Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The real reason Gosnell was ignored

Comments Filter:
  • That's a hell of a lot of bad faith in that article. Not much money and sex, though.

    Don't bother replying, I'm done with you. Not because of your new-found fervor, but because the old you was a hell of a lot better at crafting an argument. If you're not going to bother, neither shall I.
    • Not much money and sex, though.

      For that, you will need to talk to the nuns who have faced the unintended consequences of their, uh, proclivities. For the men, "What happens at the Europa Multiclub stays in the Europa Multiclub"...

      Crafty argument [coloradoindependent.com]?

      • Nuns shouldn't be having sex to begin with. But I do find that link rather ironic- I can see why the hospital is making that claim, and it sickens me to think that in a Catholic hospital they have an emergency room staff that when faced with THREE patients, couldn't be bothered to save the two that they could save. An emergency C-section might not have worked (the heart attack was so severe that the mother didn't survive) but at least they could have TRIED!

    • I'm just quoting others here...at least for this argument.

    • by Bill Dog (726542)

      The slaughtering of the innocent should inherently be universally seen as bad. It's not supposed to require the crafting of an argument explaining why it's bad. Do you need a logical proof that raping your mom is bad to be sure about it? (What if it was culturally acceptable?)

      p.s. DR has already used the "what happened to the old you" Dear John letter meme. Please try again with something more creative.

      • That's the sad side of relativism. If it is an absolute rule that there are no rules, nothing can be seen as bad.

        • Close, but no cigar. Things can indeed be bad, just not nothing else.

          But thanks for trying to tell me how I think.
          • How can anything be bad or good if there are no rules to understand the difference between bad and good?

            After all, that's the center of relativism: That you can't tell anybody else what is good or evil.

            • How can anything be [cultural construct] if there are no rules to understand the difference between [cultural construct] and [cultural construct]?

              Could you be more precise?
              • The one rule of moral relativism is that there is no morality. Any attempt to create a morality, is against moral relativism.

      • The slaughtering of the innocent should inherently be universally seen as bad.

        And there are plenty of things I think are huge negatives and you don't (like the slaughtering of innocents as a byproduct of the foreign policy you've happily voted for and championed most of your life, to name just one.) What is it exactly that makes your assessments any better or more correct than mine? Answers on a postcard please.

        It's not supposed to require the crafting of an argument explaining why it's bad.

        Oh
        • Not liking abortion does not mean that one likes drones blowing apart pregnant women. Oh, and in addition to that, I'm not Bill Dog, I've never played the sock puppet game (plus, it's pretty easy to see that compared to Bill Dog, I'm an authoritarian).

          • ...plus, it's pretty easy to see that compared to Bill Dog, I'm an authoritarian...

            No, the only difference is that you're honest about it.

            • I actually don't understand how one can see morality as being objective rather than subjective without being an authoritarian, and I don't see how anything can possibly be called "Good" and "Evil" without an objective natural law morality. The only way anarchy and moral relativism makes sense is if NOTHING IS EVIL- if all actions are equally good, no matter how many people they hurt.

              • I actually don't understand how one can see morality as being objective rather than subjective without being an authoritarian...

                You're just not trying. It's like the cops being comfortable that they have the right guy and stop investigating the crime any farther, then 20 years later the guy is proven innocent... Besides, that's the point, isn't it? 'Morality' is not objective.. Of course those to try to make it so are going to be authoritarian. I mean, to objectify morality, you have to impose it to make it

                • "And don't you find it the tiniest bit ironic that the most powerful believers in 'objective morality', no matter how it is expressed, through politics or religion, are the most corrupt and murderous people on the planet ever to exist?"

                  I don't even understand how the moral relativist can complain about corruption and murder at all- after all, given that "morality is not objective", then therefore each man should live by his own law even if it hurts his neighbors.

                  And sure enough, I've yet to meet any moral r

        • by Bill Dog (726542)

          U MAD BRO? Sheesh, what happened to the smarmy but easy-going ass that was the old Capt. Splenda? Lemme get this straight, it's years later in the Slashdot journals, most people here have (smartened up and) bailed from this site, and the few remaining who've been here a while have grown and are mostly beyond needing to hash out arguments for and against the kinds of things we used to heatedly discuss, so all there are are effectively one-liners from the thoughtful (me, MH42, smitty, chill, pudge when he mak

          • U MAD BRO?

            What are you, 12?

            easy-going ass

            Oooh, you were doing so well until you hit easy-going. While generally true, it's never applied to you. And it will never apply to those that question my morality, especially when you imply it's slapdash or born out of groupthink.

            and the few remaining who've been here a while have grown and are mostly beyond needing to hash out arguments for and against the kinds of things we used to heatedly discuss

            Except you and me then? Works for me.

            and i
            • I'm not questioning your morality. I am questioning the general morality of the self-referencing strawman of moral relativity.

              The central doctrine of moral relativity, which is used on the left quite frequently, goes something like this:

              The Only Absolute Morality is that there is No Absolute Morality- every person has to be judged by their own *individual* moral beliefs.

              Ignoring the zen paradox of an absolute rule of there being no absolutes, I suggest that the end result is that the Gosnell trial isn't be

            • by Bill Dog (726542)

              I'm questioning your morality (and wondering who's taken over your account; you still sound like a Lefty, but not the non-serious jackoff of I guess now several years ago*). More precisely, I mean to imply that you're a product of pop morality. If you had lived back where and when Black people were held as slaves, you'd have been cool with that too, responding with, oh, I don't know, it's just a wild guess but maybe something like:

              What is it exactly that makes your [moral] assessments any better or more cor

              • You really do have your lucid moments. This isn't one of them. It's more like you are talking to a mirror, because nobody else fits the descriptions you are positing here, well, except maybe that pudge guy... I read a lot about you guys in textbooks. Pretty unbelievable stuff until I saw it firsthand. Thanks for confirming.

                • by Bill Dog (726542)

                  You missed the golden years of /. journals, latecomer. Thank goodness, too, else they would've been a little less golden. Like how Usenet eventually became unusable, with spammers and trolls. This is just one small cranny of the entire web, but I guess we still gotta have a faker who thinks it's funny to just post shit and be a pest. Believe it or not, at one time the journals were thriving with legitimate JE's and not almost all just badly-translated spam, and intellectual comments instead of ploys like yo

  • Lefties have made themselves the hip, cool kids in today's culture, with vehicles like SNL and the Daily Show and Colbert and Fallon. Hell, Obama's an old fart but they made him hip and cool too with his Blackberry.

    Do you want to question or disagree with the trending pop icons that everybody agrees that we all love? Few are willing to be a pariah.

    It's not that a majority love Leftism, it's that a majority love Leftists. So Leftism gets a pass and tacit support, no matter where it takes us. (Stay tuned to m

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...