“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581566 Jan 2, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing past the point being made.
You are arguing a non existent point.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#581567 Jan 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Of course.
But HL was asking what Rep. Todd Akin would say about spontaneous abortions, not what reasonable people would say.
Great poem you wrote yesterday by the way. A bit raunchy, but very good.
I like to pee on free will whenever I can.

I didn't like that poem. I just wasn't really into it. Perhaps I should have been naked when I wrote it.

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#581569 Jan 2, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Free will is an illusion, and the belief in Satan makes it an unlikelier proposition.
If God or Satan are interfering or influencing our decisions, our will is less free because of it.
Then why are you trapped on this forum? If you really believed what you think you believe, you would be laughing at yourself right now.

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#581570 Jan 2, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
Im starting to think youre mentaly retarded for posting such idiocy!
Your reaction makes me think what he said must have been true. Truth always puts you into a rage as seen by your juvenile style of name calling.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#581572 Jan 2, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I like to pee on free will whenever I can.
I didn't like that poem. I just wasn't really into it. Perhaps I should have been naked when I wrote it.
Gee, I was certain you were.

God was looking at you, too.

God sees everything.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#581573 Jan 2, 2013
Hey, our posts just sandwiched in a troll!

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#581575 Jan 2, 2013
Just Results wrote:
Then why are you trapped on this forum? If you really believed what you think you believe, you would be laughing at yourself right now.
LOL

Did that make sense to you?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#581576 Jan 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Hey, our posts just sandwiched in a troll!
ewww a troll sandwich yuck!

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#581577 Jan 2, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. Dave received metal detector as Christmas gift ..
.. he's been busy hunting for magnets ..
I've got a metal detector.

That's how I confirmed...well...the aliens left something...inside.

I don't want to talk about it.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#581578 Jan 2, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing past the point being made.
Hardly.
First you have to determine the articles of discussion as fact...THEN you may discuss their attributes, not the other way around.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581579 Jan 2, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>A person can only be charged with murder for killing a z/e/f if the woman pregnant with said z/e/f had no wish or desire to terminate her pregnancy.
And the charge would not be that of murdering a BABY, but of terminating a zygote, an embryo or a fetus against the woman's wishes.
If you think there is such a thing as an "unborn" baby, that would mean that you are an "undead" corpse.
There is NO corpse until there is a DEATH; there is NO baby until there is a BIRTH.
At any rate, and despite your personal feelings and beliefs about the topic, do tell what would be right about any woman being legally forced to remain pregnant against her will in order to be legally forced to give birth against her will.
Not your body? Not your uterus? Not your pregnancy? Not your z/e/f?
Then not your choice, not your decision and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Hope that helps to clear things up for you.
You should really call someone and at least get a clue about what you are saying prior to posting idiotic drivel like this one.

Here I will help read this,
http://www.ehow.com/list_7483847_laws-killing...

Here is just a little excerpt from that law.

"anyone who causes the death of, or injury to, an unborn child at any developmental stage is guilty of not only harming the mother but also, as a separate offense, of harming the child. In these cases, the court can convict perpetrators of two separate cases of bodily harm or murder."

Notice the word CHILD? Not any of those other terms you and your ilk like to use to dehumanize the child.

It is called a Child in utero.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581580 Jan 2, 2013
Back on to the gun thing for a minute.

This is good reading and says it very plain and to the point.

http://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/201...

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581581 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutz, anti choicers Bwha ha ha ha ha
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.

