anonemouse

I could say the same about your stance. YOU have decided that YOU don't want to be subjected to seeing even the title of a thread, but YOU don't want to take 5 seconds, once, to go change your settings. Instead, YOU want to remove the option from EVERYONE ELSE, simply because YOU don't like what you're seeing. YOU want EVERYONE ELSE to have to deal with going out of their way every single time THEY want to see a thread in RnR because YOU don't want to see a few titles. Seems more like YOU are the lazy one. YOU would only have to make one trip to your control panel, and make a few clicks. WE would have to go out of our way every single time we visit LBT.

My point is that one does not cause the other. People are not given personal liberties just because they are alive. They receive the full power of personal liberty when they reach adulthood. Actually, it would be very easy to do. If your baby was born at 36 weeks instead of the usual 40, she would be 36 weeks old. If she was born at 41 weeks, she would be 41 weeks old. Legally, apparently it does, or I would be 24 right now instead of 23. They can CALL it whatever they want to. A woman can call her fetus a monster, if she wishes, but it doesn't mean that her fetus is literally a monster. We assign things names, but it doesn't change what they are. A fetus sucking on its thumb IS a blob of tissue sticking part of its tissue into a cavity. I can suck on my thumb right now, and I am still a bunch of tissues sticking a part of that bunch of tissues into a cavity.

Well, you can tell them that they are free to come back, since they do have the option of not seeing those threads anymore.

I'm not trying to subject others to view titles. I believe I have said several times in this thread and in the poll thread that I personally think that people should have the right to make the choice for themselves. I just hate that everyone seems to be favoring the removal of the threads from those pages entirely and not giving people the option. I just don't understand why people are fighting over it. They already have the option of removing those threads from their sight. Why favor more extensive change? To be honest, I don't want to be inconvenienced by other people, especially when they already have the ability to make the change they want on their own account. I don't want to have to go to every individual forum to read a thread. I use "new posts" almost exclusively. If they want to remove RnR from their own "new posts" listings, they can feel free. But I will get pissed if they try and remove it from mine. And I do have to ask, if you can remove those threads from your listing, why subject others to having to go search for them? My bottom line is to leave the decision up to the individual. If they don't want to see the RnR threads, they don't have to. If they want to see the RnR threads in "New Posts," they can.

I know that some people think that I am just pissed of because he's inconveniencing my schedule, but I'm not. I'm worried that he's rushing into this out of a sense of guilt. His last few relationships have all been long-term relationships that eventually broke up. He just broke up with the last one in December. He still owns a house with her. I just think that, judging from his pattern, he's jumping into this way too fast.

There are very few threads in RnR that have offensive titles. I can see the "boylove" title being offensive, but the rest? Not even remotely, for the most part.

You don't. You can still view LBT, whether or not there are threads from RnR visible. It just makes a lot more sense for you to remove threads that you don't want to see, especially when that option is available to you, than for you to take that choice away from everyone else. Why is your wish to not see RnR threads more important than my wish to see them? Especially if there is a way where you can restrict them from your view? Why make it so that everyone else's view is restricted as well? And by the way, choosing to remove that thread from "new posts" doesn't remove it from the entire board. You can still view them, if you wish. Those threads just aren't displayed on the "new posts" page or in the "top 5." Which is what you are after, correct?

Because in this country, we consider personal liberty to be more important than life. Otherwise, we would have remained a British colony. And children really don't have personal liberty. That's been proved time and time again by the Supreme Court. They may get that privelege in the future, but it isn't afforded to them currently. They don't have the right to free speech. They don't have the right to privacy. There's lots of priveleges that we consider to be part of "personal liberty" that we don't give to children. And again, there is the argument that a fetus is not a child, and therefore has no personal liberties. Plus, if our society considered a fetus to be a child, we would say that a child is nine months and one week old a week after they are born. We don't, though. One week after birth, that child is one week old.

I'm not calling them immature for reading those threads. I just think it is immature to blame other people for them reading the threads. Especially when there is a method to remove those threads from that list entirely. I have no problem with them removing those threads/forums from THEIR pages. I don't want it removed from MINE. That's my entire objection. If people don't want to be exposed to those threads on the "new posts" page or the "top 5," they have the ability to keep them from being shown. Why keep everyone else from seeing them, though?

For those that don't know how to remove an entire forum from the "New Posts" page, here's how: Click on "User CP" at the top of the page. Click on the "Edit Options" link at the left of the page. Go down to "Miscellaneous Options" at the bottom of the page. At the bottom of that section is an option called "Exclude Forums from 'Get New Posts'". It displays all the forums on the board. Click on the forums that you don't want displayed. Click "Save Changes." There, you've successfully excluded your forum(s) of choice from your "New Posts" page.

What I don't understand is why people can't let other people make the decision for themselves? Why do they feel the need to make it for them? If someone doesn't want to be exposed to off-topic threads, they aren't forced to be. Let the members make that decision for themselves. If they don't want to see it, they can change the setting for the new posts page in their control panel. But there are those of us who DO want to see those posts on our "New Posts" pages. Alex has given us the ability to make that choice as individuals. If those threads offend people so much, change the setting in your control panel. It won't keep you from going to Rants and Raves and opening threads there, but it will keep those threads from appearing on your "New Posts" page and on the "Top 5." Problem solved.

And that is something that no one can agree on. So, we err on the side of personal liberty.

Can it sustain that breath, though? Could it sustain a heartbeat? If so, then the baby should be delivered. If not, then there isn't anything wrong happening. I am not in favor of a ban. I think it is something that should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

No, the adult thing would be to not read a thread that you don't want to read. Or, the adult thing would be to go to your control panel and remove the Rants and Raves forum from the New Posts page. You can do that, you know. You don't want to look at RnR threads? You don't have to. I'm sorry that you think that I'm not an adult about things. I just get very sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. I don't "attack" until I've been attacked. To me, it's childish to blame other people for "forcing" you to read a thread. Unless someone is standing over you with a whip, don't talk to me about being "forced" to read a thread on the internet. Your curiosity got the best of you? Fine, then admit that. Just stop blaming other people. No one here "forces" anyone to read anything that they don't choose to read.

No, not in my opinion. Until it has a greater chance of being able to live than dying once it is removed from its mother's womb, it isn't an individual. Until that point, the woman carrying it has greater value than a fetus that would die if removed.

Really? What about the woman that aborts her severely deformed fetus that would be forced to live in abject pain for the rest of its very short life, if born? I think an abortion is compassionate in that instance, don't you? What about the woman who aborts her fetus because she had to decide whether she died or her fetus died? May not be compassionate for the fetus, but it is compassionate for her.

Don't worry, it didn't. Your attempt may have been an emotional attack, but I just found it to be pitiful. And again, the attempt at an emotional attack/appeal. Come up with something better, please. Obviously, they are living, breathing indivisuals with a self-sustaining heartbeat. Therefore, they are not comparable to a fetus.

And that still invalidates your argument. Obviously, the courts thought he had the right to make that decision. And after all, they are the ones who determine it.

True, but at least they aren't the giant, obnoxious, technicolor ads that OH has. The ones we have right now are easily ignored. No one is forcing anyone to use "New Posts." And again, people have the ability to choose whether or not they actually want to read something. I won't feel sorry for people that let their curiosity get the better of them. "Pushing it on people?" Are you serious? "Pushing it on people" would be requiring them to read every post they see. "Pushing it on people" would be requiring them to respond to every post they see. Last time I looks, I don't control what everyone else does. I'm sick and tired of the, "Poor me, those crazy liberals made me click on that thread, read it, and respond to it. I'm SO weak-willed that I can't decide whether or not I want to read a post, I have to let others do it for me." crap. Why can't people just grow the hell up and take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming it on everyone around them? To be honest, that says more about YOU than the people you talk to in RnR. The mature people around here know that you can disagree with someone and still support them. Heck, look at the fight I had with WasaBubble in the smoking thread. We fought like hell in there, but we're still friends and we still support each other on the rest of the board. As MANY people in RnR have shown, that is part of life. Just because YOU are incapable of it doesn't mean everyone else it. And again, there's that "force" word. Take responsibility for your own actions, for Pete's sake. You are an adult. No one "forces" you to do anything.

Come on, surely you can do better than that. You're just resorting to emotional attacks because you are lacking a better argument. The difference between what I said and what you just said is that drug-addicts can actually make their wishes known. And, they are actually living, breathing individuals with a self-sustaining heart beat.

Yes, actually, he does. Remember the Schiavo case? As much as her parents protested that she would never have wanted to be removed from life support, he still had the right to do it. And the courts upheld that right. Once you marry someone, your parents or other loved ones lose all right to make legal and medical decisions for you. Unless they can present legal documents that prove that you didn't suddenly change your mind after talking to them or writing a letter to them, he has the right to remove your life support.

Well, hell. I wrote out a reply and LBT lost it. I'll try to remember what I said. A fetus does not know "bad" from "good". I would argue that society should be more concerned with the people already here who are begging for help and going unheard. You know, the thousands of kids in foster care, the millions of homeless, the millions of drug-addicts who want help. Even the thousands of innocent civilians in danger of being killed by our government's bombs.

Well, yeah, we kinda do. Like I said in the other abortion post, if you are put on life support and haven't made any advance directives, your husband has the right to remove that life support. It doesn't matter if he is doing it because he doesn't want you to suffer, or because he thinks that you would be an inconvenience to him, he has that right.

Well, for other parents, their children don't push farther, either. Their children know and understand the method that they use. And they've been able to achieve that without inflicting pain. But you still haven't answered my question. Your children could just as easily disregard your "one or two stinging blows" and do whatever they wanted to. What would you do then, since it would be obvious that they weren't responding to the "spanker?" Would you beat them up, leave them with welts and bruises, since "stinging" wasn't doing any good? You may get mad at that question, but it is sincere. At least the other parents have another level that they can go to, if need be. You don't. There isn't any higher level that you can go to without becoming a child abuser.

That's true, and I said that in the one of my other posts. But the fact remains, unless you have made your wished clear (legally clear, that is), your husband has the right to kill you if you are on life support. At that point, you do not have "a right to live." Do you realize how...well, stupid, for lack of a better term, that statement is? Once we can come up with the technology a la "Babytalk," to listen to an unborn fetus, we can change the law. But right now, a fetus doesn't HAVE a voice to be heard.