Republicans Get In My Vagina

[Cast 1st MRB]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f...ina?rel=by_user

Sorry a mate linked me this and I just had too. lol

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

What does this have to do with Sports?

[Cribari]

nice thread topic cast.

[Mamora BAR]

Maybe its a new sport that politicians play?....get in my vagina?.....sounds fun......lmao

For the record ide like to point out how many 1stmrb members are monitoring this thread cause it has vagina in the title...INCLUDING WELLS! lmao

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mamora BAR

[Cast 1st MRB]

Moved sorry about that

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

Lololol I like the message. Why do dudes give a fuck about abortions anyway? Are you ever gonna get one?

[Peaker]

Dis I like.

[Ultranator BAR]

Lololol I like the message. Why do dudes give a fuck about abortions anyway? Are you ever gonna get one?

I don't like being preachy, but you brought it up. Dudes give a fuck about abortions because there's a little dude or dudet in there who doesn't get the "right to choose" weather he or she gets to live. It's like there some dictator in Africa that performs genocide on say 1.21 million people because he doesn't believe they're people. Should everyone not care because he doesn't believe these are people? Or should we be upset because they actually are real people he's murdering? Now, there were 1.21 reported abortions just in 2008 alone. Should I not care because some people don't believe that life begins at conception?

So that's why dudes give a fuck about abortions, because someone has to.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Ultranator BAR

[Cast 1st MRB]

I don't like being preachy, but you brought it up. Dudes give a fuck about abortions because there's a little dude or dudet in there who doesn't get the "right to choose" weather he or she gets to live. It's like there some dictator in Africa that performs genocide on say 1.21 million people because he doesn't believe they're people. Should everyone not care because he doesn't believe these are people? Or should we be upset because they actually are real people he's murdering? Now, there were 1.21 reported abortions just in 2008 alone. Should I not care because some people don't believe that life begins at conception?

So that's why dudes give a fuck about abortions, because someone has to.

But what life is that kid gonna have if the parents don't want it? That cruelty in it own right.

[Peaker]

Ultranator, I really disagree with you, but I don't think it's possible for either of us to convince each other. I think a foetus is just that, a foetus. Personhood, both as a legal definition, and by my personal belief, begins at birth.

I think it's unfair to have a raped woman carry the baby to term despite whatever misgivings she may have. I also don't think it's fair for a woman who got accidentaly knocked up to have to carry the pregnancy to term and inherit all the responsabilities while the father can just pike off/pay alimony.

I'm for the opportunity to choose. If abortion goes against someone's principles, then fine, don't have one. If it doesn't, then have one. But before someone can convince me that a foetus is a conscious and fully developed human, my stance remains pro-choice.

[Ultranator BAR]

Ultranator, I really disagree with you, but I don't think it's possible for either of us to convince each other. I think a foetus is just that, a foetus. Personhood, both as a legal definition, and by my personal belief, begins at birth.

I think it's unfair to have a raped woman carry the baby to term despite whatever misgivings she may have. I also don't think it's fair for a woman who got accidentaly knocked up to have to carry the pregnancy to term and inherit all the responsabilities while the father can just pike off/pay alimony.

I'm for the opportunity to choose. If abortion goes against someone's principles, then fine, don't have one. If it doesn't, then have one. But before someone can convince me that a foetus is a conscious and fully developed human, my stance remains pro-choice.

I realize a lot of people disagree with me, and I agree that neither of us will probably convince the other to change their mind. I was stating my reason for caring about abortions, because I do believe that life begins at conception. I am also pro-life, not anti abortion, which means I'm also against euthanasia and capital punishment.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

The most important thing to me here is that the theological or philosophical debate over the "true start" of personhood is one that should have no bearing on the legality of a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body. The penumbral rights to privacy in the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments and enumerated by the 14th amendment to our constitution protect American citizens' rights to privacy, regardless of what some people's god tells them. So it's not about whether you think it's right or wrong, it's the legal precedent. Also, I guarantee you women aren't seeking out abortions because they're fun, or so they can keep sleeping around bareback- it's never an easy decision to make, but in the end it is one that should be the woman's and not the government or a group of men in suits thumping bibles.

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

Republicans want less government intervention in their daily lives, but want the government to decide whether they should maintain a pregnancy? That doesn't make any sense.

Hilarious vid.

[Marsden 1st MRB]

One of the biggest arguments I have noticed for anti-abortion legislature is that it is wrong and goes against god. That in and of itself makes the concept of the legislature illegal, seperation of church and state. As for your points Ultra I respect you and your points becasue they are logical reasons based on oyur personal feelings, not what ppl tell you to believe. Whats funny about most the ppls who drive around with the pro-life bumper stickers and shit are so ignorant to the fact that actual pro-life is for abolishment of the death-penalty even though it's the "god-damn liberals" who want to get rid of the death penalty (worst idea ever in my opinion. because if there is no need for me to worry about them killing me for it I prolly would roll in and "advise" a few hundred of the richest ppl in the states of the opinions of the lower Middle class, just sayin [disclaimer i do not actually plan to comitt mass homicide just stating that if not for the death penalty i would.]).

My discombobulated two cents.

[Takel 1st MRB]

I'm against the death penalty in most cases, the UK has no death penalty, yet we don't have a tonne of mass murderers running about the place. I really don't think the threat of death is much of a factor when a murderer commits their crime, but i'm not 'pro-life'.

I think women deserve the right to choose what they do with their bodies, even if they choose to be the sluttiest bint in binttown. It doesn't affect those who are anti-abortion in the same way same-sex marriage doesn't affect people who are against it. Until that feotus has developed to a stage where it's basically just waiting to come out, it's just a bundle of cells. I agree, in the late stages of pregnancy at least, that abortion is probably not the best option (i say probably, because for medical reasons it might be) but until then, it's just an immensely difficult decision on whether or not to get rid of some biological material.

[Cutts]

I agree that life starts at conception, not at birth.

However, I think that people suck, and the less of them we have the better the world is.

We've made too many of ourselves, devaluing humanity in the process. Basically, there's

too much supply with very little demand, so we're now the ubiquitous trash of the animal

kingdom... mass produced with no quality control.

You know how your grandparents like to say how good it was back in the old days, when

your home town was smaller, and everyone knew everyone else? Well, they're right...

It WAS better... because there were less people, so those who WERE here were worth more.

As you can see, I'm a cynical arsehole.

[Cutts]

I'm against the death penalty in most cases, the UK has no death penalty, yet we don't have a tonne of mass murderers running about the place. I really don't think the threat of death is much of a factor when a murderer commits their crime

Totally this.

There are two types of murder... premeditated, and spontaneous.

The spontaneous ones happen when otherwise reasonable people get suddenly enraged and kill... at no point does the threat of the death penalty play any part in the mind of such a perpetrator, until the fog of rage has cleared and the deed done.

The premeditated ones happen when a scheming bastard decides to kill in cold blood... generally they don't think they're going to get caught, so again the death penalty doesn't enter into it.

As far as I see it, the death penalty serves no purpose as a deterant, and is only a punitive measure (and not a very good one, since death ends any suffering you might have "enjoyed" in jail).

Edited May 23, 2012 by Cutts 1st MRB

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Totally this.

There are two types of murder... premeditated, and spontaneous.

The spontaneous ones happen when otherwise reasonable people get suddenly enraged and kill... at no point does the threat of the death penalty play any part in the mind of such a perpetrator, until the fog of rage has cleared and the deed done.

The premeditated ones happen when a scheming bastard decides to kill in cold blood... generally they don't think they're going to get caught, so again the death penalty doesn't enter into it.

As far as I see it, the death penalty serves no purpose as a deterant, and is only a punitive measure (and not a very good one, since death ends any suffering you might have "enjoyed" in jail).

That's just silly. You've lumped murderers into two subjective groups that you've set up on your own. Further, if the death penalty doesn't pay any heed to people, why would they even appeal on Death Row? You make it sound like they're not afraid of the death penalty.

I would disagree completely that a premeditated murderer doesn't take into account the death penalty. For example, in the case of Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), The appellant, Simmons, actually said they'd probably get caught, in fact he told his friends they didn't have to be afraid of the death penalty, because they're only minors so they can get away with anything. So they broke into the house of a woman, bound her hands, put cloth over her eyes, and threw her off of a bridge. While this may attest more to the system as a whole, I can't help but wonder which of the two categories you've so helpfully outlined includes this kind fellow and the others like him?

You're oversimplifying the death penalty and confounding your own argument. You might not agree with the death penalty, but stick to objective realizations, and not subjective spawn that just clouds the air. If you don't think the death penalty bothers the cold-hearted criminal, you're in for a rude awakening.

[Cutts]

That's just silly. You've lumped murderers into two subjective groups that you've set up on your own. Further, if the death penalty doesn't pay any heed to people, why would they even appeal on Death Row? You make it sound like they're not afraid of the death penalty.

I would disagree completely that a premeditated murderer doesn't take into account the death penalty. For example, in the case of Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), The appellant, Simmons, actually said they'd probably get caught, in fact he told his friends they didn't have to be afraid of the death penalty, because they're only minors so they can get away with anything. So they broke into the house of a woman, bound her hands, put cloth over her eyes, and threw her off of a bridge. While this may attest more to the system as a whole, I can't help but wonder which of the two categories you've so helpfully outlined includes this kind fellow and the others like him?

You're oversimplifying the death penalty and confounding your own argument. You might not agree with the death penalty, but stick to objective realizations, and not subjective spawn that just clouds the air. If you don't think the death penalty bothers the cold-hearted criminal, you're in for a rude awakening.

I don't think that those two groups are particularly subjective; either a murder was premeditated or it wasn't. That seems to me to be both obvious and unchallengable.

I agree that my analysis is a generalisation, and hense a specific counter-example can be found. Such counter examples are only interesting because of the unusuallness of the case, but aren't representative of the majority of crimes.

In the Roper vs Simmons case, it was obviously premeditated. I would argue that "belief that you will not be prosecuted because you're a minor" is essentially equivalent to "belief that you will not be caught"; since he had already ruled out the death penalty from applying to himself and his friends, it seems that it did NOT act as a deterant in this case. The specific example you chose actually serves to better illustrate my point.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

I don't think that those two groups are particularly subjective; either a murder was premeditated or it wasn't. That seems to me to be both obvious and unchallengable.

I agree that my analysis is a generalisation, and hense a specific counter-example can be found. Such counter examples are only interesting because of the unusuallness of the case, but aren't representative of the majority of crimes.

In the Roper vs Simmons case, it was obviously premeditated. I would argue that "belief that you will not be prosecuted because you're a minor" is essentially equivalent to "belief that you will not be caught"; since he had already ruled out the death penalty from applying to himself and his friends, it seems that it did NOT act as a deterant in this case. The specific example you chose actually serves to better illustrate my point.

How can you equate those two beliefs? How are they essentially equal? Are you equating a minor to a grown adult? Then you'd be disagreeing with the precedent set by Roper v. Simmons. And they agreed with your overall opinion in this case. And for what reason? The whole point of Simmons was that the Supreme Court found the mental cognition of a 17-year-old to be insufficient to that of an adult. If he had the capacity to understand this, then Kentucky would've been correct in putting him on Death Row. Further, I can't honestly take your opinion seriously if you continue to misspell deterrent.

You did not say either a murder was premeditated or it wasn't. You stated it's either premeditated or spontaneous. You want to go with obvious and "unchallengable" for dramatic effect that's all fine and dandy, but you don't take this out of context. My point is you're lumping every version of second-degree murder together as "spontaneous". It doesn't work that way. Every version of murder that is not premeditated is spontaneous? Completely and utterly spontaneous? If this was true the "Heat of passion" defense would be a viable defense on every case.

