Terry Shiavo

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:32 pm

Kettle? Is that you?
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

hey, wait a min.

Postby muma » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:46 pm

......
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:56 pm

Corth wrote:Ragorn,

Your generalization is of course unfair.



So why is it you're calling Rags out on his generalization, but leaving all of Teflor's Liberal bashing generalizations alone?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:05 am

Corth wrote:That Terry Schiavo had severe and irrecoverable brain damage, determined after the fact, has no bearing on what should have happened before her brain was sliced up.


It depends on how you wish to... heh heh... slice the argument. If you take Teflor's piece of the pie, then removing her tube was wrong because she had a chance of recovery, and the autopsy did not disprove the idea that she could have recovered. If you want to stab at the issue from the stance that nonconsentual assisted suicide is wrong in any case where the patient has the possibility to recover, then you've got to look at the autopsy and the science behind WHY her condition was "terminal."

You appear to choose the less technical stance, maybe supporting that assisted suicide is ethically wrong in all cases. That's fine. That's not a scientific debate at all, but a moral one. I try to avoid moral debates anymore, especially on the internet. "You cannot reason someone out of something he was not reasoned into" and all that.

But I think I can do a pretty fair job of backing up the sentiment that Republicans, if not in general than at least our executive leaders, regularly eschew science in favor of personal beliefs and agendas. Creationism, homosexuality, stem cells, global warming, we could bounce from topic to topic.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:33 am

Ragorn wrote: If you take Teflor's piece of the pie, then removing her tube was wrong because she had a chance of recovery, and the autopsy did not disprove the idea that she could have recovered.


Nice try, but this is not my piece of pie.

Ragorn, seriously, how long can you stand to make stuff up?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:34 am

Sarvis wrote:So why is it you're calling Rags out on his generalization, but leaving all of Teflor's Liberal bashing generalizations alone?


Because it fits. And also because my primary assertion doesn't rely on it. I just add it to mock you.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:36 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Nice try, but this is not my piece of pie.

Ragorn, seriously, how long can you stand to make stuff up?


I no longer have any interest in talking to you. You, like most republicans I've wasted time talking to in the past, are willing to simply skip past post after post full of information, dismissing it with a flippant comment like the one above. I'm in this thread to talk to Corth. When you're ready to talk like a big boy, prove it and maybe you'll get a little more of the attention you so desperately crave.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am

For anyone who didn't want her to be taken off life support:

Would YOU want to be such a burden on society and/or your loved ones? Both financially AND emotionally. Imagine the stress day after day after day. I am quite sure the family didn't visit her as much 15 years later as they did the day she collapsed, so her daily contact (unless the media was involved) was with impersonal hospital staff ..

My mom JUST died 3 weeks ago. It was quick and sudden, and painless .. there is NO WAY IN HELL I'd want to demean her life and vitality as my mom. Even to keep her alive for longer by hooking her up to life support if she couldnt be the mom I knew and Love Just as that shell of a human being in that casket, that wasnt mom, the memories in my head and heart THAT is mom.

This was NOT the Terry they knew, this was some shell of a woman. Her mental capacity was HALF of a normal woman, and she was blind. NONE of her responses were deliberate, it was all reflexive.

Let her friggin go, don't embarass her any further.

Leave the politics for those who get paid to deal with it. Politics has NO bearing here. NONE!

Further more; make friggin sure YOUR personal wishes are written down on paper. You NEVER know when shit happens. How old was Kobei when he passed away, ripped from his loving wife and kids? Had they even THOUGHT about such an eventuality? It CAN and will happen to YOU

I just dont understand why everyone's personal view, whatever it may be is ALWAYS taken down the political path. I have opinions that are MINE, doesnt matter WHAT my political affiliation is. I have opinions that agree with ALL political parties at some point. Middle of the fencer? sure the HELL am! Deal with it!

For whoever wants to argue .. find something that IS arguable .. hmm .. what colour is that wall? Purple? Violet?

