Skepchick Warring with Dawkins Again

[pErvinalia]

In really late (and rare) abortions there is at least some risk to the woman which is one reason is restricted.

Watson unfortunately comes from somewhere where abortion is highly politicised so like sexual harrassment ( as in someone trying to chat you up) takes silly extreme positions. If someone takes an equal and opposite extremist position you tend to get a bit squashed if you take a middle of the road position yourself.

Then again I'm not pro choice, I'm pro abortion I think we don't have enough of them. Every abortion of an unwanted child is one less person who is going to grow up , will never work , will end up in prison and possible end up mugging me. Forget free abortions on the NHS we should pay people to have them , Anyone who is a decent person would be appalled by such an idea but the ones who take the money arent fit parents anyway

I read the first paragraph and I was like 'Yes! The old articulate intelligent Jonno is back'. Then I read the second paragraph and

Which bit rEvolutionist do you disagree, using public money to influence(not force) population control has been around in the Western world for a long time, from free/subsidised contraception to tax breaks / extra benefits for having children. Abortion and population control in general is the best way of preventing poverty that we have

A note: I meant first and second paragraph were good, last paragraph was nonsense.

I can't be bothered Jonno. Your opinionated opinions sap my will to breath.

I very much agree with the last paragraph ... not necessarily the payment idea (I haven't given the ethics of that much thought), but the overall pro-abortion stance.

It's just the absoluteness with which he pontificates. "EVERY abortion..."... Bullshit. "Mugging me"... bullshit. And even if they did, boo fucking hoo. Every absolute opinion Jonno gives is always ultra simplistic and inherently selfish. "We give money to the poor so they don't kill us"... Actually, many advocate giving money to the poor because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THEM. Whatever it's got to do with us personally, is a very distant consideration. He never used to be like this. I don't know what happened. I suspect he got mugged and suffered brain trauma. Most of his posts are full of grammar and spelling errors now (they never used to be). Essentially, it just hurts my brain to read his guff now.

Edit: Just to add, for clarity sake, I'm definitely pro-choice. But I'm that way because it is a woman's (and her partner's to a degree) choice. Not because I'm scared some figment of my imagination is going to come and mug or kill me one day.

[Audley Strange]

I've been attempting to point out the irrationality of "Feminism" as a movement since the late 90's and vocally about it online since about 2003. However I don't trawl their sites, so I appreciate the comedy even if no one else does CES. The whole FtB/Skepchick/a+ thing has harmed them more than I would have expected because they have exposed, to the A.S community at large, their unsound and totalitarian fantasies, their lack of reasoning and the heavy reliance on appeals to emotion, ad-hominem and every other cheap rhetorical trick in the book.

It's over CES, they marginalised themselves have went from thousands of hits per day to dozens, mostly I think from people like yourself and the Slyme-pit ((Hi guys!)) and their handful of crackpot courtiers.

Slymepit denizens don't lurk this forum.

Yes they do

Indeed they do. I think some here are even members.
Mind you, I didn't mean the Slyme-pits crackpot courtiers, but the FtB axis'.

[charlou]

I very much agree with the last paragraph ... not necessarily the payment idea (I haven't given the ethics of that much thought), but the overall pro-abortion stance.

It's just the absoluteness with which he pontificates. "EVERY abortion..."... Bullshit. "Mugging me"... bullshit. And even if they did, boo fucking hoo. Every absolute opinion Jonno gives is always ultra simplistic and inherently selfish. "We give money to the poor so they don't kill us"... Actually, many advocate giving money to the poor because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THEM. Whatever it's got to do with us personally, is a very distant consideration. He never used to be like this. I don't know what happened. I suspect he got mugged and suffered brain trauma. Most of his posts are full of grammar and spelling errors now (they never used to be). Essentially, it just hurts my brain to read his guff now.

Edit: Just to add, for clarity sake, I'm definitely pro-choice. But I'm that way because it is a woman's (and her partner's to a degree) choice. Not because I'm scared some figment of my imagination is going to come and mug or kill me one day.

hayeah .. point taken. And a pro-choice position is less open to interpretation/abuse.

I'm pro-abortion, but only where there's consent .. so I guess pro-choice is the better descriptor.

[MrJonno]

It's just the absoluteness with which he pontificates. "EVERY abortion..."... Bullshit. "Mugging me"... bullshit. And even if they did, boo fucking hoo. Every absolute opinion Jonno gives is always ultra simplistic and inherently selfish. "We give money to the poor so they don't kill us"... Actually, many advocate giving money to the poor because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THEM. Whatever it's got to do with us personally, is a very distant consideration. He never used to be like this. I don't know what happened. I suspect he got mugged and suffered brain trauma. Most of his posts are full of grammar and spelling errors now (they never used to be). Essentially, it just hurts my brain to read his guff now.

You can replace every with most if you really want, politics is about statistics not individual exceptions. Doing the right thing is often not enough to change the world, appealing to self interest is often useful in getting the right thing done.

What I have said is straight out of the book Freakonomics (ie more abortions equals less crime) but I've taken that view for a long time before I ever read that book.

Grammer and spelling errors are probably due to not working out to switch the spell checker on in firefox, probably should look into it at some point

[Coito ergo sum]

The crime statistics have more to do with an aging population than abortion. To the extent that abortions means fewer young people, then it does have an impact, but even if all the abortions in the last 30 years were births, there would still have been a dramatic reduction in crime due to the aging population.

[MrJonno]

The crime statistics have more to do with an aging population than abortion. To the extent that abortions means fewer young people, then it does have an impact, but even if all the abortions in the last 30 years were births, there would still have been a dramatic reduction in crime due to the aging population.

It's fewer of the wrong sort of young people that it reduces, ie kids that parent(s) arent capable or have no desire to look after. Some kids are just destined for jail before they even leave their mothers womb (yeah yeah there are exceptions that rise above poor circumstances but who cares about exceptions)

[Coito ergo sum]

The crime statistics have more to do with an aging population than abortion. To the extent that abortions means fewer young people, then it does have an impact, but even if all the abortions in the last 30 years were births, there would still have been a dramatic reduction in crime due to the aging population.

It's fewer of the wrong sort of young people that it reduces, ie kids that parent(s) arent capable or have no desire to look after. Some kids are just destined for jail before they even leave their mothers womb (yeah yeah there are exceptions that rise above poor circumstances but who cares about exceptions)

actually, the criminals are and always have been the exceptions. even if you go to slums or poor neighborhoods, the overwhelming majority of the people living there would not kill, beat or rob you. but again, the point is that the statistics are controlled more by the overall aging of the population, and the abortion element would not significantly change that if we didn't have abortion over the last 30-40 years.

[MrJonno]

actually, the criminals are and always have been the exceptions. even if you go to slums or poor neighborhoods, the overwhelming majority of the people living there would not kill, beat or rob you. but again, the point is that the statistics are controlled more by the overall aging of the population, and the abortion element would not significantly change that if we didn't have abortion over the last 30-40 years.

If they won't kill beat or rob you its because of a reasonable welfare state, places in the UK where people havent' worked for generations, ie their parents and grandparents never had jobs

[Coito ergo sum]

actually, the criminals are and always have been the exceptions. even if you go to slums or poor neighborhoods, the overwhelming majority of the people living there would not kill, beat or rob you. but again, the point is that the statistics are controlled more by the overall aging of the population, and the abortion element would not significantly change that if we didn't have abortion over the last 30-40 years.

If they won't kill beat or rob you its because of a reasonable welfare state, places in the UK where people havent' worked for generations, ie their parents and grandparents never had jobs

No, it's because people are generally good, and they are generally capable of surviving without murdering and stealing. Poverty is not a good predictor of crime.

Since you blokes have such a great welfare state, why do people in your poor areas still commit high rates of crime? Are they not getting enough welfare in the UK?

[MrJonno]

No, it's because people are generally good, and they are generally capable of surviving without murdering and stealing. Poverty is not a good predictor of crime.

Since you blokes have such a great welfare state, why do people in your poor areas still commit high rates of crime? Are they not getting enough welfare in the UK?

Financial inequality is more a factor than absolute poverty, if your neighbour has nothing worth stealing why bother robbing them (which was basically the UK until the 1960's)

Welfare in the UK doesnt really cover plasma TV's and good quality skunk (despite what the right wing press says) other means usually have to be found.

Our biological empathy is a reasonable restriction on killing each other, but when it comes to theft fear of punishment is more relevant. If you want to see how people behave when they think they can steal and get away with it then have a look after movie/music/software piracy.

You leave a lorry with its back open filled with TV's and I will show you an empty lorry within a week in a decent area and a hour in a not so decent one

[Coito ergo sum]

The software piracy thing is more of a function of the thing being "stolen" is not identified as a "thing" at all.

Moreover, there is and always was a good argument that it really isn't a thing being stolen. It's big business creating a law that protects their interest.

Are you "stealing" a newspaper article when you copy it and give it to someone else? Of course not, because newspaper copyright allows for readers to distribute the same paper and copies of the paper -- you have radio broadcasters reading the newspaper word for word on the air, etc.

If someone sells me a DVD, then the idea that I can't make a copy of it is an arbitrary one. And, that's obvious by the nature of the law -- I CAN make a copy of it - depending on what I'm going to use it for. It absolutely is not stealing for me to take a CD I buy and copy it to another CD or to my computer. I'm protecting what I purchased.

The law of copyright is not the same as the law of personal property.

Sure, some people steal. Most people don't. Most people if they find a wallet with a hundred dollars in it will return the wallet, with the $100 in it. Anecdotally, that happened to me both ways -- I once dropped my wallet in a mall and realized it a while later. I retraced my steps and found it in the Macy's lost and found. Someone picked it up and turned it in, and none of the hands that held it took a single thing out of the wallet, including the $400 in cash. Similarly, I found a wallet on the ground outside my car, and picked it up, brought it inside and I found the owner, who received the entire wallet, plus the considerable sum of cash, which I did not even peruse or count. In both cases, the finder had nothing to lose by keeping the wallet and nothing to gain by turning it in. I think that's the prevailing human reaction. However, of course, there is a portion of the population that would keep it, which is why we have to lock our doors and we take care not to haphazardly drop our wallets around.

[Tero]

The crime statistics have more to do with an aging population than abortion. To the extent that abortions means fewer young people, then it does have an impact, but even if all the abortions in the last 30 years were births, there would still have been a dramatic reduction in crime due to the aging population.

You can't do abortion math like that. You can have 9 abortions in 9 months. In 9 months, one pregnancy, 1-3 babies so lets say 1.1 for average woman.

A Catholic woman on our Finnish forum wanted to stop 50 million abortions in Texas in a certain period. I told her the welfare moms did not have a place for 50 million babies. Every living couple in texas would need to take 5. We'll let them off if they are over 80.

[SteveB]

I've been attempting to point out the irrationality of "Feminism" as a movement since the late 90's and vocally about it online since about 2003. However I don't trawl their sites, so I appreciate the comedy even if no one else does CES. The whole FtB/Skepchick/a+ thing has harmed them more than I would have expected because they have exposed, to the A.S community at large, their unsound and totalitarian fantasies, their lack of reasoning and the heavy reliance on appeals to emotion, ad-hominem and every other cheap rhetorical trick in the book.

It's over CES, they marginalised themselves have went from thousands of hits per day to dozens, mostly I think from people like yourself and the Slyme-pit ((Hi guys!)) and their handful of crackpot courtiers.

Slymepit denizens don't lurk this forum.

Yes they do

Indeed they do. I think some here are even members.
Mind you, I didn't mean the Slyme-pits crackpot courtiers, but the FtB axis'.

Don't flatter yourselves. Why should they care about the happenings of people who largely agree with them?

[MrJonno]

The software piracy thing is more of a function of the thing being "stolen" is not identified as a "thing" at all.

It's amazing how people really try to persuade themselves that stealing intellectual property is somehow different to shoplifting.

Anyway I do pirate stuff occassionaly not because I think its morally right but because I am unlikely to get caught, I would also steal a nice new TV if I thought the chances of me being caught were zero (and I could carry it)

[PsychoSerenity]

The software piracy thing is more of a function of the thing being "stolen" is not identified as a "thing" at all.

It's amazing how people really try to persuade themselves that stealing intellectual property is somehow different to shoplifting.

Anyway I do pirate stuff occassionaly not because I think its morally right but because I am unlikely to get caught, I would also steal a nice new TV if I thought the chances of me being caught were zero (and I could carry it)

It amazes me how some people really don't see any difference between "stealing" intellectual property and shoplifting.

As it happens I wouldn't steal a new TV, even if the chances of me being caught were zero.

It's just wildly different points of view I suppose.