Oh, and Diogenes the Cynic, I forgot him.
And I agree about ‘fuckwit’ btw 
[minor hijack]:)is that a commonly-used word around here? I haven’t seen it in circulation and thought it’d either passed y’all by or just fallen out of fashion[/minor hijack]
I wish hateful pro life folks were non existent on the boards. While I haven’t seen a lot of venomous pro life posts…I have come across a post or two that makes me shake my head.
The hamsters don’t seem to be cooperating with me on a search, but there was some yahoo in GD a month or so ago who was calling women who have had abortions murderers (and worse)…I posted a reply essentially telling him/her to ixnay on the venom.
I don’t speculate on which point of view has more idiots…seems like a waste of time. Bricker is right, it’s a tough debate about a tough topic…where important “rights” are in conflict with each other.
autz, don’t let him get to you. Evil Captor is an ass in virtually every thread I see him in–nothing but grandstanding, unsupported nonsense.
I’ll join the pile-on here. Evil Captor hasn’t professed to read my mind yet, but he/she is doing the next best thing by misrepresenting my comments in a Great Debates thread. I hope she/he will settle down.
FTR, the Freudian subconscious has never been proven to exist in any scientific inquiry. Pseudo-science in support of bogus arguments.
Fuckwit and fuckwicket are both in currency here. Hang around the Pit for a while and you’ll see both of them in active use.
Evil Captor is a fuckwicket, and this is coming from a pro-choicer. Anyone who professes to know someone’s mind has just lost the argument.
BTW, I don’t see how anti-choice is an ad hominem attack on anyone. It’s an accurate description of where the people stand. I think if any name is an attack, it’s the term pro-life, as in `We’re pro-life, so that makes any who oppose us anti-life,’ which becomes real ironic when a member of the Pro-Life Lunatic Fringe decides to bomb a clinic.
“Anti-choice” is not an epithet. What Derleth said about the term pro-life, and “anti-abortion” makes it sound like anyone who disagrees with you is encouraging abortion. Besides, people who use the term pro-life are against women having the right to choose abortion, correct? Then anti-choice is a perfectly valid term.
Satan is not nearly so black as he is painted, and neither am I.
But thanks for trying.
Guys, you are being gulled by autz. She left out a very important part of one of my posts. This part:
**
In any event, you haven’t been insulted or called a “pervert” as Bob Cos seems to think. We all have subconscious feelings that our conscious minds would regard as perverted or evil or whatever. That doesn’t make US evil or perverted. We’re not in control of how our subconscious feels or what it desires, so we’re can’t be held in any way responsible for those feelings and desires, only for how we respond to them.
Frex, you might say that my pro-choice position is clearly the result of a subconscious desire on my part to kill my father and marry my mother. But that doesn’t make me a parricide or a motherf*cker if those subconscous feelings have never led me to do the things that would earn those titles, most especially if they were sufficiently buried that I was not even aware of them. It would just mean I have some of the usual human baggage that we all carry around in our subconscious.
So what is the value of asserting a subconscious need for dominance on the part of many anti-choice types if such claims can be made without any kind of scientific or legal proof?
It brings the underlying issues into focus. If you’ve been paying any attention at all, you will see that many pro-choice women see the issues involved in abortion as matters of control – whether or not they have control over their own bodies. The anti-choice folks never, ever cop to this. It is always about something else – the sanctity of human life, the legal definition of a fetus, etc. etc.
Well, why do you think the pro-choice women feel so strongly that you are attempting to control them if you are not? Is it not possible that they see something you don’t? Wouldn’t it be smart of you to ask yourself if you are not indeed trying to control them, and getting off on it at some level, if only to ensure that you have a good response to such claims?
If we could get a handle on these underlying control issues, maybe we could more easily deal with the other issues.
I hope that is a sufficient retraction to suit you, autz. And I hope you got my point about my not having called anyone a pervert, Bob.**
Clearly, I haven’t called anybody any names. I’m saying that anti-choice folks may well have a sick need to control in their subconscious minds leading them to try to force women to take pregnancies to term. But I don’t think that means the anti-choice folks are sick – hell, we all have weird stuff floating around in our subconscious minds making us do weird things. Doesn’t make us evil, sick or weird unless that stuff completely takes over and makes us lose sight of what is fair and reasonable.
I have made no such assertion about pro-choicers.
See, I thought I was debating with grownups with some understanding of psychology here, not little kids who would be offended at the least hint that their every action and statement is not the fullest expression of well-considered thought.
My point was that the emotional fuel that feeds the abortion debate fire could in large part be fed by control issues. I still haven’t heard an anti-choice partisan respond with any kind of subtlety and intelligence on this issue. Feel free if you have the stuff.
As for the notion that because Freudianism has to a large extent been discredited that we therefore don’t have subconscous or preconscious impulses – oh yeah, right. This world we are living is the triumph of pure reason, alright. (Lemme go get a truckload of rolleyes for this one.)
As for the notion that it is somehow impossible to draw conclusions about a poster’s motivations based on their post … well, I’ll need another truckload of rolleyes for that one, too.
As for Andy Licious, he’s just mad because he’s being clobbered over on the Wishing Death on Jesse Helms thread, and I and about half the posters on that thread won’t confine the debate to the terms he deems proper.
We have a winner for unintentionally ironic award.
No, we had a runner-up.
The winner is this one:
Similarly, I wouldn’t be calling anyone names by saying anti-life folks may well have a sick need to murder babies in their subconscious minds leading them to target the innocent.
Rolleyes indeed!
Regards,
Shodan
Evil Captor, maybe you haven’t noticed, but no one is really defending you here. There are several pro-choice folks who agree that you have gone over the line.
“Ass” “Fuckwit” “fuckwicket” “ignorant” “double-decker fuckwit” all these lovely words have ben used to desribe you in this thread.
And no one was ‘gulled,’ the purpose of providing a link is so eveyone who is interested can see the whole conversation in its context.
Anti Choice is an ad hominem because of the blindingly obvious implication that pro-lifers are solely motivated by a desire to punish women as opposed to protecting the lives of the unborn. This is a mischaracterisation of our position.
It is ad hominem because there is not one pro-lifer in existance who knowingly welcomes the use of the term ‘anti-choice’. Yet the label is plastered on them by pro-choicers regardless. It is simple curtesy to refer to ones debating opponents by their label of choice as opposed to a label they find insulting.
It is also a misleading term as it doesn’t describe which choice pro-lifers are anti. Hence, we are anti all choices which do not fit into our personal paradigm of a moral existence.
It’s kinda like how the word ‘orientals’ is considered by many to be an offensive term, in spite of the fact that there is nothing inherently offensive about it. It offensiveness stems from the fact that (if the many debates on this very board are anything to go by) asians resent being called ‘orientals’. Pro-lifers resent the label anti-choice and by using it anyway folks like candida are insulting us.
It really is that simple. No tricks.
Of course, if you’re one of those people who doesn’t consider a term to be an insult until it is concatenated with ‘fucksock’ or something then it’s doubtful this will ever sink in.
humm - I’m pro-choice (Pro-Abortion - Yeh! Everyone should have one! 
) and I’m thinking that EvilCaptor is a tool.
Personally, I oppose ukelele music - I think it’s wrong on many levels. That, however, does not mean that I’m trying to control ukelele players - it means I oppose their music. Pro-life (Anti-choice - No - you CAN’T choose your own salad dressing! ) are opposed to abortion. They’re not trying to control anyone - they are expressing their opinions.
It’s even simpler.
If one side prefers the term ‘pro-choice’ I will happily use that term. It doesn’t really matter if I think it is the most appropriate term or not. It has been requested to use that term and out of respect I will use it.
Now the other side has requested to use the term “pro-life.” It is simply returniong the favor to use it.
Wow. Common courtesy, what a novel idea.
Ooh!!! Me, too!
I think that individuals who attempt to inform others of what they are thinking, subconsciously or otherwise, are assuming way too much. And per Evil Captor’s last post indicating that no name-calling was involved - it doesn’t matter whether or not name-calling was involved. And as for the fact that people have all kinds of subconscious thoughts flying around in their minds at any given time, that’s true; however, why would anybody else claim to know what those thoughts are? They’re subconscious! If the person having them doesn’t know what they are, how can someone else??
Actually, this is the first concrete suggestion I have seen to improve the level of discussion in this very contentious area.
I have seen the light. From now on, it is “pro-life fucksock” and “pro-choice dickwicket” for me.
Thanks!
Regards,
Shodan
overlyverbose and Mr. Excellent
Ah, heck. I know that most pro-choice folks are very nice people. Like I said in my OP, my darling mommy is adamently pro-choice, and I love her to death.
We disagree on one issue, but I don’t feel animosity towards them for it.
But it’s the jerks (like Mr. Evil) who really get my goat. Don’t worry, I don’t mentally group you with him (or his soul mate candida).
Ah, Evil responds! Greetings!
As I said in my very first post to this thread, I think it’s pretty ignorant of you to assume that you know anything about what’s going on deep inside the heads of people you have no experience of.
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY EVIL CAPTOR:
Well, why do you think the pro-choice women feel so strongly that you are attempting to control them if you are not? Is it not possible that they see something you don’t? Wouldn’t it be smart of you to ask yourself if you are not indeed trying to control them, and getting off on it at some level, if only to ensure that you have a good response to such claims?
I have to disagree; while it is possible for the pro-choicers to indeed see something that I do not, it could also be because they are seeing something that does not in actual fact exist. Real life is full of situations where one party perceives the actions of another mistakenly.
Where exactly is your justification for your claims of an all-pervading sense of control lodged deep inside our minds anyway?
And as to the name calling, well I have called you psychic (in an ironic sense of course:)) and said that at the worst you are a half-assed fuckwit for actually posting such tosh - and fairly unsupportable tosh it is too.
I’m open to debate but until you have something at least vaguely authoritative to back your position I cannot take you seriously.
Until then,
DC