Back in July, the David family had breakfast during Shore Leave convention with George Takei and Brad Altman, and naturally we discussed the upcoming wedding. They were talking about how they’d had to whittle the invite list from several thousand to two hundred. And I had to ask the question that I”m sure you would have asked: “Are you inviting Shatner?”
“Yes,” said Brad, nodding firmly, and George agreed, adding, “I think it’s time to let the past go.” They could not have been more definitive: the olive branch was being extended, bygones allowed to be bygones, hatchets being buried and every other cliche you’d care to roll out.
The result? The invite, which was sent to Shatner’s manager, was never forwarded to Shatner for whatever reason, and now a video Shatner released in which he excoriates George is getting all kinds of media play.
“George came out. Who cares?” asks Shatner in the video. The answer to that, of course, is the opponents of gay marriage who are circulating e-mails and fliers filled with baseless scare tactics in order to try and push through Proposition 8. A Proposition that would make sure joyous days such as the one Kath and I shared with George, Brad and a couple hundred guests–which could have included William Shatner–will never occur again for anyone who’s gay in California. Those bigots, those jerks, those killjoys…they’re the ones who care, Mr. Shatner.
So that answers your questions: The questions of why George Takei didn’t invite you (he did) and who cares that George is gay (those who want to push through Prop 8). So here’s my question to you:
What are you going to do about it?
PAD
• 
And Jerry, today lesson from Changeling: fights aren’t for you to start, they’re for you to finish.
Jerry, you make many valid points, but I’m still not ready to retract everything I said. Would that there were more rational people like your wife. But when I can’t drive down the street without having to dodge the protesters blocking the Women’s Clinic doors – a clinic devoted to all of women’s health concerns, not just the availability of abortions, I get angry. When I was traveling through Hartford and protesters and their children were blocking my car at a light and I couldn’t move without running someone over, they lost any of my sympathy for their cause. When I receive gruesome misleading mailings, when nasty notes are left on my windshield accusing me of murdering babies simply because I have an Impeach Bush bumper sticker, I am not seeing the decent objector, I am now a victim of the radical.
No, property damage from any side should never be condoned – the main reason I have difficulty supporting PETA – but outside of directly murdering someone, you don’t often hear of any consequences that follow.
Perhaps my anger comes not from rational discourse about a difficult topic and the right to disagree, but from the fact pro-life is most often supported by tight ties to religion, and I thoroughly object to being slapped around by someone else’s religion, when I was taught that Church and State were two different things. If the politicians could remember that fact, most of the major issues batted around in this thread would be moot.
From the posted video, it seems pretty clear that Shatner just got fed up with all the nasty things that Takei (and Doohan and Koenig and Nichols) have said about him over the years, and this perceived slight–not being invited to the wedding (even though he actually was)–was the last straw.
Up until now, Shatner has never really fired back publicly at his former castmates; he’s usually just taken the high road and been a fairly good sport about it.
To me, this came off as someone who has taken all the ridicule he’s going to take and he’s not going to just grin and bare it this time. Unfortunately, it happened over a misunderstanding. Were I him, I’d have a nice long conversation with his manager.
From the posted video, it seems pretty clear that Shatner just got fed up with all the nasty things that Takei (and Doohan and Koenig and Nichols) have said about him over the years, and this perceived slight–not being invited to the wedding (even though he actually was)–was the last straw.
Up until now, Shatner has never really fired back publicly at his former castmates; he’s usually just taken the high road and been a fairly good sport about it.
To me, this came off as someone who has taken all the ridicule he’s going to take and he’s not going to just grin and bare it this time. Unfortunately, it happened over a misunderstanding. Were I him, I’d have a nice long conversation with his manager.
While I agree with Iowa Jim I’m generally puzzled now at why so many people on both sides of the issue are focused on this… which generally revolves around an issue that could be related to privacy rights but which I suspect is more aligned to religious and social ritual as well as public recognition and licensing… instead of what I, and many true libertarians, believe to be the true privacy issue: the government now has the absolute right to know where I get my income, how much I get, to some extent how I spend it, and how much of my income I get to keep to spend, waste, and invest as I will.
The nature of our modern tax code involves an inherent lack of privacy and me having no absolutely property rights. I keep what they say I keep, and if I disagree, I goto prison and lose my stuff. I believe in taxes. I don’t like this tax code and this odd little American tradition we have.
So yes, I believe I understand this Prop 8 stuff came up…. but I don’t understand how any American, Left or Right, homosexual or otherwise, focus on promoting gay marriage… when in theory there are other bureaucratic laws that could be passed that could very well dictate our own bedroom behavior and our actual privacy rights.
That said, what William Shatner did is apparently tasteless. I haven’t seen it yet. I may or I may not. Frankly my response to George Takei was superficial and immature and I reserve the right to be superficial and immature on any small portion of my life, as long as I am otherwise in more important and larger facets. But my response and William Shatner’s response have different impacts. I would think that regardless of how Mr. Shatner feels or believes about Mr. Takei’s public or private behavior, Mr. Shatner has a public responsibility to be polite or nice and he betrayed that.
Heck, if William Shatner is RIGHT, and I’d bet cash that he isn’t (the only safe bet I could make having not seen the relevant videos or being involved with the players), given his great power, his responsibility is to wield his opinions and beliefs and carefully, no?
While I agree with Iowa Jim I’m generally puzzled now at why so many people on both sides of the issue are focused on this… which generally revolves around an issue that could be related to privacy rights but which I suspect is more aligned to religious and social ritual as well as public recognition and licensing… instead of what I, and many true libertarians, believe to be the true privacy issue: the government now has the absolute right to know where I get my income, how much I get, to some extent how I spend it, and how much of my income I get to keep to spend, waste, and invest as I will.
The nature of our modern tax code involves an inherent lack of privacy and me having no absolutely property rights. I keep what they say I keep, and if I disagree, I goto prison and lose my stuff. I believe in taxes. I don’t like this tax code and this odd little American tradition we have.
So yes, I believe I understand this Prop 8 stuff came up…. but I don’t understand how any American, Left or Right, homosexual or otherwise, focus on promoting gay marriage… when in theory there are other bureaucratic laws that could be passed that could very well dictate our own bedroom behavior and our actual privacy rights.
That said, what William Shatner did is apparently tasteless. I haven’t seen it yet. I may or I may not. Frankly my response to George Takei was superficial and immature and I reserve the right to be superficial and immature on any small portion of my life, as long as I am otherwise in more important and larger facets. But my response and William Shatner’s response have different impacts. I would think that regardless of how Mr. Shatner feels or believes about Mr. Takei’s public or private behavior, Mr. Shatner has a public responsibility to be polite or nice and he betrayed that.
Heck, if William Shatner is RIGHT, and I’d bet cash that he isn’t (the only safe bet I could make having not seen the relevant videos or being involved with the players), given his great power, his responsibility is to wield his opinions and beliefs and carefully, no?
I totally agree with you, Susan. Even though in my personal life I’m pretty much like Jerry’s wife. As a male, I can’t carry a child, and since I’m gay, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever father one, but the idea of abortion is personally abhorent to me.
But that is me.
What I’m afraid some religious people just don’t get, is that in modern society individual private space should be sacred. People should have absolute rights over their own bodies and minds and souls.
There is an inherent conflict between this sacred private space and the crusading spirit of some religions.
I totally agree with you, Susan. Even though in my personal life I’m pretty much like Jerry’s wife. As a male, I can’t carry a child, and since I’m gay, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever father one, but the idea of abortion is personally abhorent to me.
But that is me.
What I’m afraid some religious people just don’t get, is that in modern society individual private space should be sacred. People should have absolute rights over their own bodies and minds and souls.
There is an inherent conflict between this sacred private space and the crusading spirit of some religions.
Jerry, thanks for the warning. I’d kind of suspected Mike was a bit of a troll, but I didn’t remember those old posts. I’m not worried about responding to him, though, because his response isn’t really that important. In order to express myself here to my satisfaction, I really have to consider what I think, and why I think it, before I can explain myself in writing. That process is helpful for me, whether the audience is rational or not. Back in the first two Takei wedding threads, I really wasn’t all that impressed with the anti-Iowa-Jim crowd, because they really seemed to be engaged less in debate and more in yelling and name-calling. But in the process of reflexively wanting to stick up for the underdog, I realized that the reason I couldn’t think of any particularly good arguments on his behalf was probably because there aren’t any that I find convincing. Until I sat down to think carefully about the issue myself, I hadn’t realized just how clearly my own deeply-held convictions lend themselves to supporting gay marriage. That’s an important result of my engaging in these debates, whether or not I succeeded in persuading any of the other posters about my other arguments. (Which I suspect was largely “or not.”)
I’m not backing down a bit from my democratic process argument, by the way. I think a referendum like Proposition 8 is exactly how this issue should be addressed. I also think Proposition 8 failing is the morally correct result, but that’s analytically distinct.
Susan O wrote: But when I can’t drive down the street without having to dodge the protesters blocking the Women’s Clinic doors – a clinic devoted to all of women’s health concerns, not just the availability of abortions, I get angry.
So do I. But I think Jerry’s point is that you’re giving in to a “guilt by association” impulse– that because the wingnuts are associated with a cause, then the well-behaved adherents to that cause deserve to be tarred with the same brush. They don’t.
Jerry tossed out the example of war protesters. I suspect there are times it’s difficult to drive through or around Crawford, TX as well. But that doesn’t mean that reasonable (i.e. not Cindy Sheehan) opponents of the war should be excoriated. A while back Columbia (alma mater of the likely next POTUS, and more importantly, me) invited a spokesman from a group of border “activists” (read: vigilantes) to speak. Protesters essentially stormed the stage, trying to shut down his speech. The active suppression of another party’s political speech is probably the most egregiously bad sort of demonstration. I was mad as hëll. And yet it would be unfair to impute that censorship to the immigrant rights’ movement as a whole.
Personally I have very little use for activists and protests in general, but that’s just me.
Rene wrote: What I’m afraid some religious people just don’t get, is that in modern society individual private space should be sacred. People should have absolute rights over their own bodies and minds and souls.
Maybe we should, but we really don’t. The various levels of government regulate what we eat, what we drink, where we eat or drink it, what we breathe, what medications we can take or what surgeries can be performed on us, how many hours we can work, what salaries we can accept, what cars we can drive, what we can grow or sell from our own property, what signs we can put in our yards, what we can say in public… modern society is about as far as we can get from libertarianism and still call ourselves a free society. One of the bizarre things about Roe was that a first-trimester abortion immediately became one of the least-regulated medical procedures in America. (Think about it– one of the regulations that triggered Casey was a parental consent requirement for juvenile patients. I don’t think a child can get her ears pierced without parental consent in this state, but a medical procedure as significant as an abortion couldn’t be regulated at all? Really?)
Plus you’re really teeing up pro-lifers the way you phrased that. Their whole premise is that fetuses are people, and if people should have absolute rights over their own bodies, that certainly means someone else doesn’t get to abort them without a good reason.
Good points, David.
First, I agree that the idea of sacred personal space is more of a ideal than a reality. But I believe we’re getting there gradually. I try to be consistent about it. I support legalizing drugs and euthanasia, but I also believe people should be able to carry guns and have minimal taxes.
I am conflicted about your second point, and that is why I’m personally disturbed by abortion. But ultimately a fetus is in the unique position of depending on a specific person to survive. If I told you that you had to do a series of extrenous physical tasks for 9 months and also spend a considerable sum of money, all of it to save the life of a person you don’t even know, and you can’t transfer this responsibility to anyone else, the person depends on you to survive, is it right for me to force you to do these sacrifices?
I can expect you to be brave and moral and do the sacrifices needed to save a life. But I can’t force you to do it. I see abortion in more or less the same way.
It’s not just a matter of the fetus being unable to fend for itself. Pro-lifers usually jump to the conclusion that pro-choicers must also advocate the killing of retarded people that can’t fend for themselves. But that is hypocritical. You can transfer responsibility over a retarded person. I don’t think it’s right to force a SPECIFIC individual to care for a retarded person, against their wishes.
But the responsibility for the fetus can’t be transfered. You either force the mother to carry the pregnancy to conclusion, with all the personal costs that would accrue, or you accept the idea of abortion, unpleasant as it may be.
Good points, David.
First, I agree that the idea of sacred personal space is more of a ideal than a reality. But I believe we’re getting there gradually. I try to be consistent about it. I support legalizing drugs and euthanasia, but I also believe people should be able to carry guns and have minimal taxes.
