Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Don't feel bad Slarg.

Everyone's sense of Humor is different.

I'm anti-abortion and I thought the comic was amusingly accurate.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Amaya wrote:What happened to Freedom of Speech?

I don't know why this phrase keeps being bandied about, such as it was when Rush Limbaugh made his comments. It is not at all relevant to the situation.

In the United States, you have the right to say what you wish with few constraints (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc), and the government cannot prosecute you for making them. That is what freedom of speech means.

What it does not mean is "freedom from the consequences of what you said". It also does not mean "the freedom to say whatever you want on someone else's nickel". If you lose your job because you said something unflattering about your boss, it's not a freedom of speech issue. If you lose all of your sponsors and get dropped from a radio station because of what you said, it's not a freedom of speech issue. If you are contracted to write comic strips in a newspaper someone else publishes, and they don't like what you say and drop you, it is not a freedom of speech issue. You are free to start your own business, create your own radio station, or publish your own newspaper.

That's a simplified view, but essentially, you cannot be "censored" by a private entity, only the government has the capacity to remove your freedom of speech.

Most cities have a single newspaper. Censoring select Doonesbury strips while showing others is akin to denial of freedom of speech.

NO its not. Denial of freedom of speech is if the government, say the FCC, came in stopped publication. Alternatively as others have proposed on CNN if they put Limbaugh against a wall and shot him. Thats denial of freedom of speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:The root of the abortion controversy lies in the strident nature of the religious right. They see it as their obligation to force their morality on others. Unfortunately, they are gaining in power all the time. What they fail to realize is the lesson of prohibition, and the war on drugs. Making something illegal never gets rid of it, it merely puts it in the hands of the criminal element.

The moment a fetus is viable abortion is instantly illegal. Pro abortionists are living (pun intended) on borrowed time, according to SCOTUS.

Show me ONE instance where something being made illegal has eliminated its practice by Human beings. It's elemental, you tell us we can't do something and we rush to do it, and if that involves back alleys and shady cash transactions, then so be it.

warpcrafter wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Amaya wrote:What happened to Freedom of Speech?

I don't know why this phrase keeps being bandied about, such as it was when Rush Limbaugh made his comments. It is not at all relevant to the situation.

In the United States, you have the right to say what you wish with few constraints (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc), and the government cannot prosecute you for making them. That is what freedom of speech means.

What it does not mean is "freedom from the consequences of what you said". It also does not mean "the freedom to say whatever you want on someone else's nickel". If you lose your job because you said something unflattering about your boss, it's not a freedom of speech issue. If you lose all of your sponsors and get dropped from a radio station because of what you said, it's not a freedom of speech issue. If you are contracted to write comic strips in a newspaper someone else publishes, and they don't like what you say and drop you, it is not a freedom of speech issue. You are free to start your own business, create your own radio station, or publish your own newspaper.

That's a simplified view, but essentially, you cannot be "censored" by a private entity, only the government has the capacity to remove your freedom of speech.

Most cities have a single newspaper. Censoring select Doonesbury strips while showing others is akin to denial of freedom of speech.

NO its not. Denial of freedom of speech is if the government, say the FCC, came in stopped publication. Alternatively as others have proposed on CNN if they put Limbaugh against a wall and shot him. Thats denial of freedom of speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:The root of the abortion controversy lies in the strident nature of the religious right. They see it as their obligation to force their morality on others. Unfortunately, they are gaining in power all the time. What they fail to realize is the lesson of prohibition, and the war on drugs. Making something illegal never gets rid of it, it merely puts it in the hands of the criminal element.

The moment a fetus is viable abortion is instantly illegal. Pro abortionists are living (pun intended) on borrowed time, according to SCOTUS.

Show me ONE instance where something being made illegal has eliminated its practice by Human beings. It's elemental, you tell us we can't do something and we rush to do it, and if that involves back alleys and shady cash transactions, then so be it.

You're arguing morality. I don't have a dog in this hunt - aka I could care less if its legal or illegal. I am just pointing out that the SCOTUS concept of viability means, absent a change at the SCOTUS level, as science advances the term of legal abortion will decline.

Frazzled wrote:You're arguing morality. I don't have a dog in this hunt - aka I could care less if its legal or illegal. I am just pointing out that the SCOTUS concept of viability means, absent a change at the SCOTUS level, as science advances the term of legal abortion will decline.

I think you're wrong in how you're stating this. The exact viability argument, from the text of the decision, is "upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." You are trying to apply this argument to, your words, "It doesn't have to be a fetus. Just a fertilized egg."

Either you misunderstand what they are saying, or you're talking about abortion being made illegal at the point which a fertilized egg can be grown into a human baby in an artificial womb. While you sort of have a point on the latter argument, it's still a problematic argument for 2 reasons.

