# Abortion discussion



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> How is shooting abortion doctors different from beheading journalists? Answer: it's not. It's precisely and exactly the same thing. I've been calling the modern U.S. right wing the American Taliban for years. It's hyperbolic, but not by much.



You're really going with THAT argument? You take an extremely extremely rare occurrence by homicidal nuts and assign it to evangelical Christianity? What percentage of Christians have ever shot an abortion doctor? What percentage approve of murdering abortion doctors? My gosh, that's insane.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 14, 2015)

deleted in protest of mod action


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 14, 2015)

There is no difference in how religion is used to propel murderers of abortion doctors and islamic fundamentalists to murder journalists. It works exactly the same. Yes fundamentalism is much more widespread in Islam and is a problem that they, not we, have to solve. Christianity has had its eons of murderous intolerance. The crusades, the spanish inquisition, our country was settled by maniacs who burned witches at the stake. Christianity has evolved somewhat from those days, and Islam hopefully will as well. 

Religion is, to my way of thinking, not arguable. It easily and often is used to give one the idea that their point of view is not just right, but sacred and to be defended with your life. 

The idea that human life begins at conception is to my way of thinking, insane. But it can be argued of course. What can't be argued is the idea that human life, or anything, is sacred. If you go down that road, eventually you will kill an abortion doctor. I don't think anything is sacred, because I don't think there is any such thing. I think lots of things are precious and to be protected and defended and honored. My family is precious, my friends are precious. The danger comes when a supernatural righteousness is invoked. Then we've got problems.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> The idea that human life begins at conception is to my way of thinking, insane. But it can be argued of course.



Every embryologist in the world will tell you that human life begins at conception, and you call the idea "insane"? It's nice to know that you know more than they do on the subject.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2015)

KEnK said:


> I don't think expelling a few cells from a uterus is equal to murdering a human being.



Have you ever looked at a fetal development timeline? At only 4 weeks, the organs begin to develop. At 5 weeks, the circulatory system begins to develop. At 6 weeks, the nose, mouth, ears, intestines and lungs begin to develop. 7 weeks: arms, legs, hands and feet begin to emerge. I could go on and on and on, but I'm sure you're getting the picture.



KEnK said:


> I have a view formed on science.
> Your stated view would impose your moral code on me-
> Wrapping my wife in the Burkha of an unwanted pregnancy.



You view is not formed on science. My view is based on science. Embryology says that human life begins at conception.

Your view is based on emotion, and on your own judgment that a human life that is not fully developed is not worth protecting.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 14, 2015)

deleted in protest of mod action


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 14, 2015)

Michael, I don't think you're interested in understanding or discussion. You are interested in what you believe to be the ultimate, infinite truth, to which you are privy. You are an evangelical Christian. That is what informs your view of when life begins. That and nothing else. You cherry pick information to support that stance. 

You also, as an Evangelic Christian, I assume believe that there is an afterlife and that jesus christ was the son of god and died for our sins. Every one of those things I consider to be proof of clinical insanity.

You cherry pick your science, I'll cherry pick mine. 




Michael K. Bain said:


> Have you ever looked at a fetal development timeline? At only 4 weeks, the organs begin to develop. At 5 weeks, the circulatory system begins to develop. At 6 weeks, the nose, mouth, ears, intestines and lungs begin to develop. 7 weeks: arms, legs, hands and feet begin to emerge. I could go on and on and on, but I'm sure you're getting the picture.
> 
> You view is not formed on science. My view is based on science. Embryology says that human life begins at conception.
> 
> Your view is based on emotion, and on your own judgment that a human life that is not fully developed is not worth protecting.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2015)

How exactly does this discussion belong in this thread?


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 14, 2015)

How does it not belong?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> How exactly does this discussion belong in this thread?



It doesn't.
Indoctrinated Liberals and Conservatives always feel the prism of their bias is relevant.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2015)

I was talking about the religious argument about when life begins. I would say that has more to do with religious belief vs women's' rights over their bodies, and I fail to see how, except in the broadest sense regarding how people disagree and it turns violent, it applies to the murder of Parisian civilians by radical Muslim extremists.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 14, 2015)

Yes it was a tangent I suppose. My point was, i think, that the irrational belief (religion) which provides an evangelical extremist the philosophical framework to support the idea that they are doing god's work by killing an abortion doctor, is very much the same as a muslim fundamentalist believing they are doing god's work by killing apostates, or whatever they call them, in a music venue in paris.



NYC Composer said:


> I was talking about the religious argument about when life begins. I would say that has more to do with religious belief vs women's' rights over their bodies, and I fail to see how, except in the broadest sense regarding how people disagree and it turns violent, it applies to the murder of Parisian civilians by radical Muslim extremists.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Michael, I don't think you're interested in understanding or discussion. You are interested in what you believe to be the ultimate, infinite truth, to which you are privy. You are an evangelical Christian. That is what informs your view of when life begins. That and nothing else.



Nothing else? I've told you that embryologists - without exception - say that human life begins at conception. And that is true. Embryology is of course the study of embryos. They should know these things. That's the reason I use embryologists to back up my stance.



Soundhound said:


> You cherry pick information to support that stance.



At least I pick facts. You haven't presented one iota of scientific or any evidence to support your claim that life doesn't begin at conception. Not one bit.



Soundhound said:


> You cherry pick your science, I'll cherry pick mine.



Then by all means pick some science and present it. All you're doing is saying that embryologists are wrong and insulting me.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 15, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Michael you always do this, you take offense so easily, when no offense is given. Things do not seem as black and white to me as they do to you.


Dude, you called my belief in Jesus "insanity" and then claim "no offense was given"? Oh how swell.



Soundhound said:


> Let's start with your 'science'. The idea of when 'life' begins is something not set in stone and the subject of much debate currently, is it not?


Not in the scientific/medial worlds, it's really not. Science is clear on that. Pro-choicers generally argue that protections should not be granted to fetuses.

* “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception….*
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
_
*“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”*
Dr. Hymie Gordon, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

*“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception.*_
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School
_
*“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence.”*_
The “Father of Modern Genetics” who identified Downs Syndrome as Trisomy 21, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, M.D., University of Descarte, Paris
_
*“Physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the fetus in the utero is alive at the very moment of conception… [T]he willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence is murder”*_
Dr. Horation Storer (Head of the American Medical Association’s Committee on Criminal Abortion)



Soundhound said:


> Can you give your source for your claim that all 'embryologists, without exception, believe that life begins at conception?' This sounds like something from an anti abortion flyer, what is your source?



i don't have "one source". I have many many sources. All embryology textbooks assert that human life begins at conception.

From http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins (Website of American College Of Pediatrics):

*"In 1975 The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research recommended that: the fetus, a human subject, is deserving of care and respect; that moral concern should extend to all who share human genetic heritage; and that the fetus, regardless of life prospects, should be treated respectfully and with dignity.21 As Dr. Kischer notes: “Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.”22
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception — fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth.March 17, 2004*
_Principal author: Fred de Miranda, MD, FCP_

Here are some references from embryology textbooks:

*“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei … and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning of a human being.” *
(Moore, Keith L.,_ Essentials of Human Embryology. _Toronto: B.C. Decker, Inc., 1988, p.2.)

_*“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”* _
(Carlson, Bruce M.,_ Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition._ New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
*
"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo..." (p. 55)."*
O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996._ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471133515/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=savedbygracemini&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0471133515 (Human Embryology &amp; Teratology), _Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.

_*“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”*
-The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998) p.2. T.W. Sadler’s Langman’s Embryology,_

Here are a ton more:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 15, 2015)

Michael, I'll respond here, but I suggest we take this offline if you'd like to go further. We're way off on a tangent and getting in the way of the main discussion.

You took offense at my suggesting that the murder of abortion doctors and the murder of the people in Paris are related, because they are both made by possible by religious belief. I do believe that, stated as much, and am absolutely open to, and intered in, discussing it, as I am with everything. You said you thought it was insane, to which I responded that I thought religion itself was insane. And once again, you took offense. You seem to be constantly looking for ways to be insulted, Michael. Live your life like that, and you will find it every day.

For the discussion about whether abortion is murder, I wasn't paying that close attention I'm afraid. But I see the connection now. Roe v. Wade considered abortion to be legal up until the fetus is considered viable. I think that's correct? The idea of sentience is also part of this discussion isn't it? Your stance is that life begins at conception, and therefor all abortion should be illegal.

I would contend that this is exactly what I'm talking about with religion. It doesn't seem, to me, that it matters when 'life' begins for this discussion. If I'm getting this right, a religious person considers life to be sacred, and therefor any destruction of that is sacrilege, if I'm getting that right. But as I've said before in this thread, I don't consider life to be sacred, because I don't believe there is such a thing. I think it is precious and wonderful and amazing, not sacred. But religion provides the philosophical foundation for outrage here, and so it is always religious extremists who kill abortion doctors.

If you take the idea of life being sacred to its logical end, then isn't all life sacred? If so, have you ever killed an ant, and if so, are you a murderer? If only human life is sacred, that seems to me a very selfish and easy rationalization.







Michael K. Bain said:


> Dude, you called my belief in Jesus "insanity" and then claim "no offense was given"? Oh how swell.
> 
> 
> Not in the scientific/medial worlds, it's really not. Science is clear on that. Pro-choicers generally argue that protections should not be granted to fetuses.
> ...


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 15, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> If you take the idea of life being sacred to its logical end, then isn't all life sacred? If so, have you ever killed an ant, and if so, are you a murderer? If only human life is sacred, that seems to me a very selfish and easy rationalization.


I love all innocent life, but of course not equally. An animal's life is not as important as a person's iife. I'm sure I step on ants accidentally. But not on purpose. I don't kill anything on purpose. In fact, I throw bugs out of the house rather than step on them. Thankfully, not many find their way in.

All that said, if any animal tried to kill a family member, I'd do what I had to stop it, even if that meant killing it. And if a person tried to kill a family member, I'd do what I had to stop him, even if it meant killing him. But that would be self defense / defense of others, not murder.

And we're talking about innocent fetuses, who are human beings who have never hurt anyone. How can we as a society not defend the most innocent of humans?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2015)

Where is the beginning of this thread and what was the moderator action? I missed all that.

Anyway:



> And we're talking about innocent fetuses, who are human beings who have never hurt anyone. How can we as a society not defend the most innocent of humans?



Because we as a society decided that a woman may not be coerced into bearing a baby if she doesn't want to. It's been the law since 1973, and it's absolutely correct in my opinion.

I sympathize with people who find abortion offensive - it's hard to imagine that anybody actually likes it - but I find the stuff about a fetus being a person ludicrous, and saying life begins at conception is totally irrelevant ("Every Sperm is Sacred"). And acting like your anti-abortion opinion is based on iron-clad biological facts is a crime against logic.


----------



## Jake (Nov 15, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> So Michael-since you say would defend "others", does that mean you'd kill an abortion doctor to save innocent fetuses? Not that it would be murder, it would be "defense of others" by your logic, correct?



Wow, I can't believe you even asked that question.


----------



## Jake (Nov 15, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Because we as a society decided that a woman may not be coerced into bearing a baby if she doesn't want to.


 Outside of a forced pregnancy (rape, etc.) who in the world are you thinking was coerced?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2015)

Someone whose condom broke? Someone whose IUD slipped? Someone whose birth control pill didn't work? (just a few examples). So, the wages of sex without any desire for a child is a forced pregnancy? All sex must be procreative in nature?

As to asking the question, I didn't post the chain of thought that makes it a real question. I was shocked by what I saw as the direction of that post, and I like to see a disavowal. Follow the thread of this statement and tell me you're not looking at justification:

"And if a person tried to kill a family member, I'd do what I had to stop him, even if it meant killing him. But that would be self defense / defense of others, not murder.

And we're talking about innocent fetuses, who are human beings who have never hurt anyone. How can we as a society not defend the most innocent of humans?"

Regardless, I've deleted my post. If it upsets you Jake, I suggest you delete yours that quotes me. If you don't want to, that's fine too.


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 16, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Where is the beginning of this thread and what was the moderator action? I missed all that.



I split off this thread from the Paris thread yesterday night because some users requested it and it seemed to be reasonable. Was not easy to decide which post to move though. All posters were informed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 16, 2015)

Made sense to me.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 16, 2015)

Hannes_F said:


> All posters were informed.


I was not informed
I'll send you a pm later


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 16, 2015)

Guys, I really don't come here to read about opinions on abortion, religion, and other very divisive issues. Please delete this thread. I really don't want to leave this forum.


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Guys, I really don't come here to read about opinions on abortion, religion, and other very divisive issues. Please delete this thread. I really don't want to leave this forum.



I hear you,..but now you know how some of the members here really tick,..this thread and that 'Paris' thread have really turned me off this forum,..can't believe the egos of most men up on their soap boxes.
I do alot of charity work and its the same everywhere about 1% or less are men,..all talk and no walk!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 16, 2015)

Dean said:


> I hear you,..but now you know how some of the members here really tick,..this thread and that 'Paris' thread have really turned me off this forum,..can't believe the egos of most men up on their soap boxes.
> I do alot of charity work and its the same everywhere about 1% or less are men,..all talk and no walk!


Sorry but this is not helpful to what I'm decrying. This forum should be about music-making, not much else. There are other places for that. Mods, please delete this thread.


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Sorry but this is not helpful to what I'm decrying. This forum should be about music-making, not much else. There are other places for that. Mods, please delete this thread.



Fair enough but this section is called 'Off Topic' for a good reason,..you could easily avoid it and stick to the music instead.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 16, 2015)

Dean said:


> Fair enough but this section is called 'Off Topic' for a good reason,..you could easily avoid it and stick to the music instead.


I've been here for 10+ years, so I'm well aware of the usefulness of this section. There's OT, and then there's community-dividing OT. IMHO, all topics are cool, except the hot ones: religion, abortion, sexual preferences.


----------



## woodsdenis (Nov 16, 2015)




----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> I've been here for 10+ years, so I'm well aware of the usefulness of this section. There's OT, and then there's community-dividing OT. IMHO, all topics are cool, except the hot ones: religion, abortion, sexual preferences.



I never said it was useful but it is what it is,..'Off Topic' (unless a caveat is added by Mods saying no 'hot' topics.) 
So folks can either stick to the music and leave them to it or jump on the whole 'long Goodbye' thing thats sweeping the forum. D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 16, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> As to asking the question, I didn't post the chain of thought that makes it a real question. I was shocked by what I saw as the direction of that post, and I like to see a disavowal. Follow the thread of this statement and tell me you're not looking at justification:
> 
> "And if a person tried to kill a family member, I'd do what I had to stop him, even if it meant killing him. But that would be self defense / defense of others, not murder.



Read the question that my post was a response to, and you'd see that it had nothing to do with abortion doctors. Soundhound asked me a question about life in general, including animals, and the word murder was mentioned. I was simply answering the question in general terms.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Guys, I really don't come here to read about opinions on abortion, religion, and other very divisive issues. Please delete this thread. I really don't want to leave this forum.


You don't have to participate or even read it. The mods clearly labeled the thread "Abortion Discussion". You don't have to click on it.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 16, 2015)

OK, I'm out too. Most of my time here has been fun. See you in the funny pages.


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 16, 2015)

I think society needs new consents to old questions within changing scenarios. To get there by discussion instead of power ratio is the best way if we believe into democracy. I don't see why composers should exclude themselves from this discussion by default, and I guess that is why this and the other thread still live atm despite several shutdown requests.

That being said I agree with Dean that we have to walk the walk more than talk the talk.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 16, 2015)

I have, I guess, strong and controversial opinions on some of these topics, and have ruffled feathers more than once. I stayed out of this 'universe repair' forum for a while, and I think I'll do that again. I love VI Control, I rely on it and hope I can make at least some small helpful contribution from time to time, and don't want to make anyone uncomfortable or unwelcome.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 16, 2015)

Jake, having sex and bearing children are almost totally separate for most people in Western culture.