I am conflicted about your second point, and that is why I’m personally disturbed by abortion. But ultimately a fetus is in the unique position of depending on a specific person to survive. If I told you that you had to do a series of extrenous physical tasks for 9 months and also spend a considerable sum of money, all of it to save the life of a person you don’t even know, and you can’t transfer this responsibility to anyone else, the person depends on you to survive, is it right for me to force you to do these sacrifices?
I can expect you to be brave and moral and do the sacrifices needed to save a life. But I can’t force you to do it. I see abortion in more or less the same way.
It’s not just a matter of the fetus being unable to fend for itself. Pro-lifers usually jump to the conclusion that pro-choicers must also advocate the killing of retarded people that can’t fend for themselves. But that is hypocritical. You can transfer responsibility over a retarded person. I don’t think it’s right to force a SPECIFIC individual to care for a retarded person, against their wishes.
But the responsibility for the fetus can’t be transfered. You either force the mother to carry the pregnancy to conclusion, with all the personal costs that would accrue, or you accept the idea of abortion, unpleasant as it may be.
“If I told you that you had to do a series of extrenous physical tasks for 9 months and also spend a considerable sum of money, all of it to save the life of a person you don’t even know, and you can’t transfer this responsibility to anyone else, the person depends on you to survive, is it right for me to force you to do these sacrifices?”
Ohhh! De ja vue! I feel as if I’ve been whisked back in time (1996) to “Phil – Bioethics”
“If I told you that you had to do a series of extrenous physical tasks for 9 months and also spend a considerable sum of money, all of it to save the life of a person you don’t even know, and you can’t transfer this responsibility to anyone else, the person depends on you to survive, is it right for me to force you to do these sacrifices?”
Ohhh! De ja vue! I feel as if I’ve been whisked back in time (1996) to “Phil – Bioethics”
I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Thank you for attacking the messenger, and not the message.
By the standards of debate as it’s known to western civilization, the insult social conservatives take for being associated with “people who think gays should stay closeted” is no one’s problem except to the person who doesn’t know to get out of the business of social conservatism. Hey, it happens.
I am conflicted about your second point, and that is why I’m personally disturbed by abortion. But ultimately a fetus is in the unique position of depending on a specific person to survive. If I told you that you had to do a series of extrenous physical tasks for 9 months and also spend a considerable sum of money, all of it to save the life of a person you don’t even know, and you can’t transfer this responsibility to anyone else, the person depends on you to survive, is it right for me to force you to do these sacrifices?
I agree, and that’s basically the argument that got me to switch sides. Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an essay (in 1971, before Mr Justice Blackmun singlehandedly screwed up American politics for two generations [and counting]) called A Defense of Abortion, wondering if a claim could be made for abortion rights even after conceding, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person. She opened her paper with a hypothetical: suppose someone woke up one morning having been hooked up as a human dialysis machine to some innocent person with a kidney ailment, and you and you alone were available to save his life. It’s expected that he will recover in about nine months. Would any rational person expect you to surrender your own bodily integrity to save someone else, even if removing yourself from the life support apparatus would necessarily kill the innocent? Thomson claims–I think rightly– that most people would agree that it’s morally commendable for someone make the sacrifice to save that person, but very few people would say you’re morally obligated to do so. If abortion is flatly outlawed, we’re essentially expecting millions of women to make a similar sacrifice. (She makes that point quite quickly, really. Her essay is actually much much longer, about 2/3 of it is dull restatement of her thesis or unnecessary tangents, and she just tosses in at the end the claim that the concession she made re: a fetus being a person was ridiculous, which rather undermined her claim of taking pro-lifers seriously. Still worth reading, though, and you can find what looks to be the entire text of the article if you Google it.)
I can think of two legitimate counter-arguments. One that I’ve seen argued in other articles is the baby-on-a-doorstep hypothetical. Instead of the violinist, assume you find a child in a bassinet or incubator on your doorstep one morning. Does anyone really think it’s morally okay to shrug, step over the thing, and continue on your way to work, leaving the infant to die? It’s a pretty good argument, but I think it fails to take into account the core point of Thomson’s hypothetical: bodily intrusion. There’s a significant difference between saving an innocent on your doorstep and surrendering your own bodily integrity to aid someone’s survival. I think that’s the part of Thomson’s argument that really has teeth; certainly it’s the part that convinces me.
The other objection, which I don’t think gets nearly the attention it might merit, is simply: it’s your kid. There exists a host of circumstances where we expect parents to take on responsibility for their children that we’d never demand people to take on for strangers, or even their friends. Think of deadbeat dads. Suppose someone goes into child support court and told the judge, “Your honor, I never wanted this child. I used birth control. I told my ex that I didn’t want to be a father, and she made the choice to carry the child to term over my objection. I want nothing to do with the baby.” The answer is invariably, “Too bad, it’s your kid, and you’re responsible for providing for him/her/it.” You’re under no legal obligation to rescue another person from physical danger, unless there’s a “special relationship” between you and the endangered person… such as if it’s your kid. I worry that Thomson’s argument, and your example of “a person you don’t even know,” is too reliant upon the “stranger” element and might be vulnerable to that line of attack.
I am conflicted about your second point, and that is why I’m personally disturbed by abortion. But ultimately a fetus is in the unique position of depending on a specific person to survive. If I told you that you had to do a series of extrenous physical tasks for 9 months and also spend a considerable sum of money, all of it to save the life of a person you don’t even know, and you can’t transfer this responsibility to anyone else, the person depends on you to survive, is it right for me to force you to do these sacrifices?
I agree, and that’s basically the argument that got me to switch sides. Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an essay (in 1971, before Mr Justice Blackmun singlehandedly screwed up American politics for two generations [and counting]) called A Defense of Abortion, wondering if a claim could be made for abortion rights even after conceding, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person. She opened her paper with a hypothetical: suppose someone woke up one morning having been hooked up as a human dialysis machine to some innocent person with a kidney ailment, and you and you alone were available to save his life. It’s expected that he will recover in about nine months. Would any rational person expect you to surrender your own bodily integrity to save someone else, even if removing yourself from the life support apparatus would necessarily kill the innocent? Thomson claims–I think rightly– that most people would agree that it’s morally commendable for someone make the sacrifice to save that person, but very few people would say you’re morally obligated to do so. If abortion is flatly outlawed, we’re essentially expecting millions of women to make a similar sacrifice. (She makes that point quite quickly, really. Her essay is actually much much longer, about 2/3 of it is dull restatement of her thesis or unnecessary tangents, and she just tosses in at the end the claim that the concession she made re: a fetus being a person was ridiculous, which rather undermined her claim of taking pro-lifers seriously. Still worth reading, though, and you can find what looks to be the entire text of the article if you Google it.)
