User Profile: MoGyver


Member Since: February 22, 2012


  • July 23, 2013 at 11:53am

    I heard this story on local Columbus news this morning; it sounds like the owner is doing the right thing and closing the store for a few days to give the whole place a deep clean. I can’t imagine what this loss is going to be; this store is going to lose a few days worth of business and they’ll probably have to trash their whole inventory.

  • January 29, 2013 at 5:09pm

    Thanks for the straw man argument, but I think I’ll pass. Or better yet, let me fix for you:

    “Does not change the fact that [Abortion] Nuts love [themselves] more than they love children. Or that disrespectful [Abortion] Nuts would heckle a father who lost his child. [Abortion] Nuts are inhuman, with no place in any rational debate.”

  • November 30, 2012 at 4:41pm

    AVENGERK / RANGER 1965 – Please don’t take my previous comment as support or agreement; I’m not espousing those beliefs, only repeating one of the most popular songs in the progressive library. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough when I said that it was “THEIR” ideal. (No hard feelings)

  • November 30, 2012 at 2:57pm

    RANGER 1965 – “My question to all of these critics is this. Where is your line? What has to happen to you, your family, or to your country, that you would be willing to die, or kill to prevent? Or is there a line or limit at all?”

    You ask where the line is? John Lennon made it pretty clear in 1971 –

    Imagine there’s no heaven
    It’s easy if you try
    No hell below us
    Above us only sky
    Imagine all the people
    Living for today…

    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace…

    You may say I’m a dreamer
    But I’m not the only one
    I hope someday you’ll join us
    And the world will be as one

    Their ideal is that there’s NOTHING to kill or die for. NOTHING is worth getting that upset about. I mean, there’s “no heaven or hell” and everyone is just “living for today”

  • November 30, 2012 at 2:48pm

    They say that “necessity is the mother of invention.” Since the government has taken away the “necessity” to make ends meet, I shudder to think of the innovation that has been stifled over the years. Now, the creativity that once was directed to best serve your fellow man (and make money at it in the process) has been RE-directed to best serve one’s self. The question is all too often now “How can I get the most out of the system?” (and, to be fair, there’s also a fair amount of creativity redirected from “How do I best grow this business?” to “How do I best protect my business from tax and legal liability?”)

    It’s an unfortunately reality that it’s more of the same coming down the line.

  • November 5, 2012 at 1:46pm

    “Paul listed other reasons informing him to vote for Obama this cycle, the president’s ‘inclusiveness’ being one of them. The fact that he was ‘really afraid of tea party exclusion politics’ was another.”

    Talking about the President’s “inclusiveness” then, in the same breath, calling out a segment that they want to exclude (on the basis of “their exclusion policies”)?

    Nothing to see here.

  • November 1, 2012 at 11:53am

    I’d be curious to drill down in these numbers a little deeper to see the *kind* of jokes that were being made. For instance, were jokes poking fun at intelligence, hypocracy, ineffectiveness, wealth? I have a suspicion that a larger percentage of “this politician is stupid” gets doled to the (R) while more of the “this politician has the right ideas but isn’t getting it done” goes to (D).

    Again, that’s my gut feeling just from what I’ve seen; I’d love to see the numbers.

  • October 29, 2012 at 1:15pm

    @OBJECTIVETRUTH Fair enough regarding the distinction between “assault” and “battery.” So let’s just create two hypothetical situations:

    1. Two consenting adults copulate and the woman becomes pregnant. The woman wants to keep the child but the man does not want the responsibility of a child. He deliberately batters the woman in such a way as to cause a miscarriage.

    2. Two consenting adults copulate and the woman becomes pregnant. The man wants to keep the child but the woman does not want the responsibility of a child. The woman has an abortion.

    Now, there are admitted differences between these two scenarios (ie. in #1, the woman is harmed, not just the child vs #2 where the man is not physically hurt and in #2, the woman would have to “endure” the hardship of pregnancy and labor wherein the man would not even if he wanted to).

    There are a few implications here. In one case, the abortion (done via battering) is in many circles considered murder while the other is not (inconsistent). The other is that the man’s wants are largely off the table. If the man wants to keep the child but the woman does not, then he has no claim to the child (“But the woman would have to go through enormous pain!” I get that).

    On the flip side, if the man doesn’t want the child, he doesn’t get the same choice that the woman has: if SHE doesn’t want the responsibility, SHE gets to choose. HE gets no choice (and we wonder why there’s so many deadbeat fathers out there)

  • October 26, 2012 at 3:38pm

    @KANE FREEMAN thanks for taking the time to answer. So based on your answer for when life begins in combination with your answer above to question #5, would you be a proponent of euthanizing the post-born who similarly don’t meet those requirements? For example, a child that while in the birthing process loses access to oxygen long enough to cause a severe brain injury but does not die or a fully realized adult that has a major stroke or head trauma?

    For the record, I’m not trying to back you into a corner; I’m just curious to hear whether we should consider factors other than cognitive ability when categorizing the pre-born.

  • October 26, 2012 at 3:10pm

    Out of curiosity, what made you choose the beginning of the third trimester? Is there some biological change that occurs at (or around) that time? If so, why not just say that the unborn begins to have their own rights when that biological change occurs? It seems to me that this in an important enough distinction that we’d want to have clear-cut scientific reasons and not some subjective “number.”

  • October 26, 2012 at 1:59pm

    @WVERNON1981 The troubling point is that I haven’t heard many pro-choice reasons for abortion that couldn’t also be applied to certain other “post-born” segments of the population (ie. mentally handicapped, certain stroke victims, much of the elderly) such as being a “burden” or “would not contribute to society” or “would not meet some standard of quality of life” or what-not.

    If we as a society, deem these reasons for terminating pregnancies, what’s to stop this (or the next) generation from taking the next logical step? Or would you argue that, under certain conditions (let’s just say a debilitating stroke), you could lose that which earlier defined you as human?

  • October 26, 2012 at 1:52pm

    So, in your view, what is the role of government?

  • October 26, 2012 at 1:50pm

    @WVERNON1981 That was the point that I was trying to make. I was trying to present to her that her worldview was inherently flawed. I can respect someone’s position that differs from mine as long as they have internal consistency.

    At least given a consistent framework, you can have a disagreement at the right “level” (presuppositions) instead of having wildly divergent arguments about the conclusions that you arrive to.

    How often have you heard (or been in) an argument where both sides consider each other an idiot for coming to conclusion X instead of Z without considering that they’re both completely rational and logical conclusions given presupposition A vs. B (for example, the presupposition that lower tax rates create revenue instead of lose revenue).

    But I’ll get off my largely off-topic soapbox and mourn the loss of our society’s ability to debate another time.

  • October 26, 2012 at 1:18pm

    “If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?”

    I’ve posed a similar question to a pro-choice coworker in the past, “If a pregnant woman is assaulted in such a way that causes her to miscarry, should the assailant be charged with assault or murder?” To my surprise, she said that the assailant should be charged with murder (given the assumption that the woman wanted to keep the child). I think the question asked in this way is more telling and since it shows the hypocracy in a more direct way.

    Responses (4) +
  • September 5, 2012 at 2:22pm

    “Nickelodeon does not support or condone the use of graphic or vulgar language on any of our platforms.”

    I find it telling that they only specifically apologize for the graphic / vulgar language, not the demeaning nature in which they were given. This isn’t about word choice.

    Responses (1) +
  • June 26, 2012 at 3:47pm

    This reminds me of a classic Simpsons moment: “BOO-URNS!”

  • June 6, 2012 at 3:25pm

    Let me follow up, for the record, that I’m not advocating for deadbeat dads per se. I think that poor decisions should have consequences and that both parents who take part in procreation should be responsible for their progeny.

  • June 6, 2012 at 3:17pm

    There’s another logical step in the “man’s rights” vein. One of the big reasons that I’ve heard people say that they might have an abortion is that it would “cause an undue financial strain on the mother to have a baby at that stage of their life.” If you bring the issue of men’s rights into play, then you have to consider this aspect of the equation for the man as well. If the mother does NOT want to have an abortion, then the man is legally responsible to pay child support.

    That is to say, if a woman does not want to be financially hindered, she has an option. If a man wants the same, he has no legal say in the matter and his financial future rests on the whim of the mother.

  • June 4, 2012 at 1:48pm

    “no, the cross on a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY is simply a violation of separation of church and state. christians don’t have the right to force their religion on anyone in a public setting.”

    Let’s look at this at a different angle. Having a cross on a building doesn’t force Christianity on anyone any more than having a pentagram on a rock album forces young people to worship Satan.

  • June 4, 2012 at 1:46pm

    Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being offended by something should be the basis for action. All too often, public funds are used for things that are “offensive” to one group or another. I was just stating that, even though there were crosses involved, it was pretty clearly (at least to me) a decision made for historical accuracy / authenticity and had little to nothing to do with religion. And, as such, her reaction seems to be hyper-sensitive at the least.