Even someone as loathsome as I am was able to find a few women willing to shag me over the course of my career, still more remarkably some of them more than once, yet I've only procreated a single time.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 16, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> Read the question that my post was a response to, and you'd see that it had nothing to do with abortion doctors. Soundhound asked me a question about life in general, including animals, and the word murder was mentioned. I was simply answering the question in general terms.



Michael, I read your post as a logic chain of how people could get there, to the righteousness of defending innocent fetuses by any means necessary (just like you'd do with a family member) and I still haven't see you disavow that, which I find chilling.


----------



## Jake (Nov 16, 2015)

NYC Composer,

I do not see the statement by the poster regarding self defense in the home from an intruder being in anyway tied to the next sentence. It could have been better stated, but perhaps you see that due to a preconceived idea as to what the poster is thinking. I don't know how you are connecting the two.

I think any righteous thinking individual would see that killing an abortion doctor is wrong. However I also think there is no question as to whether an individual has the right to stop an intruder.

That said, regarding your first statement about broken condoms or faulty IUD's. Sex has included in it the function of procreation and if you are not ready for the responsibilities of that potential outcome then don't go there. Now if that gets a reply of "that's absurd" then let me say this.

What follows is a reply in general and not directly to any one individual. Just my 2 copper plated slugs.

In order to continue in a discussion on this topic I feel we need to determine if we have any common ground upon which to base any of our points. In other words, if I come to you and say that “God says X, Y and Z”, and you say “well I don’t believe in God” then we are (at least on this level) at an impasse.

We all operate from a set of “guidelines” if you will. And if our guidelines are based upon completely different standards then we are likely hopelessly at odds. Unless of course we can agree upon what standards we will use for the establishment of our guidelines.

In any decent society there is at least a core of these standards upon which we derive our guidelines. You could probably find these two in that core as a good start: 1) We will do what we say, and 2) we will not violate another person or their property. And everything else that we build our society upon should at least be centered around these standards.

If we disagree already, then we are again at an impasse.

Now, if you don’t think that scrubbing the womb of a pregnant woman is a violation of another persons rights, then it is obvious that you don’t see a fetus as being a person, a person who in the previous paragraph is someone whom we should not violate. This seems to be the position of many people.

So, now let’s take this issue of abortion and break it up into pieces if you will.

A woman is pregnant in her first week, and has an abortion. The fetus is barely even discernible, so we argue that it is not a person. She get’s the abortion, that’s OK right?

Perhaps she waits until she is 4 months pregnant, as she has been agonizing over the decision, but decides that she wants to abort. At this time the fetus is obviously a human being, easily discernible even to a casual observer. But hey, it’s only 4 months old, so let’s just not call it a person yet. She get’s the abortion, that’s OK right?

Now we have the same woman, but she’s waited until the week of her expected delivery date, and she’s decided that she does not want this child, so it’s time for an abortion. Do those of you who support abortion think that she has the right to abort now, at nine months? That’s OK right?

If you said yes to the first or second, and no to the last then how can you say yes to any abortion at any time? It’s simply illogical to say that a baby, regardless of it’s age (9 months in the last case) is not a person.

However, if you believe that it’s OK for a woman to abort at 9 months (via killing the baby either in or out of the womb), then you would have to agree that a person who attacks the woman with a knife, stabbing her in the belly and killing the baby is not guilty of murder if the woman survives.

I dare say that the vast majority of people would say that killing a 9 month old baby in the womb is murder. Of course there are cases wherein this has been judged, in a court of law, to be acceptable. But legalized murder is still murder. If what a judge rules is defacto truth in your world view, then there is little we have left to talk about, again at an impasse.

However, If you agree that the assailant is guilty of murder, then you have to see that killing the baby is murder regardless of who makes the decision or carries out the act and at what stage in it’s life.

We are back to our original point of do we have an agreed upon set of standards upon which we derive our rules or not.

If your moral compass is whatever makes you feel good or you find convenient due to your desires, and you get your way, then beware of what society will become as the masses slip further and further down the slope of self indulgence, viewing whatever they think feels good or is convenient to their desires to be acceptable. You may find yourself outnumbered by those who have slipped down that slope even further than yourself and you will be subject to what you will eventually recognize as depravity, which was just a version of yours only taken even further. 
Just a cursory review of history will show you what can happen as moral decay is found acceptable.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 16, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Michael, I read your post as a logic chain of how people could get there, to the righteousness of defending innocent fetuses by any means necessary (just like you'd do with a family member) and I still haven't see you disavow that, which I find chilling.


When did you ask me to disavow it?
Anyway of course, I disavow it. Killing an abortion doctor would be murder
Welcome to the world of chilling feelings. I find the support of killing babies in the womb very chilling.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 16, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Because we as a society decided that a woman may not be coerced into bearing a baby if she doesn't want to. It's been the law since 1973, and it's absolutely correct in my opinion.



In Nazi Germany, reporting Jews was the law. Just because something's the law doesn't make it good.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> it's hard to imagine that anybody actually likes it -



Well of course, no one likes it. It's not fun. But I've heard people say "Personally, I think it's wrong, but it should be legal", and I find that ridiculous. Why would someone find abortion wrong if it's the killing of an innocent human baby? What other reason would there be to think it is "wrong"? And if that person _does_ think it's the killing of an innocent human, why does he think it should be legal? Is he admitting to be pro-murder?



Nick Batzdorf said:


> but I find the stuff about a fetus being a person ludicrous,



People who have studied and made profession in that field know more about it than you do.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> and saying life begins at conception is totally irrelevant ("Every Sperm is Sacred").



Why? Don't we have laws to protect innocent human beings? When the experts all say that a zygote is the beginning of an individual human being, you can put away that "it's just sperm and/or cells" argument.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> And acting like your anti-abortion opinion is based on iron-clad biological facts is a crime against logic.


Why? I gave you quote after quote from embryology textbooks and embryologists and other scientists. How is using experts to support an idea a "crime against logic"? Please explain that.


----------



## Jake (Nov 16, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> How is using experts to support an idea a "crime against logic"? Please explain that.



Michael,

I think this is a case of what I wrote about in my last post, last paragraph. If our moral compass is based upon whatever we desire to satisfy our wants, then logic is often inconvenient and therefore deemed irrelevant. 

Personal desire is often totally disconnected from logic. 

I may desire a new car, but it is not in my own or my families best financial interest. So what, I want one. Sex with that desirable other is what I desire right now, but she might get pregnant, so what I want her. The list is almost endless.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 16, 2015)

Jake said:


> NYC Composer,
> 
> I do not see the statement by the poster regarding self defense in the home from an intruder being in anyway tied to the next sentence. It could have been better stated, but perhaps you see that due to a preconceived idea as to what the poster is thinking. I don't know how you are connecting the two.



Well Jake, I think it was fairly clearly stated in the post. Perhaps you don't see that because of your preconceived agreement with the poster.



Jake said:


> I think any righteous thinking individual would see that killing an abortion doctor is wrong


I so agree. Now that I've heard it from Michael, I'm vastly relieved to think he thinks so too.




Jake said:


> That said, regarding your first statement about broken condoms or faulty IUD's. Sex has included in it the function of procreation and if you are not ready for the responsibilities of that potential outcome then don't go there



Now there, you ignore the entire history of human sexuality. Telling teens, for example, when their hormones are raging not to have sex is like telling grass not to grow. It's nonsensical on the face of it, because regardless of your personal beliefs, you're never going to control it. Never.



Jake said:


> In order to continue in a discussion on this topic I feel we need to determine if we have any common ground upon which to base any of our points. In other words, if I come to you and say that “God says X, Y and Z”, and you say “well I don’t believe in God” then we are (at least on this level) at an impasse.



Maybe yes, maybe no. The nature of "God" is determined differently by many different people in many different faiths and sects. So are the nature of morality and ethics. Of course, if you reject every other belief than your own out of whole cloth and decide that only you and those who agree with you possess a universal truth, there's no talking to you whatsoever. If you also retain the notion that a person who doesn't accept your version of truth possesses no ethical or moral system of their own, THAT'S an impasse.





Jake said:


> If your moral compass is whatever makes you feel good or you find convenient due to your desires, and you get your way, then beware of what society will become as the masses slip further and further down the slope of self indulgence, viewing whatever they think feels good or is convenient to their desires to be acceptable. You may find yourself outnumbered by those who have slipped down that slope even further than yourself and you will be subject to what you will eventually recognize as depravity, which was just a version of yours only taken even further.
> Just a cursory review of history will show you what can happen as moral decay is found acceptable.



It's amazing to me how aligned this viewpoint is with that of, say, the Taliban. The variance occurs only in what exactly is considered depravity and moral decay. The Taliban, too, decries self indulgence, a skewed moral compass, and the slippery slope of Western depravity.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 17, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Well Jake, I think it was fairly clearly stated in the post. Perhaps you don't see that because of your preconceived agreement with the poster.


Or perhaps you made a flying leap of logic.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 17, 2015)

Jake said:


> Michael,
> 
> I think this is a case of what I wrote about in my last post, last paragraph. If our moral compass is based upon whatever we desire to satisfy our wants, then logic is often inconvenient and therefore deemed irrelevant.
> 
> ...


Wow, very hard-hitting. But if I'm going to be brutally honest; I think it's true, especially in this case. Medical science clearly asserts that human life begins at conception, but pro-choicers don't seem to care. Or they say things like "that is illogical", as if they know more about it than the experts in the profession. They don't even have to dig deep; something as simple as a fetal development timeline shows how early heart, legs, arms, other organs, etc. begin to develop. But then they'll throw "personhood" into the argument as if that is somehow different from a human being with emerging heart, legs, arms, other organs, etc.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 17, 2015)

But of course that ignores the viability issue which you haven't addressed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 17, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> Or perhaps you made a flying leap of logic.


Or perhaps I didn't. I'm still mulling it. You don't toss ideas around as musing philosophical enquiries much, Michael. As far as I can tell, you state and defend your positions. I'm fine with that. I suspect you articulated your case pretty clearly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 17, 2015)

> How is using experts to support an idea a "crime against logic"? Please explain that.



It's a value, not an idea, and the only experts on your and my values are you and me. You are so offended by abortion that you put it ahead of a woman's right to choose not to bear a child; I'm so offended by someone forcing a woman to bear a child against her will that I put it ahead of not liking abortions.

I'm leaving the rest of your Gish Gallop alone, because it's not interesting to me.


----------



## mc_deli (Nov 17, 2015)

I'm not going to read the thread. However,

I just want to say to the moderators and those running the show that you are advised to have a no politics, no religion, no porn policy in special interest fora. You should delete this thread. And others like it.


----------



## Jake (Nov 17, 2015)

NYC Composer,

I would like to back up here and state the following:

I have nothing but good intentions in conversing with you or anyone else who may read this and consider themselves as part of what is being said. I only hope to find truth and I have no desire to violate another persons rights to freedom of belief. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Side note not aimed at anyone in particular:
Freedom of belief of course is only relevant if we have the freedom to express it as well as the freedom from persecution for those beliefs. Unfortunately today it seems that some people feel that freedom OF religion is supposed to be freedom FROM religion. I digress

I am hopeful that anytime there is a discussion such as this, that to all those involved we will agree that seeking the truth is more important than proving our point.

I would like to believe that I am able (as I try) to put my own desires aside when I seek the truth in any matter. I am however only human, so I don’t always succeed.

I also believe that there is only one truth when it comes to any matter. That is something than many people will argue.

Truth is something that is usually seen as what is most in line with our own desires. Not the facts, but our desires. I can point a finger at you and say that about you and you can point at me and say the same. That does not however change the truth in any way. It is what it is.

That said, I feel a question is in order to establish what our plain of reference is.

Do you believe that when you die that you cease to exist or do you continue to exist in a spiritual sense? For those who believe that physical death is “lights out, it’s over” their reference point is certainly different from one who believes that there is more to come.

This is a very important point in my estimation, as it sets the tone of a persons world view. I am not arguing one’s right to believe whatever they desire, I’m just noting that it will most certainly influence their views.

If there is nothing after this, then there certainly cannot be any accountability for our actions outside of what the majority agrees upon, and therefore they can in confidence believe anything to be true as there are no consequences for being wrong (beyond the agreed upon laws and penalties). Worst case scenario for that individual is somebody kills them here and now and that’s the end of that.

Yes, I’m a Christian. My world view is shaped by the belief that I will be held accountable by an authority higher than any court of man. This belief most certainly shapes my views and gives me more than my inner compass as to how I must treat my fellow man.

Unfortunately for all Christians, and no different than any other group, the actions of the vocal minority often shape popular opinion regarding the rest. The reprehensible actions of some do not represent the rest. I digress again…..

I believe that the taking of any human life is wrong unless that person has demonstrated the intent to take the life of another. It would be best to stop that person without any physical harm, but that is not always possible.

Now, if we have at least come to the agreement that truth is more than just what we desire it to be, that truth is actually quantifiable, then we can try to agree upon what is truth in regards to what is human life.

You have expressed that you think it is wrong to take the life of an abortion doctor, which we agree upon. So, if the doctor has worth, then I have to ask why the baby does not?

You may say that the baby is not a person. But let me ask this. Is the baby a human being?

Somebody might now be thinking “well, duh, of course it’s a human being, it’s not a monkey or a dog or a whale”. It’s species is not in question is it?

We’re just trying to determine if it is a human being that has rights, the same rights as the abortion doctor, or you and I.

Now if your definition is going to rest upon what you brought to Michael regarding the viability argument, please consider this if you will.

Is arguing over the viability of a baby any different than arguing over the viability of a severely injured person, or a person in the late stages of a potentially fatal disease. Because the viability argument of course revolves around the issue of whether the baby can survive outside the womb, without any external intervention from the medical community. There are many cases wherein a life is unsustainable without extreme measures from outside influence.

Arguing over the life of an unborn child in regards to it’s ability to survive outside of the mother is truly not relevant to the question of whether that baby is a “person” or not. It’s just a “line in the sand”, a convenient diversion from the core issue, that being; is this baby a human being that has the right to live?

I will say it again, I think the viability argument is dodging the core question. It’s akin to acknowledging that the baby is a human being, but not a person. I see it as rationalization, that by changing the question we think we have somehow changed the reality of it.

I hope that we can stand back and look at this from a perspective that is without personal bias, but as humans that is often a very difficult thing to do. If the consequences of driving drunk and killing somebody is deemed as punishable. And the drunkard is not excused simply because he wanted to get drunk, then how can we flippantly say that the consequences of pregnancy from a purely voluntary act are any less accountable? There are consequences in life for our actions and I hope that we are human enough to accept that responsibility. Raging hormones or an overwhelming desire of another kind, do not excuse us from the consequences of our actions.

I find it very hopeful that you did not address anything that I asked about abortion in terms of the 1 week old vs. the 4 month old vs. 9 month old. I pray that you did not address it because you are actually pondering what I asked. That perhaps in even just a small way I may have influenced you to reconsider at least a portion of your stance.

I don’t know your name other than NYC Composer, but I hope that someday I have the privilege to meet you in person, and look into your eyes, a fellow human being, and see the soul of another looking back at me. A real person, a fellow human being with worth and something to give back to humanity. Another like me who was given the chance to live!
I truly write this with love in my heart, and the hope that we can find common ground on this subject of abortion.
That we at least have a chance come to see that a baby is a human being just like you and I for whom we should all have regard as dear and precious and worth a chance.

Peace!


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 17, 2015)

mc_deli said:


> no politics, no religion, no porn policy



I perceive it as an insult to equal these three - but if this is your choice then be it. And regarding your request I want to quote one veteran moderator of this forum:

"Whoever goes to a composer's forum in order to discuss politics gets what he deserves."

and myself:

"I think society needs new consents to old questions within changing scenarios. To get there by discussion instead of power ratio is the best way if we believe into democracy. I don't see why composers should exclude themselves from this discussion by default, and I guess that is why this and the other thread still live atm despite several shutdown requests."

Take your pick. We have been through many troubles until we had the level of free speech as it can be maintained here, and users are constantly on the watch for this not being touched - and although it is inconvenient often I support that as good as I can.


