|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 2, 2017 6:34:52 GMT
I told that to the poof last night. Evidently he forgot, or maybe he likes talking to someone who can't talk back. It would be great if you can't talk back, you sociopathic, ignorant fool! Have a little patience.  |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 2, 2017 10:20:55 GMT
So basically they would rather kill their own child because it's a inconvenience to their lifestyle? ; that makes a lot of sense  . It does make a lot of sense, particularly since most people don't consider fetal tissue to qualify for being called a "person" or a "child". Even you anti-choicers subconsciously realize that this distinction exists for you, too: how many of you have funerals for miscarriages or fill out death certificates for them? How many of you register your fetuses for citizenship? You know the truth: fetal tissue does not deserve the same moral and ethical treatment we reserve for persons. You just can't admit it openly, but your actual behavior says it all. No, they have a conscience. They are just more rational than you. Considering that it is liberals, not conservatives, who are focused on helping people with health care and other safety net issues, and considering that it is the policies of conservatives, not liberals, that are marked by abject cruelty to anyone who isn't rich, it's pretty clear there is no actual, reality based logic to your thinking. Maybe you need to get back to the drawing board. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2017 14:06:05 GMT
If liberals can't even get the abortion issue right (i.e. they put a persons 'choice' higher than a persons right-to-life when it should be the other way around) it's not surprising they are backwards on many other moral issues. it's like if they have no problem with abortion then human life becomes of less value in general to them and once you start down that path, where does it end? ; protecting human life until it's natural end is always the better/moral choice. Sorry, but American conservatives lost the right to be taken seriously on moral questions in the last election. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 2, 2017 17:52:50 GMT
Here's a better question, you sociopathic and ignorant fool, why do mentally ill fundamentalist Christians insist on telling others how things are, when they have no freakin' clue? Replying to Blade won't do any good. He's been banned. Not that I'm complaining, but what specifically inspired the ban? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 2, 2017 19:35:25 GMT
tpfkar The Herald Erjen said: Jesus II: The Gingering.
And IMDb condones it. If they didn't, they would have thrown you out weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 2, 2017 19:40:37 GMT
Replying to Blade won't do any good. He's been banned. Not that I'm complaining, but what specifically inspired the ban? Here's the story according to Superdud. I copied it shortly after he wrote it in case it was deleted later. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 2, 2017 19:41:43 GMT
Replying to Blade won't do any good. He's been banned. Not that I'm complaining, but what specifically inspired the ban? There is no one thing that inspires banning unless one posts porn or does a gross TOS violation. It's totality of blade's conduct throughout his stay here that got him banned. His persistent trolling, lying, antagonistic style of posting to get a rise and create discontent among others, use of socks just to demean others, use of another poster's personal pic as his profile pic and certain other reasons got him banned. He might have been banned way back in April but somehow survived then. I thank admin for getting this board rid of idiots like blade who have nothing positive to contribute. lowtacks86It was a lifetime achievement award for his posting history. Means it was not for any specific reason but for his conduct all through his stay here. Lying, being vile to others, trolling relentlessly to get rise, using private pic of others and creating multiple socks to continue his nastiness. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 2, 2017 19:52:05 GMT
I find it funny that actions of American conservatives have finally changed the meaning of conservative to automatically mean stupid and idiot. Fighting against climate change has got nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Global climate change is a reality and humans need to address the issue before time runs out. I have said it before that issue of climate change is not something that will gradually increase in problem. It is more a thing that will manifest as small problem for a certain period but all of a sudden reach a sort of breaking point that will send us into a chaos. Climate change and sustainable development is the foremost need of today. The pathetic people who fantasise that there is no anthropogenic climate change are hopeless and should be dismissed as idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 2, 2017 19:57:44 GMT
I find it funny that actions of American conservatives have finally changed the meaning of conservative to automatically mean stupid and idiot. Fighting against climate change has got nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Global climate change is a reality and humans need to address the issue before time runs out. I have said it before that issue of climate change is not something that will gradually increase in problem. It is more a thing that will manifest as small problem for a certain period but all of a sudden reach a sort of breaking point that will send us into a chaos. Climate change and sustainable development is the foremost need of today. The pathetic people who fantasise that there is no anthropogenic climate change are hopeless and should be dismissed as idiots. Climate change is certainly real. I've been trying to give people a heads-up about it for a few years now. People are going to have climate change coming out the wazoo. That's why the AGW hoax was perpetrated. That's what UN Agenda 21 was created to deal with. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 2, 2017 20:02:38 GMT
I find it funny that actions of American conservatives have finally changed the meaning of conservative to automatically mean stupid and idiot. Fighting against climate change has got nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Global climate change is a reality and humans need to address the issue before time runs out. I have said it before that issue of climate change is not something that will gradually increase in problem. It is more a thing that will manifest as small problem for a certain period but all of a sudden reach a sort of breaking point that will send us into a chaos. Climate change and sustainable development is the foremost need of today. The pathetic people who fantasise that there is no anthropogenic climate change are hopeless and should be dismissed as idiots. Climate change is certainly real. I've been trying to give people a heads-up about it for a few years now. People are going to have climate change coming out the wazoo. That's why the AGW hoax was perpetrated. That's what UN Agenda 21 was created to deal with. You're welcome. Here is my one post to you. In anything that deals with science, logic or things where you need to use mind, I consider you a poster whose opinions don't matter an ounce to me. I am not someone who will keep explaining to you the same thing over and over. So you can go ahead and write one more post below mine to satisfy yourself. AGW is the reality and it will remain reality. I might hold serious discussions with you when it comes to movies, food, ancient religions and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 2, 2017 20:09:50 GMT
Aj_June & friends:
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 2, 2017 21:05:01 GMT
Here's a better question, you sociopathic and ignorant fool, why do mentally ill fundamentalist Christians insist on telling others how things are, when they have no freakin' clue? Replying to Blade won't do any good. He's been banned. He got banned? What did he do? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 2, 2017 23:33:19 GMT
tpfkar mslo79 said:Although some who identify might, "liberals" as a rule aren't so foolish as to believe that they exist in a black and white world nor lean on silly caricatures of those they might disagree with on issues. What other "liberal" moral positions do you posit are "backwards"?
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 2, 2017 23:44:51 GMT
Do do some people not care about the things I do, whilst caring about things I don't? |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jul 3, 2017 23:50:33 GMT
I think abortion is a sad reflection of society in that the embryo, while not a human being, is...or should be precious and I'd wish no one would have to choose between their right to manage their own body vs the life of the embryo. But since it seems society can't escape the dilemma, I (a guy) don't like to imagine I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. That make me pro-choice, but not pro abortion. But as to which is more important in the big scheme of things...abortion vs climate change...climate change is far more important to the human species than abortion. Crassly speaking from a purely environmental standpoint, there's tons of babies born all the time...no shortage, in fact I'd say the world is quickly becoming too crowded. So if some who don't seem to want their own offspring want to do away with them...that's better for the environment and the rest of us. But IF humans are contributing to global warming and if it goes unchecked and progresses the way some think it might and it leads to serious repercussions for the human species then we might be being pretty foolish to ignore it. Why not err on the side of safety and do something rather than just toss it aside so we can enjoy cheap dirty energy for a few more decades? Abortion is only a societal dilemma, because it is made out to be one due to conditioning and personal delusional beliefs about what life means and represents. Pregnancy is a consequence of heterosexual sex and precautions can be taken to avoid this. I agree about the pro-choice aspect, and the females life is what came first and is more important. Ultimately, it is her decision and her life is what is precious, over an undeveloped embryo she is carrying around inside her, that is not a fully formed human being. Whether pro or anti abortion, this should not even be an issue. It is no-ones friggin business, except the mother and the person who fathered the child.
You have made some straight to the point and astute observations about climate change and the over-population of the earth. There are way too many people and bringing a child into this world, is the "real" dilemma of society. It gets taken for granted and quick fixes are not going to help in the long run. It might be too late too soon, to fix up any irreparable damage done.
It is truly painful seeing liberals trying to defend abortion through science. The fetus is human. That is the beginning and the end of it. It is not a dog or a monkey, it is human. The "not fully developed" business is complete nonsense. A 1 day newborn is not fully developed either. In many ways neither is a 17 year old boy. It is not development, maturity, competence or intellect levels that should decide whether a life deserves protection or not. It is nothing short of monstrous to suggest otherwise, and it's the sort of thing that leads to the genocide of some people in "progressive" countries, such as the killing of all Down Syndrome unborn babies in Iceland. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 4, 2017 12:29:00 GMT
It is truly painful seeing liberals trying to defend abortion through science. The fetus is human. That is the beginning and the end of it. It is not a dog or a monkey, it is human. The "not fully developed" business is complete nonsense. A 1 day newborn is not fully developed either. In many ways neither is a 17 year old boy. It is not development, maturity, competence or intellect levels that should decide whether a life deserves protection or not. It is nothing short of monstrous to suggest otherwise, and it's the sort of thing that leads to the genocide of some people in "progressive" countries, such as the killing of all Down Syndrome unborn babies in Iceland. What's even more painful is watching philosophically illiterate conservatards publicly air their inability to reason about the issue in a public space. Hate to break it to you, cupcake, but liberals don't attempt to defend abortion through science. Citing irrelevant science to support your position is your game, and you fail spectacularly at it. You just did it there, proclaiming that the fetus is a human, as if that were actually the issue. No, it isn't. The issue has very little to do with biology at all. Let me hold your hand: the issue is personhood, the abstract web of responsibilities and privileges we bestow upon our fellow human beings, which differs from culture to culture, state to state, age to age. A newborn baby gets some of privileges and none of the responsibilities. A teen gets more of both. Only an adult gets the entire package. A fetus? It gets almost nothing. And that's a good thing, as most rational adults know. Even you irrational prudes, as I pointed out earlier, understand intuitively that this is the case. That's why you don't register your fetuses as citizens, that's why you don't fill our death certificates, hold funerals, or buy cemetery plots for miscarriages. Deep down, you know fetal tissue needn't and shouldn't get the same treatment as a baby. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 4, 2017 13:31:43 GMT
What a silly article. It's a value judgement whether a foetus is a person, whether a woman is obligated to carry a foetus or whether gender should reflect biological sex. You can't solve value judgement disputes just by looking at the evidence.
You can however see quite clearly that climate change exists by looking at the evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 4, 2017 14:09:11 GMT
What a silly article. It's a value judgement whether a foetus is a person, whether a woman is obligated to carry a foetus or whether gender should reflect biological sex. You can't solve value judgement disputes just by looking at the evidence. You can however see quite clearly that climate change exists by looking at the evidence. Clearly? Uh-oh. That's not a good sign. Okay, Blade has been banned from posting, and he can't respond, so I'll take a crack at it if there are no objections. I gave the article a once-over and it didn't seem to be denying that climate change was taking place. The gist of it seems to be about why emphasis is placed on climate change rather than respect for unborn human life. I've been called a "climate change denier" a few times despite the fact that I never denied it. It's just a label used to demonize people apparently. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 4, 2017 15:13:55 GMT
What a silly article. It's a value judgement whether a foetus is a person, whether a woman is obligated to carry a foetus or whether gender should reflect biological sex. You can't solve value judgement disputes just by looking at the evidence. You can however see quite clearly that climate change exists by looking at the evidence. Clearly? Uh-oh. That's not a good sign. Okay, Blade has been banned from posting, and he can't respond, so I'll take a crack at it if there are no objections. I gave the article a once-over and it didn't seem to be denying that climate change was taking place. The gist of it seems to be about why emphasis is placed on climate change rather than respect for unborn human life. I've been called a "climate change denier" a few times despite the fact that I never denied it. It's just a label used to demonize people apparently. My problem is it's like comparing apples and oranges:
With climate change the debate is over interpretation of evidence. One side says the evidence supports human activity hastening climate change, the other side says it doesn't.
With the abortion issue, there's no dispute over evidence. Everyone agrees about how foetuses gradually develop. The disagreements are when can we call someone a person, what rights a person has and whether there is a hierarchy of rights (ie even if it is conceded a foetus is a person, does a woman's right to bodily autonomy trump the foetus' right to life?). You can't solve any of these disagreements via a scientific experiment. You can't find human rights by looking for them with a microscope.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 4, 2017 15:26:14 GMT
Clearly? Uh-oh. That's not a good sign. Okay, Blade has been banned from posting, and he can't respond, so I'll take a crack at it if there are no objections. I gave the article a once-over and it didn't seem to be denying that climate change was taking place. The gist of it seems to be about why emphasis is placed on climate change rather than respect for unborn human life. I've been called a "climate change denier" a few times despite the fact that I never denied it. It's just a label used to demonize people apparently. My problem is it's like comparing apples and oranges:
With climate change the debate is over interpretation of evidence. One side says the evidence supports human activity hastening climate change, the other side says it doesn't.
With the abortion issue, there's no dispute over evidence. Everyone agrees about how foetuses gradually develop. The disagreements are when can we call someone a person, what rights a person has and whether there is a hierarchy of rights (ie even if it is conceded a foetus is a person, does a woman's right to bodily autonomy trump the foetus' right to life?). You can't solve any of these disagreements via a scientific experiment. You can't find human rights by looking for them with a microscope.
Okay. I'm not going to change my mind, and you're not going to change yours. Agree to disagree? By the way, I saw the name of Kiera on a list of names on the Internet recently, and the word "lost" figured prominently in what I was looking at. Wondered if she might be you. Although I was curious, it's difficult to talk about it without giving the appearance of a Superdude-type stalker. On the old board PD explained the meaning behind his user name, and the meaning of mine is no secret. You can send me a PM if you want to know more. I'm not saying anything else about it for everyone to see unless you say it's all right. |
|
. 
