NationStates Jolt Archive

The thalamus and hypothalamus and relevant proximital regions that sit on the brainstem like the flame of a torch, to be precise ... though in the newly conceived they are initially all heart :eek: .

congrats, you have a mild grasp of human development in the womb. Of course, did you know that the heart is made of the same stuff that the anus is, and that it develops first? Really makes that analogy a tad strange... but hey, if you're for thinking from the anus, that's up to you.

I don't distract, intentional or otherwise, by referencing the specific neuropsychological dysfunction that accounts for the error in reality assessment, as such causative information, when received by the dysfunctional, can lead to recovery and the acceptance of reality, a process that is foundational for resolving matters relevant to the topic at hand in this thread.

Except you don't actually reference anything, you just calim such neuropsychological dysfunctions exist and expect us to believe you. So, for the ten billionth time in this little tango, CITE YOUR SOURCE. Show me a journal, an article, a book, SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF YOUR HEAD that even suggests this exists. I've got access to a college where neuropsych research is done, so I don't think I'll have a hard time finding it. If it exists.

Well... I did read the rules... I just got caught up in the moment and was thinking of reality. And also, I had read the Proposed Amendment to the Eon Genocide Convention which confused me on this issue.

Anyway, a repeal proposal written in a similar manner making some sort of promise of supporting an replacement proposal would have basically the same effect. I was just reading the posts here and felt that it was odd that there didn't seem to be any compromises being discussed and wanted to bring one into the discussion. Then, just because I spent some time learning some sort of debate style, I thought it would be cool to phrase it formally and forgot the mention of ammendments... especially because it was small and I didn't think much of it because I generally supported the resolutions I saw on the books. Now a reiteration of the resolution, now as a repeal:

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

A resolution to repeal a previous resolution.

Category: Human Rights

Whereas the "Abortion Rights" resolution currently reads "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

Whereas the majority of real nations limit abortion to some degree.

Whereas many doctors beleive that a baby becomes a living human being before it is born

Whereas some nations beleive all abortion is murder

Be it resolved that: Henceforth the resolution titled "Abortion Rights" shall be null and void.

Be it resolved that: Supporters of this resolution are also agreeing to support, upon the passage of this repeal, a resolution allowing abortion before the third trimester or when the woman's life or health is in danger according to the opinion of two doctors.

The last part is unenforceable and useless.

And no support for this, in case you missed that part.

No, Thgin, I was quite patient, hoping that you would do the honest and right thing and state your position clearly and straightfowardly on the relevant topic matter at hand and therefore eliminate the need to identify your position via comparison to the list of pro-abortionists' sophistries I posted on page 11 of this thread. But ... you didn't.


The right thing? This is a debate, not show and tell. I'm not interested in curtsying and showing off my personal position, I'm interested in discussing a position you have proposed and claim to be able to defend. Further, I've shown your sophistries to be nothing more than artifices by which you label your opponents so you don't have to confront them with reason. It's a juvenile strategy employed by those who don't have the respect to discuss their own position.

If you are "actually opposed to a lot of abortions", then why didn't you relevantly state the ones you are opposed to -- along with the ones you are in favor of, including your position on when a human being begins to live -- clearly and straightforwardly. There was nothing stopping you from doing the relevant right thing by this thread. But ... you didn't.

What abortions I do and do not support has no real bearing on my inquiries into your argument, now does it? You aren't arguing specific cases, you're arguing an unfounded metaphysics. It doesn't matter when I think a human being is alive either, it matters that you can convince me that what you say is true. Stop looking for supporters and try winning a few.

You error in saying that I am "desperate ..." -- it is you who inappropriately prolongingly withholds telling the straight truth about himself. Your projection is really quite revealing of how you cope with your own dishonesty.

Except that what I think prior to this debate has nothing to do with the validity of your logic. Regardless of what my motives are, you are still accountable for your own discourse on 'the heart' and it's consistency with the real world. Further, since I've not given you any statements that you could prove dishonest about me, I must infer that you are simply trying to cover your argument with petty insults.

I have provided adequate relevant DNA science to the matter --

About time. What post did you put this 'relevant DNA science' in? Apparently I missed it. Reference me to it, if it exists.

the rest is about the neuropsychological reasons you fail to accept this reality.

Perhaps I would if you could actually show them to exist. All I'm asking for is one article in one journal. Just one. Do you have the gumption to do that?

Because I am not mentally centered, I do not wallow in a mentally masturbative science addiction as do you, and I am free to address the many ways a human being "knows" that are relevant to the matter.

mentally masturbative science addiction is a very interesting phrase. It's also very meaningless. As for being 'mentally centered', that has no relevance here, besides you saying that you are deficient in an ability to prove your point because you claim to be mentally unable to. It's funny just how much you've changed your tune - from "it's the fuk'n kill insticnt of men" to "only I have access to the many ways a human being knows". I wonder - where the next step in the dance will take us?

Your mind seems to think we were engaged in some kind of a contest, Thgin.

Given your choice of language and namecalling, I'd say you thought so. Personally, I'm not interested in a contest unless you have an actual argument.

Yet not once did you present to me clearly and straightforwardly your position on the relevant matter at hand. That's being dishonest.

No. Dishonesty would be me making claims to support you outright, creating a bogus argument in your favor, then turning around and saying it was all a trick. That would be dishonesty. What I have done is ask questions. Questions cannot be dishonest as they make no claims about the questioner. Someone who portrays themselve with such a vast grasp of language as yourself ougt to know that.

Instead, you proceded to attempt to discredit my perspective, without giving any clear and straightforward reason for doing so. That's being dishonest.

No, that's called being a critical thinker, and questioning before accepting any position offered. You have failed repeatedly to back your position with concrete evidence, whereas other posters have. This is why I have not attempted to discredit their positions - everything they say can be traced to concrete reasoning. Your argument cannot.

When the natural intelligent implication of your behavior leads to the conclusion that you are pro-abortion, you then chastise me for "jumping to conclusion", when it is you who inappropriately to the topic at hand was purposely withholding your position on the matter, which you now reveal you may have done in a deliberate attempt to be misleading. That's emotional dishonesty.

First, labeling that emotional is ridiculous. Second, you categorize me as being 'pro-abortion' because I'm challenging you, not because of anything I've said otherwise. I have not said 'WE MUST PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO ABORTION', or 'KILLING BABIES IS GOOD'. I've used technical language, and criticized your logic. That's all. So, by your definition, having a well rounded perspective is being pro-abortion.

My accurate assessment of your behavior, Thgin, does not require that I "know you" to the degree you'd like to conveniently assume. My aptitude, training, and experience as a counselor provides me the expertise to make an accurate assessment of you in this regard with the information you've provided, and I did.

That's pretty impressive, considering that none of the psychologists or psychologists who I know seem to think that there's anything worth making an assesment with on this thread. So, either you're a god among psychologists, or you're poorly mistaken. I doubt the former, since reputable people cite their sources.

You are again in error, Thgin, though your statement here, like so many similar statements you've made recently, does imply you have at least a mild case of covert narcissism.

You really like those modifiers. 'imply', 'mild', 'covert'. You're very desperate to not have to actually prove anything. You throw accusations, but don't back them. It's very juvenile of you. I like that word, Juvenile. It really summarizes your tactics.

I declared you a pro-abortionist because you provided the unmistakable evidence of such, deceitfully or otherwise, in lieu of your speaking clearly and straightforwardly on the matter as an honest person would have done.

So you're saying that in order to be 'an honest person', I have to immediately enter the thread, post in "I AM PRO-ABORTION", and then not be held credible when I question you? That's pretty nonsensical. Particularly since such a general statement really doesn't say much at all about my personal beliefs, which are a tad more complex than you seem to be willing to address.

Though you have indeed revealed your dysfunction, not merely via your perspective on the matter but by your dishonesty as well, whether you truly have something worth saying in the matter would depend on its content.

Translation: I'm calling you crazy so I don't have to deal with you asking me questions I don't want to answer, so I'm only going to talk to you if I think I can make you look dumb.

You are projecting again, Mr. Science Elitist. You are quite the master projector, Thgin.

That's spectacular, considering I'm not a science elitist. I value religious and emotional views more than you're willing to accept, and as far as elitism, I haven't made a position, so you can't call me that. All I'm doing is asking questions, and you're trying to figure out where I stand so you can demonize me rather than answer the questions.

My counselor's advice to you, Thgin, is to recover sufficient to reduce your tendency to project and also so as to begin dealing honestly with all the people you encounter.

And my advice, as a counselor, and behavioral modification specialist is that you examine the rest of the world through more than just your own personal view. Stop judging and start evaluating. Stop attempting to brand the labels that you have used as a crutch to pass through humanity, and start attempting to recognize individuals as unique creatures rather than a mix of 'perfect heart centered folks' and 'dysfunctional people'. Until you stop thinking in this black and white, ego-centered, autodeification paradigm, you will come off as nothing more than the latest Hitler Wannabe. STOP REACTING and START RESPONDING. Any counselor worth his salt knows what that phrase means. Consider expanding your language, and make sure you know what words mean before you use them. You know, what they actually mean, not what you want them to mean. Last, I would advise you to seek professional counsel for possible acute egomanic schizophrenia, as per DSM-IV guidelines.