I can think of two legitimate counter-arguments. One that I’ve seen argued in other articles is the baby-on-a-doorstep hypothetical. Instead of the violinist, assume you find a child in a bassinet or incubator on your doorstep one morning. Does anyone really think it’s morally okay to shrug, step over the thing, and continue on your way to work, leaving the infant to die? It’s a pretty good argument, but I think it fails to take into account the core point of Thomson’s hypothetical: bodily intrusion. There’s a significant difference between saving an innocent on your doorstep and surrendering your own bodily integrity to aid someone’s survival. I think that’s the part of Thomson’s argument that really has teeth; certainly it’s the part that convinces me.
The other objection, which I don’t think gets nearly the attention it might merit, is simply: it’s your kid. There exists a host of circumstances where we expect parents to take on responsibility for their children that we’d never demand people to take on for strangers, or even their friends. Think of deadbeat dads. Suppose someone goes into child support court and told the judge, “Your honor, I never wanted this child. I used birth control. I told my ex that I didn’t want to be a father, and she made the choice to carry the child to term over my objection. I want nothing to do with the baby.” The answer is invariably, “Too bad, it’s your kid, and you’re responsible for providing for him/her/it.” You’re under no legal obligation to rescue another person from physical danger, unless there’s a “special relationship” between you and the endangered person… such as if it’s your kid. I worry that Thomson’s argument, and your example of “a person you don’t even know,” is too reliant upon the “stranger” element and might be vulnerable to that line of attack.
But ultimately a fetus is in the unique position of depending on a specific person to survive.
Yes, this is normally true, and this is where I really bûŧŧ hëádš with the Sarah Palin crowd: What if the fetus isn’t viable? What if it has Meckel Syndrome, with the brain and organs outside the body? It is kept artificially alive by that umbilical cord, and will die at or before birth. What if it has Thanatophoric dwarfism, where the ribcage is so underdeveloped that the lungs will never have room to expand, and it will suffocate at birth, and there isn’t a medical cure in the universe for it. Must I go through a full pregnancy and labor and delivery, only to watch my baby suffocate and die? Must I be forced to prolong the inevitable, forced to give birth to a possibly dead body?
Abortion isn’t just about rosy-cheeked blue-eyed blonde haired lil’ darlin’s who have a waiting list for adoption. It’s about the dark side, too, those things we can’t control and don’t like to think about, but do happen.
But ultimately a fetus is in the unique position of depending on a specific person to survive.
Yes, this is normally true, and this is where I really bûŧŧ hëádš with the Sarah Palin crowd: What if the fetus isn’t viable? What if it has Meckel Syndrome, with the brain and organs outside the body? It is kept artificially alive by that umbilical cord, and will die at or before birth. What if it has Thanatophoric dwarfism, where the ribcage is so underdeveloped that the lungs will never have room to expand, and it will suffocate at birth, and there isn’t a medical cure in the universe for it. Must I go through a full pregnancy and labor and delivery, only to watch my baby suffocate and die? Must I be forced to prolong the inevitable, forced to give birth to a possibly dead body?
Abortion isn’t just about rosy-cheeked blue-eyed blonde haired lil’ darlin’s who have a waiting list for adoption. It’s about the dark side, too, those things we can’t control and don’t like to think about, but do happen.
Sorry, that wasn’t all supposed to be in italics.
From his last post, Jerry seemed to have every intention of continuing his interaction in this thread. So let me map this out here, with no gaps in reasoning:
Jerry, by running from fights with me you start, you:
I’ve been patient, and left the endless incidents where you run from fights with me you started by responding that it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I said. What makes this thread’s Jerry-hit-and-run magical is that for the last 2 years, if you or anyone had used the posts you cited here, or any incident before Obama made the party nomination, as an example of me ascribing racist motives to anyone here, I would have given you the exact answer I gave you in this thread. I leave motive out when I choose to frame your behavior with phrases like “sheltering racism.” Literally, which is to say by any objective standard, as well as my own.
The reason I haven’t had to say that is because no one had accused me of doing any such thing. With 2 years of your cyber-bullying, you running from fights with me you start, me responding it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say, and now you demonstrating how unfailing your dysfunction is, all I’m left to imagine is that you’re dámņëd by your own cowardice, the inherent tragedy of which is that the joys of your life are wasted on you. From your obvious history of running from fights with me you start, I’m free to say so anyplace the obvious truth is tolerate. The rest of your wife’s life is committed to someone who’s dámņëd. The more you raise your kid to be like you, the more you raise him to be dámņëd.
As someone who’s dámņëd, you indulge in your bloodlust knowingly. You do it informed. So you may actually be able to choose which trusts you fulfill. As the joys of life are wasted on you, I actually have no interest in seeing you fail in any of your trusts. And I hope my saying so provides some kind of guidence for you to fulfill them, regardless of a faith in you I never asked for that you’ll break either way.
Thank you for helping me prove unambiguously I’ve never been the troll. You’ve been the troll all along.
From his last post, Jerry seemed to have every intention of continuing his interaction in this thread. So let me map this out here, with no gaps in reasoning:
Jerry, by running from fights with me you start, you:
I’ve been patient, and left the endless incidents where you run from fights with me you started by responding that it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I said. What makes this thread’s Jerry-hit-and-run magical is that for the last 2 years, if you or anyone had used the posts you cited here, or any incident before Obama made the party nomination, as an example of me ascribing racist motives to anyone here, I would have given you the exact answer I gave you in this thread. I leave motive out when I choose to frame your behavior with phrases like “sheltering racism.” Literally, which is to say by any objective standard, as well as my own.
The reason I haven’t had to say that is because no one had accused me of doing any such thing. With 2 years of your cyber-bullying, you running from fights with me you start, me responding it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say, and now you demonstrating how unfailing your dysfunction is, all I’m left to imagine is that you’re dámņëd by your own cowardice, the inherent tragedy of which is that the joys of your life are wasted on you. From your obvious history of running from fights with me you start, I’m free to say so anyplace the obvious truth is tolerate. The rest of your wife’s life is committed to someone who’s dámņëd. The more you raise your kid to be like you, the more you raise him to be dámņëd.
