ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 07, 2013

Race and guns: part 1

David Cole of the New York Times argues that young urban blacks pay the cost for the right to bear arms:
Gun rights defenders argue that gun laws don’t reduce violence, noting that many cities with high gun violence already have strict gun laws. But this ignores the ease with which urban residents can evade local laws by obtaining guns from dealers outside their cities or states. Effective gun regulation requires a nationally coordinated response. 
A cynic might propose resurrecting the Black Panthers to heighten white anxiety as the swiftest route to breaking the logjam on gun reform. I hope we are better than that. If the nation were to view the everyday tragedies that befall young black and Latino men in the inner cities with the same sympathy that it has shown for the Newtown victims, there would be a groundswell of support not just for gun law reform, but for much broader measures. 
If we are to reduce the inequitable costs of gun rights, it’s not enough to tighten licensing requirements, expand background checks to private gun sales or ban assault weapons. In addition to such national measures, meaningful reform must include initiatives directed to where gun violence is worst: the inner cities. Aggressive interventions by police and social workers focused on gang gun violence, coupled with economic investment, better schools and more after-school and job training programs, are all necessary if we are to reduce the violence that gun rights entail. 
To tweak the National Rifle Association’s refrain, “guns don’t kill people; indifference to poverty kills people.” We can’t in good conscience keep making young black men pay the cost of our right to bear arms. 
However, Cole assumes a causation that simply is not supported by the facts at hand.  Below is a chart I prepared based on the state-by-state offense rates, per 100k population, comparing black homicide to non-black homicide.  The source was the commenter Silver's comment on a recent Steve Sailer post, derived from a 2009 FBI report.  The average state homicide rate is 17.3 per 100k for the black population and 2.5 per 100k for the non-black population.

As Silver notes, the FBI information cannot be used to directly compare black and white homicide rates, since the non-black rate combines the white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian rates.  I will attempt to sort out some of those rates in the next post on this subject, but even a casual glance will suffice to show that the states with the highest non-black homicide rates, the District of Columbia (9.1), Nevada (5.2), Arizona (4.4), and California (4.3) tends to coincide with higher levels of Hispanic population.

If Cole's thesis was correct, we would have to find that gun ownership and poverty are vastly higher among the black population than among the other U.S. populations.  But this is clearly not the case with regards to gun ownership, since 44% of whites own guns compared to 27% of blacks, and the Hispanic poverty rate is 26.6%, nearly equal to the black poverty rate of 27.4%.  Therefore, we can not only refute his argument that gun rights entail violence by comparing international crime statistics, but also conclusively show that his "necessary" recommendations for reducing violence are unrelated to the causal problem at hand, and as a result, extremely unlikely to reduce it in any substantive manner.

Labels: ,

189 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho January 07, 2013 6:48 AM  

his "necessary" recommendations for reducing violence are unrelated to the actual problem at hand, and as a result, extremely unlikely to reduce it in any substantive manner.

Of course not. But reducing black violence was never his goal. Disarming political opponents has always been the goal.

Anonymous Tad's Brain January 07, 2013 6:49 AM  

RACISS TIMES INFINITY!!!!

Blogger tz January 07, 2013 6:52 AM  

Young urban blacks are victims of the lack of fathers and Fatherhood, and the war on drugs, as well as the fact most cities are run like 3rd world countries so end up looking like them. Detroit is just the most obvious example. And 911 police is a joke there.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 07, 2013 7:00 AM  

"If the nation were to view the everyday tragedies that befall young black and Latino men in the inner cities with the same sympathy that it has shown for the Newtown victims, there would be a groundswell of support not just for gun law reform, but for much broader measures."

Translation: attention, crackaz and goyim! Surrender your rights and leave yourselves helpless before our tender statist ministrations, out of pity for the fact that these po' urban rape-apes just can't seem to control themselves. Jamie Foxx will be your new Minister of Armaments (with the able assistance of J. Julius Jewstein, Professor of Equity Studies at Prestigious University, photo and address somehow unavailable), and his rule will be tough but fair.

btw, "everyday tragedies"?!? WTF? Anything bad that happens is a 'tragedy' but only when MiniTru says it is. A home invasion 'gone wrong,' which results not just with the usual grand larceny but also with the usual orgy of black-on-white rape, torture, and murder, is not a vicious crime deserving of extirpation, but a 'tragedy'. So is red-on-red gangbanger cleansing. Tragedies all. Newspeak makes all things right. I mean unbad.

Anonymous daddynichol January 07, 2013 7:04 AM  

Aggressive interventions by police and social workers focused on gang gun violence, coupled with economic investment, better schools and more after-school and job training programs, are all necessary if we are to reduce the violence that gun rights entail.

Does Cole actually believe that the hundreds of billions of dollars already spent on social engineering programs is not enough? One would think that the crime rate should have dropped since LBJ's Great Society program kicked started the goody wagon. My contention would be that government intervention has made the situation worse and contributed to the rising homicide rate.

Anonymous Susan January 07, 2013 7:20 AM  

Today over on Breitbart's Big Government website, there is a story about gun control and exploitation with a picture of Obama carrying a nifty water pistol. The comments after the story reminded me of a discussion held here a couple of days ago about false flag operations being used to push an agenda.

I guess what surprised me about the discussion on Breitbart today was the fact that the subject of false flag operations is actually being taken seriously by people other than the ilk here.

It really is a very cool water pistol Obama is holding in the photo taken on his recent vacation.

Anonymous Stilicho January 07, 2013 7:23 AM  

Two more things:
1) Thanks for your work on this. It has been enlightening.

2)I could not resist the obvious South Park comparison: Aggressive interventions by police and social workers focused on gang gun violence "... guns 'r bad, mkay? Gangs 'r bad, mkay?"

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 07, 2013 7:32 AM  

"If we are to reduce the inequitable costs of gun rights"

There's that word "equity" again. Whenever you see the word equity, anti-white totalitarian measures will be bringing up the rear.

Besides, there are no "costs" to "rights", and certainly not ones which are "inequitable" (whatever that could possibly mean; but of course my raised eyebrow is merely rhetorical -- we know exactly what "inequitable" means, what it always means: pay up, cracka.) I have an idea: let's reduce the "inequitable costs" of voting rights, since black voters can be "scientifically" shown to vote in patterns that are obviously "racist". Blacks routinely vote for Free Shit which is paid for by Whites, and therefore the "costs" of voting rights are "racist" and "inequitable". It's time to put a stop to this. It's for the Children! The white children. (ZOMG, thoughtcrime!)

"it’s not enough to tighten licensing requirements, expand background checks to private gun sales or ban assault weapons."

Of course it's not enough. We have to end this terrible blood-soaked carnage of suburban and rural white legal gun owners killing each other in the streets like it's the Hatfields and the McCoys or something. Oh, wait, there's no such carnage, statistically speaking (hey, science! does anybody here remember science?) and background checks don't have any effect on what inner-city rape-apes do to one another regardless. The important thing is to Disarm the Goyim Before They Figure Out What We've Done to Their Country, and Start Dragging Us Through the Streets On Their Way to Apply for Jobs as Dachau Guards!!!!11!!1

"In addition to such national measures, meaningful reform must include initiatives directed to where gun violence is worst: the inner cities. "

Oh, so by 'meaningful measures' do you mean the state-sponsored castration of all low-IQ, high-testosterone urban negroes? You don't? Oh, well, I thought you said something about 'meaningful,' but maybe I misheard you.

"Aggressive interventions by police"

Wait, wait... WHAAAAATTT? Didn't homey ever hear that "F@ck Tha Po-Lice" jam? Man, back in the day, around the way, back in the crib, dat was my jam, yo.

"and social workers"

CHA - CHING! is not just the name of a city in Western China.

"focused on gang gun violence, coupled with economic investment"

Investment in what?!? What skills do these negroes have that we can invest in? Invest in WHAT?

"better schools"

It's always the same. "Better schools" MEANS schools without negroes and Latinos. If you have a school that is full of negroes and Latinos, then you cannot, by definition, have a better school. Unless you kick them all out and replace them with Asians. (We can't replace them with actual Americans, meaning whites, because dat be raciss/.)

"and more after-school and job training programs"

I seem to recall that prior to 1861, we had a negro job training program that worked pretty well.

"are all necessary if we are to reduce the violence that gun rights entail."

Again: gun rights entail nothing, save gun rights. If we wish to restrain negro violence, then it is necessary to restrain negroes, not guns. As long as we're trampling the Constitution, let's be sure to trample it in a way that produces some actual results, shall we?

Anonymous ivvenalis January 07, 2013 7:48 AM  

Ban possession of firearms by blacks, problem solved. See how easy that was? Oh wait, no, somehow he thinks he's saying owning guns is racist. Did NYT recently disable comments for op-eds, or was it always like that?

I also like how he concern-trolls about political violence. "Look, I'm not *saying* that Black Power militias wouldn't work, they totally would, but I would *sure hate* for it to come to that. Do what I say and it won't."

Anonymous DD January 07, 2013 7:54 AM  

A cynic might propose resurrecting the Black Panthers to heighten white anxiety as the swiftest route to breaking the logjam on gun reform.

1. The Black Panthers have already been resurrected (the New Black Panthers).

2. Gee, for some reason the existence of violent, armed black savages does not make me want to give up my guns.

Anonymous Roundtine January 07, 2013 8:05 AM  

Vox,

Have you seen this? White murder rates by state

Anonymous Susan January 07, 2013 8:06 AM  

Leftist publications usually disable their comments to avoid being called out on their BS by readers who actually know how to think and debate with facts. To do otherwise, they run the risk of looking like idiots when their articles are torn to shreds ivvenalis.

Depending on where you live, savages come in more colors than black if you catch my drift DD. Specifically, that gang that uses machetes to do their work in a particularly brutal and personal fashion. They don't appear to need firearms.

Anonymous Josh January 07, 2013 8:09 AM  

I note the absence of a proposal to end the drug war, minimum wage, and welfare to curb gang gun violence.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 07, 2013 8:15 AM  

It should be safe to assume that any argument supporting relieving poverty, improving education, government intervetion or that contains the word "upliftment" is probably going to conclude that whitey has to pay more or lose a liberty.

Distilled to its essence, this guy is saying that

1. Premise: Poor inner-city blacks shoot each other a lot,
2. Conclusion: therefore middle-class suburbanites shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

I don't have a PhD in philosophy or logic(if there were such a thing), but I am confident that the conclusion does not follow.

A similar, though less vexing, example is a ban on liqour sales on Sundays in my province. The rationale being that alcohol abuse during the weekend leads to social problems.
The culprits? Poor inner city residents who buy alcohol from illegal "tuck shops" (or speak-easies in prohibition-era parlance).
The affected parties? middle-class suburbia.