----------



## Jake (Nov 17, 2015)

It's interesting that there are complaints about this thread.

The thread is plainly titled. There should be no surprises as to "what's in the box"! 

This reminds me of the story of the old woman who called the police. When they arrive she tells them that she's disgusted with her neighbor laying out in his backyard in the nude. So the officer asks her to show him. She takes him out back where there is a ladder leaning up against a very tall fence, and says that if he'll just climb up there he can see it!


----------



## KEnK (Nov 17, 2015)

Jake said:


> Unfortunately today it seems that some people feel that freedom OF religion is supposed to be freedom FROM religion.


That statement was ridiculous when Elizabeth Dole said it in the early 90's (or was it the 80's?)
and it's even more ridiculous now- We live in a Secular Nation purposefully designed that way-
to protect us all from what has been and can be Religious Tyranny


Jake said:


> if I come to you and say that “God says X, Y and Z”, and you say “well I don’t believe in God” then we are (at least on this level) at an impasse.


Yes we are at an impasse.

Which god by the way?
Allah? Jehovah? Vishnu? Shiva? Zeus?
Some other God around far earlier? Anubus? Ra?

Can everyone decide on their own god?
Is yours "better" for some reason?

Do you know that Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David and Jesus all appear in the Koran?
Do you know that peaceful Muslims look at the Koran as the 3rd part of "The Story"?
Are you any different in denying the Koran from the Jewish preference to ignore the New Testament?

There can be no religious "Truth", just suppositions unsupportable by anything except your personal instinct.

Further on Freedom FROM Religion-
Would you be happy to live under Sharia?
because it became the Religion of Truth to a Voting Majority?

Does the Majority get to decide which God is the True God?
or just you? or just Evangelical Christians?

What part of the so called Holy Book do you decide is True or False?
How about Genesis? Are you a Creationist?
Did Adam & Eve ride the Dinosaurs?- are Fossils a Trick of Satan?
What other parts of the sum total of Human Knowledge will you Deny?
Is Climate Change Real?
It's not in The Bible.

All these texts that are centuries old are fairy tales,
they have little place in society other than to oppress people.
That is what their place has always been, and that is what it is now-

Freedom FROM Religion
Freedom FROM Tyranny
Definitely. It's absolutely necessary.

k


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 17, 2015)

KEnK said:


> All these texts that are centuries old are fairy tales



That is good to know. Some fairy tales are full of wisdom.


----------



## Jake (Nov 17, 2015)

KEnK said:


> ...............................
> Freedom FROM Religion
> Freedom FROM Tyranny
> Definitely. It's absolutely necessary.



Would you really like to discuss religion? Or are you just taking your angst against religion out on me? Because that's just a waste of both our time.

If you would truly like to discuss this with an open mind and a willingness to set aside your feelings, I would be more than happy to converse with you either in a new thread, or via personal means. It does seem to me however that your mind is made up and that box is sealed and stored.

I do not however desire to engage in a shootout to see who's got the biggest gun.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 17, 2015)

Jake said:


> Would you really like to discuss religion?


I just did-
I have no angst and your saying that in itself is an example of the proselytizing thing that goes of course nowhere.
I just gave you a list of facts and ideas that clearly show why we need freedom FROM religion-
and you seem to be unable to respond to that-

I told you why we need Separation of Church and State.
Seems like "a discussion" to me


----------



## KEnK (Nov 17, 2015)

Hannes_F said:


> That is good to know. Some fairy tales are full of wisdom.


 Certainly they are.
And unicorns, goblins and talking rabbits


----------



## Jake (Nov 17, 2015)

KEnK said:


> I just did-
> I have no angst and your saying that in itself is an example of the proselytizing thing that goes of course nowhere.
> I just gave you a list of facts and ideas that clearly show why we need freedom FROM religion-
> and you seem to be unable to respond to that-
> ...



The founders of this nation agreed with you. Separation of church and state.

I agree with them as well.

It is however evident that many of them were Christians and the documents of the day are full of examples that testify to this.

I fail to understand that you cite the constitution as it fits your dialogue and then ignore the part of the first amendment that doesn't.

Or perhaps you hold the view that the constitution is just an outdated document that needs revision?

So I take your response to be a "No" to my previous question?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 17, 2015)

And this is the off-topic section.

Don't click on the thread if you don't like it. There's absolutely no reason not to discuss abortion - or politics, or religion, or anything else - here.

I actually prefer porn to someone taking it upon him/herself to tell other people not to discuss things in the OT section, to be brutally honest.


----------



## woodsdenis (Nov 17, 2015)

Always strikes me as strange as the anti abortion lobby mostly consists of men. Also to note a foetus is not viable at conception no matter what crackpot experts you produce, so that argument about "murder" from day one is bogus and always has been. So is masterbation murder or just manslaughter ?

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/

As a side note this is what the Catholic church still gets up to.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 17, 2015)

Jake said:


> I fail to understand that you cite the constitution as it fits your dialogue and then ignore the part of the first amendment that doesn't.
> 
> Or perhaps you hold the view that the constitution is just an outdated document that needs revision?
> 
> So I take your response to be a "No" to my previous question?


This is a public discussion. (If that's what you mean)
As to the Constitution-
You are free to believe what you will-
You are not free to impose those beliefs on society.

The Constitution, as can be seen by the slowly growing list of amendments,
was designed to be revised as society warrants, and to the credit of the framers,
they made it very difficult to do so.

And this may be of interest to you-
I live in a neighborhood where the Jehovah's Witnesses come calling on Saturdays and Sundays.
Part of their faith is that they must testify- save souls, bring others into the Light.
I always listen politely and I am on their list as a "friendly".
They may be thinking they are helping me-
but by listening to them, I am helping them "walk" in their faith.

I don't know if that ever occurs to them
but that's why I do it.
They are nice people and I don't mind assisting them in their goals

k


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 17, 2015)

mc_deli said:


> I'm not going to read the thread. However,
> 
> I just want to say to the moderators and those running the show that you are advised to have a no politics, no religion, no porn policy in special interest fora. You should delete this thread. And others like it.


As no one is forced to come here or read one word, I fail to see how your advisement makes any sense whatsoever, and I fully and completely disagree. Do you burn books that address controversial topics?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 17, 2015)

Jake said:


> NYC Composer,
> 
> I would like to back up here and state the following:
> 
> ...


Jake- I may disagree with you on many matters, but I admire the length of your posts As succinctly as possible:

1. My name is Larry, pleased to meet you.
2. I do not believe in an afterlife, though I do not reject the possibility as it is as impossible to disprove as it is to prove. That said, I figure I'd better do as much good here as possible as I probably won't get another chance after I expire.
3. I view the deliberate killing of an adult doctor as murder with no justification possible.
4. I reject your thought that viability has no bearing. To me, it absolutely does and is a core issue. I do not accept the premise that a three week old fetus is an "unborn child."
5. I believe no woman should aborting a 9 month old fetus, which is really no longer a fetus but a fully viable being. At that point, and at some determined fully viable level, I'd hope adoption would be the option chosen. Late term abortions are a very small portion of abortions performed, but I have an uncomfortability with them past a certain medical point. Exactly where, I could not say specifically.

Jake, let's leave it there, as I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, but I don't regret the exchange of thoughts. Best wishes to you.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 17, 2015)

woodsdenis said:


> Always strikes me as strange as the anti abortion lobby mostly consists of men. Also to note a foetus is not viable at conception no matter what crackpot experts you produce, so that argument about "murder" from day one is bogus and always has been. So is masterbation murder or just manslaughter ?
> 
> http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/
> 
> As a side note this is what the Catholic church still gets up to.


Denis- I fear my wife, the 70's feminist, and the many women who marched and lobbied with her through the years would disagree with you there


----------



## Allegro (Nov 17, 2015)

To everyone against such threads: Discussions like these help us form a stronger or informed opinion about something we care about. It actually helps solve internal conflicts and is still technically "musicians helping musicians".
Maybe we can color the thread title RED or something for you guys when threads go too controversial.


----------



## AR (Nov 18, 2015)

My 2 cents: If you want your unborn child someday in near future on Judgement Day to call you a murderer, then go ahead an do it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 18, 2015)

All those women who spurned me as a lad are in even bigger trouble from those unborn children.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 18, 2015)

AR said:


> My 2 cents: If you want your unborn child someday in near future on Judgement Day to call you a murderer, then go ahead an do it.


???

What motivates you "Believers"?
Is it Fear? Guilt?
Fear of Guilt?
How can that statement be viewed in any way as a productive part of rational discussion?

In case there is anyone still looking at this "lost cause" of attempted dialog,
I remind you that this thread started in the Paris thread-
because I said quite simply that I view "Evangelicals" as the American Taliban.

Do you believers honestly see any difference in anything but degree,
in your unprovable fervent "belief" and judgement of "others",
based on thousand year old stories,
as any different than the misguided soul who pushes the button on his suicide belt?

I don't.

Blindness
Religious Tyranny
Judgement Will Be Upon You!
Death to the Infidels!
Jihad my Brothers!
A thing of degree

Think about that when you call me a murderer
for simply seeing that a woman's body is no one's property.
It is not your right to decide anything about her
That's what "Choice" means.
It is not yours to make or to take away

And if you believe in a Talking Rabbit-
Then you let that thing decide what's right or wrong.
It's not your place- even by the rules within your own system


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 18, 2015)

Larry the afterlife isn't all its cracked up to be.
Imagine getting to float around with all of your dead ancestors who want to tell you day after day everything you screwed up down on the surface.

Or strict Jainists having to answer for the death of so many insects they accidentally stepped on.

Even more of a drag is a Jihadi thinking about the virgins awaiting them.
Not very experienced with virgins but usually hot babes arent virgins.
Can you imagine walking into a harem of Rosie ODonnell clones. Or chicks with hairy legs, etc.

My motto is hurt nobody, mind your own business, raise your loved ones and stay alive as long as possible.
I need a little more than ancient altered texts. Sumerian Cuneform is more trustworthy. Its written in stone. Constantine had no access.

And abortion is the choice of the women.
Unless of course a real pro life advocate steps in and pleads to give birth. Offers a peaceful healthy enviroment then gives the woman another choice to keep the child or agree to adoption.

Otherwise its just more people talking past each other.


----------



## MA-Simon (Nov 18, 2015)




----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 18, 2015)

Oh no- the un-Biorn!


----------



## woodsdenis (Nov 18, 2015)

Judgement Day are you kidding me, there is more chance of the movie becoming fact than your version of it.


----------



## AR (Nov 19, 2015)

Yes, so everybody mind their own business, leave everyone their opinion and don't post such work unrelated threads here 

Don't you guys have work to do?? Go ahead and start workin on music you lazy punks!


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

AR said:


> Yes, so everybody mind their own business, leave everyone their opinion


That would be fine...
but the problem is the Christian Right and Pro-Lifers in general are trying
through various means to make their religious opinion the rule of law in a secular nation.
This matter was settled by the Supreme Court over 40 years ago-

It doesn't matter to me what moral codes people adhere to privately-
but when they attempt, because of their religion, to remove or usurp a Constitutional protection 
then I must defend what I view as a threat to my personal liberty.

A similar battle can be seen in the gun law debate.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2015)

Oh you mean wealthy white Liberals pretending they want to amend the 2nd constitution...?
They take NRA money, it will never happen.
This is why they appear (as instructed) at every mass shooting in gun free areas and give speeches.
Gun and Ammo sales skyrocket, then they return to DC and do as they're instructed......NOTHING.
So there's really no debate, fundraising purposes, which is what these clowns do.

Harry Reid has the NRA come over for target practice at one of his mansions.
Harry also vows to end Prostitution, goes to DC and gives another script reading as he struggles with his glasses to read what his bosses wrote, then the Brothel owners send in the checks, no more speeches until the next Crusade against the scourge of the Earth.

Eventually the wooliest covered Sheep will come to their senses and understand everything in this world is true, as long as you don't follow the pointed fingers and follow the cash.

So how many more decades of fake gun laws can we expect...?
Fundraising... that's what our lawyers do, and will always do until the Sheep take a stand instead of crying on social media.

KenK have you any abortions recently...?
Can't understand why Conservative and Liberal men think their job is to protect the woman or take away her decision.
This is a chick thing, leave them alone, they're not helpless.
Well the Liberal voting base is, but that's really just a front like Defense spending.
The Crime Families in DC each have their own tax payer slush fund worth billions to siphon from.

Yuze guys should just quit believing in this Liberal and Conservative fairy tale land and just vote with the majority of Americans.
As you can tell we have removed dirtbags in large numbers since 2004.
The last 2 elections we noticed the total uselessness of pollsters.
Hell they couldn't even predict Trumps popularity and power.

Right now Hollande, Putin and Obama consulted with the Donald where he told them where the lucrative oil fields and supply routes were.
He's going to be the next President, they have to listen.

So It Is Written, So It Shall Be Done.
Yul Brennar as Ramses the II in Exodus (over the backdrop of Jewish Slaves held captive by racist Egyptians)
MGM/United Artists 1956


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2015)

KEnK said:


> That would be fine...
> but the problem is the Christian Right and Pro-Lifers in general are trying
> through various means to make their religious opinion the rule of law in a secular nation.
> This matter was settled by the Supreme Court over 40 years ago-
> ...



So when you want the rules written your way it' OK because you're secular (without religion), which is no more or less of a belief system than being with religion. You simply cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore you are no more right than anyone else on this planet. You do however seem to be far more self righteous.

So, when those goofball religion groupies desire a different set of rules from yours, they must do so privately.

I suppose that you (the almighty secular supreme council) however should get to set the standards of society in a vacuum.

And I assume that you would blindly follow the Supreme Court right off a cliff if they ruled such. Or maybe it's just convenient to sight their rulings when it suits you.

We all have the same right. The right to influence the process.

As I stated before, if the majority sways your way, you will "win", and if not then you will have to suck it up.

We shall all, as has always been, reap as we sow.


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Oh you mean wealthy white Liberals pretending they want to amend the 2nd constitution...?



Quick question.

Do you know what it takes to amend the constitution?


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> KenK have you any abortions recently...?
> Can't understand why Conservative and Liberal men think their job is to protect the woman or take away her decision.
> This is a chick thing, leave them alone, they're not helpless.


Chim- I always agree w/ your cynical view of the political system-
However, this issue is not a "chick thing". 
As a partnered hetrosexual, "Choice" does matter to me, and I think it matters to you as well.
I can continue, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 19, 2015)

jake, I make no bones about it: those "goofball religion groupies" - aka the religious right (which as the bumper sticker says is neither) are an extremely destructive group for whom I have no respect whatsoever. Anyone who thinks God commanded him or her to get involved in right-wing politics is severely misguided. That's putting it politely; what I really mean involves a stream of expletives.

And your stuff about the Supreme Court is backwards, inside out, and a straw man argument. Is there a logical fallacy for silly semantics? That applies too.

Do I really need to spell out that the Supreme Court has made both good and bad decisions? Roe v. Wade was a good one in my opinion. So were the ones that made the ACA the law. On the other hand Dred Scott (since reversed, of course) wasn't, Citizens United is beyond perverse, and Bush v. Gore was treasonous.

Can't you just leave it at your being offended by abortions? Because that's all it comes down to.


----------



## Red (Nov 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> Nothing else? I've told you that embryologists - without exception - say that human life begins at conception. And that is true. Embryology is of course the study of embryos. They should know these things. That's the reason I use embryologists to back up my stance.



Well, there's the problem right there. You're letting a man in a funny white coat tell you what is and isn't life. Kinda like how people listen to man with funny hats on what is afterlife and etc.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

Jake said:


> So when you want the rules written your way it' OK because you're secular (without religion), which is no more or less of a belief system than being with religion. You simply cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore you are no more right than anyone else on this planet. You do however seem to be far more self righteous.


Jake-
I am a "Devout Secular Humanist", compassionate and considerate.
If you find me "self-righteous", it's because I am also passionate and persuasive in a debate.
It doesn't matter to me what people choose to believe (or practice) in privacy.
I insist on this same simple courtesy from the religious and non-religious alike.

