Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rama Set

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 313  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 05:11:00 PM »
True enough.  He is always 100% more cordial
I consider it cordial to point out obvious crap so others do not step into it.

So for the benefit of future readers I will point out that I never wrote that all first trimester abortions are medically necessary. Lackey is either too stupid or too dishonest to take that on. What I wrote was the following, in bullet point form, so the stupid can better understand and the dishonest can not twist:
• Approx. 90% of abortions are first trimester
• Of the remaining abortions, taking place after the first trimester, the vast majority are medically necessary
• Of the minuscule percentage of abortions that are after the first trimester and are elective, a bunch of them could be avoided by improving access to abortion, contraception and improving reproductive health education. Indeed, females under 18 are over represented in this last category because of access and education.

Baked in to this is that I don’t think a fetus that is not viable should be considered a person. If you want to accuse me or some moral failing for that, go ahead, better yet, make a good argument in good faith to change my mind or plant a seed.

Now, inb4 Total Lackey misrepresents me again and accuses me of spearheading DARPA’s great replacement on behalf of Ukraine or some dumb shit.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 03:25:17 PM »
If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.
He never is. We bypassed homicide being the number one cause of death to pregnant women and are back on first trimester abortion is murder that apparently matters more than the woman. There's no point.

True enough.  He is always 100% more cordial after returning from his bans and I get duped.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 01:52:43 PM »
Imagine using the adjectives "medically necessary," when describing the act of murder.

Yet, here, directly above this post, Rama does exactly just that.

Remarkable.

I see, your attempt to misrepresent what I wrote failed comepletely so now you are pivoting.  If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 01:24:14 PM »
A. - I am breathing.

2.  "a vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability" (which is exactly what you wrote) and, " the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons," (also exactly what you wrote.) 
Agreed, but you left out exactly what I wrote between those, and that makes all the difference in the world.  So if you are calm and breathing why did this mistake happen?

Quote
This ought to be interesting, but I'll bite - How does refusing to accept responsibility for the consequence of action somehow qualify for the adjectives "medically necessary"?

It doesn't ??? See above where you are either misunderstanding of misrepresenting what I've written.


Quote
Yeah, the non-sequitur commenced by those labeling the act of murder as a "reproductive right." Typical BS trotted out by bots, and other gaslighting scumbags, found in or emanating from, your typical DARPA-funded server farms, primarily located in Ukraine.

Even more non-sequiturs.  This is getting really interesting.  More please.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 12:44:34 PM »
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.
If what you write is the actual case (all are done for medically necessary reasons) then we wouldn't have all the other BS trotted out, such as rape or incest (less than .05 could EVER possibly be for this reason.

Breathe. That’s not what I wrote.

Quote
No, a vast majority of abortions performed are simply because the woman and often the man does not want to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

Indeed. And those happen almost entirely in the first trimester. You are making our concordance seem like a disagreement.

Quote
Reproductive rights...HA...what a freaking joke!

Well that’s a non sequitur.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 10:36:26 AM »
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 29, 2022, 11:31:58 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?

    ...

    Conclusion

    The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

International law appears to disagree with the US law as interpreted by SCOTUS. It wouldn’t be the first time the US disregarded international law and international law is not held to be as binding as domestic law. It’s largely irrelevant though since in the case of a state declaring their secession, the choice for the federal government would be to either let them go peacefully or not.


8
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
More likely some of the regulars here using a VPN set to server locations in conservative areas.

Oh yes, for sure that makes more sense.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 05:59:03 AM »
So.  Getting back on track.  Do you think it would be moral to rescind same sex marriage rights and contraception?

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 05:45:55 AM »
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.



United States = the Union



Please post the date when the federal government kicked them out of the union.

11
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/

Or the democrats living in red areas are hypersexualized deviants.

Either way, it begs the question: why are republicans turning people in to hypersexualized deviants?

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 03:48:45 AM »
The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.



So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.  You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

Please try and be consistent.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 02:30:21 AM »
It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

Quote
In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

    "A standoff ensued until January 9, 1861, when a ship called the Star of the West arrived in Charleston with over 200 U.S. troops and supplies intended for Fort Sumter. South Carolina militia batteries fired upon the vessel as it neared Charleston Harbor, forcing it to turn back to sea."

Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:

    "Lincoln announced his intention to send three unarmed ships to relieve Fort Sumter. Having already declared that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression, South Carolina militia forces soon scrambled to respond."