As someone who’s dámņëd, you indulge in your bloodlust knowingly. You do it informed. So you may actually be able to choose which trusts you fulfill. As the joys of life are wasted on you, I actually have no interest in seeing you fail in any of your trusts. And I hope my saying so provides some kind of guidence for you to fulfill them, regardless of a faith in you I never asked for that you’ll break either way.
Thank you for helping me prove unambiguously I’ve never been the troll. You’ve been the troll all along.
“Yes, this is normally true, and this is where I really bûŧŧ hëádš with the Sarah Palin crowd: What if the fetus isn’t viable? What if… “
I agree. But the “Palin Crowd” isn’t even the majority in the republican party. They’re the noisy majority.
One thing that I’ve seen only rarely when people on either side bring up the polls about is that some polls that have been taken go a little farther than just asking if someone is pro-life or pro-choice. A few poll makers have actually been smart enough to add some additional questions to find out a rather important answer.
Many people who are pro-life, like my wife and to some small degree myself I guess, are only pro-life when it comes to describing our personal choice in the matter. Many won’t consider an abortion for themselves, but they don’t have the desire to impose that position on others. They also do have exceptions for the health of the mother or for situations such as you have described. Yah, that sounds like someone who is pro-choice, but they tend to classify themselves as pro-life because that’s what they are in they’re own life.
The Palin crowd is a minority. They’re a cranky, noisy minority. By all means fight their political advances and be wary of their attempts to close down your avenues of choice, but don’t sweat ’em. There are less of them than they make out to be and their numbers grow smaller every day.
“Yes, this is normally true, and this is where I really bûŧŧ hëádš with the Sarah Palin crowd: What if the fetus isn’t viable? What if… “
I agree. But the “Palin Crowd” isn’t even the majority in the republican party. They’re the noisy majority.
One thing that I’ve seen only rarely when people on either side bring up the polls about is that some polls that have been taken go a little farther than just asking if someone is pro-life or pro-choice. A few poll makers have actually been smart enough to add some additional questions to find out a rather important answer.
Many people who are pro-life, like my wife and to some small degree myself I guess, are only pro-life when it comes to describing our personal choice in the matter. Many won’t consider an abortion for themselves, but they don’t have the desire to impose that position on others. They also do have exceptions for the health of the mother or for situations such as you have described. Yah, that sounds like someone who is pro-choice, but they tend to classify themselves as pro-life because that’s what they are in they’re own life.
The Palin crowd is a minority. They’re a cranky, noisy minority. By all means fight their political advances and be wary of their attempts to close down your avenues of choice, but don’t sweat ’em. There are less of them than they make out to be and their numbers grow smaller every day.
Jerry — “The Palin crowd is a minority. They’re a cranky, noisy minority.” Yes, but there’s an old saw about the squeaky wheel getting the oil. And true more often than we’d care to think about.
Jerry — “The Palin crowd is a minority. They’re a cranky, noisy minority.” Yes, but there’s an old saw about the squeaky wheel getting the oil. And true more often than we’d care to think about.
There was a poll here in Brazil that said that 72% of Catholics were in favor of abortion in cases of fetuses with deadly diseases. Granted, Brazilian Christians are usually a lot less militant than Americans, but even so I’d say the lines aren’t so sharply drawn.
David – Yes, it’s your kid. Even though it’s also someone you don’t even know yet. It’s hard to find a situation that could be compared.
If someone kidnapped a blood relative of yours that you didn’t even know existed, and now they want you to pay the money or they’ll kill him/her? To make things worse, the person was kidnapped because you got careless and made a mistake.
I think the moral thing to do in this case is to pay the money, save the life, accept your responsibility. But I don’t think there should be a law enforcing this.
Jerry, decent people leave the bluffing for games. Only a cyber-bully would try to bluff past by the post I responded to you with.
Jerry, decent people leave the bluffing for games. Only a cyber-bully would try to bluff past by the post I responded to you with.
Yeah, StarWolf, I know. I’m by no means saying that they should just be ignored nor am I saying that people shouldn’t speak up for the beliefs or freedoms they wish to see preserved. Far from it, I would prefer to see people defend what they hold dear.
I’m only pointing out that the noise machine often creates an amplified and distorted picture of many things these days and, somewhat more importantly, that the view amongst both camps is becoming unnecessary. More and more people, especially in election seasons, seem to mouth words that would not be seen as reasonable or rational if spoken about any other subject or in any other time.
Imagine if people said about race what some are saying here and elsewhere about race. Can you imagine the reaction that someone would receive if they said that because some blacks in their state, city or town are violent criminals they can’t trust any blacks? How much defending do you think a left of center person or a far left liberal would do if someone was arguing that all Muslims can’t be trusted because some Muslims are extremist terrorists.
(And, Susan, I’m not singling you out here or picking on you. I’ve been hearing a lot of things like what you said in a lot of places and I’m just springboarding off of our prior conversation. Please don’t take anything I say about “the masses” out there as directed towards you specifically.)
I just find it interesting that the people who claim to be on the left side of the political spectrum, the side that espouses tolerance, find more and more reasons to rationalize the intolerance and broad brush stereotyping of others that they disagree with. I fully expect it from the fringe of each political spectrum, but my experiences of late are such that I’m seeing it more and more amongst those who are the more moderate as well.
As someone who once considered himself a Democrat and has always freely admitted to being more left of center than right of center; I have to admit that I’m often more disappointed and troubled when I see the growing intolerance in many matters by the “moderate” Left. When the side that parades itself around as the tolerant side begins to revel in and rationalize its own intolerances to the degree that the Far Right has traditional been portrayed as doing; they’ve become the monster they claimed to be fighting.
There was a line in a movie that some of you may be familiar with about fear, anger and hate. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Suffering leads to the dark side. And the dark side leads to Ghiradelli Chocolates products… No… Wait… That’s not right. Well, you all have seen the film and know what I’m talking about here. Anyhow, I just find it a bit depressing when the “tolerant” side seems to want to be less and less so more and more lately.
Yeah, StarWolf, I know. I’m by no means saying that they should just be ignored nor am I saying that people shouldn’t speak up for the beliefs or freedoms they wish to see preserved. Far from it, I would prefer to see people defend what they hold dear.
I’m only pointing out that the noise machine often creates an amplified and distorted picture of many things these days and, somewhat more importantly, that the view amongst both camps is becoming unnecessary. More and more people, especially in election seasons, seem to mouth words that would not be seen as reasonable or rational if spoken about any other subject or in any other time.
Imagine if people said about race what some are saying here and elsewhere about race. Can you imagine the reaction that someone would receive if they said that because some blacks in their state, city or town are violent criminals they can’t trust any blacks? How much defending do you think a left of center person or a far left liberal would do if someone was arguing that all Muslims can’t be trusted because some Muslims are extremist terrorists.
(And, Susan, I’m not singling you out here or picking on you. I’ve been hearing a lot of things like what you said in a lot of places and I’m just springboarding off of our prior conversation. Please don’t take anything I say about “the masses” out there as directed towards you specifically.)
I just find it interesting that the people who claim to be on the left side of the political spectrum, the side that espouses tolerance, find more and more reasons to rationalize the intolerance and broad brush stereotyping of others that they disagree with. I fully expect it from the fringe of each political spectrum, but my experiences of late are such that I’m seeing it more and more amongst those who are the more moderate as well.
As someone who once considered himself a Democrat and has always freely admitted to being more left of center than right of center; I have to admit that I’m often more disappointed and troubled when I see the growing intolerance in many matters by the “moderate” Left. When the side that parades itself around as the tolerant side begins to revel in and rationalize its own intolerances to the degree that the Far Right has traditional been portrayed as doing; they’ve become the monster they claimed to be fighting.
There was a line in a movie that some of you may be familiar with about fear, anger and hate. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Suffering leads to the dark side. And the dark side leads to Ghiradelli Chocolates products… No… Wait… That’s not right. Well, you all have seen the film and know what I’m talking about here. Anyhow, I just find it a bit depressing when the “tolerant” side seems to want to be less and less so more and more lately.
Rene, that seems a perfectly moral, logical stance to take and one that would probably satisfy the majority of people. However there are those who would say that if something is truly immoral they have a moral obligation to oppose it in some way. At the very least they might see it as imperative that they in no way support the action. I think the single greatest mistake the pro-choice forces made was in insisting that tax money go to pay for abortions. From a pro-choice viewpoint it makes perfect sense but the result was that the pro-lifers felt they now HAD to fight, otherwise they would be complicit in an action they found morally unsupportable.
One can say “hey, too bad, lots of us have to pay taxes for stuff we don’t like” and that’s true. It’s also true you can fight in the courts and in the polls to change the laws to make things as you want them to be, which is what the pro-lifers have done.
Maybe the same thing would have happened regardless but it seems that the pro life movement thrives on the perceived overreaching of the pro choice side. I suppose one could argue that there should be no compromise on abortion rights but actually that’s pretty much their position as well.
David the Lawyer’s last point highlights why the Thomson argument is not really valid as a generally acceptable defense of pro-choice. In most cases, the mother acted wilfully. Meaning, engaging in heterosexual sex carries with it a risk of pregnancy. Even when using various birth control methods, nothing is 100% effective. So trying to use an analogy of forcing someone to subject their body to a 10 month physical ordeal in order to save an innocent and unconnected life is not really appropriate. Perhaps it’s a reflection on poor education, but every person should be taught that..gasp…having sex can lead to having babies. And that if you’re going to engage in sex, be warned that you’re going to potentially have to be responsible for the consequences of that act.
So to refine the Thomson analogy further, were we to outlaw abortion, it would be like telling people “yes, you can drive, but be warned…if you run someone over, you could be held responsible for their medical treatment and care for as long as they take to recover. Sure, few people have accidents, and few accidents result in injury that lasts more than a few months, but it happens.”
Which, unless I’m mistaken, we in fact do in many states, and people think this is a fine way to treat vehicle injuries that are caused by negligence, recklessness, or intent.
I often look at the opinion of RvW as an example of right result wrong reason. I sometimes wonder if it’s an example of the Court engaging in massive idiotry, or if it’s pure genius. History suggests that abortion issues are not going away any time soon, and that so long as there are 3 different people, there will be 4 or 5 different stances on abortion. So was the court engaging in idiocy in trying to decide the issue? Or was it a moment of genius to craft an opinion that would mostly insure that the debate continued?
David the Lawyer’s last point highlights why the Thomson argument is not really valid as a generally acceptable defense of pro-choice. In most cases, the mother acted wilfully. Meaning, engaging in heterosexual sex carries with it a risk of pregnancy. Even when using various birth control methods, nothing is 100% effective. So trying to use an analogy of forcing someone to subject their body to a 10 month physical ordeal in order to save an innocent and unconnected life is not really appropriate. Perhaps it’s a reflection on poor education, but every person should be taught that..gasp…having sex can lead to having babies. And that if you’re going to engage in sex, be warned that you’re going to potentially have to be responsible for the consequences of that act.
So to refine the Thomson analogy further, were we to outlaw abortion, it would be like telling people “yes, you can drive, but be warned…if you run someone over, you could be held responsible for their medical treatment and care for as long as they take to recover. Sure, few people have accidents, and few accidents result in injury that lasts more than a few months, but it happens.”
Which, unless I’m mistaken, we in fact do in many states, and people think this is a fine way to treat vehicle injuries that are caused by negligence, recklessness, or intent.
I often look at the opinion of RvW as an example of right result wrong reason. I sometimes wonder if it’s an example of the Court engaging in massive idiotry, or if it’s pure genius. History suggests that abortion issues are not going away any time soon, and that so long as there are 3 different people, there will be 4 or 5 different stances on abortion. So was the court engaging in idiocy in trying to decide the issue? Or was it a moment of genius to craft an opinion that would mostly insure that the debate continued?
I fully expect it from the fringe of each political spectrum, but my experiences of late are such that I’m seeing it more and more amongst those who are the more moderate as well.
When the side that parades itself around as the tolerant side begins to revel in and rationalize its own intolerances to the degree that the Far Right has traditional been portrayed as doing; they’ve become the monster they claimed to be fighting.
The internet (and the various other new media forms) has made it easier for people who would never have been able to make themselves heard (due to their unpleasant, nutty personalities)to suddenly inject themselves into the national discourse. Predictably, they’ve somewhat spoiled it; the great thing about the internet is that it allows everyone to participate. That bad thing is that you find out why so many of them were on the fringes before now, trapped in their little private hëllš of being justifiably ignored.
Of course, they can still be ignored. Drives them nutty(er). As you know 🙂
Or maybe the “moderates” who are acting like extremists were never that moderate to begin with. When they show their true colors, ditch them. I used to like Andrew Sullivan but he reached a point where he was practically accusing people who were against the war of being fifth columnists. So I dropped him. now I understand he has done a 180 and accuses anyone who is not 100% against Bush to be a neocon christianist. 2 years from now he’ll probably be calling for Obama’s impeachment. Who needs this?
I fully expect it from the fringe of each political spectrum, but my experiences of late are such that I’m seeing it more and more amongst those who are the more moderate as well.
When the side that parades itself around as the tolerant side begins to revel in and rationalize its own intolerances to the degree that the Far Right has traditional been portrayed as doing; they’ve become the monster they claimed to be fighting.
The internet (and the various other new media forms) has made it easier for people who would never have been able to make themselves heard (due to their unpleasant, nutty personalities)to suddenly inject themselves into the national discourse. Predictably, they’ve somewhat spoiled it; the great thing about the internet is that it allows everyone to participate. That bad thing is that you find out why so many of them were on the fringes before now, trapped in their little private hëllš of being justifiably ignored.
Of course, they can still be ignored. Drives them nutty(er). As you know 🙂
Or maybe the “moderates” who are acting like extremists were never that moderate to begin with. When they show their true colors, ditch them. I used to like Andrew Sullivan but he reached a point where he was practically accusing people who were against the war of being fifth columnists. So I dropped him. now I understand he has done a 180 and accuses anyone who is not 100% against Bush to be a neocon christianist. 2 years from now he’ll probably be calling for Obama’s impeachment. Who needs this?
Jerry Chandler: Many people who are pro-life, like my wife and to some small degree myself I guess, are only pro-life when it comes to describing our personal choice in the matter. Many won’t consider an abortion for themselves, but they don’t have the desire to impose that position on others.
Luigi Novi: Which is actually the definition of pro-choice. There’s this common fallacy to this effect, but the accurate definition of the positions isn’t predicated on one’s personal choice in a hypothetical pregnancy; it’s predicated on what you feel should be allowed for others. What you describe is indeed pro-choice, since pro-choicers are not people who believe that every pregnancy should end in an abortion, or even people who would definitely opt for one for themselves; they’re people who feel that the decision should be left to the individual, and not the state.
Rene: Granted, Brazilian Christians are usually a lot less militant than Americans…
Luigi Novi: The fundamentalist or right-wing ones, at least.
This literally isn’t a valid argument. We live by consuming innocent, independent life.
This literally isn’t a valid argument. We live by consuming innocent, independent life.
Luigi,
You know that and I know that. I have for the most part always stated my position here as being on the pro-choice side. However, not everyone looks at it like that. I can introduce you to any number of people who think “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” because of their upbringing or the politics in their family. They don’t think of themselves as “pro-abortion” and when asked if they’re pro-choice or anti-abortion they default to saying “anti-abortion” even if their true feelings are that what other people do are they’re own business.
My wife, again, is a perfect example of this. Half the time if you asked her that question she would say that she’s against abortion even though she doesn’t push her beliefs about it onto others. Hey, what can I tell you? Polls are sometimes screwed up for silly reasons.
Luigi,
You know that and I know that. I have for the most part always stated my position here as being on the pro-choice side. However, not everyone looks at it like that. I can introduce you to any number of people who think “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” because of their upbringing or the politics in their family. They don’t think of themselves as “pro-abortion” and when asked if they’re pro-choice or anti-abortion they default to saying “anti-abortion” even if their true feelings are that what other people do are they’re own business.
My wife, again, is a perfect example of this. Half the time if you asked her that question she would say that she’s against abortion even though she doesn’t push her beliefs about it onto others. Hey, what can I tell you? Polls are sometimes screwed up for silly reasons.
“So trying to use an analogy of forcing someone to subject their body to a 10 month physical ordeal in order to save an innocent and unconnected life is not really appropriate.”
Make it 9 months, and you have been connected (without your permission) to another person by tubes etc to act as their life support machine. This was one of the scenarios we used to discuss in Bioethics.
“So trying to use an analogy of forcing someone to subject their body to a 10 month physical ordeal in order to save an innocent and unconnected life is not really appropriate.”
Make it 9 months, and you have been connected (without your permission) to another person by tubes etc to act as their life support machine. This was one of the scenarios we used to discuss in Bioethics.
In most cases, the mother acted wilfully. Meaning, engaging in heterosexual sex carries with it a risk of pregnancy. Even when using various birth control methods, nothing is 100% effective. So trying to use an analogy of forcing someone to subject their body to a 10 month physical ordeal in order to save an innocent and unconnected life is not really appropriate. Perhaps it’s a reflection on poor education, but every person should be taught that..gasp…having sex can lead to having babies. And that if you’re going to engage in sex, be warned that you’re going to potentially have to be responsible for the consequences of that act.
I have a lot of problems with that viewpoint. For one thing, it implies that babies are an unfortunate side effect of having sex, like satyriasis from taking Viagra. One of the few genuinely dumb things Sen. Obama has said during this campaign was that, were one of his children to have sex too young, he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby” for that mistake. Babies aren’t punishment. Nor are they side effects or the products of bad luck. I think any comparison between a child as the result of reckless behavior (sex) and a wreck as the result of reckless driving is really inapposite. If the child isn’t punishment, then that argument has another problem. Even if we, as a culture, think people who engage in risky behavior in some sense deserve what happens to them, we don’t keep them from getting help to ameliorate the condition. If you drive recklessly, you may be held civilly or criminally liable for the wreck, but you’re still allowed to get treatment at the hospital for your injuries. It’s still a leap to say that by engaging in a –what, 3%?– chance of pregnancy for unprotected sex, the woman thereby waives her right to defend her own bodily integrity.