The rules of our nation were from the outset designed to Separate Church and State.
I didn't write them, but I think it's a brilliant and necessary concept.
You seemed to agree w/ that earlier in this discussion.


Jake said:


> So, when those goofball religion groupies desire a different set of rules from yours, they must do so privately. I suppose that you (the almighty secular supreme council) however should get to set the standards of society in a vacuum.


Yes- practice whatever you like in the privacy of your home, and allow me the same privilege.
With 7.3 billion people on the planet, there is no vacuum. The rules are set to allow us as much freedom as possible.
They are not perfect, but they insure (ideally) that you are not allowed to impose your will on me,
any more than I am allowed to do so on you.
But should a goofball religion involve Human Sacrifice to The Aztec SunGod,
stoning lovers to death, chopping off the hands of children because they stole a piece of bread, murdering infidels,
or forcing a woman to bear a child against her will, then I must object to that.


Jake said:


> And I assume that you would blindly follow the Supreme Court right off a cliff if they ruled such. Or maybe it's just convenient to sight their rulings when it suits you.
> We all have the same right. The right to influence the process.
> As I stated before, if the majority sways your way, you will "win", and if not then you will have to suck it up.
> We shall all, as has always been, reap as we sow.


Yes, we have a right to influence the Democratic Process-
But I remind you that Roe v Wade has been the law of the land since 1973-
Perhaps the Religious Right should suck it up, and cease their moral imposition.
The fact is no one likes abortion, but making it illegal will not make it go away.
It will make it more dangerous as history clearly shows.

See you in Court
Allah Akbar!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2015)

Yepp. I get it KenK.
Just believe since we started selling laws that it no longer matters what fear is installed during the indoctrination process.

And Jake I am a firm believer in the updated 10 commandments. Also our living breathing constitution. Which makes America such a unique success story.

It's really a fabulous society. I love performing because of the competition and meeting people.
There's no participation trophies no left or right. Just people enjoying the universal language.

Life is really good until you start thinking social media and 24 hour corporate news cycles are real.

Yes I even perform in the Hood where music is most appreciated.
I see great society neighborhoods so large it takes an hour to get through.
I performed for weeks next to the Federal staging area for Media matters blacklivesmatter riots protests in Ferguson. Funny how the massive shopping center no longer in business hat huge tents. One investor spent 40 million. No telling how much tax payer money the DOJ spent in hopes of Liberal investors winning the election.
Close to 100 million was spent to no avail. Untold loss of equity including my brothas home that dropped 50% after Sharpton and the wealthy white Liberals folded their tents and headed back home.
So my version of reality is quite different than the typical home body over informed folks.

If you believe that Crap I have an incredibly well sampled 3000 dollar library of Sewer Lid percussion.
Incredible natural Doppler effect as the lids spin down into silence like a giant coin.
Last time we ran from the fat cops I discovered this as we went underground.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> If you believe that Crap I have an incredibly well sampled 3000 dollar library of Sewer Lid percussion.
> Incredible natural Doppler effect as the lids spin down into silence like a giant coin.


Shouldn't that be in COMMERCIAL Announcements?


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2015)

KEnK said:


> But I remind you that Roe v Wade has been the law of the land since 1973-



Yes it is the law, no doubt. But there is a process to change laws, and for those that wish to do so they are free to use the process. In the end we will just have to see who prevails.




KEnK said:


> Perhaps the Religious Right should suck it up, and cease their moral imposition.
> The fact is no one likes abortion, but making it illegal will not make it go away.
> It will make it more dangerous as history clearly shows.
> 
> ...



We are sucking it up, and fighting back, and will continue to do so.

No, indeed, making anything illegal will not make it go away. And no doubt if abortion were illegal, then there would be "back room" abortions with horrible results. If that is the metric by which we determine right from wrong, we will have to see.

In the end, I hope, as I am sure you do as well, that we use our democratic process and arrive (peacefully) at an agreement on the matter. We are in essence at that state today, as you point out, it is the law of the land since 1973.

I and others will continue to attempt change that. It's our right, just as it is your right to keep status quo.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

Jake said:


> And no doubt if abortion were illegal, then there would be "back room" abortions with horrible results.


You say that and announce in the next sentence that it doesn't matter?
Once again I ask, as I did in the very beginning of this discussion-
What is the difference between you and the Taliban?
I still think none.


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2015)

KEnK said:


> You say that and announce in the next sentence that it doesn't matter?
> Once again I ask, as I did in the very beginning of this discussion-
> What is the difference between you and the Taliban?
> I still think none.




Did I say it did not matter?

I acknowledged it. I recognize that as a reality.

I only asked if that, in and of itself, is it reason to make law or not. 

There are always consequences for decisions. 

All considerations and outcomes must be weighed in the balance.

If it were illegal to abort, and someone chooses to break that law and has a bad outcome, how is that in and of itself relevant to whether abortion is right or not? 

Either abortion is right or it's not. 

Do we base law, any law on what people may do if they disagree?

Believe me, I am not trivializing what a botched abortion's potential is. I am asking if the actions of those that skirt a law are the metric of the laws validity?

Please show me what I may be missing.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

You are missing the fact that it is none of your business-
Not your decision to make.
especially when based on some religious doctrine 
that has no legal standing in the argument.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Nov 19, 2015)

Which religious ideals do we base our laws on? There are numerous religions that are practiced in this country and they are all just as valid/invalid as christianity. Do we allow shariah law? Many businesses are putting in their contracts that arbitration will be done through a pro biblical mediator. What if muslim businesses stipulated that arbitration will be based on shariah law. "Well 'merica is a christian nation" The founding fathers didn't think so or they would have not allowed for the separation of church and state.

How literally do we take the bible? There are some horrific verses present in the bible that if any one followed today would be sent to prison. I hear people claim all the time that those are in the Old Testament. As if somehow god gets a pass, because he screwed it up the first time. If he is truly all knowing and all powerful, he wouldn't have had to do a redo. 

Jesus is love though. Except for all of the starving children, or the kids who die of cancer every year, or the kids who are abused... God has a plan. Really?

Use some logic, the bible is obviously a tool to oppress people, especially women.

Christianity in a nutshell:

God created the world
created man
punished humans because one person ate a fruit
drowned everyone except one family
killed his own son for my sins (wasn't around then so definitely didn't sin, oh that's right I'm being judged for the sins of some weak dude who ate the fruit.)
ignored everyone for the next 2,000 years.
except for 'merica cause...guns


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2015)

The teachings of Jesus are a great model, as are the 10 Commandments.
As for the rest of the St.James/Constantine scriptures, it's optional.
Same with many religious texts.
Folks like me realize the language of the time and reasons for uniting people under a code or belief.

Right now in my community people congregate as a way to tie the community together.
Although one Church with a huge membership was vital in keeping our county dry of alcohol for decades.
Now that we have booze and wine, don't have to drag a bottle of wine with me whever I go we find out the Church elders have family in the county 20 miles away that owned the Liquor stores.

So at the end of the day the truth is always evident if one simply follows the money.

Praise The Lord.


----------



## woodsdenis (Nov 19, 2015)




----------



## Darthmorphling (Nov 19, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> The teachings of Jesus are a great model, as are the 10 Commandments.
> As for the rest of the St.James/Constantine scriptures, it's optional.
> Same with many religious texts.
> Folks like me realize the language of the time and reasons for uniting people under a code or belief.
> ...



People can have their religion. I really am ok with that. However, they need to keep their beliefs from infringing on me.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 19, 2015)

Bliss. I miss him always. A voice in the wilderness who brooked no quarter with primitive superstition, fear, ignorance and hate. RIP Hitch. 



woodsdenis said:


>


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2015)

One final thought and I'm outa here.

I wonder how many who argue viability as relevant took the time to read my thoughts on the subject, as there was not a single rebuttal to my stance.

If this is your yardstick in determining when a life has the right to live, then consider the following scenario.

This nation (U.S.) is deeply indebted, as is the rest of the world. More and more the decisions as to who will receive expensive care will become economic first. And that decision will also increasingly fall upon the payor of last resort, your government. And since it is safe to say that likely every person in this discussion is not in the top 2-3 percentile financially (we are dependent on others for our catastrophic care costs), we will all be subject to the rules and regulations as deemed by the payor.

So if viability is what determines if one has the right to live, then don't be surprised when, by precedence, this yardstick is used on all of us in the case of requiring extreme measures to survive. We can simply be deemed to be non-viable, incapable of survival outside of measures that are too costly, and therefore expendable.

After all, that baby isn't really a person since it can't survive without extreme measures.

Be careful what you ask for.

I'm out of pearls,
CYA


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Best wishes to you.



Best wishes to you as well Larry, 
Cheers!


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 19, 2015)

Disingenuous posturing. It's interesting to me how the radical religious right tries so hard to make 'scientific' arguments for its anti abortion stance, when in fact it is driven by religious beliefs. As proof I would offer up the fact that abortion doctors are never killed by a secular people. 

There is so much fear on the radical right and this post is a great example. We are in debt, at some point will have to make horrible 'Sophie's choices' about application of diminishing resources, and death panels will make life and death choices for us. Absolutely incredible. 




Jake said:


> One final thought and I'm outa here.
> 
> I wonder how many who argue viability as relevant took the time to read my thoughts on the subject, as there was not a single rebuttal to my stance.
> 
> ...


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2015)

Well soundhound if you take time to research liberal policy makers like Ezekial Emanuel or Cass Sunnstein thier view is exactly that.
Many videos were quashed but many remain of Samantha Powers husband Cass showing the enormous burden of our elderly WW2 veterans that only wanted what was promised to them.

Not really death panels. But hip replacements to less productive retirees is first on thier list. Watch thier faculty lounge videos. Like Johnathan Gruber they dont try and hide the facts. Just the videos.

Raised 2 families and never really has a chance to indulge in drugs very often.
Think when I become non productive I will do a shit load of drugs and go out with a smile.
The saved money could assist helpess new Liberal victims who might be forced into work in thier 30s....

Ankyu


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 19, 2015)

'Exactly that'? Only if you get your talking points from Sarah Palin.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 19, 2015)

I keep trying to get out but Jake drags me back in.

Jake, by any logical measure, a month old fetus is not a "baby", and it is disingenuous to use "baby" and "fetus" interchangeably. The viability issue is absolutely an important matter, otherwise we really ARE in an "every sperm is sacred" skit.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

Jake said:


> One final thought and I'm outa here...
> ...I'm out of pearls,
> CYA


As in in "Cast not before Swine?" 
Jake-
I don't want to encourage you because I disagree w/ everything you've said-
but I do admire your tenacity. 

take care
k


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2015)

Soundhound your indoctrination is so entrenched youll never watch those you worship explain thier cost analysis videos.
Just make sure you use a walker from the age 72 on. You wont get that hip replacement. Youre just not productive enough.

And Larry I feel terrible now.
I have safe sex as momma has the tube tied.
But do I really kill thousands of little Chimuelos by denying them access to fertilzed eggs...?

Between Darwin and God I am vexxed.
Ill check out ancient aliens for a more comfortable middle ground.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 19, 2015)

Darthmorphling said:


> People can have their religion. I really am ok with that. However, they need to keep their beliefs from infringing on me.




I was going to stay out of this one but I have to say that I am a believer in something. Many people that I know don't believe in anything. We work together in a very scientific world every day. It is a complex nuclear world. Often we solve complex scientific things together. Sometime when that happens, I say "Praise God." None of the non-believers feel infringed upon. Nor do I feel infringed upon when they do not join in. They know that is me and I know that is them.

Now if you were on a cool scientific team as I am and a person on your team looked you in the eyes and said "This was great! Do you know Jesus? He made this possible." OK that borders on infringement, but when people express their disdain for all religion, which I hear every day, it does not infringe upon me because I know who they are and I know who I am, so it does not bother me. One could buy a piece of public property and put up a huge sign that says "Jesus was a liar" and I could drive by it every day and not be offended by it. But let someone put up just a simple cross and non-believers go insane if they see it and say: "That offends me and it must come down"! 

I am not saying that is the way you are @Darthmorphling, I am just saying that is the way many are who are offended by religion. Your comment just triggered this thought and it is in no way directed at you.

I was agnostic for years but I always welcomed everyone's input. I even invited those people who go door to door trying to save people into my house. They thought that they struck gold, but I had many questions. After an hour, they wanted to leave but I said "No, no, I have many more questions." None of them ever came back to my house.

If someone is trying to save you, in other words trying to convince you that if you don't believe like them there is something wrong with you, they are not real Christians IMO. They still do that to me and I am already a believer. I don't let it bother me. I just say "Well, that's the way they are." I allow them to be that way and don't get upset. It does not matter what they think to me after all. I know what they believe and I allow them to believe what they believe. No way I am going to change their mind anyway, so I just listen and go my own way.

On the other side, I am not trying to change anyone's mind either, because I can't. So when non-believers present their beliefs, I just listen, nod and let them go their own way. A person can only be offended if they allow themselves to be offended. If you are solid in your belief or non-belief, you can't be infringed upon.

This is a music forum, but I am OK talking about religion in this topic. I would never try to bring any one person or all of you great composers to my religion. I know that I could not do it anyway, but I do have an opinion and my opinion should not offend anyone because I am not tying to convert anyone. I am just saying what I think.

Goodness gracious, if you can't say what you think because it might offend someone else, we might as all take a vow of silence. It is good to disagree, if we are all allowed to speak freely.




chimuelo said:


> The teachings of Jesus are a great model, as are the 10 Commandments.
> As for the rest of the St.James/Constantine scriptures, it's optional.
> Same with many religious texts.
> Folks like me realize the language of the time and reasons for uniting people under a code or belief.
> ...



Great intelligent and very spiritual thoughts @chimuelo. I smiled when I read this. The words are very wise, IMO.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 19, 2015)

Chim your Saturday morning cartoon rendering of politics is a never ending source of joy. Your metaphoreeze is so juicy and arcane I can't tell what you're saying half the time, but it doesn't seem to matter. There is a more than hint of dusty Reagonomics hidden in there somewhere that I can't quite place, but from time to time I hear the wistfulness of someone who once believed in the goodness of the invisible hand, got taken to the cleaners, and has it out for anything that smacks of attempt at an answer or solution. 

Not that I think I have any answers or solutions, I'm a guitar player, we can't solve anything. But it's obvious even to a guitar player that the country has drifted dangerously to the right, and we need to move back toward the center. Democratic socialism would be great, but I'm not holding my breath. Big business has bought politics hook line and sinker, and thanks to Scalia et al, it's all legal now. Religious fundamentalists feel they have a right to impose their beliefs on others—do you hear the same disdain I do when they say 'non-believers', I find it offensive and frightening. 

My healthcare seems to be in very good shape, I look forward to my new hip (my brother got one already and he and I got the same bottle of genes) without too much worry. There will be no death panels, really, it's going to be alright. The black helicopters are not circling. However, if we elect a Republican president this time around, with this Congress of radical know-nothings, all bets are off. 







chimuelo said:


> Soundhound your indoctrination is so entrenched youll never watch those you worship explain thier cost analysis videos.
> Just make sure you use a walker from the age 72 on. You wont get that hip replacement. Youre just not productive enough.
> 
> And Larry I feel terrible now.
> ...


----------



## Darthmorphling (Nov 19, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> I was going to stay out of this one but I have to say that I am a believer in something. Many people that I know don't believe in anything. We work together in a very scientific world every day. It is a complex nuclear world. Often we solve complex scientific things together. Sometime when that happens, I say "Praise God." None of the non-believers feel infringed upon. Nor do I feel infringed upon when they do not join in. They know that is me and I know that is them.
> 
> Now if you were on a cool scientific team as I am and a person on your team looked you in the eyes and said "This was great! Do you know Jesus? He made this possible." OK that borders on infringement, but when people express their disdain for all religion, which I hear every day, it does not infringe upon me because I know who they are and I know who I am, so it does not bother me. One could buy a piece of public property and put up a huge sign that says "Jesus was a liar" and I could drive by it every day and not be offended by it. But let someone put up just a simple cross and non-believers go insane if they see it and say: "That offends me and it must come down"!
> 
> ...



