-been against abortion; even wanted the government to ban it at one time. But after years of thought and prayer about it, I started asking myself the question "do I want the government intervening in this?" I don't think the government should be in the practice of banning things. If we are a free people, we should also have the power to solve this problem of abortion within our social fabric. Will it ever be solved? You'd thing after thousands of years of evolving and becoming more civilized, we would; but given women have been having abortions in some capacity, forever, it is part of the human landscape. It's who we are.... sadly.

 

[Larry Gude]

You do get that no one wants to control the woman's body, right? They simply don't want the woman to hire someone to kill the person she willingly put there.

Very different thing. No one is forcing the woman to get pregnant, or forcing her to have sex risking getting pregnant - just saying she can't kill somebody because she did and may not want to for some reason (elective).

Fair enough. So, you're fine with her taking a pill to kill it?

 

[Larry Gude]

So, "Life (unless you are a baby and your momma don't want ya),

You can't get around subordinating the woman being wrong, so, yeah.

 

[This_person]

That's a pretty interesting way of putting it. I have long-been against abortion; even wanted the government to ban it at one time. But after years of thought and prayer about it, I started asking myself the question "do I want the government intervening in this?" I don't think the government should be in the practice of banning things. If we are a free people, we should also have the power to solve this problem of abortion within our social fabric. Will it ever be solved? You'd thing after thousands of years of evolving and becoming more civilized, we would; but given women have been having abortions in some capacity, forever, it is part of the human landscape. It's who we are.... sadly.

Certainly there are naturally-induced miscarriages. Not something that should be banned in any way, shape, or form.

Certainly there are biological reasons it should be done - medically speaking, the life of the mother or child are challenging one another and the realistic likelihood is that one will die.

Accidents? Not part of the issue.

Rape? Not her responsibility, and she should not be forced to carry a rapist's child. I get that.

But, somewhere around 95% of the abortions conducted in the United States annually have yet to be mentioned in this post. In something like 95% of abortions, the mother was a willing participant to placing the child where it is at, and simply chooses (elective, no other reason than elective) to kill the child to end the pregnancy.

I can't condone that. I can condone the 5(ish)% as outside of her responsibility. I can't condone the other 95(ish)%.

 

[This_person]

Fair enough. So, you're fine with her taking a pill to kill it?

Well, certainly. It's only murder if you hire someone else, but if you pull the trigger yourself it's no longer murder, right?

No, I am not ok with electively choosing to kill someone because their existence is inconvenient to you, especially when their existence is directly your responsibility.

 

[This_person]

You can't get around subordinating the woman being wrong, so, yeah.

It is not subordinating when it is voluntary. She chose to take the action that risked the result of pregnancy. That life is implicitly her responsibility until birth, just like it is explicitly her and the father's responsibility after birth until 18 or otherwise relieved of responsibility.

Is a 2-year old subordinating the parent by existing? No, that's a willing choice. You cannot take the responsibility out of the equation, or the rights of the child.

 

[GURPS]

But after years of thought and prayer about it, I started asking myself the question "do I want the government intervening in this?"

its called murder, last I checked that is illegal

 

[PsyOps]

its called murder, last I checked that is illegal

Okay... how do we get there?

 

[PsyOps]

But, somewhere around 95% of the abortions conducted in the United States annually have yet to be mentioned in this post. In something like 95% of abortions, the mother was a willing participant to placing the child where it is at, and simply chooses (elective, no other reason than elective) to kill the child to end the pregnancy.

I can't condone that. I can condone the 5(ish)% as outside of her responsibility. I can't condone the other 95(ish)%.

I am, by no means, condoning it. But like I asked GURPS, how do we get there? If the government bans these 95%ers, how does this stop a woman from getting that back alley abortion? Will banning it even result in reduced numbers of abortions? Will it even result in people behaving more responsibly?