The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581582 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I accepted those facts as soon as I read them.
<quoted text>
I want to call it an anecdote. Since you didn't accept my reasoned argument at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE... , I'll try again. Here's my second rebuttal - an opposing anecdote. We might have seen it already on this thread, but no matter. Any of the thousands of such stories would do :
"3-Year-Old Boy Shoots Himself After Finding Gun"
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/15/what-ca...
Do you accept this as an argument that I'm right? If not, should I also call you dishonest?
OK I will try to dumb this down so you may have a chance of understanding it.
1. I did not post the link to the story of the girl being saved by having a gun in the house someone else did. I agreed that it shows the usufullness of the gun.
I have not dismissed your posted links in the same manner that you have dismissed the links of others that do not match your agenda.
The one you posted here is a good example of exactly what I am talking about.
When the posty about the girl was linked it was a straight forward link to a story and presented as such.
Now you post a link to a story and feel it necessary to add in the line about, "Any of the thousands of such stories would do" thereby again trying dishonestly to show how your story somehow holds more weight.
Thet are stories both of them. They are nothing more nor nothing less. Neither is the end all cure all of the argument.
So yes you are being dishonest in your presentation.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581583 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Me, too, if by "a God" you mean "a good god."
I don't know what "a God" means, but if it means Jehovah-Jesus, I have to disagree. That would be very bad - nearly the worst thing that could be true. I think we can agree that it would be better for mankind if we all went to sleep after death than for the overwhelming majority of us to suffer eternal torment.
So do you accept the claim that a god exists?
<quoted text>
Maybe. Do you accept the claim that a god exists?
<quoted text>
Me, either, although I don't respect faith.
Let me ask you this: Do you accept any of the god claims?
<quoted text>
That answers the second question. Do you know whether you accept any god claims?
I told you what my belief system was. I will not play your fooish little game of you rewording every question until you get the anawer you want.
Don't like how I answered your initial inquiries then to bad.
Try yout game on someone that doesn't understand exactly what you are doing.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581584 Jan 2, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.
The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.
So I guess because there was a clueless tag put on this post that someone disagrees,
Well answer this then. Is nothing killed during these procedures? Is there not a living organism that is terminated during these procedures?
It is really very simple if you think about it. Something was alive, call it whatever you like to make you feel better, and then that something is terminated, that means it is killed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581585 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Once again you have completely misrepresented our discussion using your copy/paste technique.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There's the claim. Where's the evidence and argument?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't save all conversations like you, you know what's been said.
You don't need to save posts to make your argument. You didn't even bother to note which words you disagreed with or why. You might as well post nothing at all as to post what you did here. It's simply not enough to make bare claims.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The crickets refer to you ignoring all of the data I cited from your own link that contradicts you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why the hell would Wikipedia put it in the "firearm crimes" section if it didn't have to do with firearm crimes?
I don't know the authors' reasons, but it appears that he/they wanted to indicate the background crime rate upon which the gun crime statistics are contrasted. The gun crime rate is apparently not only lower in the UK than the US, but it's lower against a higher overall crime rate.

But clearly, the stats you cited were not about gun crimes,as the other data that actually specified guns contradicted it. You STILL haven't addressed those statistics. That's what the crickets were about, and they're STILL chirping.

You can't win an arguments in this way. You can claim victory, but you critical and analytic eyes wince when you do.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581586 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No you didn't say it, karl did. You just agreed with him.
What karl said was, "Your (personal) willingness to see children die, so that you can "feel" more like a man is disgusting."

Sorry, but them's the facts. You are willfully and stubbornly refusing to see or acknowledge the fact that children in homes with guns are much more likely to find a gun and kill themselves with it than in homes without gun. There is no possible way to successfully contradict that except to show that there are more children whose lives were saved by a gun than were lost in those homes, and we both know - we ALL know - that you cannot do that because it isn't nearly the case, and you would have done so already if you could.

So, your "f_ck you" is merely a proxy "f_ck them" to all those children. I don't blame you for not wanting to be connected to such an idea. But you are. Your entire demeanor in this debate si that you just don't care. Karl said it, I agreed, and you don't like it. Sorry. The conclusion stands, however much you are offended. What other conclusion is possible?

We are as offended by your indifference as you are by being called on it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581587 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
To correct you, I'm not insecure living without a gun, so your argument is moot.
I disagree. That's just not credible. Nobody would subject their family to that risk knowing what you know if they weren't afraid to live unarmed.

Furthermore, you're not credible about what your motives are. You're clearly playing the ostrich here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581588 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with everything you said but the question was to you not everyone else.
"I would say that having children is a benefit"
Most at least 98% of mothers I know would say this.
But we're not talking about children. We're talking about fetuses.

The potential benefit of a child doesn't make the fetus not a parasite.

People used to swallow tapeworm eggs to lose weight. They perceived a benefit. But the tapeworm remained a parasite.

These resources refer to organisms that have both parasitic and free living stages, like the creature in the Alien series:

[1] http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/1951220174...
[2]http://books.google.com.mx/ books?id=1yBMvatXY1oC&pg=P A388&lpg=PA388&dq=para sitic+and+free+living+stages &source=bl&ots=-CgytDV 0VT&sig=Y_MnBoIVIbfIFVwsVO gIDquMigE&hl=en&sa=X &ei=wyblUO7fHOSu2gWSr4GoBA &sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=o nepage&q=parasitic%20and%2 0free%20living%20stages&f= false

The human being is the same. It's earliest form parasitizes its host, the mother. So what? Why so much resistance to the use of this word? Because it is insulting or demeaning to a fetus?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 min RADEKT 267,336
more instagram followers (Dec '13) 10 min Fitzie1234 10
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min Peace_Warrior 607,091
Scientific proof for God's existence 16 min Jac 508
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 23 min cheer the f up 120,642
CAPE TOWN: Lesbian/Bisexual Women Whatsapp (Feb '14) 30 min Jaicy 12
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 33 min bad bob 175,866
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 48 min Anthony MN 567,539
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr RiccardoFire 97,439
More from around the web