A Conservative Tumblog

1830s-horror:

fucknoliberals:

Yes, it is, though that’s not to say I would ever date a girl like that in the first place.  I tend to speak with the girls I date before fucking them, usually bringing up the idea of them not killing my child if we accidentally get one.

So, before you have sex with a girl you’re dating, you discuss what would happen if you got her knocked up.

You ol’ charmer, you.

Hey, sorry I tend to be bit more judicious about who I sleep with than most people.  I guess that means I won’t be knocking up any sluts and having to ruin the rest of my life with a family.  Wow, sure does suck to be me, doesn’t it?

I’ve noticed that you stopped arguing the actual subject, though. 
Enjoy being anti-abortion, my good friend.

bvac:

mhmm, I wonder if you ever get tired of being a pompous know-it-all, well firstly because you do not know everything. Everyone has opinions, I have mine and you have yours.  And even if you disagree with abortion you can’t tell anyone what to do with their own bodies, So if someone wants an abortion they are going to get one, no matter what you say.

Having observed your arguing style for a while, I wonder if the reason the only persistent theme in it is “That’s, just, like, your opinion, man” is that you found out that you were wrong a lot and needed something new to defend yourself when people started using logic to premise their arguments instead of emotion and futile “what if” scenarios.

An opinion is something that cannot be substantiated rationally.  You see all of this debating I’m doing?  Yeah, that’s not the work of opinionation.

Because you seem so dead-set against not reading the original post (maybe you’ve set a limit on how many words you can read in a day), I’ll quote for you:

3. “You can’t impose your morality on others.”

Using that logic, should we release all the rapists and murderers from prison to go free on the streets and allow them to do as they please, because we cannot impose our morality on them? Of course not. If you saw someone beating a child bloody on a playground, would you not try to stop it? Even if that’s imposing your views on others?

We do not need to be given the right to speak up for the voiceless.

Coincidentally, if you tell someone off for wanting to enforce their morality on others, you’re enforcing your morality. Funny, isn’t it?  Yours is just about the most hypocritical stand that can be taken in favor of abortion, and that’s saying a lot.

vicktur:

fucknoliberals:

The fact that it’s alive bears absolutely no consequence over its right to life.

I will direct you to this post for the actual basis of my argument and thank you not to enlighten me about how your vegan/vegetarian/environmentalist hippy morals work.  I already know that they don’t.

Oh my god. I am most definitely not a hippy. And I read that post, but you kept failing to answer one question:

What happens when the child is unwanted? What happens when the mother dies of defects/ has no money/ or when the mother just doesn’t want the child?

I see you also failed to read the post that started all of this.  Just thought, “Hey, I haven’t expressed my ignorance enough today.  Why don’t I jump into an argument without knowing anything about the topic?”  Pure gold, Vick.

You will find the answers to your first and last questions in bullet points 9 and 11 of this post.  You may do well to read the rest of it as well.

But you’re right, I haven’t talked much about situations in which the mother’s life is threatened.  You know, I often hypothesize what I’d do in that instant: me vs. my progeny.  Suppose your child is in the street, unaware that a speeding truck is barreling down on him.  If you run out there to save him, you’ll be hit and killed instead.  Do you run out and shove him out of the way?  Or do you just stand there and say, “Eh, sorry son - I’m a working member of society.  You’re just a parasitic kid.”

I can’t imagine what a monster a person would have to be to not save their own kid - even at the expense of themselves.  And that’s coming from me.

What happens then? Eventually, if abortion becomes illegal, then adoption centers are just going to keep becoming full and there will eventually be no more room left for more children? Have you ever considered over-population?

I suspect that many women who would otherwise have been rid of their children wouldn’t have the heart to give them up after holding them in their arms, but that’s just me.

Do you support other forms of mass murder in favor of population control?  Why aren’t we killing off the children of the poor, and while we’re at it, the children of those in poverty (because everyone knows they just turn out to be criminals anyway)?  If not, can you really say that you‘ve ever thought about population control?  Why is one form of murder acceptable as a means to that end and not another?

And who gave you the right to classify who has the right to live or not?

Look at my arguments.  Do I appear to be coming from a place of subjectivity?  Read up on the philosophical rights, ethics, learn something.  It might do you some good.

And what happens if the ‘capacity’ to rationalize is no longer an option with some defects? Does that mean if a child is mentally disabled, you have to shoot him on the spot?

This is partially answered in that original post I linked you to above, bullet 10.

To be retarded is not the same thing as being non-rational.  Their rational mind may function at a reduced level, but that does not make them beasts of instinct.

The better half of the people on this website know nothing (seriously, SO many morons). But we still don’t go around killing them (much as we might want to).

And finally: What about Parkinson’s and the other diseases that can be cured by stem cell research? Are we just going to wait until it cures itself, or just let all of those people that we already KNOW have the ‘capacity of rationality’ die?

Again, I don’t think murder is an acceptable means of reaching that end.  If cures for other miscellaneous diseases could be found through the sort of human experimentation that occurred in Nazi Germany, would you condone it (that’s NOT to say abortion and Nazism are the same; just comparing body counts)?  Or would you wait for some other, less oppressive means to cure them?

“It’s not his business”?

That kid is half his.  It’s entirely his business.

When an excited, expectant couple miscarries, the guy feels it just as much as the chick. He loses just as much as she did.  You sit with your best friend trying to be sympathetic and consoling after his unborn kid dies, and then you tell me it doesn’t concern him, that it’s not any of his business.  What do you think he feels when she purposefully kills the baby, against his will?

All of this “abortion is a woman’s issue” nonsense is complete bullshit.  You may be holding the package, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have any interest in it, or that we shouldn’t have any say in it.  I’m against abortion - but if we’re going to live in an abortion-friendly world, the least we can have are some goddamned spousal consent laws.

You know, the oppression of women in the Middle East doesn’t “actually concern” me. But I also think that’s extremely fucked up, and I vocally protest it.

But you’ve changed my mind. It really is none of my business. I’ll just sit back and watch as these dark age hyper-zealot bastards treat their women like property. Because, hey - it’s their issue. Why should I concern myself with it?

Now, granted, these characters are fictional. But they are intended to represent the average, middle-class nuclear family living in suburbia. They are characterizations of modern Americans and, as you’ll see, the events that unfold here are ones that many Americans - of all ages, races, and economic classes - find themselves doing every year.

Take a good close look at what’s going on here. Hi mentions the current economic downturn that American society has been facing for several months. Hi ponders to himself his family’s economic plight, admitting that he is financially unable to afford a vacation for them.

Yet, what’s he doing in the last panel? He’s packing up for a vacation.

Now, before we get too into this, one must first take a moment to respect Hi for not only having the foresight to consider his family’s future, but to find happiness and satisfaction in a simpler and much more cost-effective way to enjoy their time off. Hi definitely has the right idea here. But, we can’t hold him in too high a regard because, clearly, he apparently gives in without even so much as a slight protest. (Especially sad, given the fact that the simple vacation he WAS going to enjoy has now become a costly vacation of hard work and screaming kids.) There’s no scene where he argues with Lois about their financial situation. There’s no throwing unpaid bills across the kitchen table. There’s nothing. He gets screamed at, and immediately kowtows - against his better judgment. Bad move Hi.

Interestingly, one might also take a moment to consider why he gives in so easily. Perhaps this is a commentary on the negative effects of feminism on modern society. Can we even really call Hi a man? I mean, for pete’s sake - he KNOWS they can’t afford it, he KNOWS he doesn’t want to go, but he submits to demands of his wife and kids, knowingly doing so against his and their best interest. My god Hi, grow a backbone! How did he let society (or, perhaps it’s just family life and a domineering wife) neuter him so much? God forbid she allow her husband the quiet satisfaction of enjoying his time alone in the sun and (I’m presuming) that six-pack he’s got in his cooler. Instead, he has to spend money he doesn’t have to take his family out for a time he won’t enjoy. Pssh. Tell me this isn’t the archetype of male and female gender roles in a nutshell these days. The woman yells, the guy gives in. Weak.

Back to the economic discussion, however, the most harrowing aspect of this montage of average American idiocy would have to be Lois’ remark. “It’s OUR vacation too!” As if she has absolutely no concern whatsoever for the financial state of the household, and is willing to frivolously spend what they cannot afford (or worse, allow themselves to slip into needless credit debt). Although it’s no surprise that Lois holds a shiftless, lazy and reckless attitude. After all, she is sister to Beetle Bailey (who you might remember as the laziest soldier in the history of the Armed Forces - though, we can at least take satisfaction in the fact that HE is regularly beaten by his commanding officer for his laziness and ineptitude.)

Perhaps, though, there’s something we’re not seeing here. Anyone who follows the comic serials as religiously as I do knows that the Flagston children are… well… idiots. Not as unbelievably braindead and vapid as the Keane troop, but still… it’s not like Hi and Lois really need to be saving for their kids college education. It’s fast food and gas stations for them, trust me.

But still, even then, shouldn’t they be saving for their retirement? I’m sure that house is still mortgaged. And heck, they still have three kids under the age of 12! WHAT are these people thinking? How can they be so financially irresponsible?

Given their financial irresponsibility, one must now question - WHY should these American archetypes be provided for by their government? I mean, I picked health care - but heck, how are they deserving of ANY kind of need-based social services? These people KNOW they don’t have the money to spend, and they’re ready to spend it anyway. Even the ONE family member with an ounce of sense who is READY to not spend, is easily pressured into doing so. These people, in short, are setting themselves up for failure and financial ruin. They are ALREADY in economic hardship, and they’re INVITING more. Whatever financial trouble they wind up having, is trouble that they will have brought entirely upon themselves. So why bail them out? Why toss them a lifeline? They’re making their own bed - let them sleep in it! They’re trading whatever little financial security they have now for some immediate (and fleeting) consumerist pleasure, instead of planning for the unforeseen potentialities of tomorrow.

Now, we know that Hi and Lois is a two-income family. Hi actually has a pretty good job (Asst. Marketing VP) and Lois is in real estate. So, one might argue, between the two of them, they likely already have employer-covered health benefits. But that’s really kind of missing the point. Whether they do or not, Hi admits that he can’t afford a vacation. And even if his health care is covered, something else might not be. Something else that he should be putting money aside for in savings, rather than squandering it on a week-long vacation for six.

I think the most appalling thing about this strip is the fact that it IS a comic strip. See, with comic serials like these, the intent of them is to make the reader find delight by contrasting what’s happening in the serial with his own life. That is, the humor is derived by making the reader identify with the characters. Undoubtedly, many Americans read this strip today and thought, “Boy Hi, I know you feel,” as they take another sip of beer and try to drown out the screaming of their kids to take them to Disneyland before they have to go back to school in a few weeks (or some variation of that.)

If Hi and Lois are to be representative of the average, lower-to-middle class American, then today’s strip only shows why the average American deserves to have the safety net pulled out from under them. They deserve to suffer the consequences of their shortsightedness and their financial irresponsibility. They deserve to find out the hard way what happens when they need the money tomorrow, that they needlessly squandered today. They need to learn what happens when they trade financial security for pointless luxuries.

I sincerely hope that Brian and Greg Walker have a long-term plan for this strip that involves Hi, Lois, or one of the children suffering a serious, lasting injury that whatever health plan they have won’t fully cover, that ultimately results in the family having to reflect upon the long-term consequences of their poor decision-making over the grave of one of the family members. (Although, I suspect more realistically, that if we DO see that plot line in the future, we’ll instead see the inclusion of a new character - a magical donkey named Barry that’ll show up at their door with wads of stolen money who tells them that they “earned” it because they need it. Ugh.)

There’s a lesson to be learned here people. Don’t make the same mistake that Hi Flagston is making.

vicktur:

Okay, I know this is late, but I seriously hate it when people say “oh the fetus is alive.”

Because animals are alive. I know I’m not a vegetarian, but if the basis of your argument is that the fetus is a living organism that should not be killed, then why doesn’t it make you feel bad that you’re eating something that was once alive?

You could be eating tons of substitutes. But no, you’re eating things that were killed. Like a fetus.

So become a neveraliveaterian and then start talking.

Plus, fetuses (feti?) can be used for stem cell research to help cure diseases such as Parkinson’s.

The fact that it’s alive bears absolutely no consequence over its right to life.
I will direct you to this post for the actual basis of my argument and thank you not to enlighten me about how your vegan/vegetarian/environmentalist hippy morals work.  I already know that they don’t.

bvac:

thelittlestbee:

bvac:

that’s your opinion. I think it’s the womans decision. you can argue with me all you want. I don’t care. but if you get knocked up. you should have the option of abortion.

Why though? There is no question that the fetus is alive. Whether or not it has rights like a regular child would is up for debate, but the fetus is alive. Nothing should have to die because of someone else’s decision.

but you can’t remember being a fetus. and sometimes it’s better to just have an abortion than give birth to a child you may or not be able to raise.

The fact that you can’t remember being two years old does not mean that the things that occur don’t have permanent effects on your psyche, and that they happened.

Since when has “you can’t remember it” been a passable excuse for any murder?

kated:

troisiemelune:

This topic always makes me so sad. How can you not care less? Like number 5 says, how can you just be indifferent to, well, murder?

How could you be indifferent to over-population; thousands of unwanted children growing up without a parent or home because their mother/father was “pro-life” and decided they would rather let their child live in an unwanted state, alone, secluded, and without a true “home?”

I’m tired of all you pro-life dicks, so you should think about what you would do if you were in this situation before you decide what another human being should, or should not, do with their body. Rape, the biggest issue, has the upper-hand in any decision we all should be making.

“…The fact that I don’t want you to kill something does not mean that I am assuming responsibility for that thing for the rest of its life.  That may work with stray animals, but not with human children.” The problem with this argument is that a small percentage of the pro-life viewers actually feel compelled to adopt the unwanted children. Everyone was life! But no one was responsibility over this life as soon as it enters the world. OBVIOUSLY, it’s a better decision to let the child live, end up at the ‘pidgin man’  on the block on new york city, living in poverty in his entire life because he was released from an orphanage at the age of 18, than save sadness in the world. We all want to grow up with a sense of abandonment in our lives.

Until you get pregnant, you shouldn’t have a standpoint on abortion. All we can do is support sex, contraception methods, and believe in equality (amongst both pro-choice and pro-life parties) and hope that neither has to come to such a decision until necessary.

To quote our PRESIDENT, “I do not believe in talking of my standpoint on abortion- however, I do believe that a bunch of male congressmen should not be talking about what women choose to do with their bodies.”

I see that you stopped reading the OP after the first sentence. 
I’ll thank you to at least try to get a bit further next time.

everythingelseisreal:

bvac:

bigboxofrofl:

fucknoliberals:

1830s-horror:

fucknoliberals:

And all conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, right? How enlightened. Do you know what conservative means? I personally don’t give a shit whether they get married or don’t. It doesn’t affect me. The legality of abortion, on the other hand, does.

How does it affect you if abortion is legal or not?

Through some misfortune, I knock a chick up.  She gets scared and wants to have an abortion.

She kills my child.
See?

i hope you grow a female reproductive system and get brutally raped, then have to keep that baby.

I love you so much Kat.

It isn’t your child though. Law states that until the child is born, the father has no rights regarding it.

You’re right.  That’s why she’d be able to kill it without my consent.
I disagree with those laws as well, but it would be better if we simply did away with abortion altogether.

bigboxofrofl:

fucknoliberals:

1830s-horror:

fucknoliberals:

And all conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, right? How enlightened. Do you know what conservative means? I personally don’t give a shit whether they get married or don’t. It doesn’t affect me. The legality of abortion, on the other hand, does.

How does it affect you if abortion is legal or not?

Through some misfortune, I knock a chick up.  She gets scared and wants to have an abortion.

She kills my child.
See?

i hope you grow a female reproductive system and get brutally raped, then have to keep that baby.

If I were a woman, I can be reasonably certain that I’d have received the same education and have the same capacity for ethical clarity and critical discourse as I do now, so I think I’d be willing to do that.

likeatiger:

I am a huge fan of ad hominem.

But people think that just because I use logical fallacies every now in then in my arguments that it’s somehow all invalid. No, you dipshits, you just don’t have the fucking guts to address the valid points that I made and you know they’re there. You don’t pay ANY attention to THEM though, just my ad hominem attacks.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the term.

likeatiger:

stopnicole:

fucknoliberals:

I agree.  That’s why I’m not abstinant at 29 years old.  The only reason they say condoms are “99% effective” is that some idiot is bound to screw it up.  But if I ever happened to be that idiot, I would do the right thing and marry the girl.

And what would you do if the girl you knocked up didn’t want to marry you? Because you know, not every girl is going to want to do what you refer to as “the right thing.” People should be happy. Men and women should be happy. You should be happy with the person you marry. If you don’t make her happy, that girl will have absolutely no obligation to marry you. You can have fun paying the child support for 18 years and seeing your kid on the weekends.

Also, and what if the girl you evidently love so much to marry decided that she wasn’t ready to have a child and decided to have an abortion? Would you support her in her desperation, or is your love that conditional?

Yes, it is, though that’s not to say I would ever date a girl like that in the first place.  I tend to speak with the girls I date before fucking them, usually bringing up the idea of them not killing my child if we accidentally get one.

wildinternational:

fucknoliberals:

wildinternational:

why would you take anything written by a blog called “fucknoliberals” seriously. its clearly all going to be slanted crap anyway

Ha!  Why would you take anything said by Obama seriously?  It’s clearly all going to be slanted crap anyway.  Unlike the rest of politics!

Shut up until you learn iota one about politics.  The only thing my blog’s title is indicative of is my political standing, and the only reason you find that unappealing is that it contradicts yours.

first of all insulting and bashing people is the worst argument to ever make. second of all, i said nothing of my political views i merely stated that since your blog IS a conservative blog which you clearly admitted it is, it will contain conservative viewpoints. being pro life or anti abortion is a conservative viewpoint typically and i was simply saying that it would be the typical response from a conservative blog and no one should expect an unbiased opinion. so calm your tits.

This isn’t an argument.  You said something stupid and I chastised you for it.  There’s no such thing as ad hominem in defamation of character.

There is no such thing as an “unbiased opinion.”

likeatiger:

1830s-horror:

fucknoliberals:

And all conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, right? How enlightened. Do you know what conservative means? I personally don’t give a shit whether they get married or don’t. It doesn’t affect me. The legality of abortion, on the other hand, does.

How does it affect you if abortion is legal or not?

Because if abortion is illegal then he won’t be able to hide his hatred of humanity.

My hatred of humanity is nearly as well-known as yours.
It doesn’t give me the right to deem myself the arbiter of human rights, of what is human life and what isn’t.  You don’t get to infringe upon the rights of others because they piss you off or because you don’t feel like dealing with them.  You prioritize and say, “this person’s right to life trumps my right to the choice to be rid of them if I so please.”  In this case, it’s, “this child’s life is of greater importance than this woman’s comfort.”  That’s morality.  And if you don’t have a code of ethics, you have no place debating which right takes precedence, because your decision is completely arbitrary.

1830s-horror:

fucknoliberals:

And all conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, right? How enlightened. Do you know what conservative means? I personally don’t give a shit whether they get married or don’t. It doesn’t affect me. The legality of abortion, on the other hand, does.

How does it affect you if abortion is legal or not?

Through some misfortune, I knock a chick up.  She gets scared and wants to have an abortion.

She kills my child.
See?

“Post turtle.”

This crazy old man I know was talking and referred to Obama as a “post turtle.”  I had no idea what the term meant, so I was like, “a what?”

The guy replied, “You know when you’re driving down an old road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a “post turtle.”

This, of course, bewildered me. I don’t drive many old roads and I’ve certainly never seen a turtle balanced on top of a fence post.  So I was like, “What?!”

So the guy explains: “You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, and he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, and you just wonder what kind of complete moron put him up there to begin with: A post turtle.”

I laughed and laughed.

1830s-horror:

fucknoliberals:

Nor is forcing something that may well be human to give up its life for the sake of convenience. Liberals are defined by their “compassion,” no? I never claimed it for myself; real conservatives are defined by their dedication to liberty, and I by my moral and logical consistency.

In the scenario I used before - single mother, sole carer - how is it for the sake of convenience? If she’s pregnant, she can’t work. If she can’t work, she can’t support herself or her family. Hardly a ‘convenience’. In fact, I’d go so far as to say her job is a necessity. Do you understand that word? It means she NEEDS to job to live and support her kids.

Conservatives? Dedicated to liberty? You’re joking. By restricting same-sex marriage? Remember all those years ago when conservatives didn’t like the idea of interracial marriage? 2,000 years ago, remember how conservative Jews crucified Jesus?

Oh, yeah, right, conservatives, dedicated to liberty, uh-huh.

Peter Griffin on Family Guy once said “Hey, look, it’s the two symbols of the conservative party - an elephant, and a big white guy who is threatened by change”.

And all conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, right?  How enlightened.  Do you know what conservative means?  I personally don’t give a shit whether they get married or don’t.  It doesn’t affect me.  The legality of abortion, on the other hand, does.

If you missed the post in which I responded to your scenario, find it.  Read it.  Respond again.

Brian Griffin on Family Guy once said, “They had a meeting about it last night.”  Aren’t cartoons great?  Especially the ones filled with socialist sentiments aimed at middle school students.

likeatiger:

fucknoliberals:

The civil right of freedom of choice does not trump the inherent right to life.
Please read the original post if you wish to become involved in these discussions.

You know what is an “inherent” right that you spoke of? Property. Am I, a minor, able to own property? Not that I’m aware of. You’re taking those “inherent rights” completely out of fucking context.

Are you aware that it says RIGHT THERE in the Bible that life starts at birth, not conception? I’m too lazy to find the exact verse but if somebody is willing to provide it that’ll be nice.

I didn’t say that the law was fair either.  Hell, that’s why abortion is legal.
See my other response to your assumption that I’m a Christian.

gravitygone:

fucknoliberals:

stopnicole:

The only form of birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence and it would be sort of ridiculous to expect grown women, maybe even grown married women to flat out refuse sex just because they don’t want to get pregnant. As far as adoption goes, I would like to see you carry a part of you around in your body for nine months, push it out of your vagina, experience it’s first moments of life and then give it up to some other person that you probably barely know to take care of it for the rest of it’s life.

How would that be ridiculous?  Is it ridiculous to refuse rock-climbing on the grounds that you might fall?  Is it ridiculous to refuse drinking beer because you don’t want to be drunk?  Pregnancy is a very well-known aftermath of even protected sex.  If you so desperately want not to take care of a child, don’t do something that might result in one.

The fact that people enjoy it doesn’t make it ridiculous to refuse it to yourself if they wish not to suffer the consequences.

If you use birth control the proper way, then the chances are very minimal and you are free to enjoy sex.

I agree.  That’s why I’m not abstinant at 29 years old.  The only reason they say condoms are “99% effective” is that some idiot is bound to screw it up.  But if I ever happened to be that idiot, I would do the right thing and marry the girl.