This classless nonsense needs to stop now.

[homersapien 11,388]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Yet that is not the section of the constitution cited in the Roe v Wade decision.  Wonder why?

I'm betting it's because Congress not being permitted to make a law regarding establishing a religion has nothing to do with this.

If we're going to say that religions lead people to conclude that it's wrong to kill unborn human beings, therefore we can't codify that action, if we use that logic we wouldn't be able to make a law prohibiting people from killing born human beings.  Or doing just about anything else, either.  Some religions doubtless teach that it's wrong to steal and rape and perpetuate fraud and do all sorts of things.  If we can't codify those things because some religion teaches that it's wrong, I think the inevitable destination is anarchy.

That's sophistry.

All the things you mention have popular support. Religion has nothing to do with it.

But this idea that a person begins at conception, or life begins when a pulse is detected is clearly of religious origin and - more importantly - does not have popular support.  (Probably because a pregnant woman is obviously a person. With personal rights.)

The SCOTUS didn't cite a violation of the first amendment as a justification probably because that argument wasn't made and the reasons they did cite were more direct and and pertinent.

Now if the religious try to legislate a brain-dead person is still alive because the heart still beats (for example), they might address it.

Edited October 8, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,388]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I would consider them typical in 2021.

Surely you all who are clutching your pearls about this understand that the culture has been coarsening in terms of these types of social graces for around 55 years or more, right?

 

Yep. 

Except I am not "clutching my pearls".  I am not shocked.  Just a little embarrassed for Auburn University.

 

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So sure, I think it's classless.  But I think our entire culture is classless these days....... blah blah blah....Kathy Griffin, blah blah blah......

I mean, how many examples do you want? Ooh ooh, I can respond to this:  None.  Please.

I was accused above of having "fake concern" for this topic and I said it was a non-sequitur, blah, blah, blah.....

But I was wrong, it's relevant after all.  Because instead of being the strangest non-sequitur response I have ever seen, it's actually the most spectacularly egregious, massive, unbelievable example I have ever seen of totally oblivious psychological projection. (I just had to leave this entire paragraph for the chuckles. )

A guy starts a thread like some kind of internet Karen totally scandalized by people doing what people do in 2021, blah blah blah...

If you guys are so troubled about this, the next time an issue arises in which there is a choice between supporting the preservation of traditional American cultural values vs "being open minded and progressive," maybe you should side with preserving traditional American cultural values.       

So, if you agree, what is all the arguing about?? 

Here you are making (extensive) arguments against something you apparently agree with. (Funny, you called me argumentative. )  Apparently you will even argue with yourself.

You apparently don't seem to understand that classless behavior is situational, as well as subjective.  A mob of people having a political rally is quite different from a church picnic or a funeral (for example).

In this case, these were students attending an Auburn function, sitting in the Auburn student section.  So, essentially, like it or not,  they were representing Auburn on TV and the internet.

That's the reason it was classless to me.  How about you?

Edited October 8, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 10/8/2021 at 8:49 AM, homersapien said:

That's sophistry.

All the things you mention have popular support. Religion has nothing to do with it.

But this idea that a person begins at conception, or life begins when a pulse is detected is clearly of religious origin and - more importantly - does not have popular support.  (Probably because a pregnant woman is obviously a person. With personal rights.)

The SCOTUS didn't cite a violation of the first amendment as a justification probably because that argument wasn't made and the reasons they did cite were more direct and and pertinent.

Now if the religious try to legislate a brain-dead person is still alive because the heart still beats (for example), they might address it.

i agree.  Citing the first amendment was absolutely sophistry.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 10/8/2021 at 11:19 AM, homersapien said:

Yep. 

Except I am not "clutching my pearls".  I am not shocked.  Just a little embarrassed for Auburn University.

 

So, if you agree, what is all the arguing about?? 

Here you are making (extensive) arguments against something you apparently agree with. (Funny, you called me argumentative. )  Apparently you will even argue with yourself.

You apparently don't seem to understand that classless behavior is situational, as well as subjective.  A mob of people having a political rally is quite different from a church picnic or a funeral (for example).

