Posts by Xander

37

Do you get disappointed if no one responds?

by Larry in

jw
friends

writing should be for our own edification - a personal cleansing, therapeutic at the least.

if you write for other people's approval, you will be disappointed, especially when you share your thoughts on the 'net.

i've seen many folks get 'burn-out' from these boards b/c they don't get the expected respond to their post.

Xander

Seems like when we leave the BORG we still carry that 'looking for approval' mentality.

I think you are mistaking a common human trait for a bOrg-ism (?borganism?-hmmm)

MOST people have a 'looking for approval' mentality. That's why peer pressure is so powerful in pretty much every level of society. That's why cults like the JWs can get membership so easily - by offering 'their approval' to anybody at all who follows their rules - very attractive to social outcasts who could not get society to 'approve' of them (IE., 'recognize' them, etc) any other way.

Myself?

I hate it when I kill a thread. DAMN, that pisses me off.

123

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP

by Quincy in

ok...3 days ago, i found out that i was going to be a father!!

good new right?

well then she says that she is considering having an abortion...which i am totally against....so we discussed it...then she started to think that she might have the child....so she talked it over with her twin sister...and she told her to get the abortion...now she says she wants the abortion...now i am upset...not onlly does she want the abortion...but she wants me to pay for the entire thing...so not only am i going to be terminating a developing life...but i have to pay for it????

Xander

shows a complete disregard for the sanctity of life
....
And not hide behind an argument of it being a clump of cells with no brain waves.
....
there for a require no proof of a sole from a person before I consider him/her alive
....
may or may not be or a sole that may or may not be it's about life and death that are.

Okay, then. Since having a 'soul' appears to be completely irrelevant to the issue for you two, you claim to only consider that if something is 'alive' that alone is enough to deserve protection...

I'm assuming you're both vegetarian?

Because the arguments you are presenting are just as easy to apply to any animal (not just humans). What DOES MAKE us different is our soul - our being self-aware.

That's IT.

And it doesn't even happen until nearly 30 weeks into a pregnancy, at best.

123

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP

by Quincy in

ok...3 days ago, i found out that i was going to be a father!!

good new right?

well then she says that she is considering having an abortion...which i am totally against....so we discussed it...then she started to think that she might have the child....so she talked it over with her twin sister...and she told her to get the abortion...now she says she wants the abortion...now i am upset...not onlly does she want the abortion...but she wants me to pay for the entire thing...so not only am i going to be terminating a developing life...but i have to pay for it????

Xander

It is a human being before it is born
....
Tests show the feuds is alive.
Tests show the feuds is human.

Let me point out some information you might not know:

For example, lots of sperm are defective, missing essential chromosomes; should they fertilize an ovum, development will fail at some point, usually so early that pregnancy isn't noticed. For this and other reasons, over 80 percent of human conceptions fail, most in the first six weeks (this spontaneous abortion rate is far more significant than even the highest rates of induced abortions).

Hey, how about that. 80% of fertilized eggs (that meet your definition of 'alive' and 'human') die within the first six weeks of pregnancy.

Wow - that's a lot of murders committed by 'god', huh?

even doctors can't kill them after a certain arbitrary age

Myself, I agree with this. At some point (before birth) it DOES get a 'soul', if you will - when brain activity starts is probably the best spot to identify this event. This appears to occur (at the absolute soonest) around the 24th week. Maybe later.

(EDIT: In fact, just dug this up:

Taking issue with misleading pro-life terminology, Grobstein says, "by brain waves, one usually means the kinds of regular electrical patterns that can be observed in adults. These do not exist in the early fetus. Until roughly thirty weeks you don't see the kind of regular patterns that are characteristic of EEGs in adults." 13

Then we have the period from twenty to thirty weeks, which Grobstein describes as "uncertain." "Once past the twenty-week mark, the brain is maturing and there are some connections between neurons in the cortex. We can be doubtful but we can't be sure there's no inner experience. That's where we need lots more information." Grobstein therefore suggests setting the "boundary of sentience" at twenty-six weeks to provide a safety margin, adding that on the evidence now available, "the dawn of sentience is far more likely to be later than ... earlier." 13

)

Edited by - Xander on 12 August 2002 13:57:25

2

Just another normal JW...

by PopeOfEruke in

this is kinda spooky!.

pope.

http://www.mjmorningshow.com/mjackson.swf

Xander

He just puts on the other glove.

