Scouts Honor Posted July 27 Posted July 27 44 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said: "So its lack of education, lazy, or irresponsible.' Was that you making a broad and false generalization about a group of people? Yes. you just said some people don't know how pregnancy happens 1
Scouts Honor Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Abortion uses the same property rights arguments as slavery: It is not a person, It belongs to me, I can do with it what I want. 1
Paul158 Posted July 27 Author Posted July 27 49 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said: "So its lack of education, lazy, or irresponsible.' Was that you making a broad and false generalization about a group of people? Yes. 'MOST OF THESE ITEMS ARE FREE'. So what? Some people still don't have them available, but for some reason you feel that might make them irresponsible, lazy, or uneducated. Seems a bit more like how someone could come by this opinion; irresponsible, lazy, and/or uneducated. 'I'm not talking about incest or rape or medical difficulties with the mother or the baby' That was you insinuating abortion. So you did bring it up. Regardless of whether you think so. Nope. But you did dodge my question to determine if you have a base level of information on this subject. You did mention abortion as I stated before. But since you have no other reason to oppose abortion it does mean you have a moral objection. You have a standard that disqualify people from accessing health care, in your mind. Oversharing way of answering a simple question that you could have done two posts ago. So again, what if someone does use any or all of those methods of birth control and still do get pregnant? What then? Do you have a suggestion or just condemnation? With all due respect you really could use some help. Best of luck to you in your journey through life.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Wait a second, I thought “answer the question” was kind of a big deal around here???
ThreePointTakedown Posted July 28 Posted July 28 11 hours ago, Scouts Honor said: you just said some people don't know how pregnancy happens But I quantified it by saying 'some'. Not generalizing to all like the post read. If they didn't mean 'all', they should have said so. Hence the 'lazy' part of my response to them holding that opinion. They had no intention of learning or knowing the numbers before making the statement. They had a notion and wanted it considered as fact. But it isn't. Its wrong. And when addressed they dodged, ducked, dipped, dived, and dodged so as not to acknowledge that they were wrong to even bring it up. But I'm the jerk for insisting people be honest, truthful, and diligent in their statements of 'fact'? Why not learn about your opinion so you can at least seem authentically knowledgeable? Or change it based on the wrong numbers you just make up in your head.
ThreePointTakedown Posted July 28 Posted July 28 11 hours ago, Paul158 said: With all due respect you really could use some help. Best of luck to you in your journey through life. Based on what? Your years of experience in the field, I'll bet. Or are you arm chair quarterbacking this one too? Turning your points into tissue paper and making you attempt to gaslight me as a way to abandon the discussion to salvage your dignity. Well done. You've put yourself into the toxic box of cliches. Can't say I'm surprised. Its pretty typical of someone that holds your opinions. Can't actually defend it so you resort to name calling and gaslighting. You must be a gem to live with. Nice try.
ThreePointTakedown Posted July 28 Posted July 28 11 hours ago, Scouts Honor said: Abortion uses the same property rights arguments as slavery: It is not a person, It belongs to me, I can do with it what I want. Wow that's wrong a few points. One is conscience the other, depending, is not. Remember the outliers are not the norm. Most pregnancies that are ended on purpose are done in the first trimester. North of 75%. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/ If you are having an emotional reaction to the topic it probably means you are looking for and finding only the information that reinforces your position. But if you're saying that it IS a person. Then my question to you is why does this person get the right to use another person to survive when no one else can? If you say, the pregnant person made a choice and now must live with the consequences, then you are attempting to punish a person by remaining pregnant. You can say, 'its not a punishment just consequences' but those are the same thing. Allowing another person to live off of the body of a person that does not want to. Notwithstanding forcing someone's body to go through the irreversible changes that go along with being pregnant(do you know what those changes are? I'll bet you don't), which is a disgusting thing to force upon someone. You'll need to square that circle without resorting to the morality play. Because not everyone abides by your morality. And trying to force others to legally abide by your sense of morality is, itself, immoral. 1 1
WrestlingRasta Posted July 28 Posted July 28 10 hours ago, Scouts Honor said: that was so last wednesday I guess you’re right. Lot of posts, but one in particular he doesn’t want to respond to… 1
WrestlingRasta Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I wonder what Trump meant in his speech the other night, when he told the crowd if you just get out and vote this time, you won’t have to vote again. Concluding with “in four years we’ll have it fixed so good you won’t ever have to vote again”. Thats interesting.
Paul158 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said: I wonder what Trump meant in his speech the other night, when he told the crowd if you just get out and vote this time, you won’t have to vote again. Concluding with “in four years we’ll have it fixed so good you won’t ever have to vote again”. Thats interesting. In an unrealistic way wouldn't that be a great thing. All this money spent. All the wasted time. If nothing else, they could shorten the entire election process to about 4 or 5 months. In congress as soon as they are elected (for only 2 years) they start running for reelection again. Who knows what Trump meant by what he said. Probably a blunder. Chalk it up to dumb.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Paul158 said: In an unrealistic way wouldn't that be a great thing. All this money spent. All the wasted time. If nothing else, they could shorten the entire election process to about 4 or 5 months. In congress as soon as they are elected (for only 2 years) they start running for reelection again. Who knows what Trump meant by what he said. Probably a blunder. Chalk it up to dumb. Wouldn’t that be a great thing if we didn’t have voting??? No Edited July 28 by WrestlingRasta
Paul158 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 28 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Wouldn’t that be a great thing if we didn’t have voting??? No Come on. By the time the next cycle comes around A.I. will be up and running. Wouldn't it be great to let it select the President. Remember A.I. is 2 letters as Kamala has told us.
BobDole Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Paul158 said: In an unrealistic way wouldn't that be a great thing. All this money spent. All the wasted time. If nothing else, they could shorten the entire election process to about 4 or 5 months. In congress as soon as they are elected (for only 2 years) they start running for reelection again. Who knows what Trump meant by what he said. Probably a blunder. Chalk it up to dumb. According to Project 2025 he was likely talking to all the women. 1
Paul158 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 (edited) 26 minutes ago, BobDole said: According to Project 2025 he was likely talking to all the women. Being that he has NO CONNECTION to it Who care what 2025 project wants to do. Everyone is aware of them. They are under a magnifying glass.They are not one of the branches of government. They have NO LEGAL WAT to legislate what they would like to do. They have no ability to change or make or laws. The democrats have their own project 2025's they are just a little more subtle about it. Yes Democrats have their own Project 2025's. Maybe we can term limits and age limits for the House and the Senate. We must get age limits on the President. You have to be less than 66 to run and be sworn in. Edited July 28 by Paul158 2
WrestlingRasta Posted July 28 Posted July 28 16 minutes ago, Paul158 said: Being that he has NO CONNECTION to it Who care what 2025 project wants to do. Please tell me you don’t actually believe that.
Paul158 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said: Please tell me you don’t actually believe that. Every 4 years since Reagan was President the Heritage Foundation has written up proposals for incoming Presidents. This one is 950 pages. I firmly believe Trump knows exactly what he is going to do when he gets elected on Nov. 5th. I'm sure there are things in the proposal that are similar to President Trump ideas. 2
WrestlingRasta Posted July 28 Posted July 28 That wasn’t my question. It was a very simple yes or no question. Why is that so difficult around here?
Paul158 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 16 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: That wasn’t my question. It was a very simple yes or no question. Why is that so difficult around here? With all due respect I don't feel I can have a reasonable discussion with you where President Trump is concerned. You are very knowledgeable on a lot of subjects, and I respect that. Thanks for your knowledge over the past couple of months. 1 2
WrestlingRasta Posted July 28 Posted July 28 12 minutes ago, Paul158 said: With all due respect I don't feel I can have a reasonable discussion with you where President Trump is concerned. You are very knowledgeable on a lot of subjects, and I respect that. Thanks for your knowledge over the past couple of months. Not being able to answer a very simple question certainly does demonstrate an inability to have a reasonable discussion, I will give you that. But fear not, you are definitely not alone. 1
Scouts Honor Posted July 28 Posted July 28 19 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said: Wow that's wrong a few points. One is conscience the other, depending, is not. Remember the outliers are not the norm. Most pregnancies that are ended on purpose are done in the first trimester. North of 75%. But if you're saying that it IS a person. Then my question to you is why does this person get the right to use another person to survive when no one else can? im not talking about when. im talking about why they are ended. lots of people survive off other people. we have talked about many of them.
Scouts Honor Posted July 28 Posted July 28 19 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said: But if you're saying that it IS a person. are you claiming it's not a person? 1
Eren Sement Council Rock North, Pennsylvania Class of 2025 Committed to Michigan Projected Weight: 141
Kingston Daniells Silva Greens Farms Academy, Connecticut Class of 2025 Committed to Columbia Projected Weight: 197
Jacob Duitsman Kasson-Mantorville, Minnesota Class of 2025 Committed to Augsburg Projected Weight: 197
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now