Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-23 Unreal troll

About verditude

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 04/10/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
  • Location
    Nash Vegas
  1. Homophobes are responsible for a genocide of gays in america. The racists are ruining our open society. I'm tired of fucking womyn-haters all over the place, fucking up our efforts toward equality. Tolerant womyn and men around the world need to come together - fuck those backward morons, we need to stop them from talking before our public discourse gets corrupted any further. I feel like I should have a right to say that. Even if something has no truth value (I'm not saying that the above statement is completely untrue, but bear with me), and will end only in the otherization and violent seperation of entire ideological groups of people, the right to say that SHOULDN'T be revoked.
  2. Evidently the wiretaps revealed Rahm Emanuel discussing who would be "acceptable" as a replacement for Obama. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-obama13dec13,0,3359611.story (interesting part excerpted below) How should the Obama camp react if Emanuel is implicated to a significant degree? Should Emanuel resign? (I don't necessarily think so, but a few people I know do)
  3. I suppose with all the teacher sex scandals in recent years, employing a person who is used to having sex with strange people at a school could set some parents off. Not that I agree with the pressure to fire her; I think it's great that former porn stars can get real jobs doing something else.
  4. Florida will win. They win the overall speed game by a long shot and they're physical enough to keep Bama from controlling the line. Percy Harvin will score a couple of touchdowns, but Florida won't go over 30 points (gotta give credit to that Bama defense). I predict a 24-16 final.
  5. I did this once. The other team went for T - should is the past tense of shall - but conceded our Nietzsche "fairness bad" turn. 2AR was replan: do the plan in the 1960's. Solves education impact to T.
  6. I laughed unreasonably hard at this. Also, I think the libertarians are winning.
  7. AEnema - Tool All Hope Is Gone - Slipknot Edit: Anonymous neg rep for my music tastes? Seriously?
  8. Ah, Petchesky. I read that as part of a fem aff I read last year. I still think that, since both abortion and carrying to term have potential mental health-related consequences, both should be enumerated under informed consent. The mental health consequences of abortion can be avoided, for some, by showing women an ultrasound of their fetus. Thus, I think informing women in the way the law mandates is justifiable.
  9. I'm not "losing the fundamental debate". The challenge was to find a medical relevancy for showing women how developed their fetus is at the time of abortion. I found one. My point is that a doctor showing a pregnant woman a picture of her fetus and saying "Are you mentally OK with killing this thing?" has some relevance to the mother's health. To show that the law is illegitimate, you need to win that the image/status of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant medically to the woman's decision whether or not to abort. On the mental health topic, sure, post partum depression exists and should be part of the information given to a prospective mother. However, if it should, the mental health risks from abortion-related guilt should be considered relevant as well and part of informed consent.
  10. That's mostly well and good. However, I think that the information that the law mandates about the fetus (maybe not all of it, but at least some) is medically relevant to the mother. I have known women who, like the article in the original post said, have had abortions and later regretted doing so because they didn't know how "human" their fetus would have looked when they had it killed. In some cases, this has resulted in clinical depression and other mental health issues, which most people consider medically relevant. The Texas law thus is justifiable under the guise of informed consent (not to assert that this is necessarily why the TX congress likes the law in the first place). I agree that the metaphysical status of the fetus is not important in and of itself as far as informed medical consent is concerned, but the mother's mental reaction to (and possible mental illness caused by) her decision to kill a fetus which she later learns was more "human" to her than she originally thought is definitely a medical issue. Of course, for informed consent purposes, the doctors should also explain the risks that carrying to term would have regarding mental health, such as post partum depression.
  11. I don't see why this compromise is in order. I think it would be information overload to describe proper condom use to third graders in a gentle, nonmystifying way. I also don't see how giving pregnant fifteen-year-olds information about what they're killing counts as "terrorizing".
  12. 1. The article I posted states that the kind of Republican candidate the New York Times would endorse - like McCain - is not the type who votes for the Republican side anyway. McCain wasn't going to convince mass numbers of center-leftists to vote for him rather than Obama by being socially liberal, and he probably lost some of his base in the process. 2. The independents that voted for the McCain-Palin ticket voted against Obama or for Palin, not for McCain. Palin actually helped the ticket: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08321/927990-373.stm
  • Create New...