In most cases, the mother acted wilfully. Meaning, engaging in heterosexual sex carries with it a risk of pregnancy. Even when using various birth control methods, nothing is 100% effective. So trying to use an analogy of forcing someone to subject their body to a 10 month physical ordeal in order to save an innocent and unconnected life is not really appropriate. Perhaps it’s a reflection on poor education, but every person should be taught that..gasp…having sex can lead to having babies. And that if you’re going to engage in sex, be warned that you’re going to potentially have to be responsible for the consequences of that act.
I have a lot of problems with that viewpoint. For one thing, it implies that babies are an unfortunate side effect of having sex, like satyriasis from taking Viagra. One of the few genuinely dumb things Sen. Obama has said during this campaign was that, were one of his children to have sex too young, he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby” for that mistake. Babies aren’t punishment. Nor are they side effects or the products of bad luck. I think any comparison between a child as the result of reckless behavior (sex) and a wreck as the result of reckless driving is really inapposite. If the child isn’t punishment, then that argument has another problem. Even if we, as a culture, think people who engage in risky behavior in some sense deserve what happens to them, we don’t keep them from getting help to ameliorate the condition. If you drive recklessly, you may be held civilly or criminally liable for the wreck, but you’re still allowed to get treatment at the hospital for your injuries. It’s still a leap to say that by engaging in a –what, 3%?– chance of pregnancy for unprotected sex, the woman thereby waives her right to defend her own bodily integrity.
“The internet (and the various other new media forms) has made it easier for people who would never have been able to make themselves heard (due to their unpleasant, nutty personalities)to suddenly inject themselves into the national discourse.”
Ironically enough, just today we were talking at work about various lousy sports announcers and why, as a subspecies, they should be shipped off to a non-broadcasting island somewhere near Guam. This led to speaking of talk radio in general. A friend of mine, during a radio production class, had a reasonably well-known talk radio personality come in to address the class. Said personality indicated that most, if not all, of talk radio’s big names are NOTHING like they seem on the air, but they need to Sell It For The Audience. So, does that make the internet Everyman’s Talk Radio Call In Show?
“The internet (and the various other new media forms) has made it easier for people who would never have been able to make themselves heard (due to their unpleasant, nutty personalities)to suddenly inject themselves into the national discourse.”
Ironically enough, just today we were talking at work about various lousy sports announcers and why, as a subspecies, they should be shipped off to a non-broadcasting island somewhere near Guam. This led to speaking of talk radio in general. A friend of mine, during a radio production class, had a reasonably well-known talk radio personality come in to address the class. Said personality indicated that most, if not all, of talk radio’s big names are NOTHING like they seem on the air, but they need to Sell It For The Audience. So, does that make the internet Everyman’s Talk Radio Call In Show?
“When the side that parades itself around as the tolerant side begins to revel in and rationalize its own intolerances to the degree that the Far Right has traditional been portrayed as doing; they’ve become the monster they claimed to be fighting.”
We’re all of us human. We’re all prone to intolerance. It doesn’t excuse us, but it’s sometimes too easy to let bitterness put you into revenge mode.
I’ve been raised by conservative parents that I felt kept me from being true to myself. I’ve grow up seeing the conservative and the religious as the enemy.
Just today I’ve discovered that a girl that is a very good friend of mine in my work is an Evangelical. I never suspected, because she is very encouraging of my homosexuality and loves to have a gay friend.
I am still conditioned to see all Evangelicals as bigots. If I knew this girl was Evangelical before I truly met her, I might have been more cautious around her, and probably would have lost the opportunity to foster a friendship that I value very much now.
I admit that my suspicion makes me abrupt and even rude sometimes. I truly believe in everything I’d said in reply to Iowa Jim’s posts, but a desire for “payback” made my posts harsher than they could be, I sometimes feel bad about that.
I also fully admit that many liberals fall victim to smugness. Some comments I’ve read elsewhere in the Internet painting “rednecks” almost as sub-human slobs make me uncomfortable. It’s no excuse that some on the Right also paint the liberals as sub-human degenerates.
“When the side that parades itself around as the tolerant side begins to revel in and rationalize its own intolerances to the degree that the Far Right has traditional been portrayed as doing; they’ve become the monster they claimed to be fighting.”
We’re all of us human. We’re all prone to intolerance. It doesn’t excuse us, but it’s sometimes too easy to let bitterness put you into revenge mode.
I’ve been raised by conservative parents that I felt kept me from being true to myself. I’ve grow up seeing the conservative and the religious as the enemy.
Just today I’ve discovered that a girl that is a very good friend of mine in my work is an Evangelical. I never suspected, because she is very encouraging of my homosexuality and loves to have a gay friend.
I am still conditioned to see all Evangelicals as bigots. If I knew this girl was Evangelical before I truly met her, I might have been more cautious around her, and probably would have lost the opportunity to foster a friendship that I value very much now.
I admit that my suspicion makes me abrupt and even rude sometimes. I truly believe in everything I’d said in reply to Iowa Jim’s posts, but a desire for “payback” made my posts harsher than they could be, I sometimes feel bad about that.
I also fully admit that many liberals fall victim to smugness. Some comments I’ve read elsewhere in the Internet painting “rednecks” almost as sub-human slobs make me uncomfortable. It’s no excuse that some on the Right also paint the liberals as sub-human degenerates.
Get off my lawn, indulgent free speech bášŧárdš.
What you’re complaining about is true for the introduction of any medium that opens access to the public discourse. If Gutenberg hadn’t invented movable-type printing, we wouldn’t be hearing from all these nuts who don’t know to take their orders from the pope and like it. I guess some people just can’t get over the Renaissance.
Ironically enough, just today we were talking at work about various lousy sports announcers and why, as a subspecies, they should be shipped off to a non-broadcasting island somewhere near Guam. This led to speaking of talk radio in general. A friend of mine, during a radio production class, had a reasonably well-known talk radio personality come in to address the class. Said personality indicated that most, if not all, of talk radio’s big names are NOTHING like they seem on the air, but they need to Sell It For The Audience. So, does that make the internet Everyman’s Talk Radio Call In Show?
heh. To a degree, I guess. Though I think a lot of the real kooks–and you know who I mean–probably honestly believe their nuttiness…or have invested too much into it to ever see it for the sad absurdity the rest of us do. I can understand someone like Limbaugh or Rhodes ramping it up for the rubes, it’s their bread and butter after all, but the people who act like shitstains and get nothing from it but the reputation of a shitstain…THAT, my friend, is a true believer! And a shitstain.