In this case, these were students attending an Auburn function, sitting in the Auburn student section.  So, essentially, like it or not,  they were representing Auburn on TV and the internet.

That's the reason it was classless to me.  How about you?

To answer your first question it's about the hypocrisy.  But you knew that.

And I'm not making an argument against anything.  You asked a question, which was essentially what do you think, and I answered it.

I understand quite well that it's situational.  The problem is that I will not buy into the idea that if the situation is that people are chanting @#$! my guy, it's deplorable behavior, but if the situation is that they are chanting @#$! your guy, that's fine.  Those are not different situations any more than my assessment of a situation in which a person goes into an ice cream shop and orders a chocolate shake, which he proceeds to throw against the wall, and a person who does exactly the same with a vanilla shake.  The fact that I prefer chocolate has no bearing on whether that is acceptable behavior or not.

And what the Auburn students chanted is either classless or it's not.  Where they were sitting in the stadium and what team they pull for has nothing to do with that.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

On 10/12/2021 at 6:05 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

To answer your first question it's about the hypocrisy.  But you knew that.

And I'm not making an argument against anything.  You asked a question, which was essentially what do you think, and I answered it.

I understand quite well that it's situational.  The problem is that I will not buy into the idea that if the situation is that people are chanting @#$! my guy, it's deplorable behavior, but if the situation is that they are chanting @#$! your guy, that's fine.  Those are not different situations any more than my assessment of a situation in which a person goes into an ice cream shop and orders a chocolate shake, which he proceeds to throw against the wall, and a person who does exactly the same with a vanilla shake.  The fact that I prefer chocolate has no bearing on whether that is acceptable behavior or not.

And what the Auburn students chanted is either classless or it's not.  Where they were sitting in the stadium and what team they pull for has nothing to do with that.

 

If you are going to make a straw man argument, there is no reason to quote me beforehand.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you are going to make a straw man argument, there is no reason to quote me beforehand.

If you're going to obfuscate and deflect, there's no need to act like you're going to discuss something honestly.

[homersapien 11,388]

17 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

If you're going to obfuscate and deflect, there's no need to act like you're going to discuss something honestly.

A poster is known by the lapdogs he attracts. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,388]

17 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

If you're going to obfuscate and deflect, there's no need to act like you're going to discuss something honestly.

You first.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 10/12/2021 at 6:05 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

To answer your first question it's about the hypocrisy.  But you knew that.

 

What hypocrisy?    I have said that "classless" is both subjective and situational.  To me, that covers what these students did.

And I'm not making an argument against anything.  You asked a question, which was essentially what do you think, and I answered it.

I understand quite well that it's situational.  The problem is that I will not buy into the idea that if the situation is that people are chanting @#$! my guy, it's deplorable behavior, but if the situation is that they are chanting @#$! your guy, that's fine.  Fine, neither do I.  Never said that though.

 

Those are not different situations any more than my assessment of a situation in which a person goes into an ice cream shop and orders a chocolate shake, which he proceeds to throw against the wall, and a person who does exactly the same with a vanilla shake.  The fact that I prefer chocolate has no bearing on whether that is acceptable behavior or not.

Seriously?  You do like to run on.....

And what the Auburn students chanted is either classless or it's not.  True

Where they were sitting in the stadium and what team they pull for has nothing to do with that. Also true.

Did you respond to my question?  I didn't see it.

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

On 10/12/2021 at 5:59 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

i agree.  Citing the first amendment was absolutely sophistry.

No, citing the first amendment was not sophistry.  But about 80% of your typical posts are IMO.  (See above.)

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, citing the first amendment was not sophistry.  But about 80% of your typical posts are IMO.  (See above.)

Yes it was.  You even admitted yourself that the first amendment had nothing to do with the issue.

As for the rest, am I really supposed to seriously answer what amounts to, "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

LOL.

Sure, if everything is completely subjective then hypocrisy is impossible.

But I don't accept that everything is 100% subjective, and neither do you.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]