[Cutts]

How can you equate those two beliefs? How are they essentially equal? Are you equating a minor to a grown adult? Then you'd be disagreeing with the precedent set by Roper v. Simmons. And they agreed with your overall opinion in this case. And for what reason? The whole point of Simmons was that the Supreme Court found the mental cognition of a 17-year-old to be insufficient to that of an adult. If he had the capacity to understand this, then Kentucky would've been correct in putting him on Death Row. Further, I can't honestly take your opinion seriously if you continue to misspell deterrent.

You did not say either a murder was premeditated or it wasn't. You stated it's either premeditated or spontaneous. You want to go with obvious and "unchallengable" for dramatic effect that's all fine and dandy, but you don't take this out of context. My point is you're lumping every version of second-degree murder together as "spontaneous". It doesn't work that way. Every version of murder that is not premeditated is spontaneous? Completely and utterly spontaneous? If this was true the "Heat of passion" defense would be a viable defense on every case.

I'm equating them in terms of the detterant value of the death penalty:

1) If you don't believe that you will get caught, then the death penalty is not a deterrant.

2) If you think that even if you do get caught you won't get the death penalty, then the death penalty is not a deterrant.

Therefore they are essentially equivalent in this context (the context being whether the death penalty is a deterrant, and not what the courts think about it afterwards).

Possibly I used an ambiguous word, with "spontaneous"... I mean it in terms of the opposite of premeditation.

Eg, where there is no plan to kill in advance, but a situation evolves quickly and the perpetrator finds themselves making a spur-of-the-moment decision to kill.

I'm making no claims regarding justifiablity.

I'm not saying that heat of passion is a valid defense.

I have carefully avoided using legal definitions of 1st/2nd/3rd degree murder / manslaughter, as I'm not making a legal point at all.

My point is purely psychological: I'm simply saying, when you're making a split second decision to kill someone, you do not have time to weigh up your chances of recieving the death penalty, so in such cases its irrelevant as a deterrant.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Cutts 1st MRB

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

I'm equating them in terms of the detterant value of the death penalty:

1) If you don't believe that you will get caught, then the death penalty is not a deterrant.

2) If you think that even if you do get caught you won't get the death penalty, then the death penalty is not a deterrant.

Therefore they are essentially equivalent in this context (the context being whether the death penalty is a deterrant, and not what the courts think about it afterwards).

Possibly I used an ambiguous word, with "spontaneous"... I mean it in terms of the opposite of premeditation.

Eg, where there is no plan to kill in advance, but a situation evolves quickly and the perpetrator finds themselves making a spur-of-the-moment decision to kill.

I'm making no claims regarding justifiablity.

I'm not saying that heat of passion is a valid defense.

I have carefully avoided using legal definitions of 1st/2nd/3rd degree murder / manslaughter, as I'm not making a legal point at all.

My point is purely psychological: I'm simply saying, when you're making a split second decision to kill someone, you do not have time to weigh up your chances of recieving the death penalty, so in such cases its irrelevant as a deterrant.

... Further, I can't honestly take your opinion seriously if you continue to misspell deterrent...

Cutts, can't help but interject that, at this rate, Kirk might escalate his "won't take seriously" to life itself instead of just people's opinions lol

Edited May 23, 2012 by Pandalsson 1st MRB

[Cutts]

Heheheh... OK... high quality debate, for the most part.

Except, I would like to point out that dismissing someones argument on basis of a single

(admittedly systematically egregious) unambiguous spelling error is a very weak position

to take.

But then you already know that!

Edited May 23, 2012 by Cutts 1st MRB

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Heheheh... OK... high quality debate, for the most part.

Except, I would like to point out that dismissing someones argument on basis of a single

(admittedly systematically egregious) unambiguous spelling error is a very weak position

to take.

But then you already know that!

Interesting use of unambiguous. You're making the spelling error seem like a certain thing, but at the same time trying to dismiss it?

[Cutts]

I mean that the spelling mistake doesn't naturally result in the reader misinterpreting the intended word,

as the only possible intended meaning of deterrant is deterrent.

As opposed to those spelling mistakes which result in a totally different word which results in the whole

meaning of the sentence changing.

For example, if I'd accidentally said "deodorant", that'd make no sense (although the sentences might

be a little bit more amusing that way).