Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market.
Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market.
No, they transport them to people for use in medical research. It's entirely legal.
I'm sure he knows the going rate for a cop to turn a blind eye to fetus trafficking.Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market.
No, they transport them to people for use in medical research. It's entirely legal.
For a profit, which is actually illegal. You can't sell human bodies legally, cop. You should have learned this in your criminal justice classes. Or, were you just making that up too?
Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?Life is life. I don't kill spiders even though I can't stand them. They have less brain cells than a very small fetus. It is just disrespect for nature. Once the sperm enters the egg and that protective shield to stop other sperms getting in is made, that's everything needed to make a human. It is complete. It's a person, just a very small and undeveloped one. Their destiny is your hands then ... their chances of being born, of getting educated, finding love, career, hopes, dreams ... its all in the pipeline. Taking all that from someone who doesn't know any better and never will because you are afraid your parents will go mad ... the ultimate selfish act. Contraception is fine. Morning after pills and everything after I feel are morally questionable.
Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?Life is life. I don't kill spiders even though I can't stand them. They have less brain cells than a very small fetus. It is just disrespect for nature. Once the sperm enters the egg and that protective shield to stop other sperms getting in is made, that's everything needed to make a human. It is complete. It's a person, just a very small and undeveloped one. Their destiny is your hands then ... their chances of being born, of getting educated, finding love, career, hopes, dreams ... its all in the pipeline. Taking all that from someone who doesn't know any better and never will because you are afraid your parents will go mad ... the ultimate selfish act. Contraception is fine. Morning after pills and everything after I feel are morally questionable.
I don't consume people.Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?Life is life. I don't kill spiders even though I can't stand them. They have less brain cells than a very small fetus. It is just disrespect for nature. Once the sperm enters the egg and that protective shield to stop other sperms getting in is made, that's everything needed to make a human. It is complete. It's a person, just a very small and undeveloped one. Their destiny is your hands then ... their chances of being born, of getting educated, finding love, career, hopes, dreams ... its all in the pipeline. Taking all that from someone who doesn't know any better and never will because you are afraid your parents will go mad ... the ultimate selfish act. Contraception is fine. Morning after pills and everything after I feel are morally questionable.
Do you eat food that's killed for you to consume? Life is life, yo.
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil. It's very existence is so that one day someone could consume it. It is the reason someone bred and reared it in the first place. Without animal husbandry, the animal would never have existed. And I need to eat in order to survive. Vegetarians will argue I can live on vegetables, but I don't have 4 stomachs and I do have incisor teeth and a digestive system build to cope with meat. Meat and animal fats are part of a healthy diet.
Extinguishing the future of a person is a little bit different. To me, anyway. :-\
Planned Parenthood largely reduces the number of abortions that are needed, anyway.
For a profit, which is actually illegal.
You can't sell human bodies legally
How many abortions are needed, and by what percentage do they reduce it?
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil.Sounds a lot like the reasoning of anyone getting an abortion.
When someone haggles over the price of a fetus, then states that they need more money because they want to buy a Lamborghini, then I would say they are trying to profit off the say of the human body, would you not say the same? Or, maybe you have your blinders on again?
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil. It's very existence is so that one day someone could consume it. It is the reason someone bred and reared it in the first place. Without animal husbandry, the animal would never have existed. And I need to eat in order to survive. Vegetarians will argue I can live on vegetables, but I don't have 4 stomachs and I do have incisor teeth and a digestive system build to cope with meat. Meat and animal fats are part of a healthy diet.You (inadvertently, I think) just uncovered my main objection to the pro-life people. Many vegetarians do indeed argue that we shouldn't kill animals for food, and they try as hard as they can to suggest healthy alternatives. What they don't do is try to outlaw eating meat1.