Respectfully,
Delegate of the Sultanate of Thgin

In the real world, every species has a heart, Tekania, including a body.

Not true. Corals, for instance, don't have hearts. Nor do many parasitic worms. Or virus. In fact, about %38 percent of real world species don't have hearts.

[QUOTE] And in the real world, many species also have a development differentiated mind and soul as well, including human beings, cats, dogs, etc., etc. [/QUOTE

not that any of that can be proved...

Deny it? Heh. I revel in it.

In the words of a wiser sage than myself (the Dread Pirate Westley), "Get used to disappointment."

This is why you are one of my favorite people :)

You know, I've been following this thread with varying responses of amusement, admiration, and disgust, and the only debater who seems addicted to any pseudoscience is you.




And here is a lovely example: your philosophy centered around 'the heart,' into which you attempt to incorporate psychology and other meaningless dabbles of science. If I had the patience, I would go through all of your posts on this thread and count how many times you used the word 'heart,' as well as other amorphous terms such as 'truth' and 'live.'



There it is again. That damn 'heart.' MY heart does not recognize that just any 'living' thing is 'alive' by the definition that is really the core of the abortion issue. The relevant definition includes the capacity to have a soul, whether or not anyone concedes this. If it were just a matter of being 'alive,' then I'd be convinced that you should have starved by now out of respect for life, as all plants, animals, and bacteria are 'alive' and consist of DNA-- and DNA, by the way, doesn't make human life sacred, as all living things have the same DNA, just strung up differently. You're attempting to apply a basic biological definition of life to a being with no physically determinable mental or spiritual parameters, but whose such parameters must be considered in determining whether it's humanly 'alive.' Science cannot justify your position, as it's not a matter of tangible fact, because it's some contrived matter of the 'heart.' It is, as you accuse others so vociferously, a pseudoscience.

The way I currently see it, abortion is guesswork as far as whether or not the fetus is 'alive.' But I also see it as a moot point in the debate. I'm concerned with every woman having the option. Some women will abuse the option, some will refuse it on moral grounds, and others will use it responsibly in cases of necessity, with the nature of necessity to be determined by them. But abortion should be made available, not forced on or restricted from people.

:fluffle:

:fluffle:

Ew... that's inappropriate behavior. Do that again an I'm so moving out of your region.

You appear to paint yourself as quite the enigma, Anti Pharisaism -- a supposed pro-lifer (? to a degree ?) who wallows in the same mentally masturbative science addiction as the pro-abortionists, similarly creating your own idiosyncratically erroneous paradigmic "science" application, that you imagine will trump that of your similarly addicted opponents.

Sophistry: Psychoanlaysis

You paint yourself as quite the psychopath, a supposed moral philosopher (devoid of reason) who wallows in the same mentally masturbative delusion as the insane individauls who hear voices commanding their actions, similarly creating your own idiosyncratically erroneous paradigmic "heart" application, that you imagine exists, and that your believing it exists makes it a real phenomena that others should accept, similar to your mentally dysfunctional counterparts in straight jackets and padded rooms.

You both remind me of two people caught in opposite ends of the ubiquitous oriental finger puzzle, both pulling as hard as you can, deluding yourself into thinking that the harder you pull in your present M.O. that you will escape victoriously, yet in truth, you never ever separate from each other, doomed ultimately to a compromise that serves neither, and at the horrific sacrificial expense of the newly conceived unique living individual human beings.[Quote]

You remind me of a person caught in their own delusional universe, trying to pull others into your own reality, deluding yourself into thinking that the voices you hear are real, and that if others accept that they hear the voices also, you too will be accepted. Yet, in truth, nobody else will ever hear those voices, as they are not real, and by continuing to listen you are doomed ultimately to a world of loneliness at the hoorific expense of your sanity.

[Quote]I patiently wait for you to push away gently from your no-win trap.

I patiently wait for you to visit a psychologist and push away from that world and those voices that control you.

So, to that end, why don't you just do what Thgin failed to do. Stop demeaning me because I choose not to get caught in the trap that imprisons you, and state clearly and straightforwardly in a single post by itself your complete position on when a human being begins to live along with your complete list as to when abortion is okay and when it isn't. Then we can go from there and discuss the meaning of your position transcendent to your science-addictive paradigmic mindset.

So, to that end, why don't you do what you have been failling to do. Stop analyzing others because of your own psychological inadequecy, because I choose not to get caught up in the worlds of the disillusioned who try to legitimize themselves. State clearly and straightforwardly how you are not a slave to hypocrisy. How you can be justified in accusing others of being drawn into science, when your own concept of a human rests on DNA science, which you do not understand. As I have already said that life begins at conception, the first stage of growth and development, and that it is not deserving of rights, it is owed a duty of care when the parents act so as to induce detrimental reliance on the part of the fetus, I await your rebuttal as to how all things have a right to life.

Actually, Anti Pharisaism, you are deluding yourself in thinking that you can "win over" the pro-abortionists by "fellowshipping" with them in like science-addictive paradigmic mindset.

Actually, True Heart, you are deluding yourself in thinking that intelligent individuals can be won over with rhetoric, based on voices proclaimed to be coming from the heart, to which you do not offer a reasonable explanation for existing. That you believe such an unsound divisive moral philosophy will prevail over fellowship derived from discussion of concrete unobjectable science after being rejected time and time again shows you have the repitive detendencies of the clinically insane who partake in the same activity in hopes of a different outcome.

The truth of the matter is that transcending that paradigmic mindset as part of a journey to heart is the only hope pro-abortionists have of seeing the truth in the matter. I can understand how anyone caught in the science-addictive paradigimic trap of reality denial would not voluntarily leave the "comfort" of their familiar surroundings. Nevertheless, by the time I'm done chipping away at your paradigm's sophistry, you all will begin to see the real world on the outside, and like the religious who eventually come to see that "the Devil" was really their own fundamentalism, you will gradually become free and begin to resume your personal journey to heart.

The truth of the matter is that transcending that delusional mindset as part of a journey to sanity is the only hope a person such as yourself has to seeing the truth of the matter. I can understand how anyone trapped in their own reality would not leave the comfort of their familiar self made surroundings. Nevertheless, by the time you are down swallowing your first prescription, you will begin to see the real world on the outside, and like the other treated individuals that come to see the voices were only a figment of their imaginations, you will gradually become free and begin to resume you personal journey back to the real world.

As to your phrase "unjustified abortions", perhaps you might want to do as I suggested above here, and list what abortions you think are unjustified as well as justified, and we can then talk about them in the manner I suggested.

As to your phrase "listen to the heart," perhaps you might want to do as I have suggested above, and visit a psychologist that can monitor and prescribe medications for your mental ailment, he too will listen to your idea of heart knowledge, and accept it in the same manner as I have.

My justification for killing is self preservation, whether it be for self defense or a food source. It is consistent, yet more reasonable, than your consistent belief that all life is precious, and should never be taken.

You know, I'm maintaining this vague hope that perhaps True Heart is just really really into role playing. Or just playing Devil's advocate... very thoroughly. This person has no apparent allies among the supposed pro-choicers or pro-lifers and seems only to revel in redundant debate. I recently visited what I think is the abortion-and-moral-decency thread, saw a True Heart post, shuddered, and left. It's like an unending surge of nausea... masquerading as a fictitious heart-truth. Gah.
:headbang:

I posted this in another thread, but I guess it was a little off topic there. So I'll put it here as well.


A quick question to ponder: Are there absolute morals?

As a christian I believe there are, but this is not my point in this discussion.
My 2 cents is that there is not a fundamentally accepted set of absolute morals. There are cultural opinions or beliefs, but far from across the board acceptance. Abortion for example, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be argued for or against as being an absolute. Since a majority of the nations here are not based on religious fundamentals anyways. So it is impossible to say that abortion is either right or wrong. That's why, IMHO, it should not be universally mandated. Arguments or elaborations anyone?

It's like an unending surge of nausea... masquerading as a fictitious heart-truth. Gah.
Welcome to the fold, new nation of Rusitsa. Your post confirms that new members as well as the Old Guard are capable of clear vision. Quite the accurate summary in a single sentence. Well said!

I posted this in another thread, but I guess it was a little off topic there. So I'll put it here as well.


A quick question to ponder: Are there absolute morals?

As a christian I believe there are, but this is not my point in this discussion.
My 2 cents is that there is not a fundamentally accepted set of absolute morals. There are cultural opinions or beliefs, but far from across the board acceptance. Abortion for example, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be argued for or against as being an absolute. Since a majority of the nations here are not based on religious fundamentals anyways. So it is impossible to say that abortion is either right or wrong. That's why, IMHO, it should not be universally mandated. Arguments or elaborations anyone?

No. Nothing is absolute. (Well - nothing that comes out of the minds of people). Because wheven you think you have found something that is a moral aboslute, someone will suggest a situation you had not considered, and find a reason to reverse the position.

Example : You should not kill somone else.
Exception : You are a soldier in a war.

Example : You should not have sex with animals
Exception : Someone is point a gun at your head and saying do it or die.

There are no absolutes in human (read species!) relations cause everyone is different.

Exactly!
Which is my reasoning for believing that the "Abortion Rights" resolution should be repealed. It is not universally accepted that abortion is a right, and should not be universally mandated as such.

Exactly!
Which is my reasoning for believing that the "Abortion Rights" resolution should be repealed. It is not universally accepted that abortion is a right, and should not be universally mandated as such.

Abortion isn't mandated. It's protected.... Completely different concepts.

Here's what the "heartists" need....


The Unsanity Act.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The voices inside my head.

From henseforth, all UN members must have little voices in their head that we will call a "heart."

Those not possessing "hearts" shall be deemed dysfunctional and institutionalized for the betterment of the "heart".

Those possessing more than one "heart" shall be deemed better than those with only one.

All persons must listen to their "heart" at the exclusion of all logical and reasonable assessment. Whatever these "hearts" say must be considered true at all times.

No one shall be held accountable for actions which were perpetuated by following their "heart" or "hearts".

Schizophrenia and MPD shall be removed as mental ailments; since the presence of this is certainly indication by all with a "heart" of having more than one "heart" and therefore being superior over all others in matters of the "heart".

From henseforth any proposal submitted by a person following the dictates of their "heart" shall be immediately inducted without vote; since it is obvious to all with a true "heart", that everyone with a true "heart" would vote for it anyway.

Approvals: (-37,521)

Abortion isn't mandated. It's protected.... Completely different concepts.
I beg to differ. It is a UN resolution (hence mandated) that abortion be allowed.

I beg to differ. It is a UN resolution (hence mandated) that abortion be allowed.

That would be the point. No where in the resolution does it say you must have an abortion. It just says you can.

And whether you agree with me or not, I believe it is the right of every woman to be able to have an abortion if they want one. I am not saying that everyone thinks the same - the world would be dull if we did - but it's what I believe, and so (to come back to the original topic) that is why I will not support a repeal of the proposal.

It's not about whether I think abortion is right or wrong - that is not a choice I can make for anyone other than me (should I be pregnant) - but whether or not I think that governments should be imposing their view on their people. And because I think they should not, the resolution puts it in the hands of the people, not the hands of the governments.

I beg to differ. It is a UN resolution (hence mandated) that abortion be allowed.

Of course it is mandated that it is allowed; however, this does not effect individual morality, since you are not mandating people to have them, and therefore violating any particular moral view they have.

BTW: Doesn't objective thought just *suck*... (wicked grin).

Without getting into the abortion arguement, I can clearly see that the abortion resolution is a mandated law that clearly shouldn't be thrust upon others. Gay marriage advocates say the same thing about passing a "protection of the family" law: "Don't impose your morals onto us...." The abortion legislation is clearly on the outer fringes of the entire debate, as would be a resolution that would restrict all abortions for ANY reason.

Therefore, I believe that the best course of action would be to convene a Summit on Abortion, probably some time in mid january (RL), in which some sort of middle ground is found for all. For example, wouldn't it be better if it were up to individual nations on pro-life/pro-choic, but the UN would make sure that all mothers in danger/rape cases were allowed to have abortions, maybe a situation for which you wouldn't be allowed, etc (I'm not trying to push for that idea, i'm just using it as an example of a compromise).

This would be better than the current resolution standing as-is, for someday it might just make it to repeal, and then there are NO abortion rights, while there would also be no law that would be in effect that would restrict the optoin in ALL nations.

Maybe i'm just dreaming.......

Brandon J Yad
President of Granbia

I think we can all agree on a partial birth abortion ban. To my knowledge, there were only three US senators to vote against it. Hell, even Teddy Kennedy voted for it!

I think we can all agree on a partial birth abortion ban.
I think we can all agree that there will NEVER be anything brought before the UN that we all agree on.

Do you have a clear majority? Probably. Do you have 100% acceptance? I seriously doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lagonia States
I think we can all agree on a partial birth abortion ban.


I think we can all agree that there will NEVER be anything brought before the UN that we all agree on.

Do you have a clear majority? Probably. Do you have 100% acceptance? I seriously doubt it.


hmmm..... maybe this would be a good topic to bring up and maybe add at, say, some sort of Summit on Abortion?.......YAY great idea Lagonia!!!!!!

Without getting into the abortion arguement, I can clearly see that the abortion resolution is a mandated law that clearly shouldn't be thrust upon others. Gay marriage advocates say the same thing about passing a "protection of the family" law: "Don't impose your morals onto us...." The abortion legislation is clearly on the outer fringes of the entire debate, as would be a resolution that would restrict all abortions for ANY reason.

Therefore, I believe that the best course of action would be to convene a Summit on Abortion, probably some time in mid january (RL), in which some sort of middle ground is found for all. For example, wouldn't it be better if it were up to individual nations on pro-life/pro-choic, but the UN would make sure that all mothers in danger/rape cases were allowed to have abortions, maybe a situation for which you wouldn't be allowed, etc (I'm not trying to push for that idea, i'm just using it as an example of a compromise).

This would be better than the current resolution standing as-is, for someday it might just make it to repeal, and then there are NO abortion rights, while there would also be no law that would be in effect that would restrict the optoin in ALL nations.

Maybe i'm just dreaming.......

Brandon J Yad
President of Granbia
Sounds acceptable to my senate.

The right thing? This is a debate, not show and tell. I'm not interested in curtsying and showing off my personal position, I'm interested in discussing a position you have proposed and claim to be able to defend. Further, I've shown your sophistries to be nothing more than artifices by which you label your opponents so you don't have to confront them with reason. It's a juvenile strategy employed by those who don't have the respect to discuss their own position.



What abortions I do and do not support has no real bearing on my inquiries into your argument, now does it? You aren't arguing specific cases, you're arguing an unfounded metaphysics. It doesn't matter when I think a human being is alive either, it matters that you can convince me that what you say is true. Stop looking for supporters and try winning a few.



Except that what I think prior to this debate has nothing to do with the validity of your logic. Regardless of what my motives are, you are still accountable for your own discourse on 'the heart' and it's consistency with the real world. Further, since I've not given you any statements that you could prove dishonest about me, I must infer that you are simply trying to cover your argument with petty insults.



About time. What post did you put this 'relevant DNA science' in? Apparently I missed it. Reference me to it, if it exists.



Perhaps I would if you could actually show them to exist. All I'm asking for is one article in one journal. Just one. Do you have the gumption to do that?



mentally masturbative science addiction is a very interesting phrase. It's also very meaningless. As for being 'mentally centered', that has no relevance here, besides you saying that you are deficient in an ability to prove your point because you claim to be mentally unable to. It's funny just how much you've changed your tune - from "it's the fuk'n kill insticnt of men" to "only I have access to the many ways a human being knows". I wonder - where the next step in the dance will take us?



Given your choice of language and namecalling, I'd say you thought so. Personally, I'm not interested in a contest unless you have an actual argument.



No. Dishonesty would be me making claims to support you outright, creating a bogus argument in your favor, then turning around and saying it was all a trick. That would be dishonesty. What I have done is ask questions. Questions cannot be dishonest as they make no claims about the questioner. Someone who portrays themselve with such a vast grasp of language as yourself ougt to know that.



No, that's called being a critical thinker, and questioning before accepting any position offered. You have failed repeatedly to back your position with concrete evidence, whereas other posters have. This is why I have not attempted to discredit their positions - everything they say can be traced to concrete reasoning. Your argument cannot.



First, labeling that emotional is ridiculous. Second, you categorize me as being 'pro-abortion' because I'm challenging you, not because of anything I've said otherwise. I have not said 'WE MUST PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO ABORTION', or 'KILLING BABIES IS GOOD'. I've used technical language, and criticized your logic. That's all. So, by your definition, having a well rounded perspective is being pro-abortion.



That's pretty impressive, considering that none of the psychologists or psychologists who I know seem to think that there's anything worth making an assesment with on this thread. So, either you're a god among psychologists, or you're poorly mistaken. I doubt the former, since reputable people cite their sources.



You really like those modifiers. 'imply', 'mild', 'covert'. You're very desperate to not have to actually prove anything. You throw accusations, but don't back them. It's very juvenile of you. I like that word, Juvenile. It really summarizes your tactics.



So you're saying that in order to be 'an honest person', I have to immediately enter the thread, post in "I AM PRO-ABORTION", and then not be held credible when I question you? That's pretty nonsensical. Particularly since such a general statement really doesn't say much at all about my personal beliefs, which are a tad more complex than you seem to be willing to address.



Translation: I'm calling you crazy so I don't have to deal with you asking me questions I don't want to answer, so I'm only going to talk to you if I think I can make you look dumb.



That's spectacular, considering I'm not a science elitist. I value religious and emotional views more than you're willing to accept, and as far as elitism, I haven't made a position, so you can't call me that. All I'm doing is asking questions, and you're trying to figure out where I stand so you can demonize me rather than answer the questions.



And my advice, as a counselor, and behavioral modification specialist is that you examine the rest of the world through more than just your own personal view. Stop judging and start evaluating. Stop attempting to brand the labels that you have used as a crutch to pass through humanity, and start attempting to recognize individuals as unique creatures rather than a mix of 'perfect heart centered folks' and 'dysfunctional people'. Until you stop thinking in this black and white, ego-centered, autodeification paradigm, you will come off as nothing more than the latest Hitler Wannabe. STOP REACTING and START RESPONDING. Any counselor worth his salt knows what that phrase means. Consider expanding your language, and make sure you know what words mean before you use them. You know, what they actually mean, not what you want them to mean. Last, I would advise you to seek professional counsel for possible acute egomanic schizophrenia, as per DSM-IV guidelines.

Respectfully,
Delegate of the Sultanate of Thgin
I'm sorry, Thgin, I must have missed it amidst all your projection -- what did you say your complete position is on the beginning of a human being's life and abortion?

Well... I did read the rules... I just got caught up in the moment and was thinking of reality. And also, I had read the Proposed Amendment to the Eon Genocide Convention which confused me on this issue.

Anyway, a repeal proposal written in a similar manner making some sort of promise of supporting an replacement proposal would have basically the same effect. I was just reading the posts here and felt that it was odd that there didn't seem to be any compromises being discussed and wanted to bring one into the discussion. Then, just because I spent some time learning some sort of debate style, I thought it would be cool to phrase it formally and forgot the mention of ammendments... especially because it was small and I didn't think much of it because I generally supported the resolutions I saw on the books. Now a reiteration of the resolution, now as a repeal:

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

A resolution to repeal a previous resolution.

Category: Human Rights

Whereas the "Abortion Rights" resolution currently reads "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

Whereas the majority of real nations limit abortion to some degree.

Whereas many doctors beleive that a baby becomes a living human being before it is born

Whereas some nations beleive all abortion is murder

Be it resolved that: Henceforth the resolution titled "Abortion Rights" shall be null and void.

Be it resolved that: Supporters of this resolution are also agreeing to support, upon the passage of this repeal, a resolution allowing abortion before the third trimester or when the woman's life or health is in danger according to the opinion of two doctors.
The last "Be it resolved that" renders this resolution unacceptable.

Coddling the pro-abortionists is simply wrong.

And, considering how many pro-abortionists have committed third-trimester abortion, and that first and second trimester aborters cannot discern the illusive magic lines between trimesters, instead of this coddle working to the benefit of the passage of this repeal, it will actually work toward its defeat, as no aborter wants to be reminded in any fellow-associate way of the guilt of killing their newly conceived unique living individual human being.

Tell it straight, repeal it straight.

If the repeal fails without the last clause, you and all who vote for it are not responsible for the subsequent deaths of the newly conceived. As always, those who commit abortion are always responsibile for their horrific act, and they alone are guilty.

If your repeal as worded with the last clause passes, then all you will have done is moved the aborters' decision process up three months -- the same number of abortions will still occur. And moving a third timester abortion upt to a second or first trimester abortion is absolutely irrelevant, as, either way, a newly conceived unique living individual human being is still killed.

That would be the point. No where in the resolution does it say you must have an abortion. It just says you can.

And whether you agree with me or not, I believe it is the right of every woman to be able to have an abortion if they want one. I am not saying that everyone thinks the same - the world would be dull if we did - but it's what I believe, and so (to come back to the original topic) that is why I will not support a repeal of the proposal.

It's not about whether I think abortion is right or wrong - that is not a choice I can make for anyone other than me (should I be pregnant) - but whether or not I think that governments should be imposing their view on their people. And because I think they should not, the resolution puts it in the hands of the people, not the hands of the governments.

But that's the flaw in your argument. The "Abortions Rights" resolution just happens to be governments imposing their view on the people. You'll find many resolutions involve governments imposing their view on the people. The only reason you fail to see any problem with this is because it is YOUR view being imposed on the people, therefore you deem it as correct. Let's be serious here; the government always has and always will impose their view on the people. It has always been as such. Take prohibition for instance, or theocracies. Which takes me to my next point.

What if my nation is a Christian theocracy? Say I have a religious leader who lays his laws based on the word of the good book? That religion is an everyday part of Floridian culture? In the Middle East it has been that way for hundreds of years. The majority who inhabit the Middle East happen to be of the Islamic religion; say it was that way in Florida Oranges. By making gay marriages perfectly legal, or abortion legal, you're interfering with my people's culture, a culture that strongly opposes both issues. You're undermining my government, and you're spitting upon the very book we've formed our laws with!

Obviously we are different, and we share different views. Diversity makes the world a wonderful place to live in. So please, allow the Christian theocracies and other like-minded governments their diversity. Their culture. Let them function as they always have.

What if my nation is a Christian theocracy? Say I have a religious leader who lays his laws based on the word of the good book?
I've never understood how any Theocracy could in good conscience click the "Join the UN" link. It just makes no sense. There are resolutions on Religious Tolerance laws, Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, etc that all go into effect automatically on joining. How can a God-fearing nation accept those impostions in the first place? It just makes no sense.

The will of the UN is the will of the majority of members. At this point in NS history, it's clear that theocracies are in the minority, and are thus subject to the "liberal UN" and all its freedoms and impositions. Theocracies are going to get slammed - it's a verifiable trend.

So tell me again ... why do they hang around?

I've never understood how any Theocracy could in good conscience click the "Join the UN" link. It just makes no sense. There are resolutions on Religious Tolerance laws, Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, etc that all go into effect automatically on joining. How can a God-fearing nation accept those impostions in the first place? It just makes no sense.

The will of the UN is the will of the majority of members. At this point in NS history, it's clear that theocracies are in the minority, and are thus subject to the "liberal UN" and all its freedoms and impositions. Theocracies are going to get slammed - it's a verifiable trend.

So tell me again ... why do they hang around?

The United Nations has always been a highly esteemed world organization, one which offers numerous oppurtunities for those who join. In times of warfare, it is not uncommon to find United Nations members backing each other up. The UN furthers trade between nations, and has always been about the furtherment of peace. Many of the UN resolutions we see on the floor protect nations, who otherwise would be vunerable if they weren't in such an organization.

There are multiple benefits to being a member of the UN, and I think it's quite easy to see why a theocracy, or perhaps a theocratic republic, would pursue membership. With those benefits come an equal amount of cons; but the beauty of the UN is, you can try to repeal those cons. And just because liberals control the UN now doesn't mean a traditionally left-leaning resolution can't be repealed. For you to say, "Well, the UN is made for liberals, we can encroach on the rights of religious nations all we want" goes against everything the United Nations stands for. That's a poor argument, and I'm disappointed that a respectable member such as yourself has chosen to see things this way.

You have to keep other nations in mind regardless of whether their views are in the minority or not. That's like saying, "well shit, bubbah, there be more whites than African-Americans! Let's segregate them from our community, America has always been a traditionally white nation." Don't look at things in two colors. Expand your views, and recognize that not every UN member is a left-winger. Notice resolutions like Abortion Rights faced nasty opposition. Just check the amount of votes cast against the resolution! My views aren't THAT much in the minority.

For you to say, "Well, the UN is made for liberals, we can encroach on the rights of religious nations all we want" goes against everything the United Nations stands for. That's a poor argument, and I'm disappointed that a respectable member such as yourself has chosen to see things this way.
That's not actually my argument, nor was it my question. I know the benefits of the organization, and have actively campaigned against the majority of the invasive proposals. I'm actually a conservative voice by most people's standards.

My question wasn't "what are the benefits" but rather "how can you go against your own ideology and accept as law in your nation these principles you abhor?" Joining the UN automatically makes all passed resolutions law in your nation. Now you know and I know that's meaningless in any game terms, but in the semi-official RP world, it's the way it works. All or nothing.

As a Corporate Oligarchy, we're willing to take the hit on things we don't support because the benefits outweigh the cost, at least in our national analysis. But a Theocracy doesn't have that latitude - the word of what is Right and what is Wrong comes from On High. It makes sense that you'd want to change it, and the only way to change the UN is from within. I just can't rationalize how you could possibly join in the first place.

Like I said, it makes no sense.

That's not actually my argument, nor was it my question. I know the benefits of the organization, and have actively campaigned against the majority of the invasive proposals. I'm actually a conservative voice by most people's standards.

My question wasn't "what are the benefits" but rather "how can you go against your own ideology and accept as law in your nation these principles you abhor?" Joining the UN automatically makes all passed resolutions law in your nation. Now you know and I know that's meaningless in any game terms, but in the semi-official RP world, it's the way it works. All or nothing.

As a Corporate Oligarchy, we're willing to take the hit on things we don't support because the benefits outweigh the cost, at least in our national analysis. But a Theocracy doesn't have that latitude - the word of what is Right and what is Wrong comes from On High. It makes sense that you'd want to change it, and the only way to change the UN is from within. I just can't rationalize how you could possibly join in the first place.

Like I said, it makes no sense.

Look at the real world, and the real UN. Theocratic Republics exist within the UN and always have. If it makes no sense, how come it happens in the modern day world? Once again, the benefits are great, too great to pass up. UN resolutions can always be repealed, and until they are, my nation can always find loopholes, or deterrents. I make sure abortion clinics in Florida Oranges are unsafe and controlled by inexperienced doctors. In fact, it isn't uncommon for the Floridian government to just hire pedestrians off the street and give them the title of abortion doctor. Can people still get them? Sure. But why would they want to if the doctor is performing one with a steak knife and a pair of scissors.

I just can't rationalize how you could possibly join in the first place.But why would they want to if the doctor is performing one with a steak knife and a pair of scissors.
Now you see? That's all I was looking for. A nice, juicy, Florida Oranges rationalization. Good answer.

Notice resolutions like Abortion Rights faced nasty opposition. Just check the amount of votes cast against the resolution! My views aren't THAT much in the minority.
Had I been active at the time, I would have cast a region's worth of votes against it as well, if only because I believe that it would result in this sort of fractious behavior. Frisbeeteria has always felt that Abortion Rights should have been left at the national level, and we'll support any well-written appeal out there ...

... unless idealogues like True Heart campaign the way they have been campaigning in this topic, with slams, innuendo, and denial of any validity to the opposition. A bit of advice to repeal writers - get True Heart off of your side. He's your worst enemy in this "liberal UN", because he drives swing voters like me to the other side.

True Heart, your ability to use a thesaurus and randomly emphasise words with the use of the italic tags doesn't change the fact that making personal attacks is not welcome.
If you really wish to psychoanalyse people, go take a psychology course at college or something. It's not necessary here.
Attack the issues, not the people.
I just now discovered your post here.

I, of course, will not change my posting style.

Exact whatever penalty you like.

But keep in mind, that hypocrisy in a moderator is not an admirable trait.

Your phrases "Your ability to use a thesaurus ..." and "If you really wish to psychoanalyze people, go take a psychology course at college or something." is a minimalizing belittlement, a directly addressed verbal abuse, that is, unquestionably, a personal attack of me, and one that is quite unjustified. You could have made your point without the attack.

Indeed, personal attacks, quite unjustified, have been pretty much what I've received here from the pro-abortionists ever since I began posting my pro-life position. After they initiated their unjustified personal attacks without subsequent moderator reprisal, I merely provided the neuropsychological reasons for why they behaved so abusively. As long as I don't receive a personal attack, I won't be pointing out to the attacker the neuropsychological error of his ways. So please, be fair, and cut the mild defense some slack if you aren't going to go after the brutal initiators.

Also, my understanding of the rules allows neuropsychological reference. As long as I do not initiate a personal attack, and I make my reference in general and not directly to a specific person by name or direct address, whether or not I am quoting a post, such is quite within the rules of conduct. Indeed, when it comes to this issue, attacking "the issue", as you say, includes presenting the neuropsychological dysfunctions that compel one to commit abortion. To censor that perspective, so necessary to the understanding of this issue, is to handicap only those fighting for the human rights of the newly conceived against the neuropsychologically dysfunctional who would so indiscriminately kill. If I am wrong in my assessment of the rules here, please let me know.

Direct diagnosis of a specific individual's neuropsycholgoical disorder is not the only means of commiting a personal attack. Blatant name-calling, which I have received from the onset, merely because of my relevant human rights position, is a deviceless direct personal attack that is just as egregious as a device-oriented attack, and the number of times someone used the device of "science" to calibrate the initiation of a personal attack, well, frankly, I've lost count. I challenge you to moderate fairly in this manner, and not merely by "familiar mob"-rule. And the nature of one's position on an issue or their level of articulation should not determine who gets called out for personal attacks and who doesn't.

Finally, there appears to be some rule, written or otherwise around here, that speaks of an aversion to italics and bolding, as if writing with emphasis as one would normally speak to another, person-to-person in the manner of a whole human being, is, for some reason, culturally verboten. Indeed, you imply such in your post here, and I've been "called" on it by other posters. Please explain this phenomenon, as I have not encountered it elsewhere.

I just now discovered your post here.

I, of course, will not change my posting style.

Exact whatever penalty you like.

But keep in mind, that hypocrisy in a moderator is not an admirable trait.

Your phrases "Your ability to use a thesaurus ..." and "If you really wish to psychoanalyze people, go take a psychology course at college or something." is a minimalizing belittlement, a directly addressed verbal abuse, that is, unquestionably, a personal attack of me, and one that is quite unjustified. You could have made your point without the attack.

Indeed, personal attacks, quite unjustified, have been pretty much what I've received here from the pro-abortionists ever since I began posting my pro-life position. After they initiated their unjustified personal attacks without subsequent moderator reprisal, I merely provided the neuropsychological reasons for why they behaved so abusively. As long as I don't receive a personal attack, I won't be pointing out to the attacker the neuropsychological error of his ways. So please, be fair, and cut the mild defense some slack if you aren't going to go after the brutal initiators.

Also, my understanding of the rules allows neuropsychological reference. As long as I do not initiate a personal attack, and I make my reference in general and not directly to a specific person by name or direct address, whether or not I am quoting a post, such is quite within the rules of conduct. Indeed, when it comes to this issue, attacking "the issue", as you say, includes presenting the neuropsychological dysfunctions that compel one to commit abortion. To censor that perspective, so necessary to the understanding of this issue, is to handicap only those fighting for the human rights of the newly conceived against the neuropsychologically dysfunctional who would so indiscriminately kill. If I am wrong in my assessment of the rules here, please let me know.

Direct diagnosis of a specific individual's neuropsycholgoical disorder is not the only means of commiting a personal attack. Blatant name-calling, which I have received from the onset, merely because of my relevant human rights position, is a deviceless direct personal attack that is just as egregious as a device-oriented attack, and the number of times someone used the device of "science" to calibrate the initiation of a personal attack, well, frankly, I've lost count. I challenge you to moderate fairly in this manner, and not merely by "familiar mob"-rule. And the nature of one's position on an issue or their level of articulation should not determine who gets called out for personal attacks and who doesn't.

Finally, there appears to be some rule, written or otherwise around here, that speaks of an aversion to italics and bolding, as if writing with emphasis as one would normally speak to another, person-to-person in the manner of a whole human being, is, for some reason, culturally verboten. Indeed, you imply such in your post here, and I've been "called" on it by other posters. Please explain this phenomenon, as I have not encountered it elsewhere.

A wonderful vocabulary- 50 dollars spent at a book store and lots of reading time

12 italicizations, 1 bolded phrase, and 3 sets of "quotation marks"-free

Another day in the UN forum- priceless

Had I been active at the time, I would have cast a region's worth of votes against it as well, if only because I believe that it would result in this sort of fractious behavior. Frisbeeteria has always felt that Abortion Rights should have been left at the national level, and we'll support any well-written appeal out there ...

... unless idealogues like True Heart campaign the way they have been campaigning in this topic, with slams, innuendo, and denial of any validity to the opposition. A bit of advice to repeal writers - get True Heart off of your side. He's your worst enemy in this "liberal UN", because he drives swing voters like me to the other side.
There is no validity to the opposition's perspective ... though it seems the unjustified angry slams and innuendos initiated my way from the pro-abortionists would constitute to some their validity ... especially in the minds of those who are also pro-abortion in their perspective.

So, if I argued just as strongly as an "idealogue", as you say, against the killing of five year-old children, would you also be swayed in support of such killing by your aversion to my methods?

If not, how far back would you take it before you were? A four year-old child? A one year-old child? A third trimester fetus? What does it take to knock you off your own two feet to where you would blame another for the position you take, a position about which you are fully accountable regardless?

The reality remains, and holds true for all the rest who would hide behind the veil of U.N. protocol and diplomatic procedure to cast an indirect slam at my method of getting truthfully to the heart of this very unsettling matter -- I'm pro-life, and you're not. End of story.

End of story.
Would that it were.

Leave it at that, and we might respect your right to your own opinion. Discard our similar right to hold our opinions, and you deserve all the scorn that's been tossed your way.

Would that it were.

Leave it at that, and we might respect your right to your own opinion. Discard our similar right to hold our opinions, and you deserve all the scorn that's been tossed your way.
I have in no way discarded your "right" to hold your opinions.

I have in no way deserved the scorn I've received from the onset.

The only reason I have had scorn initiated my way is because my position on this matter differs from yours, a difference that is understandably unsettling, to say the least.

Indeed, that you "might", as you say, respect my right to my own opinion under your terms ... says it all.

There is no validity to the opposition's perspective ..
Pray tell how this is "in no way discarded your "right" to hold your opinions."

You're a troll and a proven liar, and I'm done with you.

Pray tell how this is "in no way discarded your "right" to hold your opinions."
You know full well that my stating that your opinion has no validity or otherwise speaking to change opinion as does everyone including you is not a "discarding" of your "right" to have and to hold your opinion, and I have in no way demanded you be silent.

You are forgetting, Frisbeeteria, that I am an "idealogue". If someone came along and truly tried to take away your right to speak your opinion, I would be the first one up in your defense, regardless of the difference in our opinion.


You're a troll and a proven liar, and I'm done with you.
You're a pro-abortionist displacing your rage ... and you are not at all done with "me".

But that's the flaw in your argument. The "Abortions Rights" resolution just happens to be governments imposing their view on the people. You'll find many resolutions involve governments imposing their view on the people. The only reason you fail to see any problem with this is because it is YOUR view being imposed on the people, therefore you deem it as correct. Let's be serious here; the government always has and always will impose their view on the people. It has always been as such. Take prohibition for instance, or theocracies. Which takes me to my next point.

Given that the aforementioned resolution, (that is the Abortion Rights Resolution), grants rights to individuals to make decisions themselves; the assumption that it is "government imposing their view on the people" is patent deceit. Providing declarative right to the one to make decisions on their own, in no way forces the one to make a decision against their own will.


What if my nation is a Christian theocracy? Say I have a religious leader who lays his laws based on the word of the good book? That religion is an everyday part of Floridian culture? In the Middle East it has been that way for hundreds of years. The majority who inhabit the Middle East happen to be of the Islamic religion; say it was that way in Florida Oranges. By making gay marriages perfectly legal, or abortion legal, you're interfering with my people's culture, a culture that strongly opposes both issues. You're undermining my government, and you're spitting upon the very book we've formed our laws with!

Now your own hypocracy prevails. Your complaint is not that "government is imposing"; your complaint is that the U.N. has disallowed your own government to impose upon the people. That is like the idiot, who screams about being oppressed, because he has been disallowed the choice to oppress others.


Obviously we are different, and we share different views. Diversity makes the world a wonderful place to live in. So please, allow the Christian theocracies and other like-minded governments their diversity. Their culture. Let them function as they always have.

We are different. Christian Theocracies are allowed their diversity.... as long as they abide by the principles the UN decides upon. If your nation believed as you do; then abortion would be a non-issue, since none would undertake the act... Your complaint that the allowance by UN legislation negates your power to forbid; and that therefore people in your nation have it now is inherantly indicative of the illegitamacy of your statehood.

Given that the aforementioned resolution, (that is the Abortion Rights Resolution), grants rights to individuals to make decisions themselves; the assumption that it is "government imposing their view on the people" is patent deceit. Providing declarative right to the one to make decisions on their own, in no way forces the one to make a decision against their own will.

Patent Deceit! You bleeding heart lefties are so funny! What will you think of next?

Now your own hypocracy prevails. Your complaint is not that "government is imposing"; your complaint is that the U.N. has disallowed your own government to impose upon the people. That is like the idiot, who screams about being oppressed, because he has been disallowed the choice to oppress others.

Actually, my complaint is that the government IS imposing. Abortion is defined by Floridian law as murder. It has been this way since Florida Oranges has been a sovereign nation. My people overwhelmingly believe that abortion is a disgusting act of butchery, and this particular belief has been circulating throughout our culture for years now. The United Nations is imposing on the Orange law and the Orange culture by trying to justify abortion as anything other than an act of death. You're legalizing what MY people consider murder, therefore you're imposing your beliefs on my government. It's really not a hard concept to get, yet you seem to be having trouble understanding. YOUR view isn't necessarily accepted all over the world, believe it or not. Recognize this and help repeal your mistake.

We are different. Christian Theocracies are allowed their diversity.... as long as they abide by the principles the UN decides upon. If your nation believed as you do; then abortion would be a non-issue, since none would undertake the act...

Of course there are tourists and foreigners and even a small portion of natives who have different views about abortion in my nation, and may try to proceed with one. It goes against what the MAJORITY of my nation believes in though. Just like I'm sure a MAJORITY of people in your nation couldn't give a rats ass how many fetuses are squashed, but there is probably a conservativwe minority that does. Of course abortions will happen, so of course it's an issue. Lame argument, man.

Your complaint that the allowance by UN legislation negates your power to forbid;

There you go twisting shit before you get the full story. Once again, Floridian law defines abortion as a method of murder. We're trying to forbid what we believe is butchery; just like I'm sure you try to prevent murder in YOUR nation with specific laws. I'm not saying I want abortion banned. Just let my nation believe in what we believe in, and stop forcing your anti-life bullshit down my throat.

and that therefore people in your nation have it now is inherantly indicative of the illegitamacy of your statehood.

Nice. Insult my fictional nation. Nanny-nanny boo-boo to you too, buster.

Patent Deceit! You bleeding heart lefties are so funny! What will you think of next?

Hehe. You just called Tekania a bleeding heart lefty! :D

I just now discovered your post here.

I, of course, will not change my posting style.

Exact whatever penalty you like.

But keep in mind, that hypocrisy in a moderator is not an admirable trait.

Your phrases "Your ability to use a thesaurus ..." and "If you really wish to psychoanalyze people, go take a psychology course at college or something." is a minimalizing belittlement, a directly addressed verbal abuse, that is, unquestionably, a personal attack of me, and one that is quite unjustified. You could have made your point without the attack.

Indeed, personal attacks, quite unjustified, have been pretty much what I've received here from the pro-abortionists ever since I began posting my pro-life position. After they initiated their unjustified personal attacks without subsequent moderator reprisal, I merely provided the neuropsychological reasons for why they behaved so abusively. As long as I don't receive a personal attack, I won't be pointing out to the attacker the neuropsychological error of his ways. So please, be fair, and cut the mild defense some slack if you aren't going to go after the brutal initiators.

Also, my understanding of the rules allows neuropsychological reference. As long as I do not initiate a personal attack, and I make my reference in general and not directly to a specific person by name or direct address, whether or not I am quoting a post, such is quite within the rules of conduct. Indeed, when it comes to this issue, attacking "the issue", as you say, includes presenting the neuropsychological dysfunctions that compel one to commit abortion. To censor that perspective, so necessary to the understanding of this issue, is to handicap only those fighting for the human rights of the newly conceived against the neuropsychologically dysfunctional who would so indiscriminately kill. If I am wrong in my assessment of the rules here, please let me know.

Direct diagnosis of a specific individual's neuropsycholgoical disorder is not the only means of commiting a personal attack. Blatant name-calling, which I have received from the onset, merely because of my relevant human rights position, is a deviceless direct personal attack that is just as egregious as a device-oriented attack, and the number of times someone used the device of "science" to calibrate the initiation of a personal attack, well, frankly, I've lost count. I challenge you to moderate fairly in this manner, and not merely by "familiar mob"-rule. And the nature of one's position on an issue or their level of articulation should not determine who gets called out for personal attacks and who doesn't.

Finally, there appears to be some rule, written or otherwise around here, that speaks of an aversion to italics and bolding, as if writing with emphasis as one would normally speak to another, person-to-person in the manner of a whole human being, is, for some reason, culturally verboten. Indeed, you imply such in your post here, and I've been "called" on it by other posters. Please explain this phenomenon, as I have not encountered it elsewhere.

Kounya-a atake li moderen.

Lespwa selman genyen paske a konnen fot fe li sou chemen.

Reflechi paske mwen reponn a sot an lang kreyol.

True Heart, kou di ou, "Direct diagnosis of a specific individual's neuropsycholgoical disorder is not the only means of commiting a personal attack." Fe konnen pa ou nonmen bay nou li paske posede nou konsep benefis deklare kote fe ou. "Flanm" pa il pran. Vle paske a we ou saj a grandi.

Ben, si we vle a ou, tradui lang kreyol sou min. Depi lang angle pi bon pa a ou.

Hehe. You just called Tekania a bleeding heart lefty! :D

Hey, not my job to go hunting down everyone's political affiliation. I call 'em as I see 'em. :D

Isn't it nice being civilized? True Heart could take a page out of the books of you, Frisbeeteria, and Tekania.

Hey, not my job to go hunting down everyone's political affiliation. I call 'em as I see 'em. :D

Understood. Tek is actually a Libertarian, though. And I think he said abortions are illegal in his nation.

Isn't it nice being civilized? True Heart could take a page out of the books of you, Frisbeeteria, and Tekania.

Awww, shucks. :D

Awww, shucks. :D
ditto.

I am Libertarian... and abortions have been legal in Tekania... I don't, however, agree with, nor fully support the existing Abortion Rights resolution under technical grounds of vaguity.

And if any, from that time of passage remember, I took great effort to try to shoot down the on-floor Abortion Rights Res. at vote; even to the extent of providing a well-thought out alternative to it.

I'm as leftist as any other gun-rights supporting, CP-exercizing, lassiez-faire capitalist, anti-welfare-state, person is.

I haven't got time to review this. iLock pending Moderator review.


Actually, I'm going to review a little piece of this mess. Here's your opening post:
First of all, your euphemistic reference to "what" lives inside is an attempt to minimalizingly belittle the reality of the newly conceived unique living individual human being that may be living in a woman's womb. It is an abusive comment designed to mentalistically excuse the ubiquitous contemporary (usually liberal) male's dysfunctional compulsion to fuk-and-kill in the typical irresponsible "funster" fashion of the sexually addicted.

Second, your implication that it is "solely your decision" over what you obviously mean is some so-called right to kill that newly conceived unique living individual human being for other than self-defense of that human being's direct threat on the mother's very life, reflects a stereotypically "male" attitude toward pregnancy and gestation. Men have a difficult empathic time with the reality of pregnancy, and, for other dysfunctional reasons as well, often imagine fearfully the presence of a newly conceived unique living individual human being as an invader to be removed. But healthy, heart-centered women don't suffer from this dysfunctional-male-oriented delusion. They accurately recognize the newly conceived unique living individual human being as a sacred person and their pregnancy as a sacred honor.
First quoted paragraph: You accuse him of making an abusive comment and of being sexually addicted. Right here, you started with the personal attacks. This qualifies as "defamatory" under the NationStates Terms and Conditions.

Second Paragraph: Here, you seem to imply that "Adam Island" is dysfunctional and dishonorable, though this is a little more subject to interpretation.

Now, this is hardly a full review. I'm just saying: Right off-the-bat, your case does not look good.

In the interests of full disclosure: I am against abortion. Life ought to be protected whereever the possibility of personhood exists. However, your political opinion does not justify NationStates rule violations.


--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Hold on.... Tactical Grace seems to have alreeady dealt with him. iUnlock.

Carry on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

And thus ends the bizarre and wholly worthless saga of True Heart.... until next week when I'm sure he'll be back. For when he does, or if hes lurking right now I have a request. Instead of giving us the superficial argument, tell us more about this nebulous neuropsychological paradigm of yours. You seem to base your whole argument around it and yet you haven't taken the time to explain it to anybody. Until you explain how you reason with this and why you believe in it your arguments seem to be based off a strange mixture of personal attacks and religious sans religion ideology.

you know if they pin down their actual credentials, they can't waffle.


Mmmmmm, waffles. Almost as good as pancakes.

I like pancakes!


*blink* where was I?

I just now discovered your post here.

I, of course, will not change my posting style.

Exact whatever penalty you like.

But keep in mind, that hypocrisy in a moderator is not an admirable trait.

Your phrases "Your ability to use a thesaurus ..." and "If you really wish to psychoanalyze people, go take a psychology course at college or something." is a minimalizing belittlement, a directly addressed verbal abuse, that is, unquestionably, a personal attack of me, and one that is quite unjustified. You could have made your point without the attack.

Indeed, personal attacks, quite unjustified, have been pretty much what I've received here from the pro-abortionists ever since I began posting my pro-life position. After they initiated their unjustified personal attacks without subsequent moderator reprisal, I merely provided the neuropsychological reasons for why they behaved so abusively. As long as I don't receive a personal attack, I won't be pointing out to the attacker the neuropsychological error of his ways. So please, be fair, and cut the mild defense some slack if you aren't going to go after the brutal initiators.

Also, my understanding of the rules allows neuropsychological reference. As long as I do not initiate a personal attack, and I make my reference in general and not directly to a specific person by name or direct address, whether or not I am quoting a post, such is quite within the rules of conduct. Indeed, when it comes to this issue, attacking "the issue", as you say, includes presenting the neuropsychological dysfunctions that compel one to commit abortion. To censor that perspective, so necessary to the understanding of this issue, is to handicap only those fighting for the human rights of the newly conceived against the neuropsychologically dysfunctional who would so indiscriminately kill. If I am wrong in my assessment of the rules here, please let me know.

Direct diagnosis of a specific individual's neuropsycholgoical disorder is not the only means of commiting a personal attack. Blatant name-calling, which I have received from the onset, merely because of my relevant human rights position, is a deviceless direct personal attack that is just as egregious as a device-oriented attack, and the number of times someone used the device of "science" to calibrate the initiation of a personal attack, well, frankly, I've lost count. I challenge you to moderate fairly in this manner, and not merely by "familiar mob"-rule. And the nature of one's position on an issue or their level of articulation should not determine who gets called out for personal attacks and who doesn't.

Finally, there appears to be some rule, written or otherwise around here, that speaks of an aversion to italics and bolding, as if writing with emphasis as one would normally speak to another, person-to-person in the manner of a whole human being, is, for some reason, culturally verboten. Indeed, you imply such in your post here, and I've been "called" on it by other posters. Please explain this phenomenon, as I have not encountered it elsewhere.

Holy cow this guy is freakin smart

So anyways......what do you guys think about my idea on a "Summit on Abortion" to find some middle ground on this before half of us leave or kill the other half?

*awaits impending flames

*Readies teh flamethrower*

Nah just kidding, but what would be the point of a summit. Like, how would it be different from any other UN discussion.

Well, hopefully, we could get a better resolution out there than the "abortion rights" one. Sooner or later, a repeal may just get enough strength to squeek by and then there will be NO abortion rights. Witholding from getting into a debate on the issues of abortion, I think we can all agree .....(Flamethrower ready please......)

1. The current "Abortion Rights" resolution is at the far end of abortion rights beliefs

2. It is not within the UN's power to make moral decisions for nations (the application to this Resolution is debatable, but many believe it to be as such)

3. There should be provisions made for rape cases and cases in which the mother's life is endangered, no matter what each nations stance on abortion is.

What I would kind of hope for, as an example, would be a repeal of the current resolution, and instead, having one that left the decision to the individual nation. However, it would protect the rights in the case of rape and endangerment of the mother UN-wide. I know that this case is very obscured by my personal position, but I know that something better would come out of it than what we have now, as it completely represents a few UN nations, kind of represents many more, and completely mis-represents just as many. It shouldn't be a question of "Which wing can get their proposal passed," even if they have a majority, it should be "How can we make resolutions that everyone can agree on, but swing towards the popular majority of middle-ground?"

Ok, that was a very poorly written post, but you can get my general idea.


Brandon J Yad
President of Granbia


to actually ANSWER your question, it would be on a different board, with regulated sections on different topics, polls, general discussion, an area for Regional Delegates only, etc. Basically, covering the most possible in a controlled atmosphere instead of on a large board. Then, hopefully, most of the Nations/RMs will actually want to compromise or at least get into meaningfull discussion (weed out the flamebaters and general forum jockeys).

We could just force abortion to be legal, but pass a bill leaving it up to each nation how many abortion clinics they will allow, where those abortion clinics will be, and what types of abortion are illegal with a minimum of one legal type. That doesn't stop a nation from putting its only abortion clinic in orbit if they don't want it.

Not to be really pushy, but i think that a Summit on Abortion would be a good idea. It would be open for two weeks, and I have designed a Proboards Message Board for it. Take a look at it HERE (http://granbia.proboards39.com/index.cgi)

It isn't ready to go yet or anything, but it's a preliminary idea

I'm going to start a new thread suggesting it, but thought maybe i'd give a little preview here first. Please don't post on it or take any polls!!



[edit] Most of the boards aren't viewable unless you are registered, so if you want to sign up, be my (non) guest! [/edit)

We could just force abortion to be legal, but pass a bill leaving it up to each nation how many abortion clinics they will allow, where those abortion clinics will be, and what types of abortion are illegal with a minimum of one legal type. That doesn't stop a nation from putting its only abortion clinic in orbit if they don't want it.

Nah, that makes to much sense....:)

Well, there are loopholes in the present Abortion Rights resolution. There is no neccessity, let's say, for a state to create any Abortion Clinics; there is no requirement that lasseiz-faire economies force private medical institutions to perform abortions; there is no requirement that there be any safty regulations upon abortion clinics (indeed, actually regulating existing clinics, even for safety, could be deemed illegal under the present Abortion Rights Resolution). Effectively, even though the procedure is legal; there are enough loopholes that a nation could still simply not have any facilities or people to provide the service.

I'm as leftist as any other gun-rights supporting, CP-exercizing, lassiez-faire capitalist, anti-welfare-state, person is.

Okay, so you're not a lefty, big deal. My argument has validity however, can we agree on that? The current Abortions Rights resolution is riddled with flaws and loopholes; the resolution never should've been passed in the first place. It also ignores what my nation defines as murder, and HAS defined as a form of murder for the past three decades. You just can't legalize abortion in a nation where the majority of the population considers it slaughter of an innocent child.

So rather than argue this anymore (it's evident you have some qualms with the current resolution) why don't we work together to repeal this?

Okay, so you're not a lefty, big deal. My argument has validity however, can we agree on that? The current Abortions Rights resolution is riddled with flaws and loopholes; the resolution never should've been passed in the first place. It also ignores what my nation defines as murder, and HAS defined as a form of murder for the past three decades. You just can't legalize abortion in a nation where the majority of the population considers it slaughter of an innocent child.

So rather than argue this anymore (it's evident you have some qualms with the current resolution) why don't we work together to repeal this?

Well, I am a lefty... .just not a leftist :P

Well, I am a lefty... .just not a leftist :P

Can we focus on the issue at hand?

Frisbeeteria (yes, Frisbeeteria) has a new repeal proposal for your consideration. Please look over it carefully from the perspective of the lawmakers that you are, and see if it meets with your approval.


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380347

What I'm about to say will come as a shock to some, and baffle others senses, so hold on to your shirts...

I would not mind approving of an resolution to repeal abortion rights; however... I can tell you this upfront; If I do not agree with the grounds of the repeal (The Argument): I will not approve it, even to repeal the law.

I hold Repeals to the same level I do normal Proposals.... I either agree 100% of the reasoning and action; or none of it. No in-betweens, no grey areas.

Keep that in mind; I will not attach my name to a piece of legislation, I cannot 100% agree with; even if it will, in the end, reach my own goals.

Uhm, wrong. Or rather "in light of the motion of technology, there is no reason to believe a finger, a hair folicle, or any other living cell could not eventually be modified through science to become a "house for a human being"."

Now, if you said "naturally", you might be on to something. But nature oft bends to science.

That may very well be true...I don't claim to be an expert in biology.

BTW I have noticed several times that pro-abortionists have insisted that it is wrong to "force" a woman to carry a "parasite", to make someone give up some of their convenience for a "clump of cells". All I've got to say to that is go back to what I've been saying all along - if a woman helped create it, then she is obligated to allow it to live (or grow until it becomes alive, if you prefer).

There's probably a lot more I could respond to, but I've mostly ignored that last couple pages because it seems to be not much more than an argument between True Heart and everyone else rather than an actual debate on the issue.

Look at the real world, and the real UN. Theocratic Republics exist within the UN and always have. If it makes no sense, how come it happens in the modern day world? Once again, the benefits are great, too great to pass up. UN resolutions can always be repealed, and until they are, my nation can always find loopholes, or deterrents. I make sure abortion clinics in Florida Oranges are unsafe and controlled by inexperienced doctors. In fact, it isn't uncommon for the Floridian government to just hire pedestrians off the street and give them the title of abortion doctor. Can people still get them? Sure. But why would they want to if the doctor is performing one with a steak knife and a pair of scissors.

That's a good idea, but what keeps "regular" doctors from performing abortions?

That may very well be true...I don't claim to be an expert in biology.

BTW I have noticed several times that pro-abortionists have insisted that it is wrong to "force" a woman to carry a "parasite", to make someone give up some of their convenience for a "clump of cells". All I've got to say to that is go back to what I've been saying all along - if a woman helped create it, then she is obligated to allow it to live (or grow until it becomes alive, if you prefer).

There's probably a lot more I could respond to, but I've mostly ignored that last couple pages because it seems to be not much more than an argument between True Heart and everyone else rather than an actual debate on the issue.

Again, does this mean that you have always accepted all consequences to all of your actions, or are you stating this hypocritically as it is not you?

Again, does this mean that you have always accepted all consequences to all of your actions, or are you stating this hypocritically as it is not you?

It means that I try, but being human, I don't always succeed. Nobody's perfect. I usually do though, but then I can't say I've really had too many experiences that have "tested" me on this and have been difficult - usually it's just minor stuff (like the fact that I don't complain and whine about the "money I've lost" if I want to return something I bought but don't have the receipt, but many people do complain - can you guess what my job is? ;) ).

But the real question is, do you have a problem with that basic philosophy, especially as it applies to abortion? Do you agree or not?

What I'm about to say will come as a shock to some, and baffle others senses, so hold on to your shirts...

Your blatant sophistic attempt to 'shock' other sophist delegates is clearly a function of your neo-supression/repression of early abuse and sophistry you suffered in your reverse childhood at the hands of uncaring electrostatic forces. As every True Heart knows.

I would not mind

You would not mind? Well Tekania, it seems you have taken the first step into the new world of inverse heart-centered realization. Now that you have thrown off the male induced tyranny of all cerebral thought, and it's self indulgent sophistry (please see my list of sophistries, page 11) of logic and reason, you can truly rise above your paradigm to embrace the heart center that is the path to all universal truth. As every true heart knows.

approving of an resolution to repeal abortion rights;

Oh, but here your sophistry comes back into full bear. Alas. Obviously you have once again become dominated by the quasi-religious neo-science that panders to the anti-abortionist - who, as every true heart knows, it not so much a person as a sophistry induced wraith that has usurped the natural heart center of what constitutes a being/person. As every true heart knows.

however... I can tell you this upfront; If I do not agree with the grounds of the repeal (The Argument): I will not approve it, even to repeal the law.

Your facilitated/imposed pre-emptive denial of the "grounds" of a repeal clearly illustrates the neuropsychological/psychoneurological disorder currently griping your central, and the left/seven half of your peripheral, nervous system with it's talons of sophistry. As every true heart knows.

I hold Repeals to the same level I do normal Proposals.... I either agree 100% of the reasoning and action; or none of it. No in-betweens, no gray areas.

Your arbitrary imposition, Tekania, of 'levels' upon repeals and proposals, (which naturally understand their correct 'level' due to their advanced four-heart-pyramid centers) is obviously a projection of your inartistic desire for control within your own metaphorical foot-center. Perhaps once you cast off the shackles of sophistry, and realize the true potential of the all-knowing heart, you can abandon this arbitrary imposition of elevations. As every true heart knows.

Keep that in mind; I will not attach my name to a piece of legislation, I cannot 100% agree with; even if it will, in the end, reach my own goals.

You can not 'attach' your name Tekania. Every true heart is well aware that the 'name' is merely an influx of your projected developmental complex, located deep within your heart center (By the Superior Vena Cava, to be precise). Sophistry. As every true heart knows.

Ah, the Untrue Corpus Collum Has Awoken.

Every true heart is well aware that the 'name' is merely an influx of your projected developmental complex, located deep within your heart center (By the Superior Vena Cava, to be precise). Sophistry. As every true heart knows.

Your confusing heart intelligence as being actually associated with the heart. Proof that this is but a facade. Heart intelligence, as every true heart knows, is Emotional Intelligence (often given the acronym EQ, the emotional-intelligence equivalent of IQ). It encompasses social intelligence and emphasises the affect of emotions on our ability to view situations objectively and thus to understand ourselves and other people. It is the ability to sense, understand, and effectively apply the power of emotions, appropriately channelled as a source of energy, creativity and influence. It is called 'Heart Intelligence' as balancing and integrating the left and right brain, reason and emotion. Disavow this sophistry of the ability to communicate with your heart.

Your blatant sophistic attempt to 'shock' other sophist delegates is clearly a function of your neo-supression/repression of early abuse and sophistry you suffered in your reverse childhood at the hands of uncaring electrostatic forces. As every True Heart knows.



You would not mind? Well Tekania, it seems you have taken the first step into the new world of inverse heart-centered realization. Now that you have thrown off the male induced tyranny of all cerebral thought, and it's self indulgent sophistry (please see my list of sophistries, page 11) of logic and reason, you can truly rise above your paradigm to embrace the heart center that is the path to all universal truth. As every true heart knows.



Oh, but here your sophistry comes back into full bear. Alas. Obviously you have once again become dominated by the quasi-religious neo-science that panders to the anti-abortionist - who, as every true heart knows, it not so much a person as a sophistry induced wraith that has usurped the natural heart center of what constitutes a being/person. As every true heart knows.



Your facilitated/imposed pre-emptive denial of the "grounds" of a repeal clearly illustrates the neuropsychological/psychoneurological disorder currently griping your central, and the left/seven half of your peripheral, nervous system with it's talons of sophistry. As every true heart knows.



Your arbitrary imposition, Tekania, of 'levels' upon repeals and proposals, (which naturally understand their correct 'level' due to their advanced four-heart-pyramid centers) is obviously a projection of your inartistic desire for control within your own metaphorical foot-center. Perhaps once you cast off the shackles of sophistry, and realize the true potential of the all-knowing heart, you can abandon this arbitrary imposition of elevations. As every true heart knows.



You can not 'attach' your name Tekania. Every true heart is well aware that the 'name' is merely an influx of your projected developmental complex, located deep within your heart center (By the Superior Vena Cava, to be precise). Sophistry. As every true heart knows.

Ah.... so we know who you are now...

See, New Tyrollia, AKA "True Heart", unlike you, I am a NSUN Delegate, which means I have to operate at different levels than yourself. My approval or lack thereof of certain pieces of legislation is based upon a high level of standards in conjunction with me, and the intents and direction of my region. My final vote, which carries more weight than yours, since I carry my own vote in addition to those who have endorsed me as delegate, is also held to different standards (my vote goes by region majority as opposed to what I want). This is where things are different, I have responsibilities to my own region, as a delegate, which I have earned through much respect from my region and its residents. This is far different from you, son, who exist respected by none, and cast out by many; because you lack the basic skills of cooperation, and lack any and all sense of ethics and responsibility.... All because you follow insane voices in your head that keep telling you they are your "heart".

That being said, "True Heart", you would be wise to listen to that voice telling you when not to talk.

An intelligent man once stated that we had reached 'the end of history', thereby revealing him to be a fool, despite his intellectual prowess. I wonder... how will history judge the previous statement from New Tyrollia?

Unless of course it's all a massive spoof, in which case our true-hearted is a comedy genius.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I'm giving NT the benefit of the doubt and saying it's a spoof. Why? I've argued with him before and this is the first time I have seen him ever use that style.

Edit: NT != True Heart. I just spotted four stylistic differences between his posts and TH's. If I turn out to be wrong, then this guy is one of the better shifters and I must give him props for the changes.

It means that I try, but being human, I don't always succeed. Nobody's perfect. I usually do though, but then I can't say I've really had too many experiences that have "tested" me on this and have been difficult - usually it's just minor stuff (like the fact that I don't complain and whine about the "money I've lost" if I want to return something I bought but don't have the receipt, but many people do complain - can you guess what my job is? ;) ).

But the real question is, do you have a problem with that basic philosophy, especially as it applies to abortion? Do you agree or not?


I do not agree. Part of the consequence is having to make that choice, to carry to term or to have an abortion or (etc and so forth). To limit choice is to limit learning.

OOC: and you did choose that job. ;)

I'm giving NT the benefit of the doubt and saying it's a spoof. Why? I've argued with him before and this is the first time I have seen him ever use that style.

Edit: NT != True Heart. I just spotted four stylistic differences between his posts and TH's. If I turn out to be wrong, then this guy is one of the better shifters and I must give him props for the changes.

Your inability to notice that a true heart does not attach itself to a name is evidenced by your attachment to the illusory use of logic and reason presented by my puppet sophist.

Once it is learned that you can abandon the scientific archetype that clouds the ability to escape the fear causing you to lie, refuse to understand, commit harmful acts, and withhold from communication with others, you will transcend your current consciousness, and be able to listen to your heart. As every true heart know.

Just kidding. The real true did not end every paragraph with- as every true heart knows. So, I guess New T is playing. We should all give this a try, as it is quite entertaining. Then persecute the one who does it best as being the real True Heart :)