Anonymous Joe Doakes January 07, 2013 8:16 AM  

Cole calls for aggressive intervention in the inner city. I support part of his analysis: disarm inner-city gangs. Here's how:

Send police into the neighborhood after dark to stop and frisk young Black men for weapons. Go to door-to-door asking residents to surrender their weapons. Those who refuse are abetting criminals: ransack the house. Once you have a block cleared of weapons, establish checkpoints to search all vehicles in or out for weapons.

Since we're doing it to protect young Black men from gun violence, there will be no outcry from Jesse Jackson and company, no complaints about selective enforcement or profiling and no lawsuits? Right?

Blogger Joe A. January 07, 2013 8:16 AM  

"2. Gee, for some reason the existence of violent, armed black savages does not make me want to give up my guns."

LOL, so true. Cole might enjoy the sound and smell of talking out of his ass too much at times.

Anonymous AdognamedOp January 07, 2013 8:23 AM  

The media propaganda arm of the fascist left wing democrat party is is full swing; prepping the sheep for the upcoming draconian decrees soon to be issued by this administration. The local media tonight spent half their newscast talking about a gun show in Connecticut, two random shootings in crime ridden areas, and an interview with parents of a Newtown victim. Another anti gun news item had a British BBC type guy narrating- as if the accent added importance to the story.
There is clearly a coordinated movement underway.
David Cole and the pathetic NYTimes shamefully use inner city vibrancy to call for further expansion of gov't and more restrictions on rights not to be infringed. Suddenluy dead negroes matter and it's all whitey's fault

Anonymous paradox January 07, 2013 8:36 AM  

Cue Total Ass Dickweed... TAD for short.

Anonymous Orille the Raciss January 07, 2013 8:37 AM  

Just spend an hour at stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com and it becomes clear that this is a race problem, not a gun problem.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the blacks for schools, unfair hiring privileges, etc., since Johnson, and things have gotten orders of magnitude worse, not better.

Some of the gun rights people as saying "it's gangs, not guns", but it's really "blacks not guns".

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 07, 2013 8:37 AM  

"David Cole of the NYT", eh? Is that like "Scott, of the Yard!" or something?

Who wants to bet me his name was originally spelled Kohl?

Anonymous Anonymous January 07, 2013 8:42 AM  

Every time I see some lilly white leftist progressive whiner lamenting the unfortunate reality of a high premature death rate amoung the dark pigmented population in this country,

I wonder if they are even remotely concerned that their championing the issue of "reproductive rights", Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger has caused the number of black babies to be killed in the last 40 years to reach levels of mass murder proportions??

Dude, how many black babies have been aborted since Roe vs Wade was foisted on this country?

Why the concern if a few of them that made it passed the baby butchers wind up killing each other?

farmer Tom

Anonymous FrankNorman January 07, 2013 8:47 AM  

Dude, how many black babies have been aborted since Roe vs Wade was foisted on this country?

Why the concern if a few of them that made it passed the baby butchers wind up killing each other?

farmer Tom


Because the concern is bogus, its just an excuse to try to abolish gun ownership?

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 8:52 AM  

They ain't got no daddy or they wonder whose their daddy The only family they got is gangsterism.

The black family has been broken by the liberal activist. It is the liberals that have caused this problem.

No matter what race, crime is always higher in the broken family.

Liberals hate the family structure. It competes against the liberals need for control.

Violent crime rate in the homosexual community is like the black community they commit more violent crimes against themselves. The only difference the news media will never report the fags being violent.


Blogger IM2L844 January 07, 2013 8:54 AM  

Newspeak makes all things right. I mean unbad.

It's strange. It has become ironically fashionable to parody those who point out the absurdities of political correctness today with equally absurd political incorrectness. Apparently, certain political incorrectness is politically correct. As long as political incorrectness is targeted at middle class, middle aged, Christian white men, it's anything goes, it's politically correct and it's everywhere. It drives me insane.

Note to NSA web crawlers: Not purchasing my 23rd copy of "Catcher in the Rye" kind of insane.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 07, 2013 9:11 AM  

When will Tad stop supporting home invaders and rapists

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 9:11 AM  

Gee I wonder why Django came out right about now?

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 9:13 AM  

> Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the blacks for schools, unfair
> hiring privileges, etc., since Johnson, and things have gotten orders of magnitude
> worse, not better.

When measured how? Is this your view of the facts, or an opinion? For what objective measures have things "gotten orders of magnitude worse"?

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 9:16 AM  

Its funny, when this happens in other countries...don't we go ahead and provide arms for everyone? Ok, lets issue guns to EVERYONE in the US and see what happens.

BTW, Vox this is one of the times I wish you did have a National Syndication of your writings. Probably wouldn't help many, but it would wake us someone. It did for me.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 9:17 AM  

> Dude, how many black babies have been aborted since Roe vs Wade was foisted on this
> country?

I am one of the almost-lily white progressives you mentioned, and my response to this is "so"? If like myself, you deny the existence of inherent value of potential/preborn human life, why would this matter? This argument only has weight if you value aborted babies the same as people who are born. And we don't.

> Why the concern if a few of them that made it passed the baby butchers wind up
> killing each other?

This isn't a hard question. Because disposing of human life prematurely is wasteful, and impacts those who value the life. It's the same reason why we support treating a person who shows up at a hospital with a grevious wound. It's the same reason why we support universal education. The ideal is for everyone to reach thier potential.

Anonymous zen0 January 07, 2013 9:23 AM  

Pro-gun fanatic shoots unarmed man

Anonymous The other skeptic January 07, 2013 9:26 AM  

When will Feinstein introduce a bull to outlaw the Flu

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 07, 2013 9:35 AM  

zen0: "Pro-gun fanatic shoots unarmed man"

per link, "Unarmed man" (aka burglar/home invader/attacker of children) is a full-grown male negro. World reels in shock and surprise at this unexpected development.

Blogger IM2L844 January 07, 2013 9:36 AM  

I am one of the almost-lily white progressives you mentioned, and my response to this is "so"? If like myself, you deny the existence of inherent value of potential/preborn human life, why would this matter? This argument only has weight if you value aborted babies the same as people who are born. And we don't.

Seriously? You think a woman , with approximately 20%-50% of her life already spent and, statistically, probably wasted and a verifiable drain on society, who is not smart enough to avoid getting pregnant and believes abortion is a legitimate form of birth control has more inherent POTENTIAL value to benefit our species than a fetus who would be born with a clean slate?

Math is hard.

Anonymous Josh January 07, 2013 9:40 AM  

per link, "Unarmed man" (aka burglar/home invader/attacker of children) is a full-grown male negro. World reels in shock and surprise at this unexpected development.

So the gun nut is also racis!

Anonymous Roundtine January 07, 2013 9:44 AM  

Why would resurrecting Black Panthers make conservatives support gun control? I would assume an armed paramilitary organization would have a positive effect on crime rates. Arming Nation of Islam might be better, it would probably help Detroit.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 07, 2013 9:48 AM  

When will Feinstein introduce bill to outlaw vibrant college football players since they seem to produce death in young-uns.

Anonymous Stilicho January 07, 2013 9:50 AM  

> Dude, how many black babies have been aborted since Roe vs Wade was foisted on this
> country?

I am one of the almost-lily white progressives you mentioned, and my response to this is "so"? If like myself, you deny the existence of inherent value of potential/preborn human life, why would this matter? This argument only has weight if you value aborted babies the same as people who are born. And we don't.

> Why the concern if a few of them that made it passed the baby butchers wind up
> killing each other?

This isn't a hard question. Because disposing of human life prematurely is wasteful, and impacts those who value the life. It's the same reason why we support treating a person who shows up at a hospital with a grevious wound. It's the same reason why we support universal education. The ideal is for everyone to reach thier potential.


Cognitive failure, thy name is progressivism. Rabbits gonna hop.

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 9:53 AM  

total gun ban will only increase the black market for them.
Its time to start buying cnc machines DIY

Anonymous VD January 07, 2013 9:53 AM  

This argument only has weight if you value aborted babies the same as people who are born. And we don't.

True. Do you have any objection to mandated abortions? Or how about the simple and common sense licensing of pregnancy?

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 10:07 AM  

Or how about the simple and common sense licensing of pregnancy?
There should be licensing for having sex.
We need to have an app for phone. Where people can put their phone together first to see if its OK by the government.

Anonymous Noah B. January 07, 2013 10:24 AM  

"This argument only has weight if you value aborted babies the same as people who are born. And we don't."

Because they're disproportionately black?

Anonymous DonReynolds January 07, 2013 10:31 AM  

The less educated Liberals simply cannot resist making the connection between race and poverty....and then to gun violence. There are more poor whites than there will ever be poor blacks, a fact that has been unavoidable for decades. Poverty does not cause whites to resort to gun violence, even though they are more likely to own firearms. So the Liberals are faced with the choice of admitting that blacks, especially poor blacks, are the violent segment of this society....or.....it is driven by something OTHER THAN POVERTY. They refuse to make the choice every single time. Try it. It is fun.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 07, 2013 10:32 AM  

I'm all for "Aggressive interventions by police" in diverse, thug infested areas. Sent the local LE and BATF in there to seize all the firearms possessed by convicted felons and under age thugites, Would keep them way to busy to bother the rest of us.

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 10:35 AM  

Liberals do not value human life. They want control of it.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 10:46 AM  

True. Do you have any objection to mandated abortions? Or how about the simple and common sense licensing of pregnancy?

I believe mandated abortions is a property rights question. So I suppose you are asking me the question of would I support a sort of "eminent domain" over a womb's contents. Once born, there are rights protected by the Constitution, and so the question becomes moot.

In short, there isn't any compelling government interest in the contents of the womb. That's the standard in all sorts of "eminent domain" questions that come up. That was the standard in Kelo v. New London - what is the compelling public use of private property, and what would just compenstation be.

Or how about the simple and common sense licensing of pregnancy?
This is just a privacy issue. So far we have a recognized right, via Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut to privacy in medical issues, including contraception and I would reasonably see that extended to not using contraception.

Like the Obamacare/ACA issue though, I would be perfectly content in the possibility imposing ex-post facto taxes and penalities on children. Depending on your exact situation it can happen today that children impose a tax penalty. There is nothing inherently illegal or wrong about social engineering through the tax code.

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 10:48 AM  

Liberals all have a reading comprehension problem. They believe that they have the right to change what is written so the intend of it will fit their beliefs. They are always changing the rules of the game like a child that wants to always win.

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 10:57 AM  

There is nothing inherently illegal or wrong about social engineering through the tax code.

My liberal reading comprehension says all tax codes are illegal and wrong. Social engineering by the government will always be a failure.

Anonymous Josh January 07, 2013 11:05 AM  

Like the Obamacare/ACA issue though, I would be perfectly content in the possibility imposing ex-post facto taxes and penalities on children. Depending on your exact situation it can happen today that children impose a tax penalty. There is nothing inherently illegal or wrong about social engineering through the tax code.

Would you oppose a $20,000 tax on children born out of wedlock?

Blogger Rev. Right January 07, 2013 11:10 AM  

The solution is obvious: Gun control for black people.

Anonymous RINO January 07, 2013 11:13 AM  

This post is just so raciss. Vox Day needs to read "The Mismeasure of Man" along with every article ever written by Franz Boas. Then he will understand.

Anonymous Miserman January 07, 2013 11:14 AM  

Gun rights defenders argue that gun laws don’t reduce violence, noting that many cities with high gun violence already have strict gun laws. But this ignores the ease with which urban residents can evade local laws by obtaining guns from dealers outside their cities or states. Effective gun regulation requires a nationally coordinated response.

The author just contradicted himself. First he states that local gun laws are evaded by urban residents and then proceeds to delcare that national gun laws are the answer. If local laws can be evaded, then so can national laws.

The problem is not laws (Thou shalt not kill), but law-breakers (I'm gonna fade your punk ass).

Anonymous Krul January 07, 2013 11:18 AM  

dh, a couple of questions for you, if you don't mind.

First, you say that you (meaning all pro-abortion advocates) do not value pre-natal life the same as born life. Is your evaluation of human lives a continuous range, from lowest requiring the least rights and protections to highest requiring the most? Or is it binary, in that some (pre-natal) lives have no value and are entitled to no rights or protection, while other (born) lives are uniformly valuable and thus entitled to all human rights and protections?

Also, on what grounds do you evaluate lives?

Anonymous aero January 07, 2013 11:23 AM  

The blacks have a problem because the liberals took the black father out of the family and made him a nigger gangster.

Mass shootings mostly come from broken homes. A family is more then just the physical appearance of a father and mother it is a relationship that puts value in the family.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments January 07, 2013 11:34 AM  

" young urban blacks pay the cost for the right to bear arms:"

Good.

Blogger IM2L844 January 07, 2013 11:39 AM  

I believe mandated abortions is a property rights question. ...Once born, there are rights protected by the Constitution, and so the question becomes moot.

dh, you ignorant slut, kill an unborn fetus without authorization sometime and see what happens.

Here's a hint: You won't be charged with vandalism or wanton destruction of someone's personal property. All of the sudden the fetus will have had constitutional rights all along.

If you could get the law to re-categorize the crime of killing unborn fetuses as a violation of property rights for everyone in all circumstances, that silly argument might not be so excruciatingly stupid.

Anonymous Noah B. January 07, 2013 11:42 AM  

"In short, there isn't any compelling government interest in the contents of the womb."

You're just not thinking creatively enough. If the inhabitant of the womb is likely to cost the government significantly more than it generates in tax revenue, then clearly there is a compelling government interest in averting those future expenditures.

Anonymous Noah B. as Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 11:46 AM  

"Would you oppose a $20,000 tax on children born out of wedlock?"

That's a great idea Josh, although collection could be somewhat problematic. Perhaps tax credits could be applied against the debt for harvested organs.

Blogger James Dixon January 07, 2013 11:48 AM  

> ...there is nothing inherently illegal or wrong about social engineering through the tax code.

Ilegal, no. Wrong, very much so. It presumes the government knows what's best for us, which has been shown for generations not to be the case.

Anonymous Orion January 07, 2013 11:54 AM  

This weekend my wife finally brought up the idea that we may need to purchase a gun... only took a few years living with me and paying attention to our surroundings (Chicago metro area again). Looking for advice on reliable and accurate pieces. Also taking into consideration ease of repair and obtaining ammo.

Anonymous Mina January 07, 2013 11:55 AM  

I see Tad has a new userID for today. So sick of its posts. Are we sure its not a bot / program? Is the board really going to waste another day paying attention to it?

Help me, I don't understand the value. Maybe if I did, I could at least get something out of it.

Anonymous Josh January 07, 2013 11:56 AM  

That's a great idea Josh, although collection could be somewhat problematic. Perhaps tax credits could be applied against the debt for harvested organs.

Straight cash homie, or you won't be allowed in the hospital.

Anonymous Josh January 07, 2013 11:58 AM  

I see Tad has a new userID for today. So sick of its posts. Are we sure its not a bot / program? Is the board really going to waste another day paying attention to it?

No, dh and Tad are different people. Dh is slightly less retarded.

Blogger Log January 07, 2013 12:00 PM  

So, let's skip to the end of the statistical analysis and grant, arguendo, that whites and asians are non-violent and can be trusted with arms with minimal worry, and that blacks and hispanics are outrageously violent by genetic endowment. So what?

Anonymous Orion January 07, 2013 12:00 PM  

> ...there is nothing inherently illegal or wrong about social engineering through the tax code.


There is no part of it that makes it compatible with the concept of freedom. It isn't even a tool that can be used for good or bad as it implies coercion and violence to enforce behavior. Those who advocate it are explicitly backing tyranny, whether they admit to it or not.

Anonymous Roundtine January 07, 2013 12:01 PM  

Charles Murray's plan is to abolish all welfare programs and go to a flat minimum income. This eliminates almost all of the agencies and bureaucracy. If someone has a child, there is no increase in welfare benefits, thus having a child out of wedlock is effectively a tax.

Anonymous asher January 07, 2013 12:02 PM  

Um, marriage IS social engineering

Blogger Log January 07, 2013 12:03 PM  

And, by "so what?", I mean "What do you, Vox Day, propose doing about this information?".

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 12:05 PM  

Would you oppose a $20,000 tax on children born out of wedlock?

I would not elevate marriage to that level, but I would agree to the same tax to anyone who doesn't have a financial guarantor under wedlock, or a comparlable private contract. In the end I don't care if it's 2 dads, 3 dads, 2 dads, a llama, a mother and a fairy godmother.



Anonymous Zuben January 07, 2013 12:05 PM  

"And, by "so what?", I mean "What do you, Vox Day, propose doing about this information?"."

Why should he do anything about it?

Anonymous rienzi January 07, 2013 12:09 PM  

The murder rate for Denmark is approx 4.03 per 100k. That's higher than the white murder rate for all but seven states and D.C.

However, I'm sure our overlords have only our best welfare in mind, and want our guns, only so we can avoid having to wade through the rivers of blood that is today's Copenhagen.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 12:09 PM  

dh, you ignorant slut, kill an unborn fetus without authorization sometime and see what happens.

Here's a hint: You won't be charged with vandalism or wanton destruction of someone's personal property. All of the sudden the fetus will have had constitutional rights all along.

If you could get the law to re-categorize the crime of killing unborn fetuses as a violation of property rights for everyone in all circumstances, that silly argument might not be so excruciatingly stupid.


Are we talking about what it should be, or what it is? Because right now there is an interesting mix of protections for unborn babies/fetuses. In some cases the fetus is considered a person, and sometimes not. I agree it makes no sense and is irrationally based on how "bad" the person doing the killing is. But that doesn't make me an ignorant slut.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 12:19 PM  

First, you say that you (meaning all pro-abortion advocates) do not value pre-natal life the same as born life. Is your evaluation of human lives a continuous range, from lowest requiring the least rights and protections to highest requiring the most? Or is it binary, in that some (pre-natal) lives have no value and are entitled to no rights or protection, while other (born) lives are uniformly valuable and thus entitled to all human rights and protections?
I've posted about this in other threads but the short version is not the long, so here it goes.

The value of a life is the value that other people ascribe to that person as well as the value that a person ascribes to him or herself. A baby pre-born without a parent who wants it has no instric value.

This is why I do not feel particularly sad when a person commits suicide, or has an abortion. An aborted child who has not yet developed to self-awareness and who lacks a parent who values them is not a loss for the world. The same thing goes for an old person or sick person who has lost consciouness and has no living family. They are not valued, they can't value themselves.

In general, I believe that no one "owes" anyone anything by virtue of being born. However, I value compassion because it is generally nicer to live in a society where people act with compassion than in a society where people do not act with compassion. You are not "owed" compassion by the world, or other people, or society, or the government, or anyone. But, in general, it's a lot nicer to live a civilized society than to live like animals. And so we should promote compassion and deincentivize behaviour which is contrary to compassion.

Anonymous VD January 07, 2013 12:22 PM  

And, by "so what?", I mean "What do you, Vox Day, propose doing about this information?".

Absolutely nothing. If I had a proposal concerning it, I would have already proposed it. I'm simply interested in understanding the truth of the matter.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 12:39 PM  

I like dh's point...as far as we follow through and make the determination that since welfare recipients are of no inherent value to society, and actually cost society, we should end welfare and deport those who don't contribute. Or do something else to them. All we have to do is consider them valueless. I'm sure no matter what value they assign to themselves, we can easily make the case that society's assigned value if of higher importance and should be taken as the determining factor.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 12:43 PM  

@ dh, you really couldn't be a bigger or more impressive moron. Do you even read what you post?

Someone dying young is wasting life, someone dying YOUNGER is NOT?

Moron.





> Why the concern if a few of them that made it passed the baby butchers wind up
> killing each other?

This isn't a hard question. Because disposing of human life prematurely is wasteful, and impacts those who value the life. It's the same reason why we support treating a person who shows up at a hospital with a grevious wound. It's the same reason why we support universal education. The ideal is for everyone to reach thier potential.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 12:47 PM  

@ patrick kelly,

I'm all for "Aggressive interventions by police" in diverse, thug infested areas. Sent the local LE and BATF in there to seize all the firearms possessed by convicted felons and under age thugites, Would keep them way to busy to bother the rest of us.



They won't do it. Police get attacked while trying to apprehend criminals in the hood by other "innocent" bystanders who don't like cops chasing someone from their hood. As much as some poor people cry for help, there are more who don't like it when the help arrives.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 12:56 PM  

So dh is also a narcissistic sociopath with no foundational understanding of biology nor the development of babies in the womb. Along with not a clue how the criminal code works.

Keep going dh, the stupid looks fab on you.

Anonymous Josh January 07, 2013 12:57 PM  

Charles Murray's plan is to abolish all welfare programs and go to a flat minimum income. This eliminates almost all of the agencies and bureaucracy. If someone has a child, there is no increase in welfare benefits, thus having a child out of wedlock is effectively a tax.