---Sick and TIRED dammit of the bullshit ...
-Jennifer
Last edited by Ambar on Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:31 am

Ragorn wrote:
Ragorn wrote:If you take Teflor's piece of the pie, then removing her tube was wrong because she had a chance of recovery, and the autopsy did not disprove the idea that she could have recovered.


teflor the ranger wrote:Nice try, but this is not my piece of pie.

Ragorn, seriously, how long can you stand to make stuff up?


I no longer have any interest in talking to you. You, like most republicans I've wasted time talking to in the past, are willing to simply skip past post after post full of information, dismissing it with a flippant comment like the one above. I'm in this thread to talk to Corth. When you're ready to talk like a big boy, prove it and maybe you'll get a little more of the attention you so desperately crave.




Ahem Ragorn?

teflor the ranger wrote:Actually, I don't believe Terry Schaivo had a chance in hell.


You should be ashamed of yourself. Try again "when you're ready to talk like a big boy."

Don't blame me for your lack of interest in the truth, or your hippocracy in acussing me of 'skipping' past your posts when I don't, yet you skip past mine.

I can't help it if your arguments are fundamentally flawed based on a false premise such as the one above.

It is your ignorance. Not mine.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:05 pm

Ragorn wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Nice try, but this is not my piece of pie.

Ragorn, seriously, how long can you stand to make stuff up?


I no longer have any interest in talking to you. You, like most republicans I've wasted time talking to in the past, are willing to simply skip past post after post full of information, dismissing it with a flippant comment like the one above. I'm in this thread to talk to Corth. When you're ready to talk like a big boy, prove it and maybe you'll get a little more of the attention you so desperately crave.


Don't say I didn't warn you... ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:56 pm

Sarvis wrote:Don't say I didn't warn you... ;)


Yeah, I've tended to skip past the Sarvis/Teflor nonsense on the forum, but I can clearly see why there's so much of it now :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Because there is so much rampant ignorance in the both of you?
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:01 am

*Snicker*

I am finally understanding why rangers are always alone in the books. . .

:p

- Having now added nothing to the discussion, I feel free to withdraw :)
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:35 am

IBTL!
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:54 am

Vigis wrote:*Snicker*

I am finally understanding why rangers are always alone in the books. . .

:p

- Having now added nothing to the discussion, I feel free to withdraw :)


Maybe in the books, but we all know in the MUD dumb barbarians drag rangers all over the place for protection! ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
vallis
Sojourner
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:18 pm

Postby vallis » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:50 am

I am marrying my fiance because I love, and trust her.

I trust her to properly raise my children, whether I am dead or alive.

Equally as important, I trust her with my life, and that she will know to make the right decision with me, if I was to end up in Terri Schiavo's state.

I know that I wouldn't want to end up A) at the end of a feeding tube, having no interaction with life. What the hell is life if you can't enjoy it? Be a part of it? All you get to do is stare at doctors and loved ones all day, with no interaction? All that is is "major paralysis" cast on you, until eventually you DO die. I say you are dead already.

Now for all of you people, screaming that she should have been kept alive, and she had a right to live:

LARGO, Florida (AP) -- An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

She was even BLIND, so I retract my statement about SEEING your loved ones, God only knows with that kind of brain damage if she could even FEEL them, when they touched her.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/sc ... utopsy.ap/

What follows in that link, about HOW she got to her (previously) current state is irrelevant, the fact is she suffered irreversible damage, that would never allow her to enjoy LIFE again.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:55 am

Ragorn:

You appear to choose the less technical stance, maybe supporting that assisted suicide is ethically wrong in all cases. That's fine. That's not a scientific debate at all, but a moral one. I try to avoid moral debates anymore, especially on the internet. "You cannot reason someone out of something he was not reasoned into" and all that.


I'd like to avoid the moral debate as well. I actually never really formed an opinion at the time whether or not Schiavo should be removed from child support. It seemed to me that the court that heard the testimony of her family members was probably in a better position than me to make such a determination.

