therefore destroying any chance of meaningful dialogue.

Look up the meaning of "straflos", it's the very meaning of the word. It's the same principle as possessing cannabis: illegal but wont' get prosecuted if it's less than 10g.

Check the footnotes to §118 and §119, unchanged since the vote except the sentencing range for §118.2

What you list are just the conditions that need to be be met for the abortion to not get prosecuted, the analogue to the 10g limit, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact of the illegality.

This is a dichotomous rejection of a complex argument.

Not everybody who goes on an anti-abortion march wants to see all abortion banned. Many think that access should be restricted but certain exceptions can be made. Others think that the number of abortions can be reduced if alternatives are offered. What they all agree on is that they want to see the number of abortions reduced.

On the pro-abortion side there is probably a similarly broad spread of views.

<yawn> at the end of the day his religion is legal, his views are legal, what his company does is legal, he's breaking no laws and is just following the teachings of his religion, which are the same teachings as the 2 biggest religions on the planet, he, like a lot of people preach following the rules to the letter, big deal.

now, lets talk about how all organised religion is BS money making mafia.

That's not the meaning of straflos - that means "without penalty/punishment" - this is very different to "openly suggested by your healthcare provider".

If you went to the doctor and you were a bit stressed, how many do you think would say "I have just the thing, go buy some hash from this guy I know on Langstrasse"?

I'm afraid that's not my doing, that's the doing of someone who would drag us back to the Dark Ages with his thinking. I don't really need to have dialogue with these people, they aren't going to change their minds.

I'm still struggling with the meaning of (from the first post on the first page)...

Is that something along the lines of "never trust a fart".

Sounds like a very polite excuse for when you accidentally let a trouser-cough go in a confined space full of people.

I think in Yacek's world, homosexuals are easy to identify as they go around sharting the whole time.

Of course it is. Show me one example of a legal punishment(*) for something that is legal.


(*) fine or prison. Not to be confused with a fee, "Aufwandsentschädigung" (reimbursement for efforts taken) or whatnot

Perhaps being publically humiliated on a forum.

Yes, agreed. But his intention is to have all abortion banned.

I should have made that clearer.

Care to show the law that breaks?

Why would I need to do that, you requested:

"Show me one example of a legal punishment(*) for something that is legal."

Try and keep up with your own text, makes things tricky otherwise.

The guy who invented the transistor was a known racist who set out to prove that blacks were inferior to whites, so do you think that we should all give up technology in protest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

Tom

My guess is that pro-choice side probably would like to see the number of abortions reduced.

HP Lovecraft was also a known racist. It's a shame as he was a brilliant writer. I'd like to see The Mountains of Madness made into a film, but Hollywood won't do it because of his racist taint. Personally, I think they should just cast a black actor as the hero - then the story gets told and it's two fingers up toward HP Lovecraft's racism.

No Tom, because giving up established and essential technologies because of the views of the person who invented them isforehead-slappingly ridiculous and has no similarity to the situation with Làdertach. It would be like stopping using the wheel because the guy who invented wheels happened to be racist.

I see it as exactly the same.

You use racist technology, and don't want to give it up.

You don't eat racist chocolate, so have no problem giving it up.

Tom

Well of course you think its the same even though it is patently ridiculous, because otherwise you wouldn't be the same st2lemans that we all know and mock.

At that time most people were racist anyway, and they even thought they have an objective justification. In these days and times though....one doesn't have many excuses. I wish Hollywood could put aside some things, put everything in the context and look more at the story/narrative.


Yes, I think so too.

Fair enough. Still waiting for that one example.

Says the rich-bitch!

Tom