John Stamos' Left Ear, you're a fucking idiot

The BBQ Pit
1

Seriously, guy. How fucking stupid do you have to be to not understand that ends may not always justify means?

[QUOTE=Me]
I’m strongly pro-choice, pro-abortion, whatever you want to call it, and I happen to agree with you 100% that exceptions for rape and incest put the lie to morality-based arguments against abortion.

However, I agree with the statement that “Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided”, and as a matter of law, I believe states have the authority to prohibit abortion under the Constitution as it currently exists.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JSLE]
How can someone say they are pro choice and say they are fine with states prohibiting abortion? Should I report you for trolling, “pro abortion” person?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Me]
No more than I should report you for misquoting me. I didn’t say I was fine with states prohibiting abortion. I said states have the authority to prohibit abortion under the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that they should, or that I don’t favor a constitutional amendment preventing them from doing it, just that they can.
[/QUOTE]

At this point, I figured my position was clear, and we could move on. Au contraire!

[QUOTE=JSLE]
But if states could prohibit abortions, a bunch of states would prohibit abortions. You want this to happen? Please note that you cannot have some theoretical exercise of “states rights” without conceding that in the real world, one without Row v. Wade, abortion would be heavily restricted.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter? That would explain such silliness… But no pro choice person would let the states decide unless they drank the Ron Paul Kool Aid (and even he identifies as pro-life as far as I know).

You still have yet to explain what you meant by “pro abortion” too. That phrase does not compute even (or especially) as a semantic exercise.
[/QUOTE]

At this point, I realized I might be dealing with someone whose higher mental functions hadn’t kicked in yet. Ron Paul? What the fuck does he have to do with this? So, I thought- let’s try an analogy!

[QUOTE=Me]
sigh I don’t think states should be have the power to summarily execute Klansmen. Do you think that says anything about what I think of the Klan?
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, JSLE had never seen an analogy before.

[QUOTE=JSLE]
Nice to hear. Any states on record that they would like to do away with due process for clansmen if only the federal government would let them?

Because even with Roe v. Wade you have this:

That’s just one state but it is pretty obvious that many others would be happy to do away with abortion.

So your Klansman comparison is a little fishy…

It is an undeniable fact that many states would be happy to ban abortion if allowed. Again, you can argue that this is a theoretical exercise, that in the real world the states should have the ability to do it but also that none of them should avail themselves of that ability.

But that won’t happen because this is the real world. Because a state such as Mississippi will blatantly run an end around of Roe v. Wade and not even try and be sneaky but instead brag about it.

That doesn’t mean you cannot long for the day that Roe V. Wade is overturned and the states can finally make these decisions without the interference of the federal government. Go for it, it’s not an entirely invalid premise according to some constitutional scholars (though they are a minority).

But to call yourself pro choice while wanting something to happen that would effectively end abortion in lord knows how many states - maybe the entire Bible Belt and much of the western interior states - is ridiculous. You are not pro choice if you want this, or you live in some theoretical world so far removed from the one we actually live in it’s laughable.

And you didn’t answer if you’re a Ron Paul supporter…
[/QUOTE]

Sweet Jesus fuck. Let me spell it out for you, you drooling cretin.

I THINK ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL IN NEARLY ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. I DON’T WANT STATES PROHIBITING IT. I just don’t think the Constitution as currently written prevents them from doing so. Seriously, what’s so fucking complicated?

2

Maybe he should switch to the right ear.

3

FWIW, I thought your point was crystal clear, and I couldn’t understand why John was missing it. There’s a lot of that on this board though. If you don’t support every aspect of the orthodox view, you’re the enemy, and even the simplest concession cannot be made. In your case, that means you cannot possibly hold the view that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned. That is, I don’t know, sacrilege or something. With the zealots on the board, you can almost picture their eyes getting glazed over, and you beat your head against the wall trying to make your point. You never will.

Again, though, I thought your point was very clear, and I detected no inconsistencies in your position. (I’m pro-life, for the record. So you got one vote from the true enemy. ;))

4

Yes, it was crystal clear. Full disclosure, though, I have the same position. I’m pro-choice through and through, but I think Roe was a stretch. And the thing is, it’s not all that uncommon for people on the left to be pro-choice but still think that Roe was poorly decided.

5

↑ This. I find this level of obtuseness happens all too frequently on a board with the stated aim of “Fighting Ignorance,” and is likely one of the main reasons why “It’s taking longer than we thought.”

Just sayin’. :cool:

6

I opened this thread think you were actually pitting John Stamos, and that his left ear was some kind of metaphor for a divided personality or something.

7

I figure the left ear is the one that Rebecca liked to nibble on, which I, at least, would find profoundly distracting.

8

If this is true, that ear deserves worship, not a Pitting.

9

John Stamos’ Left Ear is not completely immune to logic.

But he’s been heavily vaccinated.

10

What’s so hard to understand? He’s pro-abortion, in the sense that he believes that any other consideration, like the Constitution, must give way before it.

He’s like a lot of people - he stopped reading once he realized you did not buy Roe v. Wade as sacred. It’s not rare - I question Roe v. Wade fairly often on the boards, and, as a result, I imagine most of the really blithering idiots here think I am anti-abortion.

Gosh, an extremist on the topic of abortion. Who would have imagined?

Regards,
Shodan

11

Quick, someone make a joke about rowing vs. wading; I’m too lazy to find the right opening.

12

The funny thing is that I’ve sort of gone away from that line of thinking recently anyway. I no longer question the idea that the Constitution implies some sort of protection for privacy rights; it’s more that I don’t think an abortion is a private act (that is, because it necessarily involves someone else, the doctor, not because of the fetus).

13

Wading is just for when your moral/ethical/legal reasoning is getting a bit too damp (all wet)…Rowing is for when it is in the really deep shit.

14

This was funnier when it was topical:

What is President Bush’s stance of Roe v. Wade?
He doesn’t really care how you escape New Orleans!

15

Whoa. Until your post I had no idea John Stamos was a real person. I’d heard the name, but assumed it was some popular character on a show I’d never seen. Taking a look at his credits, it makes sense–I’ve never watched anything he’s done more than one episode of, and I’d have had no cause to recognize him as a someone in his guest star-like appearances. Actually, taking a closer look the only show I’ve overlapped with is a handful of ‘Friends’ episodes.

That was just weird.

(About as weird as the poster completely missing RNATB’s point, come to think of it.)

16

Yeah, well, until this thread I’d never noticed poster John_Stamos’_Left_Ear.

17

Huh - I’m surprised. He did start a thread on GD that has over 450 replies (the one musing on Republican voter ID efforts). That’s about the only reason I remember the name (that and it’s kind of distinctive).

18

Holy shit–we have a forum named GD?! :eek:

19

NEARLY all? You fucking pro-life troglodyte misogynistic BASTARD!
Just kidding.

20

I hadn’t until recently. His join date is 2005, but he’s been a thread startin’ fool of late.