... and there it is.
Yes or no, assume she is an actress. Is her message therefore false?
Are her feelings in this case not genuine?
Two simple yes or no questions that go to the heart of what appears to be your argument.
Seriously Darrin, what the , man. The flaw in this reasoning has been explained to you multiple times.
Do you not understand why this is flawed?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-27-2019 at 01:13 PM.
... and there it is.
Yes or no, assume she is an actress. Is her message therefore false?
Are her feelings in this case not genuine?
Two simple yes or no questions that go to the heart of what appears to be your argument.
Cry for help between the Chris ——- Kori——-Spurter Triumvirate Of Knowledge
For the umpteenth time, termination of an abortion due to the risk posed to the mother’s health has always been legal (most everywhere). It has literally been performed at the judgement of the doctor based on medical need throughout the modern era.
Your straw man deflects from the primary reason why most on "the Right" reject the wanton and indiscriminate use of abortion. MURDER should not be a contraceptive option when other choices are available. Over 60 million babies have been murdered in the USA since Roe vs Wade proliferated the use of the procedure. Only the tiniest smidgeon of a fraction of that number would be categorized as falling into the subset of terminations associated with preteen incest. I reject your hypocrite label given the utter and deliberate disregard for the primary reason (by far) why abortions occur in this country: CONVENIENCE. The callousness with which you dismiss the significance of this argument is the very reason why you have zero room to parade yourself as someone that lobbies for the lives of children. Your talk of mental gymnastics is the true hypocrisy here.
If you want to believe that Greta isn’t another paid spokesperson that’s your naïve prerogative. I’m not about to be suckered into your religion of environmentalism simply because the spokesperson happens to be some emotional kid trying to tug at the heartstrings. And really, who the do you think you are? Demanding answers from other people as if you were some sort of judge... no one here owes you anything, especially not with arrogance and condescension with which you demand that they listen to you. It’s pathetic really that you try to derive self-importance from a place such as this.
EDIT: life in general has been better, particularly now that this sub-forum is no longer the time-wasting hole that it used to be for me.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-27-2019 at 01:39 PM.
oh no! yes, it's clear as day, i said, " greta" and you know why? not because she has autism and not her personally but what she represents which is a true puppet who spews the same vitriol her parents and handlers taught her to spew.
now a personal you goes out to your obese ass though.
and i still stand by that. do you know john bolton? do you know the inner workings of the admin? how about bolton's day to day life? nah, then stfu.
as for whether or not i know greta, i don't but anyone can see a ruse for a ruse.
ps: i look towards no kids for "hope" and that greta hasn't lost her childhood or dreams considering most would consider it a dream to fly around the world and on to the hill to advocate for climate change while destroying the climate at the same time and acting all pissed off while reading someone else's speech.
strong post and so damn true too!
... and there it is.
Yes or no, assume she is an actress. Is her message therefore false?
Are her feelings in this case not genuine?
Two simple yes or no questions that go to the heart of what appears to be your argument.
You ed when people ignored your argument, then as soon as I hit your main point, you pretend it didn't happen.
The questions remain, regardless of what I think of myself or anyone else for that matter. I simply value honesty, which you do not in my experience.
People who do not value honesty generally cannot answer simple questions in defense of their worldview.
Yes or no, assume she is an actress. Is her message therefore false?
Are her feelings in this case not genuine?
Two simple yes or no questions that go to the heart of what appears to be your argument.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-27-2019 at 12:11 AM.
It isn't a strawman, you twit. Jeez, you guys suck at this.Imagine if a government forced an 11 year old girl to be pregnant with her father's child. I bet you would ostracize her and make her into a pariah for wanting to terminate the pregnancy, hypocrite.
I would put forth that no babies at all have been murdered, since my definition of baby differs from your ed one. That is pretty easy for me to square.
You however have a harder row to hoe here, morally.
Let's start on how much you want to force people to risk their lives and let other people use their bodies.
Do I have a right to require you to give me a life-saving blood transfusion, yes or no?
"the wanton and indiscriminate use of abortion"
Religion makes you stupid
A Miscarrying Woman Nearly Died After a Catholic Hospital Sent Her Home Three Times
At some point, records indicate she was given misoprostol to soften her cervix.
But before she made it to the operating room, Alison miscarried into the toilet.
The Catholic health ... its statement of common values, which says it “strives to promote the sanc y of all human life.”
https://rewire.news/article/2019/09/...olic-hospital/
misogynist Catholic Sharia, defined by men, often hidden in the Catholic facilities' public policies (a BUSINESS decision), puts women's health and lives at risk
PUpon further investigation it was found the 14 yo also found out Santa Claus was not real.
Please find the Greta Thunberg help line for emotionally fragile middle aged men at the link:
https://chaser.com.au/world/an-angry...reta-thunberg/
Silencing Science: Trump Campaign Tries To Quash Anthropogenic Connection To Climate Crisis
Maria Caffrey, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Boulder, who works with the US Park Service.
She did a four-year study of the potential impact of climate crisis on 118 national parks in 2030, 2050, and 2100.
It was finished in late 2016 just before Donald Trump ascended to the presidency (after losing the vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes).Dr. Caffrey’s report went through 18 revisions.
The word “anthropogenic” was removed to prevent the link between humans and climate crisis from being made in the report.
Two years passed to delay the report.
In the end, even while
under pressure from three government officials that she might lose her job, and
maybe some of her co-workers could lose their jobs,
Dr. Caffrey stuck to her principles, and the report was released in a version that was “uncensored.”In the course of this ordeal, Dr. Caffrey said
“she was instructed that the Park Service works for Trump and not the American people.“
Columbia University runs a silencing science tracking website that has hundreds of examples of cases
when climate crisis science has been silenced or self-censored in federal or state cases
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/26...limate-crisis/
Greta is in my town today!!!!!
dirty Montreal , oh the irony
The meltdown in the conservative blogosphere has uncovered some really ugly misogyny.
"if she is old enough to take a stand against climate change, she is old enough for us to have sex with her"
Not making that up. (ick)
(shrugs)
Not saying it is some wide consensus, but expressed in more than one place. As I said, icky.
Justin Murphy, formerly “a respectable member of the organized left,” has provided the internet with a prime example of what not to tweet.
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/just...ffrey-epstein/
Regardless, that dude is an idiot.
Famous conservative blogger.
RG must have an interesting Google search history.
Regardless the attacks on the messanger continue.
IT is easier than debating the science for the anti-science crowd, I guess.
Seriously Darrin, what the , man. The flaw in this reasoning has been explained to you multiple times.
Do you not understand why this is flawed?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)