56

U.S. War with Iraq

by Crazy151drinker in

jw
friends

i just wanted to get some opinions on this matter from everyone.

support here in the states is pretty solid but very weak in europe.

i will make my prediction (ie you know) that we will be having a little sand party within a year.

Xander

270 tonnes of it have been fired during the wars in the Gulf and the Balkans

Right.

My point is that it is not DU's radioactivity that is harmful, it is that it is a 'heavy metal'. If all tank rouns were replaced with lead or tungsten, and 270 tons of lead or tungsten were fired during the gulf war and balkans and turned into dust over civilized areas....the environmental damage would be the exact same as the DU.

(FWIW, WW2 rounds were steel until very late war, when a tungsten penetrator was fitted to some rounds - steel is now far too obsolete to get any kind of penetration on a modern tank, although it has the advantage of being a 'safe' metal.)

56

U.S. War with Iraq

by Crazy151drinker in

jw
friends

i just wanted to get some opinions on this matter from everyone.

support here in the states is pretty solid but very weak in europe.

i will make my prediction (ie you know) that we will be having a little sand party within a year.

Xander

Boy, this has taken a lot of research to try and track down where that plutonium rumor came from.

Seems like here (from the DOE in Jan, 2000):

http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DOE.pdf

Specifically:

We believe that minute quantities of plutonium may be contained in some of the depleted uranium stocks presently at the gaseous diffusion plant sites.

Which is interesting, but irrelevant. Not all depleted uranium is used in weapons. In fact, most ISN'T. (And in any case, this is referring to 'raw' depleted uranium - it is usually refined further for weapons use).

Further, most telling from the article (and what I said above):

One may normally expect that depleted uranium contains a trace amount of plutonium. However, the quantity of plutonium in depleted uranium is generally very low, and the major health concern is from the uranium, not the traces of plutonium.

IOW, as I mentioned above, the *radiation* hazards are not significant. This is obvious as few, if ANY sufferers of 'Gulf War Syndrome' show symptoms of radiation poisoning.

The PROBLEM is that DU is a 'heavy metal'. Like lead. And Tungsten. Heavy metals = VERY, VERY poisonous. ALL of them. If the shells had been solid lead (or tungsten), you may rest assured that anyone breathing their vaporized debris would get just as sick.

So, unless you want to replace every round of DU, Tungsten, and lead ammunition in every 1st world nations arsenal with, say, iron....you're wasting time chasing a ghost.

YES - DU *IS* dangerous. VERY dangerous. DON'T BREATHE IT!

Also - lead *IS* dangerous. VERY dangerous. DON'T BREATHE IT!

etc.

56

U.S. War with Iraq

by Crazy151drinker in

jw
friends

i just wanted to get some opinions on this matter from everyone.

support here in the states is pretty solid but very weak in europe.

i will make my prediction (ie you know) that we will be having a little sand party within a year.

Xander

Do a google search and you can find links to pages showing all the odd deaths and birth defects, etc that people/babies in Iraq have been suffering since the end of the Gulf War.

'Gulf War Syndrome' had been attributed to Iraqi chemical weapons - apparently, at least 2 scuds and numerous chemical artillery rounds were fired at allied forces. Both scuds were intercepted, but, then, with chemical weapons...blowing up the missile doesn't really help if it's already ballistic.

cleaning up radioactive debris

A common misunderstanding is that DU is radioactive. It is not. (Okay, *technically* - it IS - but not much more than smoke detectors). If it was, don't you think the ground forces handling the rounds since the early 80s (when they were introduced) would have been effected as well?

It is highly radioactive and has a half-life of 4.2 billion years

Anyone with a high school physics level of education can tell you right away this is a contradiction. If it takes 4.2 billion years for half an amount of DU to decay to completely inert matter (actually, 4.5 billion years), how much radioactive material is decaying every day or week? Answer: not bloody much!

Truth is that the amount of solar radiation the ground troops were exposed to in the middle east is a bigger source of radioactivity than the DU rounds were.

EDIT: an interesting read:

Another interesting note:

Although DU has trace amounts of radioactivity, that is not considered a problem - it is VERY low. What IS a problem is that it is a 'heavy metal' - like Tungsten (in light bulbs) and lead (in most weapons ammunition). All heavy metals are toxic to humans - IE, poisonous if ingested.

That's kind of a 'well, duh', I know, but it points to the real fact of the matter. Yeah, sure, DU *IS* dangerous. But exactly as dangerous as every other metal ever used in tank gun ammunition and sidearms, etc.

Edited by - Xander on 10 August 2002 14:43:25

123

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP

by Quincy in

ok...3 days ago, i found out that i was going to be a father!!

good new right?

well then she says that she is considering having an abortion...which i am totally against....so we discussed it...then she started to think that she might have the child....so she talked it over with her twin sister...and she told her to get the abortion...now she says she wants the abortion...now i am upset...not onlly does she want the abortion...but she wants me to pay for the entire thing...so not only am i going to be terminating a developing life...but i have to pay for it????

Xander

a DNA test. Test the fetus and you find that it's not the mother at all.

This is a stupid argument, and I think you know it is. Go ahead - TEST a cancer cell. Does it have the same DNA as the human host? Well, actually - NO! Or it wouldn't be cancerous, now would it?

How about a cell infected with, say, the HIV virus. Is the DNA in the cell the exact same as the human host? Again - NO!

Does this mean, on the basis of the DNA not matching the host, that HIV infected cells and cancer cells are a living organisms and have an equal right to life?

Ummm...HELL NO!

Let's face it, every day we make decisions ALL THE TIME that kill organisms (IE., bacteria, cells, organized group of cells, etc.).

Why does the fact that a fetus - MIGHT - be born and become a human being (there really isn't any guarantee) - make it deserve special consideration?

I mean, when talking about the woman here, we are talking about ONE single sentient human being, no?

EDIT to reply:

how about if your mother terminated your life, wouldn't that have been unfair?

Why? If the group of cells she allowed to grow into a baby and be born as me was aborted instead, are there not many more who are not? Why assume that my consciousness could only come into being in that particular womb from that particular parent? Could not another combination of parents and genetics resulted in 'me'?

Edited by - Xander on 10 August 2002 14:24:16

56

U.S. War with Iraq

by Crazy151drinker in

jw
friends

i just wanted to get some opinions on this matter from everyone.

support here in the states is pretty solid but very weak in europe.

i will make my prediction (ie you know) that we will be having a little sand party within a year.

Xander

However, the US can't just go blasting up other ppl's countries just because they don't like the leader(s)

What's irritating me about the whole situation is the assumption that a military invasion force is necessary.

I mean, really, if Hussein and his male family members are what is REALLY at issue here, whatever happened to good, old-fashioned, assassinations? I mean, couldn't Hussein and his cronies be checked with a simple round or two to the head?

It's not like WW2 Germany where most of the leaders of the country, and ALL the military leaders, were behind Hitler. Hussein's army is only loyal to due family and fear. It's commonly accepted the (oppressed) masses of Iraq would eagerly rise up to take control if given the chance, and several Iraqis-in-exile in Iran have fairly powerful forces to 'liberate' their home country.

The only thing I can see happening if we send the whole army in is Hussein being driven into his deep, underground bunkers. And I'm loathe to imagine what the US might try to get him out.

123

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP

by Quincy in

ok...3 days ago, i found out that i was going to be a father!!

good new right?

well then she says that she is considering having an abortion...which i am totally against....so we discussed it...then she started to think that she might have the child....so she talked it over with her twin sister...and she told her to get the abortion...now she says she wants the abortion...now i am upset...not onlly does she want the abortion...but she wants me to pay for the entire thing...so not only am i going to be terminating a developing life...but i have to pay for it????

Xander

Look here, willy, I'm not trying to start an argument. I, honestly, have no stake in this whatsoever, at all. I really don't care. I was just asking a question.

As to your link:

Well, that's all well and good. I'm assuming you've seen pictures of remove cancerous tissue? NOT MAKING ANY CONNECTION HERE, PEOPLE, OTHER THAN: Ugly pictures do not an argument make.

The whole pro-life/pro-choice debate is strictly an emotional (or religious, if you swing that way) issue, and I really am not the person to argue either side.

I only asked if he had bothered to question what he had been brainwashed into believing on the topic (IE., came to this conclusion on his own), or not.