Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

[RockVolnutt]

Alternatively, the possibility their child might grow up to be fed to MovieBob could goose support for abortion by a good 20-30 points.

 

[Secret Asshole]

Yeah, about half do. Bob and other leftists kind of forget that the growing majority of Hispanics as a whole roll extremely conservative. African Americans also tend to be religious as well as homophobic in certain communities. Bob himself is still stuck in a simple High-School mentality; his education is in communications. He has no idea how to do proper research, evaluate sources critically and form logically structured arguments. All of the tweets I've read from him on politics either contain logical fallacies, are historically ignorant or express a child-like view of things.

Not to mention for all their 'right side of history', the Democrats are actually losing the country: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/barack-obama-won-the-white-house-but-democrats-lost-the-country. You've got increasingly blue states with republican governors and legislatures. And those are where politics are really done, and lives are really effected.

For the abortion issue, life begins at conception. Yes, it does. This much is obvious (the body also aborts a lot more fertilized eggs than people think, especially if cell division is going wrong). The question is at what point do you consider it developed enough to protect and under what reasons that protection would be justified, unjustified or overrides. That is a complicated issue with many sides and you cannot dismiss them. Just being pro-choice isn't enough. If the baby is three weeks out, is it ethical to abort it? What if it possesses a genetic disease only detectable in this period of time? What if the genetic disease is serious enough to drastically reduce the quality of life of the child?

These are not easy questions to answer and its expected that people won't just go 'Pro-Choice!' every time and choose to abort a fetus close to birth. And it may have its origins in religious roots, but its biologically as well. Children represent the potential to better our species, pass on our collective cultural and biological DNA. Not to mention the devotion parents have to their children and even other children. It is not solely a religious issue, and it typically isn't anymore. As always, Bob comes in with the simplistic, High-School level of ideology. As empty, superficial and ignorant as always.

 

[Tiki]

I'm mostly ambivalent when it comes to abortion (though I do lean slightly pro-life), but I hate it when windbags like Bob claim that any opposition to abortion is just "religious hokum" and that it should be a universal right to be able to kill a fetus at any time (IMO it should be a state-level decision). For all his talk about "science over superstition", Bob's just as much of a science-denier as he proclaims Trump-supporters to be.

I think what it boils down to, is that Bob and a lot of these crazy sjw activists will never have the opportunity to have children or be around them from conception to birth, so they don't really know the emotional weight that goes along with those "cells that the man in the sky put a ghost in."
And I'm a pro-choice atheist.

 

[CleverJokeHere]

I'm more or less pro-choice but and so are a lot of people I know but I don't know anyone who's as ghoulishly enthusiastic about dead babies as certain celebrities and certain feminist figures.

Bob, I assume, just wants to eat the aborted fetuses.

 

[RockVolnutt]

I'm more or less pro-choice but and so are a lot of people I know but I don't know anyone who's as ghoulishly enthusiastic about dead babies as certain celebrities and certain feminist figures.

Bob, I assume, just wants to eat the aborted fetuses.

It could explain his sperging about Asia a little while ago. I hear cannibals think the Japanese are the best.

 

[Positron]

Someone is living The Dream -- unfortunately, not Bobby:

And the weather forecast: salty with persistent cluelessness.

 

[Ravelord]

Someone is living The Dream -- unfortunately, not Bobby:

View attachment 210939

And the weather forecast: salty with persistent cluelessness.

View attachment 210940

Well, he is clueless of the science show sperging politics because he claimed "everything is political". So for him that's Tuesday, I guess.

Regarding abortion, I'm pro-choice. I can understand some of the pro-life people wanting to hold people responsible. In Spain, the far-left/pro-choice wants to have their abortions free and I think that's dumb. It could mean that more might fuck without condom because they could abort afterwards. But there's a limit of what the body can sustain from abortions. I would prefer your first is free, then subsequent may (at a discount if applicable) or may not be paid (depending on the medical or legal circumstances). But that's because I think everyone has the right to make one mistake.

Like others said before, it's a very difficult, yet interesting discussion. Sadly Mr. Fedora is a very shallow fellow that doesn't want to think or have his views questioned.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Having legal abortions is damage limitation as much as anything else. Without access to them, women will go for illegal abortions, which can kill them. It was largely this argument that led to abortion being legalised in Britain in 1967. Obviously for some people abortion is tantamount to murder so having them legal is an outrage on moral principles, but abortions wouldn't stop happening if they were banned.

 

[MysteriousStranger]

The joke is pretending that the only objection to abortion is religious. There are very definitely science issues on both sides. The public pro abortion argument (I refuse 'pro choice' as being a focus-group tested bit of cuteness) has usually revolved around viability - if a baby can survive on its own, it's a person. If not, it's a clump of cells. The problem with this line of argument is that viability moves earlier and earlier as medicine improves. So you weren't a person last year, but congratz - we have a better ventilator now. That's a tough sell as a moral argument.

My own position, for what it's worth, is that the line is too slippery to be arguable. It's a person from conception (and if nature aborts a lot of these persons, well that's nature for you). I'm still pro abortion though. Better dead than unwanted.

 

[McGregor]

The joke is pretending that the only objection to abortion is religious. There are very definitely science issues on both sides. The public pro abortion argument (I refuse 'pro choice' as being a focus-group tested bit of cuteness) has usually revolved around viability - if a baby can survive on its own, it's a person. If not, it's a clump of cells. The problem with this line of argument is that viability moves earlier and earlier as medicine improves. So you weren't a person last year, but congratz - we have a better ventilator now. That's a tough sell as a moral argument.

My own position, for what it's worth, is that the line is too slippery to be arguable. It's a person from conception (and if nature aborts a lot of these persons, well that's nature for you). I'm still pro abortion though. Better dead than unwanted.

Larry Niven suggested that ethics revolved around technology, and frankly your statement on the progress of ventilator technology rather says it all. The challenge isn't understanding the point - you made it yourself. 1988 you must be this many months to survive. 98 this many less etc... etc... The challenge is keeping the laws up to date with technology, particularly medical. That isn't an ethical problem though, it's a legislative problem and to some extent a public awareness issue.

Imagine the shift in perception a society would have if suddenly addiction were no longer an issue? The ethics surrounding previously addictive activities would entirely change, possibly all as the result of an electrified head band or a pill. But that would be technology directly impacting how we view ethical living. And that's likely why in most futuristic fiction where it's entirely plausible addiction is no longer a concern - take Star Trek and the transporter's abilities - it still has to be because it still is for the real world. So it would border on unethical to show people just doing known addictive drugs like opiates and the like just because in your story they can fix themselves by popping a purple pill and taking a nap.

So I wouldn't say abortion is too slippery to be argued, so much as the laws have to be kept up to speed with the liberties our technology allows us today that it didn't yesterday.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Larry Niven suggested that ethics revolved around technology, and frankly your statement on the progress of ventilator technology rather says it all. The challenge isn't understanding the point - you made it yourself. 1988 you must be this many months to survive. 98 this many less etc... etc... The challenge is keeping the laws up to date with technology, particularly medical. That isn't an ethical problem though, it's a legislative problem and to some extent a public awareness issue.

Imagine the shift in perception a society would have if suddenly addiction were no longer an issue? The ethics surrounding previously addictive activities would entirely change, possibly all as the result of an electrified head band or a pill. But that would be technology directly impacting how we view ethical living. And that's likely why in most futuristic fiction where it's entirely plausible addiction is no longer a concern - take Star Trek and the transporter's abilities - it still has to be because it still is for the real world. So it would border on unethical to show people just doing known addictive drugs like opiates and the like just because in your story they can fix themselves by popping a purple pill and taking a nap.

So I wouldn't say abortion is too slippery to be argued, so much as the laws have to be kept up to speed with the liberties our technology allows us today that it didn't yesterday.

I don't think showing people doing drugs in science fiction is unethical. It's this kind of taking fiction too seriously that led to the Gamergate debacle.

 

[McGregor]

I don't think showing people doing drugs in science fiction is unethical. It's this kind of taking fiction too seriously that led to the Gamergate debacle.

No but you can see how an author might question the wisdom of such a thing. Not to mention a publisher/producer. The real point is when you get enough technology our lifestyle changes dramatically. As technology advances so do our concepts of safe and right and wrong, because of those advances and what they make safe that yesterday wasn't. The sexual revolution of the 60s is often tied to birth control, people sometimes forget it should also be tied to a whole host of treatments for STI that were developed earlier and suddenly became everyday. So our ethics on what is and isn't appropriate sexually changed. Or what is suddenly found to be dangerous that yesterday we thought wasn't. Drugs were just a good example of something that might put a publisher off due to public backlash. After all our society presently shames drug users, what happens when a crack addicted mathematician set 2000 years in the future is a heroic figure in a story? Probably a lot of unpleasant letters. It would be seen to diminish real world consequences.

I'm just saying that technology tends to dictate what is ethical to people more then ethics dictate what will be developed in technology. And accordingly legislation has to keep up with technology. To me that gradual or rapid advance doesn't make discussion of an issue like abortion impossible it merely changes the potential frame work for such a discussion and dictates updates to the laws surrounding it for ethical reasons.

 

[TowinKarz]

When the artificial lung was invented, there were those in the medical community who decried it as immoral, arguing that doctors were now playing God because they could prolong life past what had traditionally been a "you're dead" moment. Ditto pacemakers, dialysis and open-heart surgery.

Hell, the discovery of anesthetics was turned into a moral issue in that making surgery pain-free was also upsetting the "natural order" of things, i.e. - if God didn't want going under the knife to hurt, he'd have made us without nervous systems.....

You see this "argument" put forward with every medical advance, that it's immoral to extend a human life beyond what is "natural" , "natural" being defined by someone OTHER than that suffering human and acutely ignorant that a human living to 40 in good health is considered so normal as to be noticeable today, back up 1,000 years and he'd be getting a medal.

Any argument that starts with "it's not natural" is fundamentally flawed, because today's "natural" is another eras aberration.

 

[muina]

 

[Gordon Cole]

You forgot this:

I've said this before, but some jokes just write themselves with Bobbo.

 

[TheImportantFart]

You forgot this:
View attachment 211119
I've said this before, but some jokes just write themselves with Bobbo.

My heart goes out to the Boston McDonald's workers who have to witness an obese, one-footed manchild bounding excitedly up to the counter, ordering eight happy meals, then going back up to the counter to exchange his doubles for the ones he hasn't got yet.

 

[vertexwindi]

My heart goes out to the Boston McDonald's workers who have to witness an obese, one-footed manchild bounding excitedly up to the counter, ordering eight happy meals, then going back up to the counter to exchange his doubles for the ones he hasn't got yet.

You can just buy the toys themselves. I think Bronies did that back when there were MLP Happy Meals.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

You can just buy the toys themselves. I think Bronies did that back when there were MLP Happy Meals.

Why would Bobby Boy cheat himself out of McNuggets like that?

 

[RockVolnutt]

For the price of all those happy meals, Blobby could buy an issue or two of those super important Marvel comics he doesn't want to fail that'll somehow improve the quality of life for minority children or I guess little Tyrone, Juan, and Muhammad can go fuck themselves if they get in the way of this fat old white dude's Mario obsession. I'm just reading into this how he says I should.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

Best part is that with Bob's appetite he could find all the toys at just one trip to McDonald's.