FWIW, I’m against genocide, klansmen, Nazi’s, Communists (even benign Communist parents), torture and, um, horrible people. I’m also anti-gonzomax, FWIW. I also think the OP is a decent person (even if I disagree with her on the abortion issue, seemingly) and I’m all for puppies and kittens and world peace.
-XT
You’ve got my vote.
Hear, hear.
I don’t post as much as I used to for that very reason. My account came up for renewal and I seriously, seriously thought about blowing it off and not renewing. But I did anyway, because every once in a while there will be a Horror of Blimps or someone will ask a question and the answers will help me out, and it’s worth $7.48 to have that. Even if we do have to slog through more bullshit than before.
I hate kittens.
They can be a very entertaining substitute for a tennis ball.
See! You support kitten genocide. I knew it!
You have to paint them yellow first, though. Otherwise they can be hard to see while in motion.
I always knew you were a horrible person…
You too…
-XT
Noticing that you can’t seem to post to a thread without mentioning torture when it has nothing to do with the thread is “whining”?
Uh huh.
Regards,
Shodan
[Franz Liebkin] Dey are NOT “Nazi’s”. Dey are NAZIS!!! [/FL]
OK, let’s talk about torture–since you brought it up and all.
Well, it turns out that as an American patriot, I’m against torture.
It also turns out that our government ran torture chambers that used techniques borrowed from the Soviet Gulags. And I’m pissed about it. How about you?
But what has torture to do with whether the OP is a bad person or not? AFAIK the OP is not pro-torture…
:smack:
-XT
No, I’m not pro-torture. But perhaps the point is relevant, anyway. It doesn’t really matter whether I am a good or bad person…you all have no real way of knowing, after all.
My OP is about judgement, and whether the one BrainGlutton is making is fair or reasonable. Whether somewhat ambiguous moral issues ought to be used to determine a person’s ultimate goodness or decency. And whether acceptance of such sweeping judgements is ultimately good for this message board.
As expected, XT and Shodan who are big time into insults and name calling pretend to be dispassionate observers of the tenor of the GD ,instead of prime contributors. What’s new?
Insisting that someone is either being disingenuous or irrelevant in making a list of instantly objectionable views that doesn’t include abortion is whining. Also, supporting torture is very relevant to the subject of what makes people not good or decent.
Thank you for your contribution, Gonzomax. Very helpful.
Unfriendly? Try questioning scientific dogma some time (No, sciences should not have dogma; yes, sciences do.)
And I don’t think you’re not good and decent, even if you think giving up a child for adoption is a good alternative. (While I would never criticize anyone for doing so, I could never do so myself.)
RE: “whenever and wherever” historical perspective
During the debates in the latter half of the last century on whether or not to remove the (relatively new) legal restrictions on first trimester elected abortions (originally sought by women’s advocates), there was a vociferous outcry against any restrictions (personal liberty over government control - very Republican in theory, though not in practice) on the grounds that
**
*the best person to decide on the advisability of a medical procedure is the subject
the best person to decide on the advisability of terminating a pregnancy is the person pregnant*** (the same argument used to originally make abortions illegal)
While termination may not always be the best decision, I can’t fault the argument that the person pregnant is the best to decide.
(I have known many women faced with an unplanned pregnancy. My peers had babies or abortions or both, eventually, and were satisfied with their decisions. My mother’s peers had one child more than they could easily care for and radical hysterectomies of dubious necessity; I find that appalling.)
As for the “and/or” the doctor, well, if the pregnant person is unable to make a decision from unconsciousness or other incapacity, the doctor would be best suited for deciding if the fetus or carrier is most likely to survive. In theory. I think young women should state their preferences in living wills.
Well, that’s true of us all. The only thing we can make judgments on is the content of our posts and the positions we individually hold. That’s why, in one sense, ASKING people if you are a ‘good and decent person’ is rather silly…really, no one but you can make that call.
Of course, I’m one of those elitist assholes who believes my self image is not and should not be a reflection of what others think, so you should take my own opinion on this with a mountain of salt. 
As to whether BG’s judgment is fair or reasonable…of course not. BG is not a fair or reasonable person. Nor do I think he was seriously making a judgment of you there…I think he tossed that out as a debate point or a throw away line. I doubt he was seriously judging you there, though of course he’s free to come on in and give his own spin on the discussion and his comments.
On the point about moral issues being used to determine a person’s goodness or decency, I’d say…that’s human nature. We all use our own moral yardstick in order to size up others we encounter. Personally and in general I don’t make moral assessments of my fellow 'dopers as far as whether they are good or decent (there have been some exceptions). I generally categorize them as ‘interesting’, ‘provocative’, ‘well informed’…or, in some cases ‘idiot’, ‘moron’, or ‘too stupid for words’. For my part I TRY and take people one thread at a time, and try not to carry over opinions or bias from thread to thread…again, there are exceptions to this and I’m only human. As an example of my failing here there is friend gonzo who has graciously joined the thread to provide his usual non sequitur drive by.
Finally, on the issue of what’s good or bad for the board I’ll just say…don’t sweat it. I think that by and large 'dopers refrain from making ‘moral’ judgments based on a poster or a posters message or style. I think, again in general, that 'dopers are going to categorize fellow 'dopers based loosely on similar criteria to my own…i.e. ‘interesting’ or ‘moron’, or some level on that continuum. As for the idiots who are going to try and make moral judgments of you or anyone else based on their various stances on a message board…I wouldn’t fret about it.
JMHO, FWIW and all that.
-XT
No, they don’t. Being exasperated when someone trumpets an argument that’s been debunked thirty times before as being new and exciting, and that person subsequently arguing in extremely bad faith is not having a dogma.
If I expected a real answer, then yes, it would be silly. But, as I’ve now said for I think the 4th time, it was a rhetorical question. I listed some obvious characteristics that describe me and a lot of other people, on both sides of the abortion debate. And I’m asking if those things should also be considered when making these judgements.
Well, we all have to live with ourselves. I have no problem with that.
Again, I realize he was not making a judgment of me. I wasn’t posting in the thread, so I’m sure I’m wasn’t on the top of his mind. That’s the point. It’s not about ME, it’s about all the good and decent people out there who were condemned in one fell swoop.
Well, sure, we make moral judgments. But I would think that the smart folks around here would understand that there can be a bit of nuance to these things.
I’m not fretting, I just was trying to illustrate why this board is largely not fun, interesting, or amusing for me anymore.