A.) The science to create such a thing is so far in the future, it's simply not cogent to the discussion; any more then an argument about GM and bailouts should have the topic of a flying car inserted into them, and of course;
B.) At the point in which a fertilized egg can be incubated into a deliverable baby in an artificial womb, it won't matter what the legality of abortion is anymore because it would no longer be necessary; women could just have their unwanted pregnancies removed and put into one of these theoretical wombs - right?

Ouze wrote:
B.) At the point in which a fertilized egg can be incubated into a deliverable baby in an artificial womb, it won't matter what the legality of abortion is anymore because it would no longer be necessary; women could just have their unwanted pregnancies removed and put into one of these theoretical wombs - right?

Depends on cost of the procedure, and to the individual.

And the cost to society.

Frazzled wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Amaya wrote:What happened to Freedom of Speech?

I don't know why this phrase keeps being bandied about, such as it was when Rush Limbaugh made his comments. It is not at all relevant to the situation.

In the United States, you have the right to say what you wish with few constraints (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc), and the government cannot prosecute you for making them. That is what freedom of speech means.

What it does not mean is "freedom from the consequences of what you said". It also does not mean "the freedom to say whatever you want on someone else's nickel". If you lose your job because you said something unflattering about your boss, it's not a freedom of speech issue. If you lose all of your sponsors and get dropped from a radio station because of what you said, it's not a freedom of speech issue. If you are contracted to write comic strips in a newspaper someone else publishes, and they don't like what you say and drop you, it is not a freedom of speech issue. You are free to start your own business, create your own radio station, or publish your own newspaper.

That's a simplified view, but essentially, you cannot be "censored" by a private entity, only the government has the capacity to remove your freedom of speech.

Most cities have a single newspaper. Censoring select Doonesbury strips while showing others is akin to denial of freedom of speech.

NO its not. Denial of freedom of speech is if the government, say the FCC, came in stopped publication. Alternatively as others have proposed on CNN if they put Limbaugh against a wall and shot him. Thats denial of freedom of speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:The root of the abortion controversy lies in the strident nature of the religious right. They see it as their obligation to force their morality on others. Unfortunately, they are gaining in power all the time. What they fail to realize is the lesson of prohibition, and the war on drugs. Making something illegal never gets rid of it, it merely puts it in the hands of the criminal element.

The moment a fetus is viable abortion is instantly illegal. Pro abortionists are living (pun intended) on borrowed time, according to SCOTUS.

Show me ONE instance where something being made illegal has eliminated its practice by Human beings. It's elemental, you tell us we can't do something and we rush to do it, and if that involves back alleys and shady cash transactions, then so be it.

You're arguing morality. I don't have a dog in this hunt - aka I could care less if its legal or illegal. I am just pointing out that the SCOTUS concept of viability means, absent a change at the SCOTUS level, as science advances the term of legal abortion will decline.

Okay, again Frazzled is arguing just for the joy of arguing. As a society becomes more affluent, its birthrate declines. This is because they don't need to have loads of children to perform manual labor and to take care of them when they're old. That means that they're going to get abortions, and arguing about any facet of the issue is pointless. And by the way, you know me better than to think I would argue about anything on grounds of morality. C'mon, just look at my sig!

Iur_tae_mont wrote:I say life Begins at Arousal!

This made me lol.

I'm sure I'm one of the few people that got the reference.

They want to abort your thinking, breathing sperm before you can even plan an afternoon of vigorous masturbation!

Monster Rain wrote:
They want to abort your thinking, breathing sperm before you can even plan an afternoon of vigorous masturbation!

The only solution is mandatory vasectomies.

Or flouride in the drinking water.

That's right. Barack Hussein Obama is sneaking flouride into the drinking water. To sterilize your testicles.

This is known.

Surtur wrote:I was trying to give an example but my mind tends to wander. I was inferring the oddity of censorship in it's methodology and how it quantifies what to censor.

I agree with you that what does and doesn't get censored gets very strange very quickly. I mean, look at something that everyone would agree needs to be censored, like military secrets. Even there you get some really pointless things getting classified, just because it technically fit with whatever procedure was in place for classifying documents.

Given that exactly where the line gets drawn is very complex and inherently subjective, I can understand a newspaper just drawing a clean line in the sand and saying 'no comics that reference abortion'.

Well this would also imply that the newspaper outright ignores the current round of abortion debates going on and refuses to run political satire. It's not like mixing the two suddenly becomes an unholy cocktail. The censorship implies that there was bias of the newspaper and that the comic was not displaying their message. While not illegal, it does raise questions of journalistic integrity. It itself starts drawing lines at what is okay to make fun of and what is not okay rather than "what is tasteful."

Journalistic integrity gets shat on all the time by corporate interests. It sucks but that's just how it is. At least in this case its something fairly benign like 'don't run a marginally funny comic because it touches on a subject we think it'd be easier to just no talk about at all' and not something more significant like 'don't investigate the safety failings of the car manufacturer because they buy loads of ad space in our paper'.

"Marginally funny"...? I think you're giving it too much credit...

Iur_tae_mont wrote:I say life Begins at Arousal!