The point that I was trying to make is simply that Republicans, at least in this instance, do not really deserve to be lambasted as being anti-scientific. That the autopsy was news at all indicates that the question of recoverability was not sufficiently answered until last week. And the people closest to Schiavo fought bitterly over what they thought her she would want under the circumstances.. so thats an open question that will never be answered. Given the fact that it was uncertain at the time whether Schiavo a) could ever recover, and b) would want to be taken off life suport, it was perfectly reasonable to err on the side of life.

But I think I can do a pretty fair job of backing up the sentiment that Republicans, if not in general than at least our executive leaders, regularly eschew science in favor of personal beliefs and agendas. Creationism, homosexuality, stem cells, global warming, we could bounce from topic to topic.


Creationism is silly. But not any sillier than providing condoms to fourth graders. Or reading them books entitled "Heather has two mommies", when most of their parents would probably object. Each side has its fringe and I don't think that republicans have cornered the market on ideological idocy.

Stem cells. George Bush simply says that the Federal government will not fund certain stem cell research programs and its as if he is trying to make science illegal. I am very pro stem cell research, but as a reasonable person I recognize that aspects of the research, particularly where aborted fetuses are used, is offensive to some people. Nobody is trying to make the research illegal. Not funding it is certainly different than making it illegal, which nobody is attempting to do.

Global warming. I'm not a scientist. I do know that there are plenty of smart people who say that global warming is occuring, and plenty that say that it isn't. I have heard some people acknowledge that it is occuring, but also say that it would cause a net beneficial effect for mankind. I have no idea really. I do know that it is a politicized issue and I am very skeptical about whatever is said and who is saying it. I think some skepticism is warranted here.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:08 am

Corth wrote:
Creationism is silly. But not any sillier than providing condoms to fourth graders. Or reading them books entitled "Heather has two mommies", when most of their parents would probably object. Each side has its fringe and I don't think that republicans have cornered the market on ideological idocy.


The difference being that giving condoms out to kids may help prevent STDs from being transmitted while teaching Creationism is just an attempt to force beliefs on people for no gain. Though I've never heard of anyone wanting to pass condoms out that early... I HAVE read about kids experimenting sexually nearly that early.

Stem cells. George Bush simply says that the Federal government will not fund certain stem cell research programs and its as if he is trying to make science illegal.


No, that is not what he "simply" said. He said it was wrong to kill fetuses in order to save lives, completely ignoring the science behind the process... most notably the part where many fetuses (fetii?) are disposed of anyway from fertility clinics and these could be used. Ignoring science and appealing to emotion or "morals" is pretty much the hallmark of this presidency.



Global warming. I'm not a scientist. I do know that there are plenty of smart people who say that global warming is occuring, and plenty that say that it isn't.


And then you have the Bush administration putting a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute in charge of editing a report on the link between greenhouse gasses and global warming in order to downplay the effects.

Because, you know, facts should always be edited by a person with a vested interest in discrediting them...



If "liberals" come to the conlcusion that Republicans don't want anything to do with science, it's only after watching the chief Republican in action... and watching all the Republican voters eat it up.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:33 am

Creationism is silly, we can agree there. So is demanding that religious views be represented in a science classroom. Most of all, so is demanding that ONLY YOUR religious views be represented in a science classroom. I don't see Hindu creation theories cracking into any American biology textbooks.

Stem cells. Bush's stem cell speech can be found here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-2.html

In it, he attempts to speak to both sides of the issue, and I credit him for being as balanced as I've ever seen him. However, he can't end his speech nor explain his stance on the issue without referring to his personal religious beliefs. In a nutshell, god says embryos are alive, god says "thou shalt not kill," and so we're cutting funding. In this case, Bush admits he is aware of the research potential stem cells can provide, but he is unwilling to fund research on the issue as a matter of morality. I think that qualifies my claim that he "eschews science in favor of personal beliefs."

Global warming. Sarvis beat me on this one. Global warming isn't a 100% certainty. However, we've come to the conclusion that damaging ozone and polluting the air does, with 100% certainty, have the potential to increase the world's temperature. It's not definite, but it's definitely possible. With that in mind, Bush has chosen to hand Exxon the editorial pen when it comes to his pollution policy, in much the same way he handed the pen to the utilities when it came time for energy reform. In this case, the agenda of the Bush Dynasty and their close personal ties to the oil companies are dictating our country's policy on pollution.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:09 am

So we have a pro-business president. What do we want.. an anti-business president? I'm glad that our leadership tries to create a strong economy. If the environmental cost is greater than the economic gain, I'm certainly willing to listen to alternatives. There are a lot of hidden interests in the global warming 'debate', and unfortunately it obscures the real question of what is actually happening to the environment. I can't really speak intelligently on the subject, I don't know enough about it. I'm unfortunately forced to defer to the judgment of our duly elected leadership.

I can speak a little bit more intelligently about the issue of stem cell research. The fact is that it is of the utmost importance to the human race. The possibilities are endless. On the other hand, there is a legitimate moral and ethical debate over whether we should be taking advantage of aborted fetuses. Since I am pro-choice, I personally have no problem with it. On the other hand, I recognize that there are many people in this country who are very much offended by it. I am not prepared to say that their viewpoint is wrong. Thus, I think that President Bush's compromise is as fair as possible. The Federal government, which represents all of the people, will allow those so inclined to conduct the research, but won't pay for it. Bush gets a bad rap for this by scaremongers who give the impression that he is blocking important scientific research. That is simply not the case.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:17 am

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:
Creationism is silly. But not any sillier than providing condoms to fourth graders. Or reading them books entitled "Heather has two mommies", when most of their parents would probably object. Each side has its fringe and I don't think that republicans have cornered the market on ideological idocy.


The difference being that giving condoms out to kids may help prevent STDs from being transmitted while teaching Creationism is just an attempt to force beliefs on people for no gain. Though I've never heard of anyone wanting to pass condoms out that early... I HAVE read about kids experimenting sexually nearly that early.


I didn't think you would bite on this one. If our 4th graders are out having sex, we have bigger problems than a few of them contracting STD's. Besides, even if some are indeed voluntarily having sex (a dubious proposition for fourth graders), the message we send to the group.. that we essentially expect them to have sex... will cause more damage than the STD's that we really cant expect any of them to get anyway...

But i digress.. my point isn't to debate you on the merits of giving 9 year olds condoms. I'm just trying to illustrate that each side has some radical positions.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:37 am

Corth wrote:
I didn't think you would bite on this one.


Do I ever NOT bite? ;)

If our 4th graders are out having sex, we have bigger problems than a few of them contracting STD's.


Why? Is there anything other than Judeo-Christian morality that says sex isn't something 9 year olds should be experimenting with? And even if so, is that REALLY a bigger problem than the possibility of catching a life threatening disease such as AIDS?

Besides, even if some are indeed voluntarily having sex (a dubious proposition for fourth graders), the message we send to the group.. that we essentially expect them to have sex... will cause more damage than the STD's that we really cant expect any of them to get anyway...


Not expecting people to have sex is a pretty dangerous way to go about things. Especially when kids are hitting puberty at earlier ages every generation!

I'll put this on the record: I expect people to have sex. There are billions of people on the planet, and most of them came from people having sex. It's how things work.

I mean, even back in my day kids would play doctor and such!

Man.. tired... probably not expressing this well. :(

Ok, let's put it this way: Sex is pleasurable. The only reason not to have sex is that your parents say so, often invoking a higher power such as an invisible god figure. Once kids figure out that it's pleasureable, which probably only takes 20 minutes of watching TV, listening to radio or watching teenagers engage in kissing/petting they're gonna want in on the fun.


But i digress.. my point isn't to debate you on the merits of giving 9 year olds condoms. I'm just trying to illustrate that each side has some radical positions.

Corth


Protecting people from deadly diseases is a radical position? :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:45 am

I think Sarvis illustrated my point quite nicely.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:52 am

Corth, is requiring children to wear bike helmets a Radical position?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:54 am

I'm so glad I started this wonderful thread

*sigh*
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:58 am

Ambar wrote:I'm so glad I started this wonderful thread

*sigh*


Yeah that's right Ambar, join Kifle in his attempts to police the damn BBS.

I keep forgetting I should only talk about things after getting your approval. :roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:04 am

Sarvis wrote:Corth, is requiring children to wear bike helmets a Radical position?


Kind of off-topic, but no it isn't. Forcing adults to wear seatbelts, imho, is.

Corth (the anti-nanny)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:06 am

Ambar wrote:I'm so glad I started this wonderful thread

*sigh*


Oh come on.. its not that bad.. yet. :)

As things stand, its doubtful the admins would even silently (and without explanation) delete this thread... yet!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:24 am

Corth wrote:
Kind of off-topic, but no it isn't.


Sorry, was a leading question.

What's the difference between protecting a kid from head trauma with a helmet, and protecting one from AIDS with a condom?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:28 am

Sarvis:

There is a difference between making a 9 year old kid wear a helmet while riding a bike, and handing out condoms to 9 year olds. It is perfectly normal for such a kid to be riding a bike. It is not normal for her to be having sex. The few 9 year old kids out there who are voluntarily having sex are indeed putting themselves at considerable risk for STD's. However, the message sent to every 9 year old when you pass out condoms to them, that we expect them to have sex, will be much more damaging in the aggregate than the very few cases of STD we can expect to prevent by handing out condoms to them.

This is a ridiculous conversation, Sarvis, and once again we are way off track from reality. The fact that I have to justify this position to you is indicative of the fact that left wing loonies are just as crazy as right wing ones. :)

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:55 am

Nevermind that biblical creationism and darwinism are not necessarily contradictory systems of thought.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:44 am

<b>Corth</b>

Is it normal to have sexual desire during and after puberty?



<b>Teflor</b>

Bullshit.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:54 am

Sarvis, in no way was I trying to police the BBS, once again you read into what I write ..

I said I was sorry I started the thread ...
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:01 am

Sarvis you should maybe explain yourself further before people think you are off your rocker .. o wait ......

infant boys get erections .. should we hand them condoms too?

At a young age it is more than feeling sexual desire, they have no clue what they are feeling .. it takes growth and maturity to know what the feelings are, and what to do to act on them.

It is up to the child's parents to explain what happens to the body and why, it is not up to you, a single man with no children to decide

Society, not politics, is at fault here ... We LET our kids grow up too fast. We let 10 year old girls dress like adullts, we stop letting kids be kids ...

What children's sexuality has to do with this thread's topic tho, boggles me ..
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 pm

So then your expression of regret wasn't a quiet admonishment that Corth and I had taken the thread away from the path you originally intended for it? Oh... I'm sorry.


Ambar wrote:infant boys get erections .. should we hand them condoms too?


Erections aren't sexual desire. Nor would they be capable of acting on it anyway. You can't see the difference between an infant and a 9 year old?

At a young age it is more than feeling sexual desire, they have no clue what they are feeling .. it takes growth and maturity to know what the feelings are, and what to do to act on them.


Actually I'd say it takes growth and maturity to know when NOT to act on them. Also learning how to act on them tends to be a process of experimentation. You might start out playing doctor, or just kissing... but eventually you'll figure out that *this* feels good when someone touches it, and *that* does to and then you might try putting them together.

Sex isn't exactly an unsolvable mystery you know.