I tried to stay out of this one as well, but when I see people talking about how we need to follow more faith based reasoning in our society, I have to point out the hypocrisy, because it doesn't mean anything other than Christian based reasoning.

I have a colleague who talks about open carry. I asked him if he thought everyone should be able to and he said of course. I said even if they have a beard and speak Arabic? He changed the subject.

Believe it or not my wife and kids are Catholic. We agreed that they would get confirmed, but that I would never hide my beliefs from them. As of now my 14 year old is deeply committed to her faith, but she also believes in evolution and the geological time scale. I really have no grudge with religion, except when people try and force their beliefs on others.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 19, 2015)

That would be proselytizing. I would smile, carry on, and keep my distance from that person moving forward. 

Are you an evangelical Christian perhaps? Their MO is to always be looking to spread the word, that is their, as I understand it, 'prime directive' to put it in star trek terms. And come to think of it, it's the opposite, on star trek the prime directive was to never interfere with a culture, evangelicals believe it is their duty to bring others into the fold. Or Borg.



SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Now if you were on a cool scientific team as I am and a person on your team looked you in the eyes and said "This was great! Do you know Jesus? He made this possible." OK that borders on infringement, but when people express their disdain for all religion, which I hear every day, it does not infringe upon me because I know who they are and I know who I am, so it does not bother me.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> But let someone put up just a simple cross and non-believers go insane if they see it and say: "That offends me and it must come down"!


Speak,
You bring a refreshing breath of fresh air into this discussion.
On a personal note-
My house is littered w/ deities of religions I do not believe in.
Ganesha, Shiva, various forms of the Buddha, etc.
I tried to bring a Christian symbol into the fray,
but my Wonderful Wife, being a recovering Catholic was unable to make that leap.
I find these objects interesting for a variety of reasons.
Mostly for what they represent to people from an anthropological perspective.
I find people's personal spiritual beliefs fascinating on that same level-
It's about what makes them tick, and in a way I find it endearing,
similarly to how a person's accent might be endearing,
and of course in the way it reveals something about them.

I say that so you don't think I am offended in any way by another persons belief system. 
Quite the opposite.

But we have not been discussing simple polite personal "belief" here.
We have been discussing the imposition of a particular belief on people that don't share it.
That's a different thing than simply "sharing ideas".
That to me is inappropriate at best.
We are discussing the concept of a group of "foreign" believers imposing their
viewpoint on society at large, through tirelessly attempting to re-write and circumlocute existing law
for an alleged and unprovable and ultimately unshared view of what is real or imagined.

A different matter than simply allowing "others" to be.
and that is what is particularly "offensive".

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 19, 2015)

That stuff about the "Jesus is a liar" sign and the cross is nonsense!

Where does this crazy persecution paranoia come from?!


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Chim your Saturday morning cartoon rendering of politics is a never ending source of joy. Your metaphoreeze is so juicy and arcane I can't tell what you're saying half the time, but it doesn't seem to matter.


Soundhound-
An apt description of our brother, Chim! 

He is a Poet Warrior,
and as such doesn't need to makes sense, speak the Truth, or even tell you what he thinks.
It's enough that he draws an endlessly reflecting prism for us to ponder. 
It's a beautiful thing.

k


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 19, 2015)

Oh I agree, most deeply. Chim and I have done this before, and will again. I'm a fan. I've thought he should write a column somewhere, kind of Harvey Pekar meets Hunter Thompson meets... 



KEnK said:


> Soundhound-
> An apt description of our brother, Chim!
> 
> He is a Poet Warrior,
> ...


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 19, 2015)

Darthmorphling said:


> I tried to stay out of this one as well, but when I see people talking about how we need to follow more faith based reasoning in our society, I have to point out the hypocrisy, because it doesn't mean anything other than Christian based reasoning.
> 
> I have a colleague who talks about open carry. I asked him if he thought everyone should be able to and he said of course. I said even if they have a beard and speak Arabic? He changed the subject.
> 
> Believe it or not my wife and kids are Catholic. We agreed that they would get confirmed, but that I would never hide my beliefs from them. As of now my 14 year old is deeply committed to her faith, but she also believes in evolution and the geological time scale. I really have no grudge with religion, except when people try and force their beliefs on others.




I agree with that and in my faith we have some who do that. I mean try to make you feel less than human if you do not finally believe as they do. I disrespect them at the same level that you do. But if you met me at a composers seminar and I said: "When Jame Newton Howard spoke I could feel the spirit of God." and you took that as me trying to impose my religion on you, you would be in the wrong. Some people cringe when they even hear the words God or Jesus and get offended or feel imposed upon. That is probably not you, but you would be in the minority.

Since this topic is abortion, I will say what I feel about it, even though I usually shy off because it makes many people crazy. My opinion drives both sides crazy so I usually stay silent. Murder is against the law. Both side agree with that. One person in this discussion said that embryologists say that human life begins at conception. Yes, the fetus is a group of living cells, but is it a human being worthy of protection under our murder laws? I believe in the Bible. There is no text that I can find that says when a child has a spirit attached to it. So on political grounds, I say that abortion cannot be legislated. I think that we have no grounds whatsoever to argue about when life begins. Politically, both sides seem to agree that if there is rape or incest involved, then it is OK. If we were, as a society, to legislate on pure religious grounds, I say that we would have to say that if God creates all life begins at conception, we would have to say that in the case of rape and incest, that is also true, so all abortion is murder. I am not personally ready to say that because I don't think that there is enough guidance in the sacred texts to say that is the absolute truth.

Everyone draws a line on it. If there were a test that allowed you to find out that you child was going to be mentally challenged at 1 month of pregnancy, is it OK to terminate the pregnancy? If you found out when the child was 3 years old, is it OK to terminate then? Everybody has a line that they draw on this and we all disagree about where the line is. The argument is defined by extremists on both sides though but we all get drawn into the argument about the extremes and seemed to be forced into taking a position on one extreme or the other.

I think that abortion should not be allowed as another form of birth control and I think that we cannot legislate on religious grounds, although current murder laws are based on "Thou shalt not kill." Since we don't know when a child is a human, we really can't make laws about it but I really think that abortion should be legal and safe and way less common than it is now. 

Now the religious people and the non-religious people can all tear me apart and say that I am despicable. That's OK. I can take it. What abortion is is an opinion to me, not a fact, so I am solid in my middle ground opinion and I am OK with what everyone believes about it.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> I've thought he should write a column somewhere


I thought he does that here


----------



## KEnK (Nov 19, 2015)

Speak-
Your perspective is entirely reasonable to me.
You're not trying to impose your point of view on anyone.

And that's very different from the bulk of this discussion


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 19, 2015)

Darthmorphling said:


> I tried to stay out of this one as well, but when I see people talking about how we need to follow more faith based reasoning in our society, I have to point out the hypocrisy, because it doesn't mean anything other than Christian based reasoning.
> 
> I have a colleague who talks about open carry. I asked him if he thought everyone should be able to and he said of course. I said even if they have a beard and speak Arabic? He changed the subject.
> 
> Believe it or not my wife and kids are Catholic. We agreed that they would get confirmed, but that I would never hide my beliefs from them. As of now my 14 year old is deeply committed to her faith, but she also believes in evolution and the geological time scale. I really have no grudge with religion, except when people try and force their beliefs on others.



Yes, yes, you and I agree, sort of. Friends who disagree though should be able to openly discuss matters as deep as this openly without the other being offended. It would be like the olden days of the Roman senate, where members debated until they passed out. But of course, everyone in a debate is trying to change the other person's thinking. That is why it is called a debate. Do you think that the Harvard or Yale debate team members are ever demeaned for not winning? We should be an open and free society, like the Romans of olden days, where if you want to debate, feel free to debate and be willing to to pass out. Do you think even one of those senators back then tried to pass a law to stymie their opponent's words because they felt that they were trying to impose their opinion on them? No! They just debated even harder.

I believe in some parts of evolution, but not most of it. Not because of my religion though. My disbelief mainly comes from my nuclear engineering knowledge. Darwin's theory has many holes in it. During his time, many scientific theories has mathematical holes in them and everyone just accepted that. But then later, as pressure grew from college grant money, people started building on false theories and called them true and absolute just to keep the money flowing from the government.

Now the world is full of children who were taught these things as absolute truth in college, just so their professor could keep his money coming in.

What if I were to tell you that the Milky Way does not even exist? It is an exploded planet with the sun shining on the fragments. What if I were to say that red shift is bullocks, coined from a man who was just trying to be popular at parties (Edmund Halley)? What if I were to say that Einstein believed in a fixed universe sign but abandoned the theory because he refused to put a fudge factor in it to prove it? (that may have been Einstein's number, similar to Avogadro's number) His equations were missing a critical part that he could not explain, so he abandoned the theory. Without Halley's red shift, the big bang theory loses credibility and Einstein's fixed universe becomes credible again.

People often hang onto science or religion to bolster what they want to believe. Both of them are political and neither of them are absolute. If I had daughters, I would encourage them to be truth seekers and if they did not believe as I did, I would still encourage them to be truth seekers, and I would listen to what they had to say about what they believe for as long as I lived. Even at 14 or maybe more importantly at 14, I would listen intently. Out of the mouth of babes come truth, so they say.

I appreciate your input. I am not trying to change you mind but I am just really trying to give you some info that you may not have. Of course, if you already knew all that I said, oops! Sorry. Did not mean to step on your toes or be condescending. I would never do that intentionally. Sounds like you have a great family. What a blessed person you are.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 19, 2015)

KEnK said:


> Speak-
> Your perspective is entirely reasonable to me.
> You're not trying to impose your point of view on anyone.
> 
> And that's very different from the bulk of this discussion



Thank you and I appreciate that you recognized that @KEnK.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That stuff about the "Jesus is a liar" sign and the cross is nonsense!
> 
> Where does this crazy persecution paranoia come from?!



Stuff like this Nick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 19, 2015)

KEnK said:


> Speak,
> You bring a refreshing breath of fresh air into this discussion.
> k



A nice thing to say @KEnK. Much appreciated. I enjoy all of your posts, especially the music ones, but these off topic ones are educational as well.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

I agree with much of what you say. But... isn't the idea, and great power of science that you don't have to 'believe' in anything as gospel? (forgive the pun) Science is knowledge acquired by research and experimentation, supported by empirical evidence, which is then attempted to be explained by theory. If the evidence disproves the theory, a new theory takes its place. And on and on... I don't see adherence to the scientific method as political at all, but it is characterized as such by religious adherents who want to make it equivalent to religion in some fundamental way. And it's not. Religion requires a leap of faith, no matter how you slice it. In order to believe any religion, you have to take some matters on faith. The beauty of science, to me, is that is not the case. The universe to me is incalculably beautiful in its mystery, I get a feeling of awe looking at NASA photos. The fact that there is not yet a theory of everything seems to me completely expected. We were living in caves a very short time ago and the universe is a big place, we've only just begun to start understanding it. It's like music, the more I learn, the more I learn how much more I have to learn. I love that.





SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> I believe in some parts of evolution, but not most of it. Not because of my religion though. My disbelief mainly comes from my nuclear engineering knowledge. Darwin's theory has many holes in it. During his time, many scientific theories has mathematical holes in them and everyone just accepted that...
> 
> People often hang onto science or religion to bolster what they want to believe. Both of them are political and neither of them are absolute.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> That would be proselytizing. I would smile, carry on, and keep my distance from that person moving forward.
> 
> Are you an evangelical Christian perhaps? Their MO is to always be looking to spread the word, that is their, as I understand it, 'prime directive' to put it in star trek terms. And come to think of it, it's the opposite, on star trek the prime directive was to never interfere with a culture, evangelicals believe it is their duty to bring others into the fold. Or Borg.



I am not a typical Christian @Soundhound, but I am a Christian who came kicking and screaming from a world of non-belief and agnosticism bordering on atheism. Am I an evangelical Christian? Well now you have stumped me. You are asking me if I believe what I believe. Well of course I believe what I believe. Do I believe that you should believe what I believe today? No. You will only believe what you believe today and I have no power to change that, nor would I even try to change your beliefs. I am OK with your beliefs, because as long as you are worried about what I think or what anyone in this forum thinks, you are seeking and my sacred text says "Seek and Ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened." I can't seek or knock for anyone else and if they don't seek or don't knock, it has nothing to do with me. Finding the truth is human by human and I don't propose to have the power to change anyone's mind. I don't want to change your mind. I want you to think exactly what you think today, even if you think that I am an imbecile for believing what I believe. What you believe has nothing to do with what I believe and vice versa.

Are you going to hell because you do not believe? That is where the rub is between us believers and nopn-believers. There is scripture in our sacred tet that seems to indicate that, namely John 3:16-17. But there is also scripture that tells us "Judge not lest ye be judged." Only God knows the true nature of a man's heart. He is the judge, not me. I don't really think that John 3:16-17 was given to us to judge other people. I know that it is used by others in my faith to do that, but I don't think that it is the meaning of the text. I think that "Judge not lest ye be judged" trumps all of that.

How about I don't judge and you don't don't judge me? That way we can share thoughts and tips about music and life without worrying if the other one is stupid (me) or non-believing (you). But of course we can discuss abortion or religion too. It is a worthy discussion between caring human beings, especially composers. I am not judging anyone who posts in this topic. I am a nobody in the scheme of God's world. I don't know squat about the plan so I can't say where you fit in or you and I fit in together. Now all of that sounds demeaning and condescending doesn't it? That is why I am always afraid to say it out loud because it can be taken in a way that I am judging others who do not think like me. I am not trying to demean anyone! I am just trying to say what I believe. I don't care if I am the only person in the world who believes it. It is what I believe. I want to say what I believe without offending anyone. How do I do that in today's world? When Bach was alive, nobody persecuted him for writing religious songs.

I mean, holy crap Batman...today if you say that you believe in the same God as Bach did, you are cast down on the same level as a child molester. I think that it is fine that we don't all believe the same things. How can I, a simple human expect everyone to believe as I do? I can't and I don't. I'll let you not believe if you will let me believe. Why don't we try that for a while?


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> I agree with much of what you say. But... isn't the idea, and great power of science that you don't have to 'believe' in anything as gospel? (forgive the pun) Science is knowledge acquired by research and experimentation, supported by empirical evidence, which is then attempted to be explained by theory. If the evidence disproves the theory, a new theory takes its place. And on and on... I don't see adherence to the scientific method as political at all, but it is characterized as such by religious adherents who want to make it equivalent to religion in some fundamental way. And it's not. Religion requires a leap of faith, no matter how you slice it. In order to believe any religion, you have to take some matters on faith. The beauty of science, to me, is that is not the case. The universe to me is incalculably beautiful in it's mystery, I get a feeling of awe looking at NASA photos. The fact that there is not yet a theory of everything seems to me completely expected. We were living in caves a very short time ago and the universe is a big place, we've only just begun to start understanding it. It's like music, the more I learn, the more I learn how much more I have to learn. I love that.




I enjoyed you reply @Soundhound. Your reply on 'great power of science that you don't have to 'believe in anything as gospel' is indeed the truth and *should *be the goal of true science. Unfortunately it is not. The truth in science has been replaced by money, dolled out by governments, as long as you give them the answer they seek by the deadline.

If the 15th and 16th century Catholic church had their way, we would all still believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth. All new huge discoveries come hard to all who studied at universities who told them different. Galileo Galilei was also the person who said that objects of different weights fall at the same rate, a feather falls as fast a a bowling ball. He was demeaned by that day's modern society as a loon because he was refuting one of the mentors of all science back then, Aristotle (actually e all have been taught that Aristotle is mostly right and is a hero of humanity).

But Galileo Galilei proved him wrong on this one point and he was shut up because he was going against the grain of what was being taught at universities back then. Today universities are teaching red shift as if it were exact science, as well as plate tectonics and other crap as if were proven science when it is not. Nobody has ever even seen a plate. Plate tectonics is like the Bohr model of the atom. It is just a model that helps us explain what we see. For sure, Voyager, which left our solar system has not sent back pictures of the Milky Way. Why you ask? Because any photos taken will disprove hundreds of years of science. That would expose the flaw in our current government/university relationship. Of couyrse I am talking only US. For all of my other non-USA friends reading this, I am sure that your country is fine. I am just talking about my country, the USA.

Anyway, @Soundhound, I understand what you are saying. I just disagree on a few points. Thank you so much for responding to what I wrote. I really expected no one to respond because what I said is unpopular and worse yet, not cool! You are alright in my book. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

Speak thanks for your thoughtful replies. When I asked about evangelical maybe I should have used a capital E, because from what I gather they are adamant about gathering the flock, and the example you used about one scientist asking another if he or she knew Jesus sounded to me like that kind of thing.

To another of your points, I'm ok with what you think also, but I would take it a bit further perhaps. On a fundamental level, I think in a free society it's truly none of my business what you think. Unless and until it's offered by you in discussion. If someone believes in an after life and a god and that god's mind, I'm interested, I often find it fascinating. But if those beliefs drive public policies that affect my life, then we have a problem. Separation of church and state is as important an idea as I can think of. It is, I feel, absolutely necessary for a civil society. The abortion discussion, here and elsewhere, is often disingenuous on the part of people who are religious. They claim to be invested in the science, but I don't think that's true.

Your other point about science no longer being reliable, it's been bought out by governments... I'm not really sure what you're getting at there. And I don't see what it's got to do with a discussion about the scientific method v theology etc.


----------



## scarred bunny (Nov 20, 2015)

(I'm quoting Soundhound, but this isn't really directed at him or anyone in particular. Just some misc thoughts from one person's limited perspective.)



Soundhound said:


> But... isn't the idea, and great power of science that you don't have to 'believe' in anything as gospel? (forgive the pun) Science is knowledge acquired by research and experimentation, supported by empirical evidence, which is then attempted to be explained by theory.



I think this a key point. Science is a method, not a belief system. Implying that 'belief in science' is the same as 'belief in religion' is implying a false equivalence. (This doesn't mean science is perfect or all-knowing, that secular-minded people can't be nasty fundamentalists, or that religious people are inherently stupid, or anything of the sort.) 

Someone's earlier post suggested that since you cannot prove God does not exist, you are therefore no more right or wrong than anyone else. Well, you can never really prove something does _not _exist - how would that work experimentally? That is not a reasonable thing to demand from anyone anywhere, and that is not how science works. You can however prove something _does_ exist. All you need is some verifiable empirical observation. Which, in the case of God's existence, no one has managed to produce so far to the best of my knowledge. Looking at the evidence, I would have to conclude God's existence is very much in an undetermined state at best. All we have to work with then are probabilities and our assessments of them. 

If one chooses to take it on faith that God does in fact exist, that is of course your choice and your right, and you're welcome to it. Others may feel differently and work under the assumption that God does not exist, given the lack of evidence coupled with their perception of the concept being highly improbable. Obviously I fall into the latter camp myself. I have no problem with religion or religious people per se. I'd just rather we not base legislation on unverifiable metaphysical speculation about God's wrath, Creationism, Judgement Day, sin, the soul or the Afterlife. That is all. (I'd also rather not be subjected to intimidation tactics, like being warned about how I will burn in hell if I don't change my mind about so-and-so, which is quite common. Not necessarily in this thread.) 

Fortunately for me, I live in secular Scandinavia where this isn't as much of an issue. Reading this thread is quite surreal to me, because in this part of the world issues like abortion don't merit much debate. It's regarded as a fairly straightforward women's rights issue and early abortion is available to anyone for any reason. Later stage abortion may still be granted in special cases of illness or risk of complications. Viability is an issue: the growing fetus has no chance of surviving on its own and is regarded as closer to being a part of the woman's body than an individual in its own right. Life or personhood is thus defined in legal terms, not medical; you're not a 'person' until you're 22 weeks into development (which may be a very arbitrary cutoff point) or until you've been successfully conceived. This by itself has no bearing on policies regarding living babies, children or adults, or the sick or elderly and their viability - they have clearly already been conceived, I don't see any dilemma or contradiction. 

The only opposition I've ever heard comes from certain religious organizations, who have little to no real political influence here. 

We perform about 30'000 abortions every year in my country. I don't think those 30'000 women would be better off had they been forced to conceive against their will. I don't think those kids would be off to a flying start in life, being born to someone who didn't want them or felt incapable of taking care of them. I don't think society would be better off either, given that a dysfunctional family upbringing is the single biggest predictor of antisocial behavior later in life - the Freakonomics argument that abortion reduces crime rate seems entirely plausible to me. It may be an unpleasant and unfortunate situation, but I'd rather we base policies on pragmatic realities and principles of free choice. 

Still against abortion? That's okay, I understand. Simply choose not to have one. 

Feeling very pro-child? I have a kind suggestion - don't rage against abortion. Adopt a child that's already here. There are many kids out there who desperately need a new loving home somewhere.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Speak thanks for your thoughtful replies. When I asked about evangelical maybe I should have used a capital E, because from what I gather they are adamant about gathering the flock, and the example you used about one scientist asking another if he or she knew Jesus sounded to me like that kind of thing.
> 
> To another of your points, I'm ok with what you think also, but I would take it a bit further perhaps. On a fundamental level, I think in a free society it's truly none of my business what you think. Unless and until it's offered by you in discussion. If someone believes in an after life and a god and that god's mind, I'm interested, I often find it fascinating. But if those beliefs drive public policies that affect my life, then we have a problem. Separation of church and state is as important an idea as I can think of. It is, I feel, absolutely necessary for a civil society. The abortion discussion, here and elsewhere, is often disingenuous on the part of people who are religious. They claim to be invested in the science, but I don't think that's true.
> 
> Your other point about science no longer being reliable, it's been bought out by governments... I'm not really sure what you're getting at there. And I don't see what it's got to do with a discussion about the scientific method v theology etc.


 
@Soundhound We are saying the same thing, preaching to the choir, so to speak. Just I am saying it from one perspective and you are saying it from another. Not apples and oranges but tangelos and oranges, so to speak. Yes, it no business of mine what you think, unless you post what you think in an open forum. Then I would think that it was OK for me to say what I think. The Roman senators, who were great debaters, were saying what they felt, ut also felt that they were representing their silent constituents. This forum is different. None of us represent anyone, but it is open, as the Roman senate forum was, if we allow it to be. So you are correct. I offered my opinion in this forum and you are allowed to disagree. You are actually welcome to disagree. In this case, the more we disagree, the better friends we become. We are like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, so to speak, both founding fathers and early USA presidents.

In the beginning, they were both friends, but when the USA was formed, there was a huge debate over a centralized government or a decentralized government with states having more power. John Adams became a fan of the former, a centralized government with much power. He was the USA's second president. He got upset by reporters who said negative things about him and jailed many of them. Imagine that. The 2nd president of a nation who declared independence from another nation based on personal freedom. The USA's second President jailed people who disagreed with him. When Thomas Jefferson became the USA's 3rd president, his first act of office was to free all of the reporters that John Adams had jailed. Jefferson was a decentralized fan also. He wanted states, not the federal government to have all of the power. They were friends during the Declaration of Independence, then enemies, then friends again later, after Jefferson left office. They both died on the same day, fourth of July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson died first. A few hours later, when Adams was dying, he said "Jefferson." It is reported but refuted by some historians that what he actually said was "Jefferson lives." Anyway, these two friends who later became enemies and later best friends died on the same day, hours apart, on the anniversary of the country that they both helped found. My point is, if those two sons of a gun could become friends in the end, all of us composers should be able to buck it up and a agree to disagree, no matter what we believe politically or religiously.

But we are true friends, composers, musicians, etc., we should be able to tolerate each other's religious and political views. I think what Adams and Jefferson realized, after they were in office, is that they were never going to change each other's minds on politics, so they got onto other things and realized that they agreed about everything else.

What we are discussing here is important, so I am not saying that we should silence ourselves but that we should look for what we agree on also. I'll bet that we agree on more than we disagree on, but that is a guess. Even if we disagree on everything, I enjoy your feedback and opinion. I love to learn from people, disagreeable or not and I sometimes learn more from people who disparage with me than my agreeable friends.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

scarred bunny said:


> (I'm quoting Soundhound, but this isn't really directed at him or anyone in particular. Just some misc thoughts from one person's limited perspective.)
> 
> ........
> 
> ...



I respect that opinion and used to hold it myself. But I am the first to admit that I know diddly squat about the answer to this question. Other may have raged against abortion in this forum, I did not. If you think that I did, I have to work on my writing skills. It does not matter what I think, That is what I was trying to emphasize. No one human is up to this and has the one defining answer. Not me, not you .....Bunny.

I can say this. If my mother had had the choice to abort me for her convenience (it was 106 degrees in the hospital room the day that is was born), you and I would not be discussing this because I would be dead at -0000.1 years old. She did not, so here I am having a fun discussion about life with you. Na na nah na nah. That is way better than me being not here and it is also cool that you mother decided not to make you one of the 30,000 who are never thought of again in your country. I always love your posts. I can't imagine your writings not being in this forum. What a great loss it would be if your mother had decided she could not deal with your birth and aborted you.


----------



## scarred bunny (Nov 20, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Other may have raged against abortion in this forum, I did not. If you think that I did, I have to work on my writing skills.



Just to be clear, I certainly did not have you (or really anyone here) in mind when I wrote that bit about 'raging against abortion'. That wasn't perhaps the best choice of words, but no, clearly you are not doing that. 

And I agree no one has any definitive answers, including myself and science. Which is why I personally feel that this particular decision is best left up to the individual, not policy makers. We all have our perspectives - I'm just sharing mine (along with the CliffsNotes version of how things look in Sweden on this particular issue, for anyone who may find that interesting).


----------



## FriFlo (Nov 20, 2015)

Yeah, it is always nice to call anyone a friend for having a different opinion. But there is always a moment, when sombody becomes my enemy, just for having an opinion. E.g.: When someone wants the Sharia to become the law for everyone in the world and is willing to do everything to accomplish that, he is going to be my enemy.
If someone else wants his relgious views, like abortion being murder, to become the rule of the land, if he wants to become that law for everybody and is willing to push that with any means ... then he is also my enemy. If he just holds the opinion, that abortion is murder, he might not become my enemy at the moment, as long he is willing to let the people decide upon that democratically! However, what am I going to do, when his opinion would be supported by the majority of my country? I would basically have three options:
1) Leave for another country, if I can.
2) Accept the fact, that I cannot hold that view anymore.
3) Become a public enemy by keeping on holding that view.
So, while I would like everybody with opposing opinions to be my friends, this is not honest with all matters IMO ... That is why I am going to be bold and say: People who oppose the right of choice for other people, who want to punish them for their religious views are NOT my friends. As long as they do not undertake any crazy steps to push their cause, they are not my enemies, either.
Because I am already assuming, that there are going to be people opposing this, by saying, freedom and choice do always have limits ... yes! There are laws, that do not allow you to kill anyone! But theses laws have not been developed by a god, but by human reasoning and science. Anyone, who thinks any religion is abase to decide laws, is wrong. Abortion is a complicated matter, but all science and ethics tells me, it is acceptable and by no means murder if within limits of the law. Otherwise, someone could also claim using condoms is murder. A sperm is life! A female ovule is life! When they come together there is a small chance, that they will become human life. But there is no evidence for calling this human life for the first few months. To many important characteristics are missing, like consciousness. And above all: to many examples, where it becomes unethical to call abortion murder.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 20, 2015)

I'm still getting use to the local customs of southern living and often feel like Joe Pesci as my better half and I love small specialized restraunts and her Ceasars Forum shops apparel always draws attention as women are drawn to her. In more ways than one.
The food is incredible, black white and Indian racists are some of the most hospitable people I've ever encountered.
But ever since the Planned Parenthood videos where the doctors and administrators incredibly enjoy their free meal and discuss preserving the sale of certain cuts of human tissue, I see these plates full of Frog Legs and Damn near vomit..


----------



## KEnK (Nov 20, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> But there is also scripture that tells us "Judge not lest ye be judged."


I'm fond of quoting 1st Timothy 2:5 in these kinds of discussions.
Taken together those 2 statements pretty much do away w/ any kind of Clergy
or much of the moral stance taken by the activists on the Christian Right.

I've read some curious things about the translation of the original Biblical texts-
It's been said that when Jesus spoke of "Himself", (The Son of Man)
he was really referring to any Self- something within us all.
But - the "original texts" are in Hebrew, and we know that Jesus spoke "Aramaic"-
How different that is from Hebrew, I'm not certain.
But I believe it's historically true that none of the New Testament was written until
a couple of centuries after Jesus left the planet.
Much of the New Testament was written by Paul, who I think was formerly known as Saul,
a persecutor of early Christians. If that is true, it's very odd indeed.

When the Jehohovah's come to my house, they often ask if I think the Bible
is the "Word of God". I always say "Yes", because that's what they want to hear
and it's a much easier answer for them.
I don't need to challenge them when they visit me.
But I actually think the Bible is the Word of Man.
In fact it's the Word of Many Men, selected in about the 4th century
from a lot of texts that weren't so convenient to include-
There is the recent discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, and I've read about
a Gospel of Mary Magdalene- (but that might be an internet conspiracy theory)

In reading the Koran though, it seems in a literary sense to be quite clearly the work of one author.
The language is quite florid and beautifully written in the poetic sense.
I've thought lately I should look at it again, specifically to see the historical context
of all this Jihad and Death to the Infidels stuff.

Perhaps Speak, you would care to educate us on what you say about Red Shift.
I only know of Red Shift as a trick of light that we use to measure great distance.
Curious as to what you're talking about there-
And Einstein's "Fixed Theory". Is that different from the "Unified Theory"?
I thought Hawking's work proved the "Unified Theory"

Endlessly curious.

k


----------



## KEnK (Nov 20, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> ever since the Planned Parenthood videos where the doctors and administrators incredibly enjoy their free meal and discuss preserving the sale of certain cuts of human tissue, I see these plates full of Frog Legs and Damn near vomit.


Perhaps it's time to consider vegetarianism.
Does broccoli have a soul?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 20, 2015)

Only in my rootin' tootin' soup recipes.
It's terrible we must rely on the death of other species to survive.
In the future I envision the species Homo Evolutus with no need for teeth.
The Grays are actually us time travelling back from another dimension to find cures for disease requiring long extinct species.
We will feed ourselves Mana a Charlton Heston favorite.
Until then I'll stick Bambi Shiskabobs on a Hominy Pilaf and the occasional White Castle fix where cows gave their lives so we may survive.

As odd as this sounds last year the TDay dressing was the best I ever had. Will be driving to Clarksville next week to buy 60 White Castles as that was the dressing.
Smashed by hand with chicken broth added until a disgusting paste is made. Sauteed celery onion and bay leaves are added then baked.
Always have to ask what recipes are down here.
Trying to avoid Coon Possum and Frog Legs.


----------



## tack (Nov 20, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Joe Pesci


Now _that's _someone worth praying to. He looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around.

(RIP George Carlin.)


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

You're right! Needs to be collected and organized. A new Little Red Book, Quotations of Chairman Chim? It would sell like hotcakes.





KEnK said:


> I thought he does that here


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

Another guy I miss all the time. 



tack said:


> Now _that's _someone worth praying to. He looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around.
> 
> (RIP George Carlin.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2015)

> Stuff like this Nick:



Yeah yeah, and people who get upset by Christmas trees on the White House lawn.

The sum total of that silliness adds up to a big fat pile of nothing. You are not being persecuted. Christians are the vast majority of the country.

Now, if you want to talk about prayer in schools, that's different. It is totally inappropriate for public schools in my opinion. (I have an even bigger problem with the Pledge of Allegiance too, for that matter, and I find it ridiculous that they have to sing the national anthem - one of the worst songs ever written - at every sports event.)

But that's a far cry from your being persecuted for being Christian in America. That's just ridiculous.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> that's a far cry from your being persecuted for being Christian in America. That's just ridiculous.


Have you read about the latest trend in the psychology of victim-hood?
Micro-aggression!

You are guilty Nick- A terrible inhuman monster.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

The pledge of allegiance in schools, the national anthem at ballgames, groupthink and blind allegiance always made me feel queasy. I haven't stood at the national anthem at a ballgame since 1972. 

Christians complaining about being persecuted in the U.S. is utter nonsense, and insulting to those who suffer actual persecution.




Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yeah yeah, and people who get upset by Christmas trees on the White House lawn.
> 
> The sum total of that silliness adds up to a big fat pile of nothing. You are not being persecuted. Christians are the vast majority of the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## tack (Nov 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I find it ridiculous that they have to sing the national anthem - one of the worst songs ever written - at every sports event


Since this thread has already meandered from the original topic and seems to be a dumping ground for contentious statements, here I go ...

I quite like the US national anthem, musically. For me, it's actually up there with India and Russia. Speaking as a Canadian, I find Canada's anthem so yawn, and yet I've had friends south of the border say how much they like it. I just don't see it. Meanwhile, the US anthem seems to have far more opportunities for creative harmonization. I have never been moved by any rendition of O Canada, but I am sometimes brought to goosebumps by versions of The Star-Spangled Banner.

I suspect citizens of a given country are so tired of hearing their own anthems that they become incapable of listening to them objectively.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 20, 2015)




----------



## woodsdenis (Nov 20, 2015)

This was good though, I NOT American but as tune I like it.


----------



## tack (Nov 20, 2015)

Don't laugh, but I actually really like this version


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 20, 2015)

We changed the words as kids to the national anthem.
Forced into the hand over heart at mid field we rebelled with our own version. First and last verse to save time....
Jose can you see...the tunnels dimming lights....
Last verse..
For the land of the free....ee......ee....
And the home of the slave....
L
Play ball.

Speaking of American racists.
On the way back from catching my food in the Cumberland. Thought I'd share a glimpse of history from an old Fort where everything remains as it was in 1863.




Above is only one 1846 cannon out of a large battery still there that blasted away at white racists of Grants Army which included a pair of old Ironclad built by Carondolet up the Ohio River.
Eventually the White racist Confederates were routed by white racist Union soldiers.
I fell awful that 17 Crappe over 1lb. each died so I may live. Here's another shot of the White racist Battery on the Cumberland. Beautiful day after re living battlefield visions and the sacrifice of Reptiles.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)




----------



## KEnK (Nov 20, 2015)

Does it strike anyone as odd that the incredibly divisive abortion thread
should sort of end w/ um-teen versions of the National Anthem, etc?
That is kind of bizarre, donchya think? 

k


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

scarred bunny said:


> Just to be clear, I certainly did not have you (or really anyone here) in mind when I wrote that bit about 'raging against abortion'. That wasn't perhaps the best choice of words, but no, clearly you are not doing that.
> 
> And I agree no one has any definitive answers, including myself and science. Which is why I personally feel that this particular decision is best left up to the individual, not policy makers. We all have our perspectives - I'm just sharing mine (along with the CliffsNotes version of how things look in Sweden on this particular issue, for anyone who may find that interesting).



I agree with that, somewhat. It is a tough issue to deal with, though. That is why I like that we musicians from all over the world are discussing it together. I don't have all of the answers. Neither do you. At lest we can agree on that. But if we all keep talking about it, maybe we will find those answers together. I have utmost love for musicians, on any level. I kind of wish that we would all start playing music again and forget this post, but really, if I look in my other world, nuclear technology, electronics, radio-chemistry, software development, etc., there is no one person that I would discuss this with than you and my other peers here on this site. 

Bravo to you for posting how you feel about it. Your reach-out has made me a better person.


chimuelo said:


> I'm still getting use to the local customs of southern living and often feel like Joe Pesci as my better half and I love small specialized restraunts and her Ceasars Forum shops apparel always draws attention as women are drawn to her. In more ways than one.
> The food is incredible, black white and Indian racists are some of the most hospitable people I've ever encountered.
> But ever since the Planned Parenthood videos where the doctors and administrators incredibly enjoy their free meal and discuss preserving the sale of certain cuts of human tissue, I see these plates full of Frog Legs and Damn near vomit..



That is a huge moment of clarity @chimuelo. Impressive!


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

When the going gets weird, the weird get going.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

P.S. Those videos characterized by the far right as planned parenthood people selling human tissue is the kind of disinformation that fuels fear and ignorant hatred among the uninformed. Chim!! Honestly!!!


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Only in my rootin' tootin' soup recipes.
> Always have to ask what recipes are down here.
> Trying to avoid Coon Possum and Frog Legs.



I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

KEnK said:


> Perhaps Speak, you would care to educate us on what you say about Red Shift.
> I only know of Red Shift as a trick of light that we use to measure great distance.
> Curious as to what you're talking about there-
> And Einstein's "Fixed Theory". Is that different from the "Unified Theory"?
> ...



I fear those details would be yet another skew from the main topic. I only mentioned it because people coming from a purely scientific side base their thought on science that everyone assumes to be true....absolute. All science is based on assumptions. The best anyone can say is if the assumptions of what I believe to be true are true, then what I believe is true. Hawking's theory is true only if Edmund Halley's theory is true. But what if Halley was wrong? (I think that he may be wrong)

Rather than skew this discussion off topic, I'll give you a book to ponder, since you are curious. I like the word curious. It is a word that means to me "seeking truth."

Amazon.com / Fourth-Source-Effects-Natural-Reactors/dp/1612330770/

You will have to build the link.This forum tries to do its own thing with links and it screws up much of the time.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Nov 20, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Yes, yes, you and I agree, sort of. Friends who disagree though should be able to openly discuss matters as deep as this openly without the other being offended. It would be like the olden days of the Roman senate, where members debated until they passed out. But of course, everyone in a debate is trying to change the other person's thinking. That is why it is called a debate. Do you think that the Harvard or Yale debate team members are ever demeaned for not winning? We should be an open and free society, like the Romans of olden days, where if you want to debate, feel free to debate and be willing to to pass out. Do you think even one of those senators back then tried to pass a law to stymie their opponent's words because they felt that they were trying to impose their opinion on them? No! They just debated even harder.
> 
> I believe in some parts of evolution, but not most of it. Not because of my religion though. My disbelief mainly comes from my nuclear engineering knowledge. Darwin's theory has many holes in it. During his time, many scientific theories has mathematical holes in them and everyone just accepted that. But then later, as pressure grew from college grant money, people started building on false theories and called them true and absolute just to keep the money flowing from the government.
> 
> ...



No worries. You reasoning is sound and I do respect others informed opinions. I lean more towards science, and while I don't hide science from my kids, they are free to make their own choices. So long as they understand the reasoning of both arguments.

Our third child had some really weird numbers pre birth. Don't ask me what they were, because I don't remember. Regardless, there was a chance he would have some sort of issues. Abortion never crossed our minds. However, that is not my choice to make for other people.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2015)

> What if I were to tell you that the Milky Way does not even exist? It is an exploded planet with the sun shining on the fragments. What if I were to say that red shift is bullocks, coined from a man who was just trying to be popular at parties (Edmund Halley)? What if I were to say that Einstein believed in a fixed universe sign but abandoned the theory because he refused to put a fudge factor in it to prove it? (that may have been Einstein's number, similar to Avogadro's number) His equations were missing a critical part that he could not explain, so he abandoned the theory. Without Halley's red shift, the big bang theory loses credibility and Einstein's fixed universe becomes credible again.
> 
> People often hang onto science or religion to bolster what they want to believe. Both of them are political and neither of them are absolute



But I think you're perverting science deliberately to make a rhetorical point, right? At least I hope you are!

Because the Milky Way argument makes no sense whatsoever. If you were to say red shift is bollocks, I'd say you're ignoring evidence proven by experiment. Same with the expanding universe.

Now, there are things we haven't figured out yet - what dark matter and dark energy are, for example (and they're probably related to the fudge factor) - but that has nothing to do with your argument.

***
What is Hawking's Unified Theory? I've heard of the as yet nonexistent Grand Unified Theory, of course, but not that. Hawking's most famous theory is Hawking Radiation, and he's an expert on black holes - which by the way have been observed now by the thousands, and that ties into red shift (not a controversial theory at all!) - and led to the information paradox, another theoretical physics challenge.

Anyway, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with politics or wishful thinking.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> BHawking's most famous theory is Hawking Radiation, and he's an expert on black holes - which by the way have been observed now by the thousands, and that ties into red shift (not a controversial theory at all!) - and led to the information paradox, another theoretical physics challenge.
> 
> Anyway, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with politics or wishful thinking.



You just made my point. Just because thousand have said that red shift looks true to them because they have observed it, you assume that it is an absolute truth. The thousands though were taught by university professors who also assumed it was an absolute truth. Some of the professors probably disagreed but were forced to teach that so called truth. That is politics Nick. It has everything to do with politics. So does the main topic, abortion.

A USA political manager once said: "I have spent the last 20 years ripping this country apart. Finding wedge issues to separate the voters." His quote was used in a politically based TV show around 12 years ago. Abortion is one of those wedge issues. Red shift is not, but it should be. ☺

Anyway, I like smart people who disagree with me, so I like you very much Nick.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

Speak this seems to me a strange view of science and scientific method. I always thought was was brilliant and wonderful about science is that there is no absolute truth. Quite the opposite. Science is a search for the truth, we develop theories about how things work based on observation. When empirical evidence disproves the theory, we move on to a new theory or theories. Nothing is sacrosanct or sacred. This means that there will be necessarily often be different camps adhering to competing theories, but that's not the same thing at all as defending an absolute truth.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Speak this seems to me a strange view of science and scientific method. I always thought was was brilliant and wonderful about science is that there is no absolute truth. Quite the opposite. Science is a search for the truth, we develop theories about how things work based on observation. When empirical evidence disproves the theory, we move on to a new theory or theories. Nothing is sacrosanct or sacred. This means that there will be necessarily often be different camps adhering to competing theories, but that's not the same thing at all as defending an absolute truth.




I know but here is what we think that we know about some science. I say some science because chemistry, yes you are right because we can observe reactions right here on Earth. Astrophysics though is all based on what we think that we see right here on Earth. I think that if it were possible to have a measurement tape long enough to reach Alpha Centauri, the actual measurement would shock everyone and turn that particular science on its ear. You can't measure the distance from here to there. All you can do is look at a wiggle on your oscilloscope and theorize what the wiggle means. That is not the same thing as watching the foam when you mix an acid with a base. You cannot measure evolution or observe it either. You can look at things around you and say that it seems plausible but no way you can say that it is an exact observable science. You can't observe plates in the Earth either, but everyone assumes plate tectonics is true because that is what is taught in colleges around the globe, so it must be true.

I'm not saying what I think about the unoberservable is true because I have no proof to give you. But the other side has no proof that I am wrong either. So what I think is no less plausible than what they think.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 20, 2015)

But Speak, observation doesn't just mean seeing something sitting in front of you. No scientist would suggest that the only things that are measurable are those we can use a physical ruler on. And observations that turn science on its ear is exactly what science is about. That's what's great about it. If this is an attempt to equate science with religion, the fact that science is built on a series of suppositions and that religion is as well... I think that devolves into useless solipsism, and isn't discussion about knowledge or the observable universe. We might as well be counting angels on heads of pins.


----------



## tack (Nov 20, 2015)

Science is the process of converging asymptotically closer to The Truth but never reaching it. Theories are usually not overturned but revised, tweaked to fit the data better. (It's always interesting when theories _are_ completely overturned though, like Lamarckian inheritance, because it's typically accompanied by a significant breakthrough.) Science is a remarkable self-correcting system and the fruits of it speaks for itself.

It's rare to see a scientist claim anything nontrivial is "absolute truth." In fact, usually it's the opposite: scientists are continuously and obnoxiously qualifying their language to make it more tentative. For example, Stephen Jay Gould famously qualified the word "fact," when used in science, to mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent_."_

Although, here's the thing about evolution: you _can_ observe it, and it _is_ measurable (change in allele frequency in a given population).


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 20, 2015)

So in other words to fully appreciate Science you would be required to have faith in what they tell you.
Sounds religious to me.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 20, 2015)

interesing thread. long. hopefully someone mentions the freakonomics book info about abortion and how it helped reduce crime in the US. 

abortion should be legal. no doubt. now, i am liberal but try to keep an open mind. for example, the republican/right side argument about providing free money to planned parenthood is somehting i think is more of a good discussion. 
trying to raise the level of argument since forums posts in can msn etc are very dumb. 

I still think there should be free/low cost planned parenthood but its also tax payers money which the govermen keeps adding a tab/debt... sooo. much better than abortion is wrong and thats it. which by the way, how many women have they added their comment to this thread.... funny how that works.


----------



## tack (Nov 20, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> So in other words to fully appreciate Science you would be required to have faith in what they tell you.


No, because faith is belief without evidence. Even as a layperson, I understand enough of the evidence to know when "provisional assent" is warranted. And, crucially, I know that if I'm particularly interested in one area and want to better understand some aspect of the evidence, the information is accessible to me. All I need is the time to invest in learning the discipline in question. This is the very antithesis of faith.

Here is one sentence you _never hear_ in scientific discourse: "You just have to have faith."


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 20, 2015)

Planned Parenthood was once a great program.
It like anything involving crony capitalism becomes corrupted.
Obamacare covers these procedures now.
The difference is Planned Parenthood runs a cash ploy where tax payer money is refunneled back to the same lawbreakers/makers that fund the program in the form of campaign contributions.
Same with the Unions raping tax payers like IRS and VA dirtbags that take the 5th. Thier lawyers are covered by tax payers too. 
200k just for the IMF lawyer to sit in court with a Liberal client.
Look at the Police Unions.
Did they ask you if you would pay more in taxes for thier Armored Personel Carriers...?
Nope.
It works like this.
Union hot shots making incredibly large salaries paid by us, negotiate with Liberal politicians on how much these multi million dollar machines will cost tax payers. Whatever you say buddy boy.
Why is this?
Because theres 0 arbitration.
Nobody is there to say yes or no or even represent the tax payer.
Conservatives are the same as thier Liberal counterparts. They screw us with defense appropriation over runs.
The reason why this cannot be changed is because theres 0 difference between these 2 parties.
The Sheep care not as long as they feel safe and get free stuff.
This is why Liberal and Conservative voters are equally complicit.

The VA has betrayed our veterans. But get bonuses of 142 million for thier pathetic record.

DC is where the money is.
To equal thier success youd need a patent like Microsoft.


----------



## The Darris (Nov 20, 2015)

Hannes_F said:


> .......and I guess that is why this and the other thread still live atm despite several shutdown requests."



What concerns me is that you've mentioned that "several" requests have been made to take it down yet it still stands due to your own personal thoughts on how discussions like these should go. We all have our points of views and it is healthy to discuss them in a mature way but this thread is littered with ignorance, intolerance, and sexism from both sides and it continues to grow. 

This is a community first. The health of this community is dependent on the actions of our members. I feel the moderators who have entered this discussion have added fuel to the fire with their posts more then trying to maintain a decent level of dialogue between sides. 

On a very personal note, I find it incredibly WEIRD that a composers forum is having this discussion. This really isn't the place to have these discussions. I really hope the moderators and those in charge step up to fix something that is potentially toxic to this community.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 20, 2015)

The more time we spend here the more chances of seeing another instrument or library we might not have seen if just coming here to tell everyone how happy we are and how great everything is.

Just now I noticed your soundcloud demos so I am going to watch them.
Amazing how this works 'eh?


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

The Darris said:


> On a very personal note, I find it incredibly WEIRD that a composers forum is having this discussion. This really isn't the place to have these discussions. I really hope the moderators and those in charge step up to fix something that is potentially toxic to this community.



I know that is how many feel. I think that this is the perfect place for this discussion because composers have a certain type of intelligence and they also have passion which is missing in other types of deep thinkers. As long as an off topic place exists, what really is the problem? If you only want to see what these deep thinkers think about music, don't read these off topic discussions. Read only the ones about sample libraries and musical composition. Nobody is forcing anyone else to read these posts. Ignore them and enjoy the Sample Talk posts.

I love your music posts by the way and I have been enjoying your recent videos.


----------



## tack (Nov 20, 2015)

The Darris said:


> On a very personal note, I find it incredibly WEIRD that a composers forum is having this discussion.


I sort of agree, to the extent that it's weird to discuss any off-topic matter here, like the Paris attacks that (somehow) breathed life to this thread.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2015)

Christopher, you clicked on the thread. This is the off-topic section. Universe repair.

Hannes absolutely shouldn't take it down.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> The more time we spend here the more chances of seeing another instrument or library we might not have seen if just coming here to tell everyone how happy we are and how great everything is.
> 
> Just now I noticed your soundcloud demos so I am going to watch them.
> Amazing how this works 'eh?




You always make me smile. You are chock full of wisdom and sarcasm, two things that I admire. I wish that we lived in the same city so I could come watch you do live music. I'll bet that it is spectacular Maybe you will video a song or two one day and post them on YouTube for us all to watch and enjoy. I would love to see some of the things that you discuss here in action.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Christopher, you clicked on the thread. This is the off-topic section. Universe repair.
> 
> Hannes absolutely shouldn't take it down.


 +1 one to that Nick.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2015)

> hopefully someone mentions the freakonomics book info about abortion and how it helped reduce crime in the US



It's a theory, anyway. I have a hard time accepting that it's more than correlation.



> Just because thousand have said that red shift looks true to them because they have observed it, you assume that it is an absolute truth. The thousands though were taught by university professors who also assumed it was an absolute truth. Some of the professors probably disagreed but were forced to teach that so called truth.



But red shift isn't someone's opinion, it's proven fact. That doesn't mean nothing we think we know will ever be disproven, but it also doesn't mean that nothing is ever real!



> That is politics Nick. It has everything to do with politics. So does the main topic, abortion.



I don't understand that leap at all,


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Hey, there is a new forum for smart people who disagree with each other. It is sponsored by the People Who Hate People club. I was going to go to a meeting last week but they seem to have this problem making the meetings happen. "Are you going to the meeting?" "Yes." Then I'm not coming."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2015)

By the way, you do understand how red shift works, right? That it's just the doppler effect?


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Nov 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But red shift isn't someone's opinion, it's proven fact.



OK, I am listening. Prove red shift to me. Maybe not here. It is OK to send a PM with me for you proof, since this is off topic to the off topic.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2015)

It's on whatever topic we're on at this point. The source is traveling away from you so the wavelengths are longer. If it's traveling toward you they're shorter and the light is shifted to the blue spectrum. 

It's just like the sound of a horn in a moving car.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 20, 2015)

I'd prefer if the red shift aspect of the discussion is held publicly-
ot within ot within ot is ok-

To those of you who think this discussion shouldn't be had here-
I'm puzzled- this is a community of friends and yes some adversarial relationships as well-
Why should it and other ot discussions not be had here?

Personally I think the conversation, though at times a bit antagonistic has remained civil.
IMO, it's a credit to the forum and this community that we're having this discussion at this time.
I don't see it in anyway as being threatening to this community-


----------



## The Darris (Nov 20, 2015)

Look, I'm not claiming that this thread is breaking any rules and that's why it should be taken down. I think it should be taken down because it is exclusionary. I can see where people might want to honestly discuss this issue but I think it has crossed the line.


----------



## chillbot (Nov 20, 2015)

The Darris said:


> This is a community first. The health of this community is dependent on the actions of our members. I feel the moderators who have entered this discussion have added fuel to the fire with their posts more then trying to maintain a decent level of dialogue between sides.
> 
> On a very personal note, I find it incredibly WEIRD that a composers forum is having this discussion. This really isn't the place to have these discussions. I really hope the moderators and those in charge step up to fix something that is potentially toxic to this community.



Not that it matters one bit, but totally agree on this.^^^ I liked the community better before this thread. Yes I didn't have to click on it... but the title is almost like clickbait AND it shows up on the top of the new posts all the f-ing time. Anyway the fact that I did (mistakenly) click on it now means that I am more biased than I wish I was towards certain members, and these might be members that could help me a ton musically and technically but now I'm almost wrecked towards ever taking their advice because I consider them pretty much loony. The great thing about musicians helping musicians is that we're all over the planet from all different backgrounds and races and we're able to talk this universal language without all of this other stuff getting in the way. For that reason I don't see any problem with forums banning discussions on religion, politics, etc. Anyway like I said not that it matters, I know.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 20, 2015)

@ chillbot-"clickbait." Hmmm. That seems like a personal responsibility issue to me.

Look. If I click on a news item that promises pictures of a Kardashian having sex with a previously undiscovered alien species, I deserve what I get. If I click on a hotbed political or religious topic and it makes me mad, I deserve what I get. No one coerced me into clicking. Last night someone offered me drugs, but I Just Said No. I'm a grownup. That's what grownups do, make decisions. Like not buying drugs, or clicking on topics they don't want to read. 

Another thing grownups try to do (well, the ones I admire) is avoid burning books or stifling free expression. That shouldn't, in my opinion, require an even more grown up grownup (i.e., a mod). 

We don't HAVE to eat that gallon of ice cream or drink that entire bottle of aged Scotch whiskey. We can CONTROL our urges. If we're not doing a very good job of it, well, that says something too, doesn't it?

@ The Darris-this is "Off Topics" where anything is fair game, and it has been for a long time. I accept that you're just expressing your opinion, but who are you to say who can or should talk about what?

And btw...."Exclusionary." Huh???


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 20, 2015)

The Darris said:


> yet it still stands due to your own personal thoughts on how discussions like these should go.


No, it is the forum policy to not censor if any possible.

(I know we have been through different phases where single exceptions happened but the main direction is clear and let us not get into this here or the thread will never come to an end).

Also, there has been user support to maintain this thread too, so we need to ponder and balance with a bias to non-censorship. Every request is noticed but there is no automatic chain like 1 request => 1 mod action.



> On a very personal note, I find it incredibly WEIRD that a composers forum is having this discussion.


This forum mainly is what you, the users, make it to be. I don't really like this thread either. But if you (I mean everybody) force this thread to page one by adding to it it will never die.

Perhaps, when all arguments have been exchanged at a certain point, we are all mature enough in order to let it go.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 21, 2015)

The Darris said:


> What concerns me is that you've mentioned that "several" requests have been made to take it down yet it still stands due to your own personal thoughts on how discussions like these should go. We all have our points of views and it is healthy to discuss them in a mature way but this thread is littered with ignorance, intolerance, and sexism from both sides and it continues to grow.
> 
> This is a community first. The health of this community is dependent on the actions of our members. I feel the moderators who have entered this discussion have added fuel to the fire with their posts more then trying to maintain a decent level of dialogue between sides.
> 
> On a very personal note, I find it incredibly WEIRD that a composers forum is having this discussion. This really isn't the place to have these discussions. I really hope the moderators and those in charge step up to fix something that is potentially toxic to this community.



I guess composers (male ones) never have daughters, sisters, wives, female friends, young mothers etc.

I have engaged and been engaged by Speak and Jake in this discussion, who as far as I can tell totally disagree with my views, but I don't think about them in a "toxic" manner. I would hope they don't feel I'm "toxic" either.

Tack? You think it's weird to discuss off topic things in a forum called "Off Topic"?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 21, 2015)

Should I be concerned that my new German DSP hardware doing past and future Hammond B3 emulations in real time has the best Doppler effect?
What are rhe chances of me being Red shifted?

Perhaps in the future the forum could incorporate Safe Spaces as an option.

Tom Cruises daughter Rachel in the War Of The Worlds remake had such a zone.
She made it to the end of the movie prooving they can be effective.

I notice developers usually dont help us save the universe.
Wise financial move or is the Commercial Announcement a Safe Space..?


----------



## KEnK (Nov 21, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Perhaps in the future the forum could incorporate Safe Spaces as an option.


or maybe an "ignore thread" button


----------



## fitzo (Nov 21, 2015)

KEnK said:


> or maybe an "ignore thread" button



I started a thread about adding the ignore function last Monday, and then, at Andre's suggestion, wrote Frederick that afternoon. Thus far there hasn't been a response.

Interesting thread. I have enjoyed following it.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

Hi guys, I am seeing that there is a lot of passion and intensity here, and some people are deeply affected by this thread topic and how it's going. I have excluded it from the Portal "Recent Posts" and am looking into excluding it from the Forum sidebar as well. It should be a question of time. 

fitzo has the right idea, although it requires a bit of finicking and since I'm fully on a volunteer basis now, I'd be grateful for any support. 

Cheers,

Andre


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

*UPDATE: while the Universe Repair forum remains fully operational and enjoyable, from now on it will no longer display its posts on the Recent Posts list, either on the Portal, or the Forum. 

We apologize for any inconvenience or stress that may have been caused. 

Regards,

Andre*


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 21, 2015)

Where's your donate tab at brotha' man Forge?
I think your deserve at least a dinner out.
Babysitters do not work for free, nor should you.

Thanks Again, great support.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 21, 2015)

Andre, how did you come to that decision? Were moderators involved? I disagree with it. 

Someone needs to explain to me what the problem is with an off-topic thread discussing abortion. It's a public affairs issue (not that it should still be after being decided 42 years ago).

Now, I find some of the responses nutty, but it's not like this is the first time anyone has talked about it.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

Hi Nick, I told Frederick after the fact and he found the solution "elegant." I didn't touch the forum, I only excluded the Recent Posts from listing its latest topics. Short of having an "ignore thread" option, it's the best cleanest thing I could do.

Now I could add an "ignore thread" addon, but it requires a bit more technical work. Which I'm no longer paid for. So it's a matter of getting there... 

Hope this helps?

Andre


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

Thanks chimuelo! To donate see my signature. 

Much appreciated!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 21, 2015)

It may be an elegant solution, but what's the problem?


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

People have complained about the tone, energy diverted from the forum itself, not wanting to even see the title of that topic, and apparently some have even left. So it had become a serious issue which could simply be fixed this way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 21, 2015)

I don't like Yamaha FB-01s all that much. Mine has been sitting in a closet for a long time, and after only 30 years its buttons stick.

If I and three other people say we don't want to see the name in the title and threaten to leave, does that mean this is a serious issue that requires the same treatment?

Why not fix it the same way?


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

Depending on the reasons given, and if it was a topic that often brings out flaming comments and disrespect between people, and its title appeared on the sidebar - it would be considered for surgery I'm sure. It should. Just like moderation, it has to be evaluated on its merits.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 21, 2015)

creativeforge said:


> it was a topic that often brings out flaming comments and disrespect between people,


It's a controversial and uncomfortable subject to some (obviously).
but i think to everyone's credit on both sides of the issue, except for occasional exasperation,
the tone remained respectful-

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 21, 2015)

I'm ready to become disrespectful, because what happened pisses me off.

There are lots of controversial and uncomfortable subjects. This is bullshit.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

Nice example it would be for a moderator, Nick. Maybe YOU don't have a problem, but others do. Can you respect them in this? Now you're hijacking the thread to make it all about yourself. That's also invalidating others who have issues they may not want to share here about their own limitations.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

I was instructed to install an "IGNORE THREAD" addon by Frederick. This I will do. Once it is operational, I will restore the view on the Recent Posts list. Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 21, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> There are lots of controversial and uncomfortable subjects. This is bullshit.


It's the micro-aggression thing.
Have a quick look at this-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/21/why-protesters-on-college-campuses-are-battling-free-speech-in-1-graph/


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

No, it's not. Not in this instance.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 21, 2015)

creativeforge said:


> No, it's not. Not in this instance.


Andre-
I've seen people get far nastier w/ each other about styles of music or even music theory
than anything in this thread.
Personally, there are many topics I avoid, because I have nothing to gain from reading them,
and nothing constructive to add. So I just don't open them.
It's very easy to not read everything that one can come across on the web.
On the one hand, the internet brings us in touch w/ everything-
but it's also possible to filter out everything that doesn't fit whatever picture you're trying to draw for yourself.

If an individual wishes to hide their head in the sand from something-
and they still get "touched" by that issue-
then the onus is on them to bury themselves deeper.

There are many uncomfortable and "not nice" things happening in the world-
Pretending these things don't exist not only doesn't make them go away,
but it often makes them worse. 
(I'm thinking of the Serbian and Rwandan genocides here)

Perhaps it's a bit of a generational thing-
I've always viewed music as a big part of socio/political forces.
As an Artist I am duty bound to Speak, especially against oppression whatever guise it may take.
etc, etc, etc.

That said, the "ignore thread" fix is a good one.
Very good of you and Frederick to implement that. 

k


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

I hear you, however there are topics that are too close for comfort, and after being exposed to negative or hurtful comments they trigger anxiety. I'm not expecting everybody to understand the deeper sensitivities of creative souls, but I think it is important to be considerate without feeling like "our" freedom is impeded, or come up with justifications that are really a shot in the dark...

I think it will be good to allow people to hide what they do not want to see...


----------



## tcollins (Nov 21, 2015)

I enjoy the Universe Repair threads, especially when they get heated (but not nasty), since it is a great way to learn how people from all over the world feel about these subjects. Especially given that VI control seems populated with very intelligent people who for the most part treat each other with respect.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

And if you engage in a thread, you will always receive notifications for that thread...


----------



## KEnK (Nov 21, 2015)

creativeforge said:


> I think it will be good to allow people to hide what they do not want to see...


Yes, of course.
That's why the "ignore thread" button is a good fix.

Nick- just "suck it up" for a couple 'a days, 
and try not to step on any ants.
One of them might be my Grandfather. 

k


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 21, 2015)

Meanwhile back at the Ranch.........
Why do men even think they have a say so in an abortion decision unless it's thier kid..?

I know so many women that cant stand female politicians acting as if women dont know how to incease thier value in the marketplace or need free protection.
And why does a man get free Viagra if regulating birth rates is so important?

Never tried the stuff.
I wonder if you can snort it...


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 21, 2015)

Hey Andre I am not very tech savvy.
Dont see a donate link but will buy 2 recordings.
Revelations and Heartland for starters.....

So you see coming to the Universe Saving thread can be beneficial.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 21, 2015)

Very kind of you, chimuelo!


----------



## KEnK (Nov 21, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Why do men even think they have a say so in an abortion decision unless it's thier kid..


It's our primitive instinct kicking in,
the one that makes us wanna be Top Dog, Chief Chimp, Boss Banana.
Also we can't reproduce w/o them
rendering us as moot as a hive of drone bees all singing an old Beatles tune,
"I Me Mine! I Me Mine! I Me Mine!"


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 22, 2015)

I'm still sort of bollixed by people who feel the need to try to control what is discussed and what is not in a subforum dedicated to free discussion.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 22, 2015)

Maybe this era of emotionally traumatized people might have some advantages.

Just imagine after losing an audition there are grief counselors there.
I would have liked that.
Maybe there's a secondary participation award like playing Piano for an audience
that was told to clap for you even if you suck.

Who knows what things would have been like after that.
I might have been a contender.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 22, 2015)

Oh, stop yer whimpering and go bang on the pianer, Jimmy.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 22, 2015)

Hey did you catch the Good Wife....?

If not it was about this very topic.
Not the offended, but abortion.

A take off from the planned parenthood doctors who do what they do but have legal arguments about
the expectation of privacy, etc.

Pretty good as usual.

As Theodore Roosevelt once said:

Walk softly and carry a large law firm.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 22, 2015)

Yikes! Get a big stick and beat that Windows 10 into submission!
Nope, went for Homeland again (which is outrageously good). I need to have a Good Wife marathon.


----------