Now that is funny

It wasn't funny because it's rather close to the truth. Maybe that's why some people don't like it.

I think it's funny Because it's close to the truth.

Amaya wrote:Most cities have a single newspaper. Censoring select Doonesbury strips while showing others is akin to denial of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means that the creator of Doonesbury can write whatever he wants.

Freedom of speech does not mean that a single business has to publish it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:Is it weird that my only problem with the strip was that it was unfunny?

I must agree here.

I think this whole story is just a larger commentary on the growing irrelevance of the "Old Media." Anyone who didn't get to see the comic strip in whatever paper can just look for it on the internet if they really can't go a day without reading Doonesbury, whatever the subject it happens to describe.

I think that some of the papers that are not printing the strip stated that they will have instructions on where to find the strip (aka: the website). I do like that approach. "We are not going to publish it, but here is how you can find it if you are interested".

Amaya wrote:What happened to Freedom of Speech?

I'm personally opposed to abortion, but having never been in that situation I really have no business judging those who have done it. It's an overblown issue, anti-abortionists need to accept that it is an individual's choice and neither side can achieve a decisive victory over the other because you can not conclusively prove when the fetus becomes human. As long as we're not killing babies AFTER their born people need to let it go and get on with their lives.

I think it is ultimately better to prevent a birth than to bring forth a child you either can't raise or have no desire to love and nourish.

You cannot conclusively prove when the baby becomes human either. It's all subjective pseudo language used to justify what ever stance people take

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
They want to abort your thinking, breathing sperm before you can even plan an afternoon of vigorous masturbation!

The only solution is mandatory vasectomies.

Actually that's not a bad idea.

Every man gets a little tap put in and the key to it is genetically coded only a woman can authorise a man to have sex capable of giving rise to new life.

That way, women really will be in charge of their fertility without any of this need for controversy over abortion.

Kilkrazy wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
They want to abort your thinking, breathing sperm before you can even plan an afternoon of vigorous masturbation!

The only solution is mandatory vasectomies.

Actually that's not a bad idea.

Every man gets a little tap put in and the key to it is genetically coded only a woman can authorise a man to have sex capable of giving rise to new life.

That way, women really will be in charge of their fertility without any of this need for controversy over abortion.

gak ive been saying that for years!

We should all be sterlized en-masse and have to apply for a licence to be allowed to breed. Sorry Mr "convictions for common assault and burglary" If you can't pass an IQ test we dont need you multiplying.

Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave to know that the "fittest" (scientists and other educated professionals) are too busy working and concentrating on their careers to have too many kids. If I walk through the posh bit of Middlesbrough (there is a small posh bit.. honest, its behind a car that's been on fire for a week) you see nothing but deserted streets and empty driveways.

Meanwhile, try walking down a street in the rough parts of town. If you walk through a gak hole sink estate the fat toothless mothers and drunken cap wearing dads have their ugly bastard off spring literally springing out of the gutters. They multiply like Steven Speilbergs Gremlins in a fething Tsunami, safe in the knowledge that Matty will be forced to help raise them.

We need a liscence to go fething fishing in this country, fishing! But any toothless one eyed simpleton with a wanger can father 14 kids, and then the state has to pay for them all?!

Hippies say "hey.. man.. children are like.. our most precious resource... dude"

Negative. There are literally billions of them.

Its oil you fools!

Actually, Darwin would probably think that the problem isn't how our species is reacting to our environemnt through natrual selection, but what that environment actually is.

Not that one or two generations are really indicitive of anything. There's no real pressure on humanity, so natural selection isn't really even kicking in yet.

Polonius wrote:Actually, Darwin would probably think that the problem isn't how our species is reacting to our environemnt through natrual selection, but what that environment actually is.

Not that one or two generations are really indicitive of anything. There's no real pressure on humanity, so natural selection isn't really even kicking in yet.

Well.. I wasn't being serious or anything...

Mostly.

Amaya wrote:Most cities have a single newspaper. Censoring select Doonesbury strips while showing others is akin to denial of freedom of speech.

Except forcing a newspaper to publish something they don't want to is an actual affront to the freedom of speech.

Believe it or not, property owners still have a small handful of rights in the US.

Polonius wrote:

Amaya wrote:Most cities have a single newspaper. Censoring select Doonesbury strips while showing others is akin to denial of freedom of speech.

Except forcing a newspaper to publish something they don't want to is an actual affront to the freedom of speech.

Believe it or not, property owners still have a small handful of rights in the US.

I don't really believe that...

mattyrm wrote:

Polonius wrote:Actually, Darwin would probably think that the problem isn't how our species is reacting to our environemnt through natrual selection, but what that environment actually is.

Not that one or two generations are really indicitive of anything. There's no real pressure on humanity, so natural selection isn't really even kicking in yet.

Well.. I wasn't being serious or anything...

Mostly.

Dude, I work in disability. The number of files that fit every stereotype of welfare queens is staggering.