Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
blindbirds
297 Followers
blindbirds
297 Followers
Waheed Akhtar
2739 Followers
Waheed Akhtar
2739 Followers
Shelly Cooper
1378 Followers
Shelly Cooper
1378 Followers
hillarylathropJul 13, 2010
Good perspective. Don't in one breath try to hold on to your 'Right to Bear Arms' and in another tell someone else that they don't have the freedom to love who they want.
brezzzJul 14, 2010
And dont do the opposite either.
executexJul 14, 2010
Which is why I am not against the right to bear arms, right to abortion, right to gay marriage, right to drugs, and right to sex.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Ok, what does my right to have a gun have to do with people loving each other. I don't get it.
These two have nothing to do with each other.
/favors the right of gay people to marry. Maybe with a gun salute afterwards....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atarioJul 14, 2010
And what about my right not to get shot?
Guess that doesn't count.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
That's why police, courts, and prisons exist. To protect you're right not to get shot, but believe it or not, not everyone with a gun wants to shoot you.
ninhJul 14, 2010
What about my right not to get choked? Turn in all those hands now!
eastwood24Jul 13, 2010
I don't like contractions. Can't stand 'em!
malarkeypnJul 13, 2010
You forgot that every time a same-sex couple takes wedding vows, it sends out magic rays that undermine the institution of marriage.
sebsnJul 13, 2010
True!
holygodJul 13, 2010
Most of these are no brainers for anyone with a brain. Gay Marriage, Drugs, and Sex among consenting adults does not impose on the rights of anyone else.
Abortion however is a much more difficult subject. It clearly infringes on the right of the fetus and therfore becomes a debate as to whether or not a fetus has rights.
Funny thing is that 2 of the 3 I consider no brainers are illegal and the one I actually think is debatable is legal.
hetmanJul 13, 2010
I agree with you. I am pro-choice. However I can see the argument the pro-life side brings up. It makes sense if you believe that conception starts at fertilization. However as you mentioned the other 2 is just absurd to fight against. It seems like a waste of time to do so.
holygodJul 13, 2010
Not to get in a full on abortion debate, because there is really no point, but I never understood the argument. Even if life doesn't start at conception, at what point does it? You certainly have to admit that a healthy full term baby the day before it is delivered is alive don't you? I mean if it can survive outside of the mother, unassisted, how does it not have basic human rights? So what is that line between day 1 and day 260 where the definition of life is crossed?
wefarrellJul 14, 2010
"I mean if it can survive outside of the mother, unassisted, how does it not have basic human rights?"
Legally that's the cutoff point right there, around the second trimester. Late term abortions are only legal if the life of the mother is in danger.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Abortion isn't debatable. Everyone already has their minds made up, to the point where people think it's even f**king stupid to even talk about it. Myself, I think there are deep philosophical questions at the heart of it, like "What is life?" "What makes life valuable?" etc., but I am completely alone on this. Everyone else seems to think the answers to those questions are a given, and that I'm f**king retarded for even asking.
So yeah, whatever, I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I have answers to all of life's questions, and that apparently makes me a f**king retard, but the truth is, I don't really have a stance on the issue because I feel uncomfortable taking one. Either way, I f**king hate the fact that there literally is no abortion debate - just a bunch of yammering idiots who are absolutely certain that they are right and that there's not a f**king possibility that they actually don't know everything.
holygodJul 13, 2010
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. My question in the debate is in response to the poster above you.
smacksawJul 14, 2010
Abortion is debatable. We should debate it, because as we do it, we get closer and closer to the truth.
But in the meantime, there's Clinton's old "safe, legal and rare"...that's not an unreasonable compromise.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
How is abortion debatable? It seems to me that in order for an issue to be debated, people have to be open to hearing other points of view, and with abortion, it seems too many people are too emotionally invested in their positions for that to be possible.
a5204Jul 14, 2010
http://imgur.com/THzbg.jpg
I'm curious to see how this one does.
holygodJul 14, 2010
Kind of dumb actually.
That egg will never be a chicken.
The acorn may eventually be a tree but the chances are incredibly slim.
The third image requires action on someone else's behalf.
But statistically speaking, that will eventually be a person. Most pregnancies in a healthy female go to term. It isn't just a crapshoot. Unless you kill it, it will be a baby.
A guy tied to a chair next to a ticking bomb. Is that murder? By your rationale no. But unless someone intervenes it is pretty much guaranteed to be murder.
Plus you are showing the earliest stage of growth. Why don't you wait a few weeks and post an image with arms and legs and eyes and a heartbeat and ask if that is a person? Because guess what? That is the stage at which most abortions happen.
elliotysJul 14, 2010
Yeah, it's really important we don't infringe on the rights of fetuses. So important that we should mandate that the government force every women to carry a pregnancy to term.
/s
ninhJul 14, 2010
That's too short-sighted. Masturbation is mass murder and also frowned upon in the bible.
holygodJul 14, 2010
Does a fetus that is 8 and a half months old and fully capable of surviving outside of the mother have rights?
elliotysJul 14, 2010
I don't think so. Unless we want to make it legal for the government to cut babies out of ladies. That is why it has to be the women's choice, ever other alternative is just too rediculous.
atarioJul 14, 2010
"It clearly infringes on the rights of the fetus and therfore becomes a debate as to whether or not a fetus has rights."
You're already presupposing the fetus has rights simply by saying "it clearly infringes on the rights of the fetus". But reductio ad absudum is instructive here: if the fetus has a right to be born, don't sperm and eggs have the right of free association and the right to life? And therefore aren't a whole range of things -- condoms, The Pill, the rhythm method, male masturbation and wet dreams, female menstruation without pregnancy -- exactly as immoral as abortion?
But that's all theoretical. The vast majority of people -- adamant antiabortion advocates included -- are not nearly as sure about this "zygote = person" thing when it gets away from the abstract and gets right down to brass tacks. Consider this scenario:
You are in a room empty except for yourself, one crying baby, and a cryogenically stabilized flask containing 30,000 viable zygotes. The baby is crying because the building is on fire; total collapse is imminent. You have the ability to save exactly one of the two -- the baby or the flask. Whichever you leave will be destroyed. Which do you save?
I can tell you which I would save.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I think it's easy to make the case that, say, a zygote isn't really a person in the sense that when you destroy a zygote you are not killing a thinking, feeling person, but that if you destroy a newborn baby, you are. It's at the points in between where things get tricky. Myself, I believe that somewhere along the line is a cut-off point, but that our understanding of our own physiology is too limited to accurately pinpoint it. Or, maybe it can't be pinpointed no matter how much we learn. Point is, from my perspective, there is a moral grey area where we can't really say anything for certain.
That seems to me to be where I really hit a roadblock in the debate. Myself, I'm fine with having a moral grey area. I accept that there are limits to our knowledge, and questions we just can't answer. Many people, though, are totally averse to the concept. They have to have the world be in black and white, and they despise doubt and uncertainty. They have to have answers to everything, and if they don't, they'll just make 'em up because to them, it's more comfortable than having to face the harsh truth of reality that we don't have all the answers.
holygodJul 14, 2010
People who support abortion always want to go to a zygote or show a picture a week after conception. How about 8 months later when it is a baby that is fully capable of living unassisted outside of the mother? You are in the same stupid theoretical situation but it is between a baby that was born today and 30,000 full term babies that will be born tomorrow. Now what do you do?
malarkeypnJul 14, 2010
RockNog your position on abortion is pretty much exactly the same as my own
annarobinson85Jul 13, 2010
gotta love it!
goldiegillsJul 13, 2010
Don't like dog fights, don't go!
holygodJul 13, 2010
Don't like rape or murder, don't go!
Dips**t.
goldiegillsJul 14, 2010
I forgot my /s
noblea09Jul 14, 2010
*Misses the point
sciguyajJul 13, 2010
Love it! Right on!
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Funny how this logic somehow doesn't apply to smoking bans.
holygodJul 13, 2010
Because your right to smoke impedes on my right to not have to breathe it in. Nobody is saying someone can have sex in a bar right next to me and nobody is saying you can't smoke in your own personal space.
doctechnicalJul 14, 2010
What about farting? Is it wrong for me to fart in a public space? How about BO in general?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Everything seems to be OK by you... except smoking. Why? No one is forcing inside a smoky car, so why do you walk in there?
jeffiekJul 14, 2010
"nobody is saying you can't smoke in your own personal space."
I buy a building. It's my personal space, right? I can smoke there.
I hang a sign on it that says "bar", and magically, it is your personal space.
You have the right not to go in. Funny thing is, if you ( and enough others ) actually exercised your right and didn't go in, the bar owners ( or any other type of building ) might have willingly changed their minds.
The reality is that their weren't enough of you exercising your rights. It was to difficult for you to stay out of places you don't like. So you went whining to the government and said "Take his rights away and give them to me" - by force.
Call smokers whatever you want, at least they're not violent.
And they don't use strawmen -
"Because your right to smoke impedes on my right to not have to breathe it in"
This old fallacy is based on the non-smoker having the right to be in the presence of the smoker. It presumes they can barge into other peoples places and tell them what to do.
If you don't like what's going on inside a building - leave. That's the civilized response.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Ah yes. The Golden Rule applies to everybody whether they are a Christian, believe in something else, or don't believe in anything. You have the right to live your life as you choose as long as you don't interfere with the right of others to do the same.
h8f8kesJul 14, 2010
Your getting buried for this?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I have been befriended by about 4 stalking sockpuppets over the last 2 days.
h8f8kesJul 14, 2010
Which ones? Here's the recent list I am aware of;TheLegionOfNo, NoLasagna, NoCollapse, and NoCFL. Thankfully Digg catches these bunk accounts and has deleted most of them.
What bothers me is that this idiot may not be harmless based on this compulsive behavior. The plus side is he provides an endless supply of friends to Anomoly, and I now have an explaination for why MSNBC stories make it to the front page.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Then there is the famous NoTeaParty account which shows the nasty and sick side of NoLibs. I sent in about 5 reports on that guy.
mrstabbyJul 14, 2010
People just saw the word Christian without a "moron" or "retard" around it and dugg it down out of habit.
spacem00seJul 13, 2010
Nice Republican Blunt Values. Let me add a classic one.
Dont like the high costs of health care? Dont get sick!
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
VVVVVVVVVV
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Yeah, but the other ones listed actually make sense and are rational.
I hate to point out the obvious but you cannot voluntarily never get sick.
You can voluntarily never get married to a gay person or get an abortion.
So I'm not even seeing the sarcasm applicable here.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Don't like poverty, give the poor YOUR money
Don't like getting sick, pay for a doctor.
Don't like living in a box after 65, save money for your future.
Don't like being fat, watch what you eat.
Don't like big corporations, give them competition and don't buy their products.
NAH, screw all that, I'm too lazy, just get government to force someone else to do the work of those things for me.
holygodJul 13, 2010
Don't like your house burning down, don't let it catch fire.
Don't like your stuff being stolen, don't let your house get broken into.
Don't like dangerous water, filter your own.
Don't like ignorant children, teach them.
Don't like driving on dirt, pave your own roads.
Yahoo anarchy! Get rid of the government it is useless!
mcprogrammerJul 14, 2010
Some people do teach their own children or pay private schools to do it.
holygodJul 14, 2010
Do you really want the average american to be responsible for their children's education? Then do you want to have to live with these morons?
mcprogrammerJul 14, 2010
I'm not saying everyone should homeschool their kids, just that people do (and some of them even end up smart and well educated).
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Ah, the true hypocrisy of Republicans. I fully agree with every one of your statements. But you know what? I know for a fact that you're a f**king hypocritical douche bag who disagrees with everything on the original list. You love to preach about self-reliance and freedom, but ONLY if we all conform to your religious and social views.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
I'm a libertarian so...
"Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one."
I fully support gay marriage
"Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one."
I fully support a human beings right to choose, unlike democrats and their healthcare plan.
"Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them."
I fully support the legalization of all drugs, unlike president hypocrite and the guy before him president chimp.
"Don’t like sex? Don’t have it."
I don't care how someone f**ks or where they put things.
"Don’t like your rights taken away? Don’t take away anybody elses."
Right, unless your a democrat and you want to take a persons right to choose healthcare or not, to choose to participate in social security or not or to choose to pay for and participate in the public schools system.
No, those choices don't belong to you, they belong to the hive right?
Any other stupid assumptions you want to toss up so I can shoot them down?
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Alright, my bad, I'm sorry. You just don't encounter too many truly anti-government people. Seems most of the time, when people bitch about the government, they're just bitching that they're not the ones making the rules. I shouldn't have made assumptions, and I realized that after I posted. Again, sorry.
holygodJul 13, 2010
You just don't encounter too many truly anti-government people because that is f**king retarded.
Libertarianism to the extreme is a pipe dream. It is easy to talk about it in an ideal universe, but the simple fact is 99% of people could live within the system happily with no oversight, but that other 1% would f**king destroy the world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
rock,
no worries
HolyGod,
Yes, because its SOOOO difficult to respect the life and choice of others. Total pipe dream.
/s
That 1% would get their asses handed to them by people who willingly defend the life liberty and property of others. You know, what the government is SUPPOSED to be doing and instead promotes dependency on the state.
Huh, wonder why government employees and politicians would promote dependency on the state. Oh well, its probably nothing, best we just keep eating grass and going BAAAAA
holygodJul 14, 2010
Sorry buddy. It is a pipe dream. I'm a libertarian at heart. But if the government suddenly were gone the world would slip into chaos. Do you truly believe differently?
Who protects our country from outside forces?
Who keeps houses from burning down?
Who answers the phone when you call for help?
Who takes care of the roads?
Who regulates the utilities?
Who insures our medicine and food is safe?
You just planning on sitting in a cabin in the middle of the woods with a shotgun while the world burns? Look what happens with no government for a week. You want to live like New Orleans after Katrina everywhere?
It would be Mad Max within 3 months.
You can say BAAAAAAA all you want. But trying to improve a heavily flawed system is a whole lot better than fighting for a system that isn't even theoretically possible.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Rocknog - WTF? Man ... don't be some douche on Digg.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Holy God,
Who the hell said the government is going to be gone? We need government for a common defense. We need government to arbitrate disagreements with the court and enforce contract between individuals.
Nobody ever said that government needs to be completely done away with.
I don't know where you get this argument you dreamed up from me saying that its not hard to respect the life and choices of others. In what way is that a call for no government?
There was a time in this nation that the life, liberty and property of the people was protected AND we had government. THere is no reason it can't be that way again.
Take your strawman and go home.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"Don't like getting sick, pay for a doctor."
If only it were that easy...
gridlock489Jul 14, 2010
ssh, they dont like it when the tables get turned on them!
mikekmJul 14, 2010
The government is your enemy, until you need a friend.
brezzzJul 14, 2010
Sorry, but if one finds abortion to be immoral, it is not like the other statements where you can simply ignore the perpetrator. There are parties involved, which (if you believe) require defense in that situation. Some drugs ( read that part again, digg stoners, im not talking about weed) are too dangerous to be used in a society, to the point of likely harm to the user and those around them, thus they must be outlawed for the good. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diggeradoJul 14, 2010
You'll get buried to hell, but you're totally right. Many of those choices affect other people and are therefore not as black and white as some others here would like.
tarazzJul 14, 2010
dont like HTC evo? dont get one
dont like Iphone 4? dont get one
atarioJul 14, 2010
Don't like Apple? Laugh when they screw up.
gamingforeverJul 14, 2010
Don't feel like thumbing this comment, Then don't do it...
dirtyfriesJul 14, 2010
I'd say this is the perfect example of a power digger submission.
almostwoJul 14, 2010
You do not like nickelback: tell them to go to hell
smacksawJul 14, 2010
Just to play devil's advocate here, we can accept those statements in black-and-white, but the gray area is how it affects society as a whole. And before I start, I think that's where conservatives look really bad: social concerns.
You can't claim liberty and freedom, then say...tell women what to do with their bodies. You have to be consistent. The problem is that people don't think in gray areas.
I'll just abortion as an issue. Just to concede that it isn't a life, as a potential life, abortion lessens the value of life. Then again, conservatives, so does letting people live in abject poverty and crime due to selfishness. Whatever doesn't raise up humanity and make it better cheapens life. Even with that argument, for as morbid as it may sound, abortion in a perverse way VALUES life - the life of the mother. Women often do much better by not having a pregnancy and child they were not prepared for.
I can totally understand both sides of this issue and the middle ground. The problem with ideas like these in the list is when people can't see the exception to the rule. There's an exception to every rule, and it's how we infringe upon the rights of others. It's the social aspect.
diggeradoJul 14, 2010
I think you don't take it far enough. Obviously actions that affect you, you have the right to have a say in. For example,
Don't like murder? Don't murder!
Doesn't really hold up. You SHOULD restrict people's right to kill people. Likewise to say that you should leave drugees alone is stupid because many drug addicted people kill, steal, etc.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Don't like meat? Get your hands of my f**king cow burger.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Your bacon cowburger with cheese!
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
After reading these comments, I'm not so sure people get the brilliant simplicity here.
Some of these analogies just don't make sense in regard to the statement the original author was making.
faberskiJul 14, 2010
I liked it...
megalothJul 14, 2010
Don't like this comment? Don't digg me up.
maddoktor2Jul 14, 2010
This is why we can't have nice things.
ldrummeraxJul 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
swatkins44Jul 14, 2010
Good except abortions where other people stand to get hurt
diggeradoJul 14, 2010
But pro-abortion people don't believe that people gain senses, thought, or humanity until after the baby is outside of the thin flap of skin called the abdomen. It's magical really. A lifeless unfeeling doll one moment and a human the very next! Wow!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
croixsmomJul 15, 2010
BTW the term "pro-abortion" is a complete falsehood. I have never meet a "pro-abortion" person in my life. I know pro-lifers seem to think that that's what we are not so not true. NO BODY is for abortion. It's by far the hardest decision any woman has to make in her life. Why don't people get that? It's not like chicks wake up in the morning and think "hey you know what would be fun to do today? - kill a baby!"
hetmanJul 14, 2010
Nope that is not true, The majority of people who proc-choice do not believe a person is alive unless it has brain activity. Most of them do not believe in late term abortions. Regardless of what pro-life people are saying. I look at it like this. If I have no brain activity and it requires machines to keep me alive. I am not alive. I would want my family to pull the plug. Just because a machine can force my body to pump blood, force feed me, and pump h2o into my system. That does not mean I am alive.
swatkins44Jul 14, 2010
Your argument intrigued me (it kind of made sense) so I decided to get more information on the idea. Look like abortions can't effectively be preformed until week 6-7 and brain waves don't begin in a fetus until around day 150. I suppose if it's around then it is ok but any time after that really is killing them imo. Your coma reference is out of place though since one is when your dying (or close to it) and one is when your being born
butchiebagsJul 14, 2010
It's funny because the last one is not really fitting. It should read "don't get your rights taken away"
lbuchaJul 14, 2010
brilliance
squadrosolutionJul 15, 2010
Nice Notes except having sex. Anybody can have safe sex & we should not use don't on that. ;)