It is up to the child's parents to explain what happens to the body and why,


I agree.

it is not up to you, a single man with no children to decide


I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if you don't provide a means of protection there's an increased risk of kids catching STDs. Just telling kids not to do it isn't always going to work, especially when most parents are too terrified to even mention sex to their kids at that age.

Society has turned sex into a taboo, which puts us in the awkward position of expecting kids to simply follow that taboo and being unwilling to talk to them about it so that they have actual reasons to respect the taboo.

Society, not politics, is at fault here ... We LET our kids grow up too fast. We let 10 year old girls dress like adullts, we stop letting kids be kids ...


Kids are hitting puberty as young as 8 these days. About the only way to stop that is to start starving them, since increased nutrition is the most commonly given reason for the early onset of puberty.

No amount of parenting will prevent that, and along with puberty comes a desire for sex. It's kind of the point.


What children's sexuality has to do with this thread's topic tho, boggles me ..


Discussions grow and evolve. Deal with it.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Shar
FORGER ADMIN
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Shar » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:50 pm

I don't know how the heck this thread DEvolved into this trash, but if it continues along the track of CHILDREN and sexual desire, I WILL close and delete it. I don't delete threads without warning, so here it is.

Move back on topic or pick a different one to spiral into, but this line of discussion is not appropriate for this BBS. EVER.
Shar - Forger Administrator, TorilMUD

Brandobaris : (51) [ would a forgotten realms zombie be interested in brains? ]

Shevarash tells you 'Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down..... groan'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:59 pm

Yeah, because... you know... issues like this just go away if you don't talk about them.


EDIT: And in any case this was exactly the type of societal attitude towards sex I was talking about. It's ok to talk about kids shooting each other on this board, but not sex. Go figure.
Last edited by Sarvis on Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:01 pm

Denial of Terry Schiavo thread!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:02 pm

Shar wrote:I don't know how the heck this thread DEvolved into this trash, but if it continues along the track of CHILDREN and sexual desire, I WILL close and delete it. I don't delete threads without warning, so here it is.

Move back on topic or pick a different one to spiral into, but this line of discussion is not appropriate for this BBS. EVER.


While I think Sarvis is a little too worried about 9 year olds giving each other STD's, I--as a father of a daughter who is nearing that age--didn't really think the discussion was inappropriate. I do, however, understand that others would be a little more squeamish and still others would read his words differently than I read them, ie. take his words to mean something else.

All that being said, I respect your right as the moderator to coerce this thread into a different line of discussion.
Shar
FORGER ADMIN
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Shar » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:02 pm

I don't care if this issue is important to you or not Sarvis. The majority of us (and what it really comes down to, of the Owners of TorilMUD) do not want you or anyone else to discuss things that we find morally (yes I said morally) offensive. If YOU don't like it, stop reading and stop posting. This is said for your benefit. If you choose to push the envelope I will take more severe action.
Shar - Forger Administrator, TorilMUD

Brandobaris : (51) [ would a forgotten realms zombie be interested in brains? ]

Shevarash tells you 'Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down..... groan'
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:03 pm

Corth wrote:Denial of Terry Schiavo thread!


Blame Bush. :lol:

Oh, and Bush Sr., Reagan and Nixon, too.

But mostly GW.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:15 pm

Shar wrote:I don't care if this issue is important to you or not Sarvis. The majority of us (and what it really comes down to, of the Owners of TorilMUD) do not want you or anyone else to discuss things that we find morally (yes I said morally) offensive. If YOU don't like it, stop reading and stop posting. This is said for your benefit. If you choose to push the envelope I will take more severe action.


It's probably less important to me than to Ambar, but ok.

I guess we should just go back to talking about killing people. Anyone wanna talk about the latest GTA caused killing spree? Because, you know, that's not morally offensive to anyone...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Nurpy Fuzzyfeet
Sojourner
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:28 am

Postby Nurpy Fuzzyfeet » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:31 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Shar wrote:I don't care if this issue is important to you or not Sarvis. The majority of us (and what it really comes down to, of the Owners of TorilMUD) do not want you or anyone else to discuss things that we find morally (yes I said morally) offensive. If YOU don't like it, stop reading and stop posting. This is said for your benefit. If you choose to push the envelope I will take more severe action.


It's probably less important to me than to Ambar, but ok.

I guess we should just go back to talking about killing people. Anyone wanna talk about the latest GTA caused killing spree? Because, you know, that's not morally offensive to anyone...


We can and will bitch about everything we can. This BBS is starting to become more and more similar to the Duris forums. Eventually they just removed the general discussion board.....I hope this place doesn't suffer the same fate.
Aristan group-says 'nurpy=tripod'

Shevarash GCC: 'Tiamat stands here, fighting Nurpy.'
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:46 pm

I have probably been the biggest advocate for free speech on this BBS within the staff, but there are some things that we simply can't allow discussion of here for several reasons.

First of all, this is intended to be a MUD appropriate for all ages - we do not want to scare off children or their parents and thus alienate a portion of the potential playerbase.

Second, we can not allow discussion of illegal activities or subjects that are distasteful or offensive to large segments of the population. Illegal drug use, software pirating, intention to commit violence, child sexuality, gay bashing...these are all things that are not appropriate here.

I am sure you can find someplace else to post that is not worried about its legal position in the United States, or potentially sacrificing its core game in the interest of allowing unlimited free speech on its forums.

I am not implying that the above discussion about child sexuality had reached an illegal or inappropriate level, but it very easily could become so, and thus the intervention in this discussion.

Anyhow, discussion of terry Schiavo's case is perfectly acceptable, so feel free to carry on with that.
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:39 pm

Corth wrote:So we have a pro-business president. What do we want.. an anti-business president?


I want a president that doesn't put wolves in charge of the sheep. Regardless of your position on the possibility of global warming, surely you can agree that it's foolish to allow profiteering corporations to take an undue part in the creation of executive politics? Do you believe Exxon-Mobil is an entity capable of acting in the best interest of the citizen body when presented with control over legislation that could restrict or alter their business practices.

In light of the recent god posts, I've opted to remove the part of this post that deals with stem cells, lest anyone be morally, yes morally, offended by the discussion.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:54 pm

*squeak*
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:51 pm

Shevarash wrote:Second, we can not allow discussion of illegal activities or subjects that are distasteful or offensive to large segments of the population.

...

Anyhow, discussion of terry Schiavo's case is perfectly acceptable, so feel free to carry on with that.


I don't understand. Isn't the crux of the discussion that a large segment of the population considered it morally wrong and distasteful to allow Terry to die? Shouldn't this discussion, then, be just as unacceptable? I'm sure there's someone out there offended by people saying it was right to pull the feeding tube.


The problem with trying to moderate based on morals is that the lines can get very fuzz, very fast.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:25 pm

Sarvis wrote:The problem with trying to moderate based on morals is that the lines can get very fuzz, very fast.


While I do not disagree with this, I would argue that your point is moot since this is a privately-pwned (yes, pwned :twisted: ) and operated forum and the owners can moderate however they feel. Our rights to free speech do not extend this far. Think about it this way--it's the owner's right to use their property how they feel and if you don't cooperate and yet expect to be able to enjoy their property, you're infringing their rights.

Too, you're not going to change anyone's thoughts on the subject by continuing to talk about it, use your energy otherwise, man! But keep on fighting the good fight if you really feel it's worth it to you.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:36 pm

I have long been an advocate of twizzlers. not to eat them, but because they have such a cool name. Some people believe that twizzlers are morally wrong...those sweet, succulent pieces of sugary goodness; those people are entitle to that belief. I, however, believe that behind every good twizzler is a set of decaying dentures.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:58 pm

Sarvis wrote:<b>Teflor</b>

Bullshit.



Sarvis, you'd have to understand both creationism and darwinism in order to make this kind of call.

Unfortunatly, like so many other liberals, you are ignorant of both.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests