| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:32 pm 
A couple of thoughts while reading this thread: First off, as a woman, I don't see anything really wrong with Texas passing that bill. Why you ask? Well honestly, it shouldn't take a woman 20 weeks to decide whether she wants to keep her baby or not. That's just the way I see it. I don't really think anyone should kill a child, but to each their own. If you're going to do it, it should be within the first trimester. Next, the topic of abortion isn't all about the woman. It takes two people to make a child. People seem to forget that. The man should definitely be able to voice his concerns. Some pretty disrespectful comments about Christie, sheesh. Christie may not have completed high school level courses (I have no idea if that's even true), but I would argue that many kids in college haven't either. Have you seen kids in school these days? They hardly pay attention, some putting in just enough effort to barely get by. I'm willing to bet Christie is smarter than the average high schooler. In fact, kudos to Boyd and Kim because I think all their children come off as very intelligent. There's more to education and intelligence than sitting in a classroom repeating back what the teacher says. Might I add that many innovators dropped out of college. Higher education isn't for everyone. I'm happy, and actually prefer, when bands keep their mouths shut about politics. Nothing ruins my fun more than having to see my favorite actors and musicians become outspoken about something I disagree with. I can ignore it only up to a point. I was a big fan of Zooey Deschanel for so long until the last election. Much better to have a neutral stance on the outside and keep it about the music than be outspoken and alienate part of your fanbase. |
|
|
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 | Posts: 263 | Location: SF
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:04 pm
I feel that, unless a band expresses their political ideology through their music (like Rage Against the Machine or System of a Down for example), it shouldn't really matter what they believe in as long as you like their music. And that's all I'm really gonna say on this matter. _________________ Do I even need a signature anymore? |
|
|
Joined: 02 Jul 2008 | Posts: 1403 | Location: Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:04 am
I didn't want to post all of what Wil said So wil i figured that is what you meant because I have heard you talk on it before and I assumed I knew how you felt on the subject. But, I do appreciate the clarificiation. I still find this whole thread odd. I thread on abortion is fine and dandy. But a thread about how a band should leave a state because of it, is odd. MY question for the OP is, (being completely serious) do you think everyone should leave Texas because of the state's stand on issues? I don't understand why one would just leave a state simply because there is a law in place that they might not agree with. _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:36 am
I stand by what I said about the "woman's body argument". And yes, I am a man. My pro-life mother and sister would have said the exact same thing though. The baby's body is not the woman's body. As I said before, the baby's genetics are screaming out that it is a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's poor reasoning and illogical and that's why I'm sick of it. I mean this is no insensitivity to women. I'm simply tired of men and women who claim a woman has a right to destroy another life because it's "her body". It's happening in her body, that does not make it her body. |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:48 am
"Discredited scientists, maybe". I said it wasn't popular. But obviously the evolutionists give it enough respect to enter into debates with intelligent design scientists quite frequently (as I said, I went to debates in Los Angeles for extra credit as a biology major in college). The debates were pretty heated, both sides had good points. |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:55 am
Carl Sagan spent his whole life looking for extra terrestrial life. He believed in aliens. So . . . I should just believe in everything he believed in? And if he says evolution happened, then it happened? And Richard Dawkins, a prominent athiest, has claimed that life on earth may have been created by ETs. So? Both of these guys are intelligent designers at heart I guess? |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:46 am
helloworld wrote: Some pretty disrespectful comments about Christie, sheesh. Christie may not have completed high school level courses (I have no idea if that's even true), but I would argue that many kids in college haven't either. Have you seen kids in school these days? They hardly pay attention, some putting in just enough effort to barely get by. I'm willing to bet Christie is smarter than the average high schooler. In fact, kudos to Boyd and Kim because I think all their children come off as very intelligent. There's more to education and intelligence than sitting in a classroom repeating back what the teacher says. Might I add that many innovators dropped out of college. Higher education isn't for everyone.
I'm happy, and actually prefer, when bands keep their mouths shut about politics. Nothing ruins my fun more than having to see my favorite actors and musicians become outspoken about something I disagree with. I can ignore it only up to a point. I was a big fan of Zooey Deschanel for so long until the last election. Much better to have a neutral stance on the outside and keep it about the music than be outspoken and alienate part of your fanbase. - There was absolutely nothing disrespectful said about Christie, merely facts stated. - Those many kids in college are irrelevant to the discussion, given they're in college (assuming they're beyond the first semester). - No, I haven't witnessed the academic performance of nearly enough American students to make such a sweeping generalization, and I suspect you have not either. I am, however, aware of some data on the subject. Many students face a variety of challenges for a variety of reasons. There are structural societal issues, the education model has inherent issues, our lack in valuing education as a society comparatively is an issue, failed parenting can be an issue, failing to teach adequately can also be an issue, a lack of standard is an issue, and so on. I'm not sure why there's an assumption that I've never thought critically about education, or the education system, particularly when I've discussed it at length here, but nevertheless: I have and continue to. I'm a fan of a variety of theories on the topic, including Anarchistic, Democratic, Montessori, etc. -- all of which are "alternative." I would start applying a lot of those theories for my children from birth, frankly; and from pre-K - 8, I want to limit their formal education to one of those or some combination thereof. High school has to be a bit more traditional and rigorous for the sake of university, but I dream for my kids to go to Reed more than Harvard. - I never criticized her aptitude, and underlined that point very clearly. However, there are a variety of theories on intelligence, and I don't find it useful to characterize someone as "smart" or "not smart," which is partly why I never outlined my analysis that way. I'm personally a big fan of Gardner. I have no doubt someone like Christie, for instance, would score high in musical-rhythmic and verbal-linguistic, and probably even logical-mathematical intelligence; however, that in and of itself says nothing about her level of acquired knowledge. It just means that there are extra seeds planted for others to water. And the more one is nourished, the more they grow. And if a lot of people nourish you, imagine how much you'll grow... And to me, that nourishing is such a beautiful and immensely useful thing, and so it really gets to me when people are vehemently against education and furthering their personal knowledge, let alone others'. And I'm sure this will upset some, but it's a fact: Boyd maintained a 3.8 GPA in college and it shows. - "Might I add that many innovators dropped out of college. Higher education isn't for everyone." ...Sure, but I clarified that in Christie's case, she's neither educated nor informed. I value the former very much, as just expressed, but I actually value the latter much more, because education is not equally accessible. I value Joe Strummer's opinion on politics as much as I value Noam Chomsky's; one dropped out of an art school to squat and pursue music, and the other got his BA-PhD from UPenn, was tenured at Harvard, and is currently a professor emeritus at MIT. Joe isn't uneducated, particularly by British standards, because high school, especially at a "public" one, is the equivalent of college level "gen. ed.," but he was nothing if not informed. And they both share(d) their knowledge in very different ways, both of which are useful and of exceeding importance to me. And to be honest, your post seems fairly emotional and over-invested for the reality of your relationship with Christie (artist/fan). @Tungsten Holy logical fallacies, Batman! Extra terrestrial life would not contradict the theory of evolution, which by the way is not centered around the origin of life anyway. Evolutionary theory is about what happened after that, and it's thick with observation. And who mentioned Dawkins? But to answer your question, no, that's not what that means. And many of my beliefs differ from theirs, but beliefs in this case are largely irrelevant, "so..." _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
Last edited by tahruh on Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:56 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:50 am
the comment posted that i thought was rude towards christie, and perhaps the band, was the comment about how the kickstarter should've been used to fund her a college education. _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:52 am
tungsten wrote: I stand by what I said about the "woman's body argument". And yes, I am a man. My pro-life mother and sister would have said the exact same thing though. The baby's body is not the woman's body. As I said before, the baby's genetics are screaming out that it is a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's poor reasoning and illogical and that's why I'm sick of it. I mean this is no insensitivity to women. I'm simply tired of men and women who claim a woman has a right to destroy another life because it's "her body". It's happening in her body, that does not make it her body. _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:27 am
tahruh wrote: tungsten wrote: I stand by what I said about the "woman's body argument". And yes, I am a man. My pro-life mother and sister would have said the exact same thing though. The baby's body is not the woman's body. As I said before, the baby's genetics are screaming out that it is a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's poor reasoning and illogical and that's why I'm sick of it. I mean this is no insensitivity to women. I'm simply tired of men and women who claim a woman has a right to destroy another life because it's "her body". It's happening in her body, that does not make it her body. I would say the question is not whether or not the fetus in a woman's body is a separate individual, the question is whether or not the government should have any control over what's going on inside a woman's body. I would argue that what goes on inside of a woman's body is outside of the jurisdiction of government. If we give government the power to control what a woman does with her own body, then how long until the government starts to make other decisions for pregnant women like what foods they can eat, or liquids they can drink, or how and when they travel? Ask yourself, how much control do you want government to have over your body? For better or worse, it is my opinion that the only person with jurisdiction over a fetus is the woman whose body it resides within. Do I hope that women will make the best decisions for their unborn children? Absolutely I do and I think government should give pregnant women every opportunity to make choices other than abortion, but at the end of the day it's still a woman's choice. |
|
|
Joined: 21 Jul 2004 | Posts: 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:35 am
Painaporo wrote: tahruh wrote: tungsten wrote: I stand by what I said about the "woman's body argument". And yes, I am a man. My pro-life mother and sister would have said the exact same thing though. The baby's body is not the woman's body. As I said before, the baby's genetics are screaming out that it is a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's poor reasoning and illogical and that's why I'm sick of it. I mean this is no insensitivity to women. I'm simply tired of men and women who claim a woman has a right to destroy another life because it's "her body". It's happening in her body, that does not make it her body. I would say the question is not whether or not the fetus in a woman's body is a separate individual, the question is whether or not the government should have any control over what's going on inside a woman's body. I would argue that what goes on inside of a woman's body is outside of the jurisdiction of government. If we give government the power to control what a woman does with her own body, then how long until the government starts to make other decisions for pregnant women like what foods they can eat, or liquids they can drink, or how and when they travel? Ask yourself, how much control do you want government to have over your body? For better or worse, it is my opinion that the only person with jurisdiction over a fetus is the woman whose body it resides within. Do I hope that women will make the best decisions for their unborn children? Absolutely I do and I think government should give pregnant women every opportunity to make choices other than abortion, but at the end of the day it's still a woman's choice. _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:41 am
Also, I think it's absurd that an artist shouldn't share their political or religious/spiritual beliefs through whatever mediums they choose. My favorite works of art have often both, and more often, one or the other, including music, but other forms of art as well. Sometimes I'll overlook certain things, but I draw a line (I, too, am not interested in "white supremacy techno," to quote Ezra Koenig). Everyone has a right to draw their own line. I think it's best to be as open minded as possible, but sometimes people make that impossible. _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:07 am
tahruh: my point about Carl Sagan was that I am not going to accept evolution as fact simply because he says it is. My point about him believing in aliens (for me) discredits pretty much anything else he has to say. I guess that is not the case for you (cue X-Files theme). And if aliens were the ultimate cause of evolution, isn't that intelligent design (which you were discrediting)? |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:08 am
oddly enough now that painaporo has explained him(?) self better I agree. My religious beliefs aside, I do consider myself a libretarian at heart, though a little more on the conservative side. And I am pro life, but I do agree that the government should not be the ones making the call on the issue. _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:12 am
And I suppose we should define evolution before we go further? when you promote evolution, do you mean the changes in genetic variation within species over time or do you mean the rise of new species from existing ones? |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