Josh's plan: eliminate welfare programs and replace them with nothing.

My plan is infinitely better.

Anonymous Dan in Tx January 07, 2013 1:01 PM  

"If we are to reduce the inequitable costs of gun rights, it’s not enough to tighten licensing requirements, expand background checks to private gun sales or ban assault weapons."

Wow, this guy is jumping way ahead of the leftist narrative! The Tads of this bunch are still back at "All we are talking about are reasonable measures to prevent gun violence. After all, you aren't for people carrying around tactical nukes are you?" Not that it matters mind you, we all already knew the punchline anyway it's just humorous to see one of the blurt it out prematurely.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 1:02 PM  

I like dh's point...as far as we follow through and make the determination that since welfare recipients are of no inherent value to society, and actually cost society, we should end welfare and deport those who don't contribute. Or do something else to them. All we have to do is consider them valueless. I'm sure no matter what value they assign to themselves, we can easily make the case that society's assigned value if of higher importance and should be taken as the determining factor.

And every person should be compelled to carry his value/cost assessment on his person, and present it upon demand. Naturally, it must be updated annually at a mandatory Adjustment Clinic, where he will be tested for physical, mental, and emotional aptitude and health.

Emotional aptitude, of course, will depend heavily on giving the correct answers to questions such as "Is there a god?" or "Do you believe the government has the right to raise taxes in order to fund social-welfare programs?" or "Women are equal to men in every way, true or false?"

All sorts of factors can then be "managed" for the person now assigned his proper number: the occupation which will best optimise his aptitudes, whether he should be permitted to reproduce or be neutered, whether he is contributing more than taking from the system, and whether he "plays well with others", as his value depends upon the "value that other people ascribe to that person".

Naturally, this would never be used to carry out population attrition. But there should be no law against it, because it is better that people refrain from such things out of respect, rather than obligation. You can trust your Adjustment Counselor, can you not? It is all in your own best interests.

OpenID ZT January 07, 2013 1:06 PM  

Seems to me they would do better to just make it illegal for Blacks to have guns. Under pain of death even. After all, it's for the children.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 07, 2013 1:13 PM  

Repeat: Contents of the womb. Contents of the womb. Contents of the womb...

Parts is parts! A property issue!

Right up until it takes a village.

The ideal is for everyone to reach thier potential.

Right up until it takes a village.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 1:16 PM  

The ideal is for everyone to reach thier potential.

At this moment.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 07, 2013 1:36 PM  

Thank you Loki of Asgard, for here we are. Bring us forever one moment at a time.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 1:46 PM  

@ Doom, Elmer et al...

Heads up.....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250145/The-incredible-alien-skull-discovered-Mexican-cemetery.html

Anonymous Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 1:59 PM  

"An aborted child who has not yet developed to self-awareness and who lacks a parent who values them is not a loss for the world. The same thing goes for an old person or sick person who has lost consciouness and has no living family. They are not valued, they can't value themselves."

Oh yes, these are very exciting times. Once the restraint of the Constitution has been finally removed, we can make arrangements for those who have little or no value to others in a way that is best for the Homeland.

Once these unnecessary hindrances are removed, logic alone will dictate the future.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 2:07 PM  

Someone dying young is wasting life, someone dying YOUNGER is NOT?

Moron.

Hardly. When your seed hits the floor, isn't that the earliest form of termination? Of course not, that is only potential. It is not wasted. Because there's a a nearly limitless supply of it.

A person who is almost ready to give birth to another person is almost ready to increase the potential of the world.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 2:09 PM  

Oh yes, these are very exciting times. Once the restraint of the Constitution has been finally removed, we can make arrangements for those who have little or no value to others in a way that is best for the Homeland.

Once these unnecessary hindrances are removed, logic alone will dictate the future.

This is the ultimate in document worship. If you believe that human life is sacred, and babies are human life, than the Constitution is an even bigger failure than rationalism. It has neither protected unborn life, nor made human life sacred in the eyes of Americans. After 200+ years, the document that is worshipped so mightly still hasn't stopped a single bloody minded war, or saved any unborn humans from abortion.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 2:11 PM  

So dh is also a narcissistic sociopath with no foundational understanding of biology nor the development of babies in the womb. Along with not a clue how the criminal code works.
Again, are we talking about how it "should be", or how it is. Start with clarfying that, and that we can have a better conversation. If we are just spitting out "how it should be", it's a lot neater than dealing with "how it is".

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 2:14 PM  

A person who is almost ready to give birth to another person is almost ready to increase the potential of the world.

Let us say that this "other person" is born privately, at home, and is discovered to be small, sickly, and weak. Upon beholding this "other person", the persons giving birth are repulsed and no longer place value upon him.

As the "other person" has no measurable self-awareness and none value him, why should he not be slain or left to die?

Anonymous Joe Doakes January 07, 2013 2:14 PM  

dh argues an unborn child is not a "person" in the eyes of the law and thus is property of its owner, the mother, to be nurtured or murdered as she pleases.

That's the same intellectual model used to justify slavery before The War, and to declare other groups "un-persons" not entitled to the protection of law.

There's a word for people who think as dh does.
.

Anonymous Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 2:26 PM  

"It has neither protected unborn life, nor made human life sacred in the eyes of Americans. After 200+ years, the document that is worshipped so mightly still hasn't stopped a single bloody minded war, or saved any unborn humans from abortion."

Precisely. It is an outdated and superfluous document filled with nothing but the most antiquated of ideas, and it has clearly failed as the majority no longer support it. Because the idea of this absolute "right to life" has already been compromised, we are simply discussing what additional, reasonable limits government should impose on life. It is so refreshing to find ourselves in agreement.

Anonymous Stilicho January 07, 2013 2:29 PM  


There's a word for people who think as dh does.


Evil by any other name will smell the same.

Anonymous RC January 07, 2013 2:35 PM  

This weekend my wife finally brought up the idea that we may need to purchase a gun... only took a few years living with me and paying attention to our surroundings (Chicago metro area again). Looking for advice on reliable and accurate pieces. Also taking into consideration ease of repair and obtaining ammo." - Orion

Leaving the wife as the instigator alone (see Alpha Game) there are many questions to be asked to give a good answer. First, you're in one of the most difficult areas in the country to legally be armed, which I'm sure you're aware. Are we talking home protection or concealed? How proficient are you with handling weapons? If you're planning on a home defense-only type weapon that your wife can be trained to use, I like shotguns. The shorter and lighter, the better.

If you're very experienced and it's just for you, there are a number of fine pistols in many different calibers that will work just fine. I prefer the pistol over a revolver for the additional firepower, but that's just my preference. Stay with a mainstream cartridge so ammo is more readily available, though I'll note that, at the moment, only the unusual calibers are available at the big box retailers. Everything else is sold out. I like the more powerful cartridges myself but even the lowly .22LR in capable hands is quite lethal. If you're not familiar, get trained by an expert before you buy anything.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 2:40 PM  

That's the same intellectual model used to justify slavery before The War, and to declare other groups "un-persons" not entitled to the protection of law.

I agree with that this is the justification used for slavery, bigotry, and all other manner of discrimination and oppression.

The difference here, being, that an unborn child is in fact, not the same nor equal to an unborn child. This is self-evident given the "unborn" qualifier in front of child. If an unborn child was the same as a born child, than we would need no such qualifier.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 2:49 PM  

Precisely. It is an outdated and superfluous document filled with nothing but the most antiquated of ideas, and it has clearly failed as the majority no longer support it. Because the idea of this absolute "right to life" has already been compromised, we are simply discussing what additional, reasonable limits government should impose on life. It is so refreshing to find ourselves in agreement.

I am sure you intend snark, but I agree with most of what you wrote excepting the "superfluous" and "antiquated" portions. The scandal of the Constitution is that those who purport to worship it are entirely unwilling to amend it. Instead they'll work to end around it. Which pretty much shows they couldn't care less about it in the first place.

Secondly, it's hardly about life only. But in general there is zero respect in the government for the document or what it purports to constrain government to. Even the founders failed to live up the law they themselves wrote, knowingly disregarding it for expediency.

I have zero use for anyone who would drone on about unborn life, while handing the inept government the power and responsibility of war making in the nuclear age, and carrying out the death penalty on alleged criminals.

Anonymous Anonymous January 07, 2013 2:52 PM  

David Cole writes: "But this ignores the ease with which urban residents can evade local laws by obtaining guns from dealers outside their cities or states. Effective gun regulation requires a nationally coordinated response."

The porochial ignorence of American liberals never ceases to amaze, considering their conceit that they are the "informed" "worldly" members of American society. I posted this on a previous post on this site, but the fucking UK Guardian – one of the most leftwing newspapers in the Anglosphere – actually ran a post last year – after the Aurora shootings – that clearly shows there is no link between civilian gun ownership in countries and gun homicides:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

And this is gun murders were talking about! Not even homicides from all causes.


Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 2:56 PM  

> As the "other person" has no measurable self-awareness and none value him, why
> should he not be slain or left to die?

If the child has no self-awareness, but draws breath, than it is certainly not wrong to kill him or her.

There is a strong case to be made that it is in fact the compassionate thing to do. That decision is very much more situational, and really the compassion is directed to the parent, not the child.

Anonymous Noah B. January 07, 2013 3:04 PM  

Your compassion is admirable dh, although perhaps a decision of this sort should be left to qualified medical professionals rather than those with no formal training or credentials.

Anonymous Wendy January 07, 2013 3:05 PM  

If an unborn child was the same as a born child, than we would need no such qualifier.

The un- is simply descriptive of existence before a certain event. Heaven forbid we have exact language. You're assign meaning to the un- that isn't there.

And back on topic, what is to be done with the information? Nothing. Leave gun laws as they are or loosen them. Certainly don't tighten unless you want more of the weaker members of society victimized. There was an old couple (80 and 81) murdered recently during a break-in. In the comments of the news article, some idiot managed to say that they were too old to fire a gun so it wouldn't have helped them, yet said he preferred a baseball bat for home protection - as if an 81 with a baseball bat could do much. Never mind the stories you see now and again of grandmas and grandpas defending themselves and their property with their guns.

Blogger IM2L844 January 07, 2013 3:05 PM  

There's a word for people who think as dh does.

Lots of them.

Ideologies that require constant goal post moving to suit the angle of approach will always be internally inconsistent and, logically incoherent. Once you scratch the surface, it's easy to see that their supporters are doing nothing more than childishly demanding to have their cake and eat it too.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 3:07 PM  

If the child has no self-awareness, but draws breath, than it is certainly not wrong to kill him or her.

And as long as you can convince yourself that he is not "self-aware", by whatever definition you choose arbitrarily to set, then why stop at killing? Perhaps you might enjoy torturing him for a while, as he has no value.

There is a strong case to be made that it is in fact the compassionate thing to do. That decision is very much more situational, and really the compassion is directed to the parent, not the child.

Ah, yes, we must always have compassion for those who bring mild discomfort and inconvenience upon themselves. Death, however, is too good for the innocent, whether they be born or unborn.

Anonymous Soga January 07, 2013 3:07 PM  

dh wrote:
"The difference here, being, that an unborn child is in fact, not the same nor equal to an unborn child. This is self-evident given the "unborn" qualifier in front of child. If an unborn child was the same as a born child, than we would need no such qualifier."

Black person. Oh look, if a black person was the same as a white person, then we would need no such qualifier.

You make this too easy.

Anonymous Stilicho January 07, 2013 3:08 PM  

Lots of them.

I like that: their name is legion.

Anonymous harry12 January 07, 2013 3:16 PM  

And here I thought Soylent Green was only a sci-fi story.

Death panels are next, eh?

Anonymous Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 3:17 PM  

"Death panels are next, eh?"

Why not? After all death is perfectly natural, you know.

Blogger john January 07, 2013 3:49 PM  

I made the following observation of race and culture and was called a Christian Nazi. What do you think?

Everyone bearing arms takes you only part of the way back to civilization. Who wants to live in a society where everyone is constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering if they need to pull a gun on someone? That’s not freedom. Tyranny by government or gangs is still tyranny.
The answer is found in people following a moral code, a shared set of values where people are self-governing and don’t commit crime. The founding fathers had a few ideas about this as well.
Face it. Diversity is a lie. Multiculturalism drags all people down to the lowest common denominator. The only thing that I’ve found that crosses racial lines is a shared spirituality. Christian values are the same whether they are practiced in Sudan, Russia, Thailand, Mexico, or the U.S. TRUE Christians have a shared culture that can be built upon. Otherwise, their is no real sharing of culture.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 3:54 PM  

Black person. Oh look, if a black person was the same as a white person, then we would need no such qualifier.

You make this too easy.


You think some how noting that black people and white people are different makes you some sort of intellectual wizard?

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 3:57 PM  

And as long as you can convince yourself that he is not "self-aware", by whatever definition you choose arbitrarily to set, then why stop at killing? Perhaps you might enjoy torturing him for a while, as he has no value.
This is a fairly useless non-sequitur. The same question can be said of anyone, newborn child or not. If you would like to have a seperate discussion of whether or not torture is a good idea, than we can certainly do that, although we are fairly far off topic.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 4:00 PM  

Your compassion is admirable dh, although perhaps a decision of this sort should be left to qualified medical professionals rather than those with no formal training or credentials.
Your point is directed to the wrong person. I did not setup the hypotethetical situation.

The scenario was setup to specifically avoid other people placing a value on the life of the child. That's why only parents, in the scenario, see the child.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 4:12 PM  

@ dh
So you are either, again, a total moron or completely depraved.

"Hardly. When your seed hits the floor, isn't that the earliest form of termination? Of course not, that is only potential. It is not wasted. Because there's a a nearly limitless supply of it.

A person who is almost ready to give birth to another person is almost ready to increase the potential of the world."

We are not talking about an ejaculation here you turd. We are not even talking about the time it takes for the egg to become fertilized. We are talking about a Human being that is being formed inside a womb. While not able to walk and talk, the Baby can feel, see, hear, taste and is learning on a constant basis.

Your reframe is boring.

And in case you haven't noticed, no one has yet given you permission to decide when they are a waste of life or not. You have yet to back up a single assertation you have made. You are just talking out your ass and your farts smell like hell.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 4:12 PM  

This is a fairly useless non-sequitur.

Oh, on the contrary. If the "valueless" child is not a person with the right to live, then how could it be that deriving pleasure from his suffering is in any wise wrong? Why should one not, in fact, birth children specifically to kill, by whatever means he or she desires? Or perhaps to consume, to feed to the poor?

The scenario was setup to specifically avoid other people placing a value on the life of the child.

It was set up specifically to prove that your pretense to drawing a distinction based upon location (i.e., in utero versus post-partum) is a lie; you are entirely a believer that the whims of the powerful override the very lives of others.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 4:13 PM  

Loki, show yourself and vaporize the turd!

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 4:14 PM  

Ahh, I see the devil comes when called. Excellent!

Anonymous Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 4:16 PM  

"The scenario was setup to specifically avoid other people placing a value on the life of the child."

But this is unavoidable. One cannot simply neglect the compelling state interest in preventing the birth, or easing the suffering, of those who are not likely to become productive or to return to their former levels of productivity. It is our duty to the collective to explore all possibilities, even if we may find them distasteful due to our inability to fully purge those ridiculously idealistic notions we once held.

Anonymous Kickass January 07, 2013 4:17 PM  


"If the child has no self-awareness, but draws breath, than it is certainly not wrong to kill him or her.

There is a strong case to be made that it is in fact the compassionate thing to do. That decision is very much more situational, and really the compassion is directed to the parent, not the child."

Dammed by your very own words.

Let the compassion begin.


Anonymous DonReynolds January 07, 2013 4:17 PM  

Roundtine...."Charles Murray's plan is to abolish all welfare programs and go to a flat minimum income. This eliminates almost all of the agencies and bureaucracy. If someone has a child, there is no increase in welfare benefits, thus having a child out of wedlock is effectively a tax."

The plan originated with Milton Friedman, noted economist, and was adopted by the Nixon administration in 1970, called the Family Assistance Plan. It was never approved by Congress. It is a pity too, there were a number of good points. The minimum family income, by the way, for a family of four was considered $20,000 in that plan. Seems like a better job for the IRS than policing the individual mandate of Obamacare.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 4:27 PM  

Ahh, I see the devil comes when called. Excellent!

I've been here. Where have you been, O Ass of Kicking?

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 4:35 PM  

dh, so when do you think a person is "self-aware?" And can we start offing the mentally handicapped if they seem to not be self-aware? After all, their value is minimum if it exists at all.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 4:43 PM  

After all, their value is minimum if it exists at all.

Sorry, not in my eyes, but in the eyes of many in society, I'm sure. In any case, dh, let's say society assigns them no value. What's your answer?

Anonymous . January 07, 2013 4:53 PM  

"It has neither protected unborn life, nor made human life sacred in the eyes of Americans. After 200+ years, the document that is worshipped so mightly still hasn't stopped a single bloody minded war, or saved any unborn humans from abortion."

Um... since the purpose of the Constitution was not to end war, it can hardly be criticized for not doing a thing it was never intended to do (not to mention that stopping war is impossible anyway - but hey let's throw out the Constitution because it hasn't achieved the impossible!).

Hard to see how the Constitution could prevent war inasmuch as other nations have always had the power to declare war on us. If the Constitution prohibited us from making war on others, that would be an amazingly stupid, suicidal act of unilateral disarmament that only an American Leftist could possibly think admirable or practical.

Anonymous Mina January 07, 2013 4:57 PM  

how do these threads seem to always go from gun control to abortion?

it's kind of weird.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 5:04 PM  

dh, so when do you think a person is "self-aware?" And can we start offing the mentally handicapped if they seem to not be self-aware? After all, their value is minimum if it exists at all.
You mean, medically, when is a person no-longer self-aware? For adults it's not a complicated question. There are established medical protocols for this. In those who are not fully brain developed - i.e. the young, babies, or mentally handcapped, it is not reliable to use medical means.

There is a difference between mentally retarded, and brain dead. If there is no family objection, and a person is brain dead, people are left to die routinely. There is nothing inherently wrong about this.

Also, there is a difference between "minimum" and "none".

One cannot simply neglect the compelling state interest in preventing the birth, or easing the suffering, of those who are not likely to become productive or to return to their former levels of productivity.
Sure you can. Value - which is not the same as productivity by the way - is not a zero sum game. Producitivty may or may not be, based on your economic outlook. And productivity is far more objective. Value is entirely different. A fancy add-on to my car has no instrisic productivity, but I may value it greatly. A wedding band has some instrisic value, especially if it's a precious metal, but people ascribe higher value to it because of sentiment.

Things that no longer work as well as they used to still have value. Certain electronic equipment starts to perform with less and less accuracy over time. However, having that piece of equipment is still better than not having it.

The same principles are true of persons. A retired person towards the end of their has no productivity left, however, sentiment ascribes a value to them that is greater than their producitivty. Likewise with a baby. A baby, of course, has potential that has yet to be realized, so it's value is greater than that of an old person in most situations. And is reflected by the value that individuals place on the unborn, and newly born, as well as children as they develop.

I am sure it sounds very evil to say that babies born without a brain or severly mentally disabled have no instric value that is not placed on them by others. Pretending somehow that your magic sky fairy loves that child, and has plan for them probably makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the reality of that childs existence.

I also find it bizarre that one would criticize a world-view based on rationalism for the basis that it's unpredictable or arbritray, when objective standards of behaviour appear to be just as arbitrary for those with a biblical worldview and code of behaviour. Different adherents, relying on the same source material, come to vastly different standards of ethical and moral behaviour, even about these topics involving "evil". Even within a religious belief group, there are vast differences. If I were a defenseless pre-born child, and somehow I had the ability to reason and think, I would just as soon wager my continued existence on the rationalism value judgement of an athesit asshole than I would on the adherence of a Catholic to pastoral teaching (4 out of 5 Catholics disagree with the Bishops & Rome's teaching on abortion). I am to believe that a system which is based on value judgements is so insidiously arbritary, yet, within the Judeo-Christian tradition there isn't even a modicum of consistence between various sects.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 5:12 PM  

> Um... since the purpose of the Constitution was not to end war, it can hardly be
> criticized for not doing a thing it was never intended to do (not to mention that
> stopping war is impossible anyway - but hey let's throw out the Constitution because
> it hasn't achieved the impossible!).

Fail. It was surely intended to constrain the war making powers of the government. And it has failed miserably. Government is not constrained in making war, it does so at will.

The 2nd amendment is designed, in part, to keep government in check, which has demonstrably failed.

The 1st amendment is designed, in part, to protect religious life, which has demonstrably failed.

The 8th amendment is designed to protect against cruel and unusual punishment, which has demonstrably failed.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 5:14 PM  

You mean, medically, when is a person no-longer self-aware? For adults it's not a complicated question. There are established medical protocols for this. In those who are not fully brain developed - i.e. the young, babies, or mentally handcapped, it is not reliable to use medical means.

My question wasn't directed to medical means. I asked YOU when YOU think humans are self-aware. About what age, in general?

Anonymous FP January 07, 2013 5:16 PM  

Threads like these are why I enjoy reading this blog.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 5:17 PM  

Pretending somehow that your magic sky fairy loves that child

This explains a great deal.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 5:18 PM  

Fail. It was surely intended to constrain the war making powers of the government. And it has failed miserably.

It was understood by at least a few Founders that the Constitution wasn't fit for an immoral people, so I would suggest that if there's been any "failing" it is on the side of the public.

Blogger john January 07, 2013 5:22 PM  

How is dh's assessment of value any better? I don't want an arbitrary value placed on life based on committee. Rationalism denies the spiritual and misses out on a key part of human existence. From that perspective, Rationalism cannot be true. It denies the spiritual which every human being experiences. To quote a screenwriter from the movie "Contact:" "I just can't support a person who sincerely believes that the other 95% of humanity is wrong."

dh would have us turn over questions of life and death to pure logic. How can logic be pure if it is practiced by flawed human beings?

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 5:24 PM  

> My question wasn't directed to medical means. I asked YOU when YOU think humans are > self-aware. About what age, in general?

Children in utero respond to pain stimuli exactly like those who are born. They try to get away from it, and recognize a difference between where they are and where everyone else is. I couldn't say down to the month or weeks of gestation. My personal experience has been that this true at least as early as 32 weeks.

Anonymous Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 5:25 PM  

"For adults it's not a complicated question. There are established medical protocols for this."

And this is exactly why the decision of ending life should be left to medical professionals. Who better to understand established medical protocols? Those who are not state licensed physicians cannot be expected to be so well informed as to make these decisions for themselves.

Anonymous Merkwuerdiglieb January 07, 2013 5:27 PM  

"I couldn't say down to the month or weeks of gestation. My personal experience has been that this true at least as early as 32 weeks."

Remarkable that one individual could successfully perform these experiments. We had entire teams devoted to this for many years before we reached the same conclusion.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 5:28 PM  

> dh would have us turn over questions of life and death to pure logic. How can logic
> be pure if it is practiced by flawed human beings?

Who says it has to be pure? The ones talking about perfection are more often talking about the modern Judeo-Christian concept of a perfect loving God.

> It denies the spiritual which every human being experiences. To quote a
> screenwriter from the movie "Contact:" "I just can't support a person who
> sincerely believes that the other 95% of humanity is wrong."

That's a grossly poor argument. Popularity has nothing to do with correctness. Most of the country thinks you can vote yourself a solution to math problems. It doesn't make it so.

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 5:32 PM  

> Remarkable that one individual could successfully perform these experiments. We had
> entire teams devoted to this for many years before we reached the same conclusion.

Really? That would be interesting. Before my children were born it was pretty obvious that when you pushed or prodded in-utero they would respond. They would also appear to recognize voices and repeated gestures made by pressure.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 5:32 PM  

My personal experience has been that this true at least as early as 32 weeks.

So you would think abortion after 32 weeks is murder, then, right? And anything before that (about) is ok?

Anonymous dh January 07, 2013 5:33 PM  

Unfortunately I am going to be away from this thread for a day or so.

Blogger john January 07, 2013 5:35 PM  

Who's talking popularity? I'm talking truth. All of humanity past up to and including today has a desire to worship. They have a sense that something else is outside our five senses. That's not popularity. That's a shared human experience that you deliberately cut yourself off from. If most people see it and you don't, how does that make you superior? Wouldn't that make you inferior?

Perhaps we should be talking about shortening dh's life. His spiritual meter is defective and thus has less value to society than those who have a better understanding of the transcendent.

Anonymous Asher January 07, 2013 5:37 PM  

@ All pro-lifers

You are all examples of why "limited government" advocates are failing in their arguments. If the constitution is only about limiting the power of government then the constitution, any constitution, cannot contain a right to life, no more than it can contain a right to "not get robbed". The government punishing theft or abortion is an exercise of government power, not its limitation. Get it straight.

Now, we may find abortion horrifying or distasteful and want government to pass laws that punish it, but that would be a legislative and not a constitutional imposition.

That you all cannot see this distinction is prime evidence for inferring that so called limited government advocates are going to lose the war. You can advocate government power via legislative action and still be an advocate of limited government but you cannot advocate government power via constitutional action and be one.

Jesus, no wonder you guys are losing.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 5:40 PM  

That's a shared human experience that you deliberately cut yourself off from. If most people see it and you don't, how does that make you superior? Wouldn't that make you inferior?

Some could say it shows not that they are more rational or logical, but that they are more like brute beasts who can't see anything past the physical. "Unenlightened" as it were.

Blogger john January 07, 2013 5:40 PM  

Losing? Check the most recent issue of Time magazine. The Left is lamenting that they are losing the hearts and minds of the next generation. I wonder why.

Something about being abortion survivors for all children who managed to live and weren't murdered by their mothers might turn them off to the "logic" for abortion. I wonder if it has anything to do with a shared human understanding of the value of life which is innate to most people not born as sociopaths.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 07, 2013 5:44 PM  

@Asher

Sorry, but you're not getting it. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but one, there's a difference between state and federal government. Two, even if I think abortion is wrong I can avoid making it illegal, and demand that people pay for it themselves. So it would be legal but not a government punished or aided activity. I think most people are mainly (not completely) talking about the federal government when they talk about Constitutional limitations on power.

Blogger john January 07, 2013 5:50 PM  

No one has responded to my earlier comment about being called a Christian Nazi for stating that only homogenous societies have seemed to have been the most prosperous. It is related to this discussion.

In talking about federal vs. state rights, and the right of association, I find myself supporting a position for overt racism. The same thing applies with abortion.

If this issue were turned back to the states, people could simply move to where abortions were legal. But is this the same argument used by the segregationists? Don't whites have the freedom to associate with whom they like and disassociate with others? Sounds harsh, but where does the federal government obtain its right to dictate the social behavior of the states?

Blogger john January 07, 2013 5:51 PM  

Sounds harsh, but where does the federal government obtain its right to dictate the social behavior of the states? Be it abortion, segregation, gun rights, or health care?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 5:52 PM  

If the constitution is only about limiting the power of government then the constitution, any constitution, cannot contain a right to life...

Yes, that would interfere with your grand scheme to round up everyone who disagrees with you and kill them wholesale.

You do not mind power, so long as the power is yours. I do not disagree with this sentiment--I should like to wield unlimited power myself--but at least you might cease pretending to be in favour of liberty.

Anonymous outlaw x January 07, 2013 5:58 PM  

Time for the liberals to denie the Bill of rights for themself and sign a public petition saying so.

The rest of us will keep ours.

Anonymous Asher January 07, 2013 6:36 PM  

@ Edjumacator

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but one, there's a difference between state and federal government.

You are completely missing the point. I am simply pointing out the distinction between text that is of a constitutional nature and text that is of legislation. Preventing abortion, at any level of government, falls into the category of legislation and constitutions become incoherent when they are used to legislate.

Saying that the constitution mandates a "right to life" turns the constitution into just another piece of legislation. Whether or not the constitution permits governments to punish abortion is another conversation.

Anonymous Asher January 07, 2013 6:42 PM  

@ Loki of Asgard

Yes, that would interfere with your grand scheme to round up everyone who disagrees with you and kill them wholesale.

You do not mind power, so long as the power is yours. I do not disagree with this sentiment--I should like to wield unlimited power myself--but at least you might cease pretending to be in favour of liberty.


This comment is so intellectually garbled that it warrants a response only due to its incoherence. When government punishes abortion that is not a limitation on government power but an exercise of it. Preventing government from punishing abortion is a limitation on government power.

"Right to life" advocates are advocating the exercise of government power to punish abortion. Fine. I don't find anything axiomatically wrong with that, but it is not a LIMITATION on government power. When "right to life" advocates claim there is a right to life found in the constitution they are engaging in the same sort of thinking that happens when people say that the constitution contains a right to healthcare or that it contain the right for gays to marry.

Whether or not it is a good idea to punish abortion, provide government healthcare or give marriage licenses to same sex couples is a matter for legislation and not constitutions.

Anonymous Just Some Guy January 07, 2013 7:34 PM  

Ah, good. The monsters and demonaics are coming out into the light at last. The day when we leave Hrothgar's meadhall can't come soon enough.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 07, 2013 7:58 PM  

Asher, it astounds me that you have already forgotten your oft-expressed desire to slay everyone politically leftward of you. Considering this symptom of mental deficiency, I shall be more direct:

Your distaste of constitutional guarantees of rights clearly arises from your will to power, and not from any higher principle. Your distaste for "pro-lifers" arises from their dissent from your peculiar worldview (and, no doubt, you long to drown them in blood). You deceive no one with your protestations about limited government.

But you did make a valiant effort.

Anonymous Susan January 07, 2013 8:14 PM  

Mina, you should read the board when the comments go from guns to boobs to the Japanese attacking the West Coast during WWII. All on the same board. I recommend a good seat belt for your mind when reading those. And if JamieR joins the fun, all bets are off. He is in a category by himself. I am sorry you missed the Bane years. The late Bane was a 'law unto himself' kind of guy.

As Nate and the long time ilk would say, guns and boobs are never off topic. Anytime they can be put into play, so much the better.

Anonymous Asher January 07, 2013 8:25 PM  

@ Loki

Lol, dude. You're not even addressing the issue which is that a "right to life" cannot come from a constitution. Prohibitions on abortion categorically come from legislation, not constitutions.

it astounds me that you have already forgotten your oft-expressed desire to slay everyone politically leftward of you.

The stock leftist position on abortion is that women have some fundamental "right to choose". I categorically deny such a right. You are so dialed in to the "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" paradigm that it doesn't register when someone advocates a position on abortion that lies far outside that paradigm. Your pig-headed adherence to "pro-life" ideology blinds you to the ultimate goal which is to be free of the left. The point you're missing is that what "pro-choicers" really are doing is allowing women to rid themselves of children they consider inconvenient. Well, why stop at children? Why not allow society to eliminate individuals and groups from our midst that we find inconvenient? We needn't go the route of killing when simple ostracism or expulsion could provide the same result.

I have stated over and over that I would prefer to live in a homogeneous, overwhelmingly Christian political entity that places significant restrictions on abortion, so imply that I'm on the left is just silly.

Your distaste of constitutional guarantees of rights

Your reading comprehension is just shit. I would love to live under a regime of strong constitutional rights, but that is simply not a current reality. Mindlessly prattling on about the constitution is not going to restore them when the ruling elite reject that constitution and just use it as a fig leaf for their will to power.

To paraphrase Jesus, you cry "constitution, constitution" where there is no constitution.

Your distaste for "pro-lifers" arises from their dissent from your peculiar worldview (and, no doubt, you long to drown them in blood).

No, I would like to live with pro-lifers. I find pro-choicers detestable. That said, the pro-lifers want to use the apparatus of the imperial welfare state to impose their cultural mores onto entire peoples who reject those mores. That can never be constitutional government, since the heart of constitutionalism is the ability of communities of people to self-determine their ruling institutions. What the current pro-life movement advocates is nothing other than a manifestation of their will to power.

Everyone has a will to power. So what? Will to power is like a gun, neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Will to power just is.

You deceive no one with your protestations about limited government.

More evidence that your reading comprehension is just shit. We don't live under limited government and we won't until we have a political separation from the left. If the right managed to take over and become the elite ruling class then we'd have to rule the left with an iron fist and we wouldn't have limited government in that case either.

The only possible route to limited government is through complete separation from the left via a political breakup of the US into multiple countries. You intellectual incompetents who blather about limited government and then find the imposition of a "right to life" on alien peoples who reject that notion are impediments to achieving a regime of limited government.

But you did make a valiant effort.

Snark is just making you sound like a feminist. The pro-life movement IS manifestation of a will to power.

Blogger James Dixon January 07, 2013 8:42 PM  

> Children in utero respond to pain stimuli exactly like those who are born. They try to get away from it, and recognize a difference between where they are and where everyone else is.

If George ever makes a reappearance, try explaining that to him. The concept seems to be beyond him.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 07, 2013 8:56 PM  

Heh, the Granuiad made it easy to re-order this list of gun ownership and homicides

Just click the column titles to have it sorted by that column. Then you can see that while the US has the highest gun ownership it is way down the list of gun homicides per whatever.

Anonymous . January 07, 2013 9:02 PM  

> Um... since the purpose of the Constitution was not to end war, it can hardly be
> criticized for not doing a thing it was never intended to do (not to mention that
> stopping war is impossible anyway - but hey let's throw out the Constitution because
> it hasn't achieved the impossible!).

Fail. It was surely intended to constrain the war making powers of the government. And it has failed miserably. Government is not constrained in making war, it does so at will.


You are DOUBLING DOWN on FAIL.

Your original contention (2:09pm) was that it was supposed to PREVENT war. This was an asinine error. Now you are moving the goalposts - now you say it was not supposed to prevent war but "constrain the war making powers of the government" - which it manifestly HAS DONE in a number of ways and on numerous occasions.

The government does not make war "at will". There are numerous legal constraints on its power to do so. That they are not 100% effective in no way invalidates the constitution. (Ironically it was Leftist assholes like you who found creative ways to undermine any constraints on war-making power when it seemed necessary to launch a jihad overseas.)

All your "demonstrable failures" are just the opposite. But even if they were demonstrable failures, the idea that we need to throw out even the "pretense" or the ideal of restraint embodied in the Constitution is fascinatingly stupid and evil.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 07, 2013 10:23 PM  

Asher. What do you think of the Bill of Rights then? Is the Bill of Rights a legislation?

Anonymous Poli_Mis January 07, 2013 10:56 PM  

I just watched the Alex Jones appearance on Piers Morgan. Holy sheep dip.

Anonymous Asher January 07, 2013 11:57 PM  

@ Toby Temple

No, the bill of rights is not legislation, where it places limitations on government power. Prohibition was legislation and it was not an action in keeping with the basic nature of what constitutes a constitution.

Anonymous dh January 08, 2013 12:15 AM  

> Your original contention (2:09pm) was that it was supposed to PREVENT war. This was an asinine error.
> Now you are moving the goalposts - now you say it was not supposed to prevent war but "constrain the
> war making powers of the government" - which it manifestly HAS DONE in a number of ways and on
> numerous occasions.

I did not intent to move the goal posts, it was sloppy. The intent of the war powers was to constrain the power of the government to make war, and to limit to Presidential prerogative to make war without check. In that regard, it has completely failed, and with each successive Congress it fails a little bit more impressively. Now, the Congress complains loudly about the wars or methods or details, but does zero to constrain the imperial Presidency from making war. This was an explicit aim - that the President would be constrain by the purse, and by Congress approval. Now, the President just renames it a 'kinetic operation', and Congress rolls over. Complete. Failure.

The fact that at one point or another it temporarily or possibly restrained the government machine from pursuing war does not mean that it's failure. It simply means that the broken clock was right, once or twice.

(Ironically it was Leftist assholes like you who found creative ways to undermine any constraints on war-making power when it seemed necessary to launch a jihad overseas.)
You should revisit history. It is the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is the universal justification for indefinite detention, global drone war, CIA kidnappings, torture, extrajudicial kill lists, etc all. This bill was opposed a majority of Democrats in Congress. But regardless, I do agree that the expansion of war making by liberals, Democrats, neo-conservatives etc et all in Congress is shameful.

All your "demonstrable failures" are just the opposite. But even if they were demonstrable failures, the idea that we need to throw out even the "pretense" or the ideal of restraint embodied in the Constitution is fascinatingly stupid and evil.
I think we should just stop pretending. Virtually every safe guard the founders put in place has been abrogated, and black-letter law replaced with layer upon layer of precedent. It's a big departure from how it was envisioned.

The government does not make war "at will".
This is the biggest joke of them. There is no check on imperial Presidency ability to take military action. Just call it something cute, or call it a NATO operation, and it's over. Congress is no check. There's even a whole group of military officers who follow-up the President around with electronics that will allow the President to launch a nuclear strike at anytime he feels like it.

Anonymous dh January 08, 2013 12:18 AM  

Damn. Losing wi-fi again until somewhere near the coast of Spain.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 08, 2013 12:50 AM  

Would the democrats have opposed the Patriot Act if Gore was the president?

Anonymous Toby Temple January 08, 2013 12:52 AM  

Asher said...
No, the bill of rights is not legislation, where it places limitations on government power. Prohibition was legislation and it was not an action in keeping with the basic nature of what constitutes a constitution.

Good. Do then you accept that the bill of rights are there to ensure that the federal government will not infringe the unalienable rights stated in the US Declaration of Independence?

Anonymous O Ass Of Kicking January 08, 2013 1:11 AM  

I gotta sayLoki, your not bad for a wanna be world dictator/false god. I would like to be knighted O Ass Of Kicking.

Anonymous Asher January 08, 2013 1:16 AM  

@ Tad

Do then you accept that the bill of rights are there to ensure that the federal government will not infringe the unalienable rights stated in the US Declaration of Independence?

It's pretty clear that rights are quite alienable. that's not my preference but that's just the reality of things. I'm sure that the signers hoped that history was in the process of progressing toward some sort of ever-increasing acceptance of such notions.

So, the answer is that was the intentions behind the bill of rights but that these intentions have turned out to be at odds with reality. That is just a description of things and not a normative proposition.

Constitutionalists are ignoring a discussion over the conditions under which constitutional government can even exist. Such government requires manageable scope and homogeneity of population.

A country of fewer than, say, 50 million that is 95 percent white and Christian could be constitutionally governable. America is not that nation.

Anonymous Asher January 08, 2013 1:17 AM  

Opps that last comment was directed toward Toby Temple not Tad.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 08, 2013 1:26 AM  

Asher said...
So, the answer is that was the intentions behind the bill of rights but that these intentions have turned out to be at odds with reality.

How are the intentions to prevent government from unjustly infringing the right to life of its people at odds with reality?

Anonymous map January 08, 2013 1:40 AM  

Every conservative should support abortion based on the fact that most abortions are committed by Democrats. A Democrat giving birth gives birth to a Democrat child. It's "potential" is that of an inhuman who will grow up to want to take away all of your rights. Abortion should be mandatory just to get rid of this potential scum in utero.

Abortion is not bad if the right people get abortions, like Democrats. Just like an urban slut democrat woman is perfectly useful as a cum dump and not a wife. Just like an urban liberal do-gooder is a useful gangbanger bullet-stop and shoe-massager.

Anonymous Asher January 08, 2013 2:05 AM  

@ Toby Temple

How are the intentions to prevent government from unjustly infringing the right to life of its people at odds with reality?

In my teens I had every intention of having sex with Alyssa Milano. Those intentions were at odds with reality.

Look, if the ten percent of the US population that most closely resembles the culture of the US at the time of the constitution then they would be capable of being governed by a limited, constitutional gvernment. It is not enough that the government, itself, be of a limited and constitutional nature.

Anonymous Mina January 08, 2013 2:21 AM  

very strong stuff here:
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Anonymous map January 08, 2013 2:33 AM  

Getting back to DH's point, abortion is murder because the points between conception and birth represent stages in the life of a human being. Destroy any stage of that life, and you destroy the human being.

For example, I am an adult. I was once a young adult. I was once a teenager. I was once a child. I was once a toddler. I was once a baby. I was once a fetus. I was once an embryo. I was once a zygote.

At any stage that you destroy me, you destroy the adult that I would have become today.

The moral force that conservatives derive from this logic is correct. It is decent and compassionate.

Conservatives do, however, have a real flaw. That flaw is not understanding that triage is morally acceptable. It is ok for a medical doctor to sacrifice a baby to save the mother's life. It is ok to abort a baby that was conceived through rape or incest to remove the forcible creation of bastardy from society.

And it is certainly ok to let your political enemies hang themselves by destroying their own potential children. Your kids will thank you for that.

Republicans are missing their own version of Rahm Emmanuel.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 08, 2013 2:47 AM  

Asher said...
In my teens I had every intention of having sex with Alyssa Milano. Those intentions were at odds with reality.

You can't be that stupid.

You never had a chance with Alyssa Milano. And that remained until now and will most likely be the same in the future.

Look, if the ten percent of the US population that most closely resembles the culture of the US at the time of the constitution then they would be capable of being governed by a limited, constitutional gvernment. It is not enough that the government, itself, be of a limited and constitutional nature.

Are you saying that today, majority of the citizens of the US no longer view themselves to have the Right to Life?


Anonymous Asher January 08, 2013 3:09 AM  

@ Toby Temple

You never had a chance with Alyssa Milano.

And limited government has about the same shot in the current cultural hodge-podge.

Are you saying that today, majority of the citizens of the US no longer view themselves to have the Right to Life?

On the contrary. The citizenry regards itself as having an absolute right to anything and everything they want. That is why limited government is impossible at this point.

Blogger binh nguyen January 08, 2013 3:33 AM  

Thank với bài viết hay này của bạn, rất bổ ích.
Truyen sex, Truyen sex, Truyen sex, Truyen sex

Anonymous Toby Temple January 08, 2013 5:30 AM  

And limited government has about the same shot in the current cultural hodge-podge.

Wrong. Limited government still has a chance: through revolution. This is where your Alyssa Milano analogy failed miserably. You never had a chance back then and you still do not have a chance now.

On the contrary. The citizenry regards itself as having an absolute right to anything and everything they want. That is why limited government is impossible at this point.

You need to reread this post of yours and see the inherent contradiction that you just made.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 08, 2013 8:37 AM  

Would the democrats have opposed the Patriot Act if Gore was the president?

Blogger James Dixon January 08, 2013 9:01 AM  

> Would the democrats have opposed the Patriot Act if Gore was the president?

The democrats didn't oppose the Patriot act, even with Bush the Younger as President.

From Wikipedia: " On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[6] The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66,[7] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1,[8] with Russ Feingold the only opposition."

66 votes and 1 vote can hardly be called credible opposition.

Anonymous . January 08, 2013 10:15 AM  

Getting back to DH's point, abortion is murder because the points between conception and birth represent stages in the life of a human being. Destroy any stage of that life, and you destroy the human being.

For example, I am an adult. I was once a young adult. I was once a teenager. I was once a child. I was once a toddler. I was once a baby. I was once a fetus. I was once an embryo. I was once a zygote.

At any stage that you destroy me, you destroy the adult that I would have become today.

The moral force that conservatives derive from this logic is correct. It is decent and compassionate.

Conservatives do, however, have a real flaw. That flaw is not understanding that triage is morally acceptable. It is ok for a medical doctor to sacrifice a baby to save the mother's life. It is ok to abort a baby that was conceived through rape or incest to remove the forcible creation of bastardy from society.


Take your initial logic further back in time. If you work your way back through the generations of your ancestors, do you really think that at no point were any of your distant progenitors the product of rape or incest? They surely were. If they had been aborted, then that would have destroyed the adult that you have become today (as well as all the intervening adults, of course).

The conservative argument that the product of rape is, itself, innocent and does not deserve death is logially and morally consistent. It simply doesn't sell very well to argue this in public.

Anonymous dh January 08, 2013 10:27 AM  

For example, I am an adult. I was once a young adult. I was once a teenager. I was once a child. I was once a toddler. I was once a baby. I was once a fetus. I was once an embryo. I was once a zygote.

At any stage that you destroy me, you destroy the adult that I would have become today.

And at one point, you were the unfertilized egg and unreceived spermatoza of your parents.

The discussion about abortion as "murder" centers too much on law.

Murder is definitionally not helpful to discuss when discussion what "should be", as opposed to what is.

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Take away the portion focused on law, and the elements are "killing a person" and "malice aforefthought".

Can we at least settle on definitions to begin with?

Anonymous dh January 08, 2013 10:28 AM  

66 votes and 1 vote can hardly be called credible opposition.

Yup. 100% true. But, on the other hand, it certainly is better than no opposition at all. Which is what we got from the party supposedly loyal to the Constitution.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 08, 2013 10:43 AM  

200% increase in homicides in Chicago already

Anonymous Tallen January 08, 2013 2:26 PM  

And at one point, you were the unfertilized egg and unreceived spermatoza of your parents.

I didn't realize an unfertilized egg = unreceived sperm = human. I thought it was more like unfertilized egg + unreceived sperm = human. Do you have a background in biology or something?

Anonymous . January 08, 2013 3:06 PM  

I did not intent to move the goal posts, it was sloppy. The intent of the war powers was to constrain the power of the government to make war, and to limit to Presidential prerogative to make war without check. In that regard, it has completely failed,

Your inability to reason and remain consistent is amusing. First you say the intent was to prevent war; then you say no, the intent was to constrain it; then you say the Constitution "completely failed" because it did not constrain it (and "complete failure" could only be true if they goal was to prevent war completely).

In fact, the Constitution significantly constrained the power of the government to make war, and limited to Presidential prerogative to make war without check, throughout US history.

Now, the Congress complains loudly about the wars or methods or details, but does zero to constrain the imperial Presidency from making war. This was an explicit aim - that the President would be constrain by the purse, and by Congress approval. Now, the President just renames it a 'kinetic operation', and Congress rolls over. Complete. Failure.

Complete. Failure = Completely. Stupid.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33803.pdf

The fact that at one point or another it temporarily or possibly restrained the government machine from pursuing war does not mean that it's failure. It simply means that the broken clock was right, once or twice.

LMAO, your admission of this fact totally negates your prior claim of "Complete. Failure." Obviously there is no possible evidence that will cause you to admit your belief is wrong, which is clear proof that you are arguing from ideology and emotion, not fact and logic.

You should revisit history. It is the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is the universal justification for indefinite detention, global drone war, CIA kidnappings, torture, extrajudicial kill lists, etc all. This bill was opposed a majority of Democrats in Congress. But regardless, I do agree that the expansion of war making by liberals, Democrats, neo-conservatives etc et all in Congress is shameful.

Your assumption that only Democrats are Leftists is false.

Virtually every safe guard the founders put in place has been abrogated, and black-letter law replaced with layer upon layer of precedent. It's a big departure from how it was envisioned.

The law doesn't work... so we should throw out the law? And what? Write new laws? What makes you think those will work? What makes you think you are smart enough to write a new Constitution that can't be abrogated like the old one was?

There is no check on imperial Presidency ability to take military action. Just call it something cute, or call it a NATO operation, and it's over. Congress is no check.

"No check" is a stupid and incorrect way to put it. "Inadequate checks" would at least be arguable.

You seem to think that because Congress does not vote the way you personally prefer, that they have failed in some way. This is incorrect.

There's even a whole group of military officers who follow-up the President around with electronics that will allow the President to launch a nuclear strike at anytime he feels like it.

LOL that has been true for over 50 years. For some reason, no President has "felt like" launching a nuclear strike. This is an inane argument for the failure of the Constitution to restrain warmaking power.

Anonymous . January 08, 2013 3:11 PM  

Take away the portion focused on law, and the elements are "killing a person" and "malice aforefthought".

Um, OK, from the standpoint of a Christian, a baby is a person, and one cannot obtain an abortion without malice aforefthought (the mother goes to the clinic with the intention of killing her baby).

Ergo, from a Christian standpoint, abortion is murder, regardless of what the law says.

Anonymous dh January 09, 2013 2:19 AM  

In fact, the Constitution significantly constrained the power of the government to make war, and limited to Presidential prerogative to make war without check, throughout US history.
This is not fact. There hasn't been a single year the last 50 years that US wasn't effectively at war with another nation. And, given that the US is not "technically", as in "legally" at war with any country, it is an indication that war making is not constrained.

You seem to think that because Congress does not vote the way you personally prefer, that they have failed in some way. This is incorrect.
No, I think the fact that Congress has not approved any military actions of the last 50 years before they have happened to be evidence. The entire paradigm is counter to what was intended by the Founders.

Your own link shows all the evidence one needs - it is full of examples of Congress attempting to constrain the Executive in war making powers. The first item in the table is a fine example.

Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1971
Prohibited using any funds authorized or appropriated in this or any other act to finance the introduction of ground troops or U.S. advisors in Cambodia. Specified that any military or economic assistance given to Cambodia should not be construed as a commitment to defend Cambodia.


Guess what? The Cambodian incursion was over by the summer of 1970. By the time Congress and the public learned of the sustained incursion & campaign into Cambodia, it was over. By the time Congress acted on it, it had been over for half a year. The rest of the document you linked is just as useless - there are only 4 pieces of legislation constraining the war making of the Executive listed - apparently going back to Korea. And guess what - all 4 were completely useless pieces of lawmaking, addressing things that had already concluded by the time the law was passed.

"No check" is a stupid and incorrect way to put it. "Inadequate checks" would at least be arguable
Your own document shows it's no check at all. Since 1973 the US military has been engaged in dozens of military conflicts all the over the world, and Congress despite trying, has not been able to constrain any of them. Congress is lucky if they even know about some of the war making going on in a timely fashion. Even with Congress bending over and "allowing" the Executive to make war for 60 days without a formal approval, no President Democratic or Republican has bothered to follow those minimal guidelines. Literally, with the US operations in Libya reaching the 60 day mark, the President and military just renamed what was clearly an air and CIA air in Libya to a "kinetic operation".

LMAO, your admission of this fact totally negates your prior claim of "Complete. Failure." Obviously there is no possible evidence that will cause you to admit your belief is wrong, which is clear proof that you are arguing from ideology and emotion, not fact and logic.
This is garbage. The Constitution reads:

Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The Founders unanimously intended that Congress would initiate hostilities, and the Executive would carry them out. This hasn't happened since World War II, and we have been continually at war since Korea. Evidence that would appeal to "fact" would an indication that any President sought approval to do something before he did it. Or that he stopped a military operation because of Congressional lack of approval.

The standard is not and should not be "the President can do anything with the military that Congress doesn't forbid". The fact that this has to be stated is all the demonstration we need that the Constitutional attempt to limit war making by the Executive has failed.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 09, 2013 11:17 PM  

MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Blogger lon dyt January 29, 2013 2:11 AM  

thank nhiều, i love you.
truyen sex, truyen sex hay, truyen dam, truyen sex, anh sex

Blogger joe_g February 23, 2013 12:51 AM  

Very interesting chart. I hope part 2 will verify Silver's figures, and add a label to the Y axis (homicides per 100000). I'd also like to see the number of gun crimes committed, sorted by race.

Blogger long vu March 17, 2013 7:15 AM  

Chào các bạn sinh viên trẻ, hôm nay mình mời các bạn sinh viên giải trí với wap truyen sex giải trí pro hiện nay, với các mục giải trí thân thiện với các bạn.

Đầy đủ tiện ích cho mobi, giao diện đẹp, dễ nhìn, dễ ưa.

Mục phần mềm học tập sẽ rất có ích cho các bạn nhất là vào mùa thi bây giờ.

Mục truyện cười thì các bạn có thể thư giãn với những tiếng cười đầy sảng khoái sau những giây phút học tập căng thẳng.

Truyện ma sẽ rất hay và rùng rợn cho các bạn ưa thích sự ghê sợ, man rợn...

Truyện áo trắng sẽ rất thích hợp với các bạn nữ và tất cả các bạn tâm lý tình cảm.

Tổng hợp rất nhiều tiện ích khác, nội dung hay khác chỉ trong tầm tay bạn.

Hãy luôn luôn ủng hộ chúng tôi nhé.

Anonymous ghế văn phòng May 07, 2013 2:45 AM  

Thanks for share!
máy đo đường huyết | game dien thoai

Anonymous máy đo đường huyết May 13, 2013 4:41 AM  

Toàn mấy bác Việt Nam vào đây spam :D

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts