12 thoughts on “200 countries, 200 years, 4 minutes

  1. I think that the further out you go on this model, the more towards the left the USA is going to go, whereas the further towards the right China and India will be going…we will probably end up on-par with Mexico…because with all the illegals intruding on us, and the rate at which we GIVE them citizenship, we will BE Mexico.
    .
    That’s because we are giving away our wealth and prestige to the rest of the world, probably if we were to examine it, we’d see a SUDDEN SPIKE in the past 6 years alone. If we keep going with the plans of the current regime, we will undoubtedly be switching places with countries like China and India.
    .
    With no basis to generate wealth (other than by cannibalizing the wealthy) and with so many useless mouths to feed, we will be nothing by the time the Liberal Progressives are finished with us.
    .
    How sad.

  2. I think that the further out you go on this model, the more towards the left the USA is going to go, whereas the further towards the right China and India will be going…we will probably end up on-par with Mexico…because with all the illegals intruding on us, and the rate at which we GIVE them citizenship, we will BE Mexico.
    .
    That’s because we are giving away our wealth and prestige to the rest of the world, probably if we were to examine it, we’d see a SUDDEN SPIKE in the past 6 years alone. If we keep going with the plans of the current regime, we will undoubtedly be switching places with countries like China and India.
    .
    With no basis to generate wealth (other than by cannibalizing the wealthy) and with so many useless mouths to feed, we will be nothing by the time the Liberal Progressives are finished with us.
    .
    How sad.

  3. As a Pro-Life person who believes in killing abortion doctors (I don’t practice it, but I believe in it), I’ll say your overall argument is correct, that is, that it’s a reaction to living in a society which allows the murder of helpless victims, just as some abolitionists in the 1800s murdered slave owning families.

    Of course, this isn’t a warped or twisted view as you say, it’s simply a rational one. There exists no rational reason to believe the “fetus” isn’t a baby or doesn’t have rights. There do exist various definitions of “life” in different fields of science, many of which contradict one another. And some of them do define the fetus as not being alive, while others view it as alive. This is to be expected, since science never claimed to have an understanding of what life was. This isn’t Star Trek. There’s no such thing as a “life form reading.” Science sets up a model to understand what it’s studying. That model was never intended to determine whether something should be treated as having basic human rights, so trying to argue that a fetus isn’t alive on those grounds is rather weak. The fact is from a rational standpoint, any person of good conscience would have no choice but to view that fetus the same way as they would if it were living outside its mother’s body. One has to wonder what kind of person makes all manner of excuses to do otherwise.

    So yes, it does become rather infuriating to deal with small-minded people who are incapable of accepting reason for their own selfish desires. At the end of the day, you’re making excuses to kill a child. You can make whatever excuses you want, but at the end of the day, it’s very difficult to conclude that you aren’t a sociopath. And of course, given the vast number of atrocities that have occurred throughout history, and the vast dynamics of human civilizations, the notion that it’s wrong to kill someone who’s committing atrocity out of respect for the law is a rather small-minded one. The “law” is the same one that allowed slavery, and the exploitation of Native Americans. Anyone who doesn’t think the law regularly allows atrocity for the sake of what the powerful have deluded themselves into believing hasn’t been paying attention for the past thousand years or so. So the notion that we’re somehow separate, isolated from the various other societies which committed atrocity is a very small-minded one. I believe in killing abortion doctors now, just as I know I would have believed in killing the European invaders who oppressed Native Americans when the New World was discovered, just as I know I would have believed in killing slave owners in the 1800s. (And since I’m the one defending the ones with no rights, instead of talking about the “privacy” to harm them, which was also used as an excuse in slavery, I can safely say with certainty that I would have been on the side of the slaves in that time period, regardless of what you want to argue.)

    Just so this is clear, the reason I’m leaving this anonymous isn’t because I’m ashamed of my views. I’ve posted them publicly with my real name before. It’s just because I don’t care enough about this to sign up for an account, and I don’t want my e-mail address spammed with hateful mails from Pro-Choicers who are too small-minded to see reason, and I don’t use Facebook or Twitter or any of those. Never understood the fad. And just so this is clear, “Pro-Life” does mean pro-life. Or at least, it means “pro-innocent-life.” Obviously, I don’t care about the people who are committing atrocities. It would be nice if we had the capability to rehabilitate them, but we don’t, and they aren’t the priority. Defenseless children are.

  4. As a Pro-Life person who believes in killing abortion doctors (I don’t practice it, but I believe in it), I’ll say your overall argument is correct, that is, that it’s a reaction to living in a society which allows the murder of helpless victims, just as some abolitionists in the 1800s murdered slave owning families.

    Of course, this isn’t a warped or twisted view as you say, it’s simply a rational one. There exists no rational reason to believe the “fetus” isn’t a baby or doesn’t have rights. There do exist various definitions of “life” in different fields of science, many of which contradict one another. And some of them do define the fetus as not being alive, while others view it as alive. This is to be expected, since science never claimed to have an understanding of what life was. This isn’t Star Trek. There’s no such thing as a “life form reading.” Science sets up a model to understand what it’s studying. That model was never intended to determine whether something should be treated as having basic human rights, so trying to argue that a fetus isn’t alive on those grounds is rather weak. The fact is from a rational standpoint, any person of good conscience would have no choice but to view that fetus the same way as they would if it were living outside its mother’s body. One has to wonder what kind of person makes all manner of excuses to do otherwise.

    So yes, it does become rather infuriating to deal with small-minded people who are incapable of accepting reason for their own selfish desires. At the end of the day, you’re making excuses to kill a child. You can make whatever excuses you want, but at the end of the day, it’s very difficult to conclude that you aren’t a sociopath. And of course, given the vast number of atrocities that have occurred throughout history, and the vast dynamics of human civilizations, the notion that it’s wrong to kill someone who’s committing atrocity out of respect for the law is a rather small-minded one. The “law” is the same one that allowed slavery, and the exploitation of Native Americans. Anyone who doesn’t think the law regularly allows atrocity for the sake of what the powerful have deluded themselves into believing hasn’t been paying attention for the past thousand years or so. So the notion that we’re somehow separate, isolated from the various other societies which committed atrocity is a very small-minded one. I believe in killing abortion doctors now, just as I know I would have believed in killing the European invaders who oppressed Native Americans when the New World was discovered, just as I know I would have believed in killing slave owners in the 1800s. (And since I’m the one defending the ones with no rights, instead of talking about the “privacy” to harm them, which was also used as an excuse in slavery, I can safely say with certainty that I would have been on the side of the slaves in that time period, regardless of what you want to argue.)

    Just so this is clear, the reason I’m leaving this anonymous isn’t because I’m ashamed of my views. I’ve posted them publicly with my real name before. It’s just because I don’t care enough about this to sign up for an account, and I don’t want my e-mail address spammed with hateful mails from Pro-Choicers who are too small-minded to see reason, and I don’t use Facebook or Twitter or any of those. Never understood the fad. And just so this is clear, “Pro-Life” does mean pro-life. Or at least, it means “pro-innocent-life.” Obviously, I don’t care about the people who are committing atrocities. It would be nice if we had the capability to rehabilitate them, but we don’t, and they aren’t the priority. Defenseless children are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *