Thorgi Duke of Frisbee

David Jaffe on piracy: “You're a common fucking thief and you should have been raised better by your parents. You're stealing other people's work and that's a shame. I feel bad for you, and I wouldn't want to be you.” Well, the man certainly loves to speak his mind...\ http://totalplaystat...ps3/news/10306/ On Online Passes: " It's fantastic. The publisher owes nothing to the used gamer. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but they are not our customer. We need to be responsible to the people who have paid us to do good work for them. I'm a huge proponent of the 'customer is always right' and treat them like a king. That's one of the reasons I love Apple so much as a company because my experience with them has always been they're ease of use and they put the user-experience first. I think that's such an inspiration for our industry to say look, do whatever you can to give them a good experience. You do that for the people that pay you. You're working for that customer. But a person who walks into a store and buys a game used and you don't see a dollar from it?" http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1155383p4.html

Johnny, hate speech is protected just like any other speech here in America.

Frosted, you have a great point, so I'll just state flat-out what I believe; I think that abortion at any point in the process is absolutely acceptable, that women should be able to do what they will with the fetus growing inside them, and that to say otherwise is incredibly unfair and disrespectful to women everywhere. I also think that making abortion illegal would be allowing religion to influence this country, which is something that should never, ever happen. It's already gone too far, and we need to decrease religious influence, not increase it. You may disagree with me, but I don't see why abstract religious concepts like souls and spirits have any place in a progressive, intelligent society (though intelligent may be something of a stretch), and with an overpopulated Earth, we might as well let them remove it before it becomes even more of a burden. I know that many of you think that this is a cold, heartless thing to say, but I'm just saying how I feel on the matter. While I don't think sites like the National Review are decent, and I disagree with most of what Yantelope and Battra have to say on this subject, I will respect their opinion on the matter.

No, the very vocal political left gave their response to stop supporting Komen. Others have opted to donate to Komen and their fundraising went through the roof. I also find it sad that Komen ever gave money to Planned Parenthood in the first place. It is not some righteous organization by any means. Instead it's an organization radically outside Mainstream America in its views that was founded on the basis of eugenics. Ah, there you go, citing Margaret Sanger and eugenics. But if you actually did some research into what you're saying, you would realize that Planned Parenthood's connection to eugenics is not only dated, but also far different than what propaganda would have you believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood "In the 1920s various theories of eugenics were popular among intellectuals in the United States. For example, 75% of colleges offered courses on eugenics.[88] Sanger, in her campaign to promote birth control, teamed with eugenics organizations such as the American Eugenics Society, although she argued against many of their positions.[89][90][91] She believed that birth control, sterilization and abortion should be voluntary and not based on race."

http://www.theonion....tionplex,20476/

Maybe so, but the example at the end is clearly stating "They used to donate to me, but now they don't anymore, so I hacked their websites myself." Not much room for interpretation there. And I see where you're coming from when you say that Komen may not like everything Planned Parenthood does with their money, but clearly everyone else that raised their voice did. And since they used their freedom of speech in a way that conservatives viewed unsatisfactory, we now have this attack blog post.

Also, I find it ironic that they're painting the Komen organization like THEY'RE the victim here, and that THEY should be allowed to say whatever the hell they wanted to say about abortion. The public gave their response too; that they would stop supporting Komen. Of course, that is more than an acceptable response in this capitalist country, but NOOOO, according to National Review only Komen is allowed to vote with its money. Typical double standards.

Yes, but it's also saying that Planned Parenthood secretly masterminded all of the public outrage. "Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grillOld Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?" All this implies that Planned Parenthood organized this themselves. They didn't. The public did, because the public is awesome.

If by "good article" you mean "wildly inaccurate article", then yes, it was good. The author thinks that Planned Parenthood themselves were behind the public outcry, and tries to write about the hacking of their site and Wikipedia like Planned Parenthood somehow put others up to it. Neither statement is accurate; the uproar was generated by Komen pulling the funding, not Planned Parenthood themselves. Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything; humans with a proper moral conscience did all the work for them. The mere suggestion that Planned Parenthood was purely behind this is a disgusting accusation from a losing side of the field trying to throw false accusations around.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/cancer-group-backs-down-on-cutting-off-planned-parenthood/?hp Well, well, look who's coming crawling back to daddy! All the same, it's great news that they're going to continue supporting Planned Parenthood.

I tell you what, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. It's a two front thing for me personally. I mean ideally and religiously I believe that it's best for kids to be in a family with a mother and a father. Pragmatically it might be better for a kid to be in a gay household than in an orphanage. It's arguing ideals vs pragmatism. Ideally I wish every child could have a loving father and mother. I don't want to start a fight, so I'll just say that I know plenty of Christians and divinity scholars (yes, at some point I attended lectures at Duke Divinity School) that would vehemently disagree with you and leave it at that.

Again, we already have that here. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ All right, then. How about allowing same-sex partners to adopt, or more specifically, making it so that adoption clinics cannot discriminate based on orientation?

It won't make their life worse like the baby will, that's for sure. It's comments like this which break my heart. I hate that people look at babies as if they were nothing but burdens. We put so much value on careers and money and free time and videogames and we place so little value on human life or the joy of parenthood. I said before that parenthood is about sacrifice, it really is, so is love and marriage and most of the very best things in life. How about this; if you're so concerned with preserving these children born out of rape, then we should give the mother an option. If she does not want to keep the baby, the government will take it off her hands, free of charge. That's the only way it becomes even CLOSE to acceptable to force a raped woman to have a baby. If she doesn't want it and you won't let her abort it, then you will pay for it through taxes. I am fine with that sort of thing being added to the tax bill. Question is if the GOP members who fight tooth-and-nail against abortion will accept it, too. And if you're so concerned with children finding good homes, will you help me fight for my right to adopt a child should I ever want to do so with a same-sex partner?

It won't make their life worse like the baby will, that's for sure.

Sorry, but the "I'm right and you're talking bullshit" is not exactly proving your point. How can you authoritatively prove that at conception one does not have a soul. It is not something that can be proved or disproved by scientific methods. You are making a leap of faith in saying that it has no soul. Yante is making a leap of faith saying it does. Again, can science prove that the fetus is not alive? It's not a question of science but a question of morals and ethics. You've been very open about your faith and it does not give you the right to be an ass and refer to Yant's faith as "bullcrap." Well, Battra, can religion prove that souls even exist? Didn't think so. We're at an impasse.

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. I'd imagine you wouldn't feel the same way if that actually happened to you. It's rather unfair to the victim to force them to carry the result of something so horrid.

Since the question has no true answers, I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves on whether to abort the baby or not.

Hmmmm... That's about as trite as saying "Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone, and stop trying to make the same choice for everyone else." That's like saying masturbation is murder. After all, why stop when the sperm has merely fertilized? The "potential" (a word anti-abortion people love throwing around) is still there for a child in our sperm cells, after all! Using that kind of logic, it's like we're sending millions of children to death every time we knock one off! Hell, even THINKING about sex and not having it is theoretically denying the chance for hundreds of children to be born (since let's be honest, sex is on the mind rather often)! We've all practically committed genocide now, haven't we? Yes, I'm being extreme with my example, but that's only because calling abortion murder is just as ridiculous and offensive, if not more so.

Fair point. Big picture may be dehumanizing the discussion, and I do think humanity is the #1 reason why it's such a contested subject. If only there was a way for this conflict to be resolved so that abortion and anti-abortion parties could be satisfied. Unfortunately, it's going to be one or the other, and people will cry foul when the ball drops.

Someday I, too, might like to raise a kid of my own. Unfortunately, child adoption centers are allowed to deny gay couples adoption because of their own prejudicial views. That's another thing the government has to fix, since it isn't getting any better by letting the adoption centers decide for themselves. Also, it's amazing that you're a father, Yantelope, but don't you think that having a kid may have skewed your views on it somewhat? Like, you may be just thinking of your own kid instead of the bigger picture with these kinds of arguments?

...you do know what Planned Parenthood actually does most of the time, don't you? Here, let me fill you in. http://front.moveon....-actually-does/ I know it might sound convincing when the GOP goes after Planned Parenthood and labels them as evil abortion monsters, but they are an important organization. And defunding them is seriously screwed up. And you may not like the idea of abortion, but you also probably don't like the money that comes from YOUR taxes that ends up paying the childcare after someone who can't take care of a baby has one and thrusts it into the government's hands. Or would you rather let the child grow up in a piss poor environment and leave the government out of it entirely? Either way, it's a shitty life you're sending those children into.

I rofled when I read this. Abortion isn't toying with people's lives? That is neither here nor there when you're pulling support for breast exams. There are plenty of people out there who can only afford to get breast exams through Planned Parenthood. By removing the grants, you're essentially denying these people the ability to get examined. Lives will be lost, all thanks to some moron who doesn't respect a woman's freedom to do what she will with her body.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/komen-planned-parenthood-cuts-karen-handel_n_1245568.html?ref=fb&utm_campaign=020112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief&src=sp&comm_ref=false Fuck Karen Handel. You're toying with people's lives here.