From what Stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been clearly be interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.

Ah yes, the unarmed ships were clearly the aggressors, sailing in to their port. Definitely not the ones firing munitions. 👍🏻

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 02:10:20 AM »
Lincoln sending a US vessel to a US port to result a US Fort isn’t an act of aggression. Firing a shell that signals they are beginning a war is indeed a start to killing though.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 12:27:26 AM »
Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of provisions means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored.

Any originality would have to conclude it was impossible, as idiotic as that is.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 11:13:13 PM »
It’s funny how Tom makes this arguement comfortably but when the same arguement is made about late term
abortion, he is up in arms. Troll on you crazy diamond.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 10:07:46 AM »
Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

I see that you are finally implicitly admitting that leftists are doing these unethical late term abortion bills. I would call it an achievement, but you are a leftist and don't care that you are unethical.

As was pointed out, the bill isn’t anything nefarious but hey continue projecting.

Quote
Actually I said that they were criticized for pushing it. I didn't say it was enacted. Their extremist material doesn't always survive. Are you claiming that it was a typo that would have happened to make infanticide legal? And it just happened to be authored by Democrats?

No. What I’m saying is is that you are misinterpreting the bill to mean something it doesn’t and was never intended to mean you pizzagate loving weirdo.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 27, 2022, 01:52:13 AM »
You should be free to associate and do business with the reciprocated consent of others, whenever you want, wherever you want.

Pretty simple.
OK. So if I'm racist and I decide I want to open a restaurant and only serve whites then I should be able to.
And if that means I go out of business because white people boycott in solidarity then that's my problem.
I mean, I can kinda see an argument there but a fairly likely outcome is my restaurant would attract racists. And my hot take on racism is that it is, by and large, a bad thing. So I'm not sure it's something one should encourage.
I do think there's an argument that someone shouldn't be compelled to do things against their principles. So the infamous case of the baker taken to court for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. I'm on the baker's side there. They weren't refusing to serve the couple because they were gay, they were refusing to print a message which went against their principles.

The real irony is that the Venn diagram of people who want to promote “free association” and people who want to reign in “Big Tech Censorship” is nearly a circle.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 01:33:44 AM »
It doesn't matter if it's one 40 week old baby who is sawed apart or 100 of them. Wrong is wrong. A disgruntled father slipping a pregnant ex-lover an abortion pill is also rare. But when it does happen, it's terrible and there should be a law against it, more than assault.

My point is simply that Democrats are clearly on the side of loosening late term abortion laws for whatever reason. They push and push for weakening all abortion laws. People see a group of extremists trying to loosen abortion laws and don't like it. Hence the cultural swing to the right against this and the other terrible things Democrats do.

Leftists have also been criticized for pushing pro-infanticide laws:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-a-california-bill-to-permit-infant-death-by-neglect/

    Now, a California Bill to Permit Infant Death by Neglect

    A little while ago I highlighted a shocking Maryland bill that would essentially decriminalize neglecting an infant to death in the “perinatal” period — i.e., through the first 28 days after birth — by preventing investigations and prosecution of such deaths that resulted from “a failure to act.”

    I was interviewed on several talk-radio programs and was asked what the sponsor was thinking. My most charitable thought was that he was unaware of the definition of “perinatal.”

    That “defense” is now inoperative. A bill was just filed in the California Legislature that is even worse than the Maryland legislation.

    ...

    One blue-state bill that would allow a born baby to be neglected to death might be an anomaly. A second that does that — and perhaps could be interpreted to allow infanticide, also — is a pattern. The cultural Left is blazing new grounds of depravity.

Who are sponsoring these bills? The Democrats and the left are, clearly.

Why are they sponsoring these bills? Maybe they hate families, or they hate America; possibly because they are social societal outcasts who have formed a political movement and have a goal of attempting to trick the general public into thinking that they are the caring side and that the Republicans with traditional values are evil.

Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

EDIT: I did about ten minutes of reading to predictably discover that the bill which that piece of “journalism” is referring to was amended long months ago to clarify the perianatal clause in order to avoid the confusion which Tom is so eager to subscribe to. The bill prevents, among other things, criminal investigation solely on the grounds of perianatal death, there must be evidence of foul play. So no, it doesn’t legalize infanticide. What a silly idea to promote based on one shitty article from the National Review. Read a primary source, Tom.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 313  Next >