Extinguishing the future of a person is a little bit different. To me, anyway. :-\
And this isn't a legal issue to me. It is a moral one. You should be able to choose, but you should have a bloody good reason and it should be based on the future of the child, not on your own ambitions to be a pop star or because you don't want stretch marks. A woman's view on how to deal with this is the type of thing I use to judge character. If a woman has had 2 abortions ... I'm usually not interested in her. Why would I want to be with a woman who may choose to kill off my children? Its about morality, not legality. I'm probably just a bit old fashioned, but I think the sanctity of human life is important.That's fine. I can respect that. You're well within the rights to make your own decisions. However, you shouldn't be able to force your morality unto others. So long as your objection is purely moral and not backed up by intention of pushing for legal changes, I have no beef with you.
When someone haggles over the price of a fetus, then states that they need more money because they want to buy a Lamborghini, then I would say they are trying to profit off the say of the human body, would you not say the same? Or, maybe you have your blinders on again?
You can't seriously think that the Lamborghini line was anything but a joke. That's been Exhibit A for how cruel and callous Planned Parenthood clearly are on every right-wing webshite that's beebeetlesn covering this.
That said, there's also an argument to be made against the government funding of Planned Parenthood. Pretending to be a pro-lifer for a moment: why should my tax dollars support something that I'm morally objected to?
Regardless of whether the Lamborghini line was a joke or not, the individual who said it was trying to up the price, which means they were haggling. They wanted more money, i.e. more profit.
more money, i.e. more profit.
If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/)This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?
Yes, that's true. I suppose we don't really talk about funding from the states simply because there's very little the federal government can do to regulate that kind of thing, and so it's not a particularly useful subject for national politicians to touch on.Sure, but state governments can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was led to believe that your political parties operate at both levels.
The better answer to your question is that the moral (and mostly religious) objections of a minority of people to a legal practice that's important to the overall medical health of the nation is no reason to stand in its way.You insist on calling people you disagree with the minority. In this case, this seems to be unsupported by data. You could play the pedant card and say it's technically the minority right now, but I'd say it's much fairer to say that America is split on the issue 50/50.
If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/)This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?
Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions? From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business. Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.
pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion
Since when is 3% of what you do considered your primary business? BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions? From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business. Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.
Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.
BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?
If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.I didn't rule out rape. ???
Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.That is because you are shit at maths. Only 9% of people on earth are white. We've had a birth rate like that for nearly 60 years. The population halves every two generations at that rate. Other places are not halving their birth rates. So in two generations white people will be around 4%.
Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do. This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election. The nation won't be geared towards you. If you have a look at African countries, those from the Middle East and poor Hispanic countries and how they are all run, you'll have a glimpse at the future of America.
They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it?
Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do. This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election. The nation won't be geared towards you. If you have a look at African countries, those from the Middle East and poor Hispanic countries and how they are all run, you'll have a glimpse at the future of America.
wow. i hate you even more now than i did like 20 seconds ago. jesus christ.I have no idea who you are. Have you been at this site long? I nothing you. :-\
They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it?
i see that you still haven't looked up the definitions of "gross" and "net."
here's an example: i'm bob, and i sell apples. it costs me $1 to grow and pick an apple from my orchard. alice comes to me and says, "hey, i'll buy a bunch of apples from you for $0.75." i tell alice that that isn't enough money: "i fucking love it when peoplehave abortionseat apples, though, so i'll be a super cool dude and sell them to you at cost for $1 each, that way i don't lose any money providing you with theabortionsapples we all love so much. lol maybe i'll buy a labmbo with all my apples cash huh alice???"
this is the part where you come in and for some reason assert that bob is negotiating the price of apples to buy lambos with all his profits because you don't know the difference between gross and net income or apparently how finances work.
Since when is 3% of what you do considered your primary business? BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions? From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business. Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.
Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/04/how-planned-parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/08/Planned-Parenthood-Services.png&w=480)
You do realize that the abortion had already been paid for, government subsidy money collected, etc. well before selling the resulting fetus and haggling over the price, right? You make it sound like they have to sell fetuses in order to afford to pay for the abortions. :-\
Thork has a good point here, too.Quoted to be preserved for all time.
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.
If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.I didn't rule out rape. ???
Yes in extreme cases like foetal abnormality or rape you can see an argument
Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.That is because you are shit at maths. Only 9% of people on earth are white. We've had a birth rate like that for nearly 60 years. The population halves every two generations at that rate. Other places are not halving their birth rates. So in two generations white people will be around 4%.
It is called "Republican".You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.
I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
I think state funding is a different issue from federal funding. The whole point of states is to represent a smaller subset of the population, to better suit their needs and wants. If the population of a state, in general, doesn't mind funding abortion why is it a problem?If that's the case, that's more or less fine by me.
It is called "Republican".You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.
I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
It has begun! :oIt is called "Republican".You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.
I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
Putting aside the fact that my IQ dropped about 50 points from reading that post, a Democrat is currently sitting in the White House. It seems to me like "white people" are already being outvoted, so your hysteria is misplaced.
It has begun! :o
Democratic party wasn't always the black party. The split used to be between people who liked country music and those who liked rock music. Now it is country vs rap.It has begun! :o
Yeah, about 186 years ago when the first Democratic President was elected. White America didn't last very long, did it?
Democratic party wasn't always the black party. The split used to be between people who liked country music and those who liked rock music. Now it is country vs rap.
Democratic party wasn't always the black party. The split used to be between people who liked country music and those who liked rock music. Now it is country vs rap.It has begun! :o
Yeah, about 186 years ago when the first Democratic President was elected. White America didn't last very long, did it?
Bernie Sanders is a Jew.His father's religious background doesn't affect his skin tone all that much. Being of Polish ancestry, if anything, makes him more white :^)
the most fucking ironic thing anyone has ever said in the history of ever at 0:30Are you referring to the part where he asks people not to conflate peaceful PP opponents with violent crazies, or the part where he suggests that we shouldn't jump to conclusions while the bodies are still warm?
Or, to offer you a more open-ended question: What about his statement strikes you as ironic?
wow all republicans think one thing and one thing only
Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?If I understand correctly, he thinks it's ironic that Republicans defend themselves when accused of being terrorists by immediately denouncing crazy attackers, because they wouldn't rush to the same kind of defence if it was someone else that's on the receiving end of the accusation. He used Muslims as an example.
Ah, the good ol' "not all Muslims follow the Koran" trope.
In one corner, you have an ideology whose ultimate authority (a book allegedly dictated word by word by Allah) decries the absolute necessity of killing people until said ideology has conquered the world. In the other corner, a bunch of people engaged in a legal battle over what they perceive to be a scandalous wrongdoing and a number of loosely-related wackos bringing their guns into the discussion.
One extremist group has the official and unmistakable approval of someone they can consider an authority (Allah). The other receives very little other than condemnation from what you're trying to pinpoint as their authority (Republicans).
What a shit analogy.
That said, I find your specific choice of words to be particularly entertaining. It's really surprising how precisely you described Dubya's response to 9/11. Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful? [EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it]
Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?If I understand correctly, he thinks it's ironic that Republicans defend themselves when accused of being terrorists by immediately denouncing crazy attackers, because they wouldn't rush to the same kind of defence if it was someone else that's on the receiving end of the accusation. He used Muslims as an example.
this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.
it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.
whoops, i almost missed the best part: you're doing the ironic thing right here in this very paragra ph. you're saying that in one corner we have the most violent subset of islam, and in the other corner we have the total population of peaceful adherents and few wackos. why does christianity get to count all of its peaceful adherents in its "corner," but islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole?My correction on Christianity vs GOP still stands. I will take the liberty to assume that you'd make the same point anyway. If that's incorrect, ignore the rest of this paragraph. I will also apply a filter to your hyperbole ("Islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole" becomes "the attention given to mujahideen is undue and unfairly disadvantageous to peaceful self-identifying Muslims") to attempt to fish out some semi-reasonable point there.
no, but i'm willing to be wrong about things. it's no big deal.You're doing an extremely bad job of demonstrating that. Just look at your responses to Blanko.
]in this case we're all going a bit overboard since i figured it would obvious that i was being at least somewhat flippant in my assessment that it was literally the most ironic thing to ever happen in the history of everything. it probably wasn't.It was quite clear [to me] what you were trying to say. That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves. How is this ironic? If you think this kind of attempts at saving face are "ironic", then surely the same goes for the accusations?
also, i agree that it's not true that literally every republican wants to murder every muslim alive today or whatever y'all are saying my argument is. i sort of can't believe that i have to point that out, but here we are.I already said what my understanding of your argument is, and you agreed that I had it [kinda, sorta] right.
it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".
almost. i'm comparing muslims with extremist views to christians with extremist views. you're saying it like i'm comparing muslims to republicans.Well, yes. You linked to a video of a Republican talking about Republicans. You're the only person who mentioned Christianity, and you only mentioned it this late in the discussion. You're making up the contents of a video and then calling your own fantasy ironic. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.
here's what i'm saying: both christianity and islam have fundamentalist/extremist subsets.The sizes and impacts of each subset are absolutely crucial here. Unsurprisingly, you chose to entirely omit that. Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.
religious fundamentalism/extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in either religion. that extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in christianity is a delineation that i do not think he gop is generally willing to apply to islam, even though it's valid. this, to me, is ironic; i would expect someone who makes that delineation once to make it in all cases. it's the opposite of what i expect.Yeah, I suppose if you ignore a whole lot of reality, that kind of makes sense.
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.
kinzinger is acting as a christian apologist.An argument from false premise is not particularly useful from a pragmatic standpoint, even if it can be technically valid.
in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist. that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.And why do you focus your flak on Republicans? Democrats do the same thing.
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.
it's not possible for me to demonstrate in this thread that kinzinger doesn't believe something or didn't say something. you, though, can demonstrate my error with a single quote. since the gop is, by definition, a political party whose operational goal is to unify like-minded politicians into a single platform, i don't think it's super unreasonable to suppose that his view of islam is relatively aligned with gop rhetoric as a whole.
whatever he personally believes isn't what i find ironic. i'm talking about gop rhetoric, not kinzinger's personal beliefs.
irony is often defined as the opposite of what's expected. in one sense, it's not ironic at all for a gop lawmaker to defend the christian beliefs of his constituents. to me, though, the irony is that a member of a group known for failing to delineate between violent and nonviolent islamists in the best case, and outright castigating those who suggest such a distinction in the worst case, is advocating for such a distinction when it involves a different religion. it's ironic to me because i think the situations are nearly identical (and the differences superfluous).
in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist. that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.
i'm seriously running out of ways to explain it.
this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.
The Koran is the final authority on the tenets of Islam...Islam is largely inseparable from the Koran.
Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.
it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".
Justify this.
As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.
So you are conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP's. Got it.
In any case, what you're describing is not irony. The term you're actually looking for is "double standard".
ok. this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.
we absolutely can't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't see the relationship between the christian belief, pro-life belief, and 20th century american conservatism in general.To remind you, you already said this, and I already explained why I'm not okay with you shifting the goalposts:
it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.
on what do you think the pro-life platform is based?Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers, which Kinzinger pointed out. You find this "ironic" for some reason, but you seem to be completely unable to justify your assumptions without first taking them for granted.
sorry, but you'll have to point me to the passage where i said anything at all like "Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America." or even intimated that.You, sir, need to stop trying to twist everyone's words around. It never ends well for you. It's not just that it reflects very poorly on your sense of integrity, you're simply not skilled enough to trick people.
he's a gop politician. your argument at this point is that i should not assume that a gop politician shares common political beliefs with the gop. jesus christ.Are you really stupid enough to assume that all Republicans agree on all issues? You're talking about half of your country's political spectrum.
Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?
That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.
Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.
Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers
See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".
yeah i can't imagine how i got that ideaI genuinely can't, so if you can come up with a reason which doesn't involve you spectacularly fucking up, please go ahead. Alternatively, please put some action behind your words of "I'm okay with being wrong", and simply apologise for the clearly unintended confusion you've been causing.
it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonestOh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.
In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.
it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonestOh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.
This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.
Are you really stupid enough to assume that all Republicans agree on all issues? You're talking about half of your country's political spectrum.
In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.
i disagree. to me, statements like, "Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?" sound pretty strongly as if you're grouping me in with "liberals," the group of people you identify as calling republicans terrorists.
the sentence in question reads like this to me: "I think you're wrong: there's nothing ironic here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick."
it may be obvious to you that you're not lumping me in with the "usual" liberal rhetoric of "lol republicans are terrorists," but since i'm not in your brain reading your thoughts, the statement is at best ambiguous, and it absolutely reads to me as "i think you're wrong; as usual, a liberal is calling republicans terrorists." i can only interpret what you write, not what you think. this is especially true since, up to this point, we haven't been talking about any other "liberal" response to the video other than my one snarky remark. so if you're not talking about my remark in the context of liberals being overly critical of conservatives or calling them terrorists or whatever, who were you talking about? what are liberals saying in the wake of this attack that you believe is overly critical/labeling them as terrorists?
but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists. done deal. as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists." that would have cleared things up nicely.Quoteit took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonestOh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.
This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.
haha no u
you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about. you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z." try it sometime. i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for. your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks. watch it happen. it's almost...formulaic.
[Idiots] like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.
Carrying children is a social responsibility, like paying taxes or registering for selective service.
[Idiots] like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.
this make no sense. even if i granted you that i'm an idiot, my brand of idiocy gets us bernie, not trump.
i disagree. [...]Your behaviour reflects on other liberals. The behaviour of other liberals does not (by default) reflect on you. This is common sense, and your lack of understanding of this simple concept is the root of this entire discussion.
but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists. done deal. as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists." that would have cleared things up nicely.No, it wouldn't have. More importantly, no, it didn't. Me saying that "I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about 'liberals', but you think 'oh shit, he must be talking about me!'. You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How 'ironic'." resulted in you immediately dismissing my clarification, and then complaining that I should have provided it.
haha no uPlease review the following chain of events. Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.
you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about. you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z." try it sometime. i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".
You see, the problem here is that you're a living contradiction. You went well out of your way to try and shit on me clarifying what I did and didn't say, only to then suggest that this clarification would have sorted everything out. It's really not hard to conclude that you're dishonest and that you have a very poor recollection of the conversation to date.Quote from: SexWarriorWere you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?
That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.
Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.
Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusersSee, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".
yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea
as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for. your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks. watch it happen. it's almost...formulaic.Yes. You will ignore the facts of the matter and the arguments that I brought to the table. You will ignore that you were entirely wrong about whether or not a clarification on my part would have helped, even though we know it actually didn't. You will not reflect on your character, your assumptions, or your accusations. Instead, you will point out that I called you dishonest and that I claimed your memory is a bit shit. Or you'll pick on that little "living contradiction" rant, objecting to some of the words used rather than the meaning behind them. Finally, you might go super-meta on me and claim that this very paragraph is one huge personal attack!
the irony to me is that a member of a group widely regarded as being unwilling to distinguish between violent and non-violent muslims is extolling folks to make that distinction for christians.He is not doing that. At the time of your posting, we didn't even know that the assailant was a Christian. Right now, the dominant theory is that he was shocked with the leaked PP videos, but even that isn't completely confirmed yet.
it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.Have you read either of them?
Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".
Compare and contrast it to "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." as well as "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
You simply made up a story in your mind, and you're trying to spread it ahead of the facts. This is dangerous, because it creates interesting beliefs along the lines of "Mike Brown dindu nuttin". That's why you're getting called out on your shit.
it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.Have you read either of them?
It's a bit like me saying that I don't think Harry Potter lived in England at some point during his life. It's not a claim I can honestly make, having read at least one of the HP books.
Your wishy-washy feels and thoughts about what a book says are quite insignificant when contrasted with the actual printed book.