Left-wing insanity reaches new levels

[Bob Blaylock]

This is the sort of absurdity that could only come from the left. In a state where suicide is legal, San Francisco is spending $211 million of the tax payer's money to prevent people from committing suicide.

After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.

What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.

San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America. Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice.

Now that is a very special kind of stupid that isn't found anywhere else in the world than the bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology.

Articles: Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco

This is Than Fwanthithco, after all, one of the stupidest places on Earth. There is little point in being shocked or surprised by any left wrong-wing insanity to come from there.

 

[Coyote]

Ethics ARE complex - ever more so in this era where our scientific accomplishments outstrip our ethics

Nothing outstrips ethics unless you allow it to.

What I'm trying to say is...ethics evolve, and new situations require new ethics.

One example that comes to mind of exactly that is genetic engineering. Science discovers and develops, it is ethically neutral - it's how people use it that requires the development of ethical parameters...and those can be quite complex, such as the nuclear bomb. What is more complicated: understanding how nuclear energy works or determining when to use a wmd? The problem today is our technological and scientific advancements have increased at an exponential pace and our ethics have not.

 

[Coyote]

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm. So was torture.

 

[Coyote]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

Bullshit. Learn history.

 

[P@triot]

What I'm trying to say is...ethics evolve, and new situations require new ethics.

I know exactly what you're trying to say and you are dead wrong. Situations change. Ethics are built from morals and moral never change.

What is more complicated: understanding how nuclear energy works or determining when to use a wmd?

Actually developing a nuclear bomb is infinitely more complicated. That is why so many nations are still unable to develop one, and the ones that do have them, stole it from the U.S. (such as the Soviet Union).

Almost any idiot can tell you when to use a nuclear bomb.

 

[Coyote]

So why the difference between a brain illness and an illness of some other part of the bod?

Because we know how to fix other parts of the body. That's not the case with the brain. We can't cure mental retardation, or autism, or down's syndrome, etc.

So the difference lies only in our ability to "cure"?

We can't cure diabetes, many types of cancer, many immune mediated diseases, genetic diseases...we manage them and treat the symptoms, much like brain diseases.

 

[Coyote]

What I'm trying to say is...ethics evolve, and new situations require new ethics.

I know exactly what you're trying to say and you are dead wrong. Situations change. Ethics are built from morals and moral never change.

What is more complicated: understanding how nuclear energy works or determining when to use a wmd?

Actually developing a nuclear bomb is infinitely more complicated. That is why so many nations are still unable to develop one, and the ones that do have them, stole it from the U.S. (such as the Soviet Union).

Almost any idiot can tell you when to use a nuclear bomb.

Really? Yes any idiot can, but not ethically.

What are the ethics of genetic engineering?

 

[P@triot]

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm.

That's because some people lack morals. That doesn't mean morals have changed. It just means there are bad people in the world.

 

[Coyote]

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm.

That's because some people lack morals. That doesn't mean morals have changed. It just means there are bad people in the world.

No, it means our ethics were different then.

 

[Rustic]

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm. So was torture.

In the snowflake society waterboarding is considered torture, but it really isn't, is it? Countries they have to deal with real torture laugh at it - the saying waterboarding is torture… lol

 

[Bush92]

That's easy to say...but ethics have to adapt to new situations - how do you develop ethics to adapt to new situations?

My dear....morals do not change even if situations do. Whether it's 1776 and I'm with a virtuous woman covered head-to-toe or it's 2076 and I'm with a promiscuous woman who is naked, I don't rape her. See? The situation changes but the morals do not.

Sweetheart...they do...

Just a few examples:

The ethics and morals of slavery.
Rape - yes...rape wasn't "rape if the woman was "promiscuous"...or if the woman was your wife.
You could rape a slave and it wasn't unethical...nor was it "rape".

Stupid. Happend rarely. You could not rape a slave and get by with it either. Typical liberal college history shit.

Bullshit. Learn history.

Learn a history outside the perimeters placed on you by liberal political ideology.

 

[Coyote]

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm. So was torture.

In the snowflake society waterboarding is considered torture, but it really isn't, is it? Countries they have to deal with real torture laugh at it - the saying waterboarding is torture… lol

You and your dipshit snowflake mania.

People who have undergone waterboarding consider it torture.

Come back when you can share some personal experiences of torture (aside from enduring unwanted relatives descending on thanksgiving).

In the meantime, here's your armchair quarterback trophy.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Non issue. If they want to do this who cares?

Conservatives care as it is a great illustration of the left-wing insanity, hypocrisy, and idiocy.

Conservatives care because Liberalism, in reality, is a failure.

 

[Rustic]

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm. So was torture.

In the snowflake society waterboarding is considered torture, but it really isn't, is it? Countries they have to deal with real torture laugh at it - the saying waterboarding is torture… lol

You and your dipshit snowflake mania.

People who have undergone waterboarding consider it torture.

Come back when you can share some personal experiences of torture (aside from enduring unwanted relatives descending on thanksgiving).

In the meantime, here's your armchair quarterback trophy.

Only snowflakes think waterboarding is torture... jack weed

 

[Coyote]

Slavery wasn't considered unethical.

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm. So was torture.

In the snowflake society waterboarding is considered torture, but it really isn't, is it? Countries they have to deal with real torture laugh at it - the saying waterboarding is torture… lol

You and your dipshit snowflake mania.

People who have undergone waterboarding consider it torture.

Come back when you can share some personal experiences of torture (aside from enduring unwanted relatives descending on thanksgiving).

In the meantime, here's your armchair quarterback trophy.

Only snowflakes think waterboarding is torture... jack weed

Only snowflakes say that...since...well...they've never experienced it

 

[Rustic]

Sure it was. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed it. Morals don't change.

But many did not, and for much of our existence slavery was the norm. So was torture.

In the snowflake society waterboarding is considered torture, but it really isn't, is it? Countries they have to deal with real torture laugh at it - the saying waterboarding is torture… lol

You and your dipshit snowflake mania.

People who have undergone waterboarding consider it torture.

Come back when you can share some personal experiences of torture (aside from enduring unwanted relatives descending on thanksgiving).

In the meantime, here's your armchair quarterback trophy.

Only snowflakes think waterboarding is torture... jack weed

Only snowflakes say that...since...well...they've never experienced it

I've sold some firearms to some military folk that have been water boarded… They don't think it's torture.

 

[TheDude]

This is the sort of absurdity that could only come from the left. In a state where suicide is legal, San Francisco is spending $211 million of the tax payer's money to prevent people from committing suicide.

After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.

What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.

San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America. Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice.

Now that is a very special kind of stupid that isn't found anywhere else in the world than the bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology.

Articles: Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco

Just remember it's places like SF that lean all things liberal. It's tragic, but does add merit to the understanding the left is out of control.

 

[P@triot]

No, it means our ethics were different then.

No...morals have never changed. It's simply that some people lack them. Some lacked them back then, some lack them now, and some will lack them in the future.

 

[P@triot]

Speaking of new levels of insanity...apparently we still owe the black community for slavery even though it's been nearly 160 years and none of them have ever been a slave or even knew a slave. At least - according to the snowflakes on the left.

University’s student government wants free tuition ‘reparations’ for black students

 

[P@triot]

Speaking of new levels of insanity...the left continues to deny basic science, basic biology, basic medical knowledge, etc.

Brown University Uses ‘Gender-Inclusive’ ‘They’ for Acceptance Letters