The Gaming Den

Most pro-life groups are also anti-contraception, anti-education, and anti-vaccine.

Hence calling out the Democratic Representative in a parallel thread about being insufficiently pro-life. At no point has he voted for, signed, or authored a bill which would spend money on abortion. Yet that is exactly what they told tzor, which was a bold faced lie.

People like PR don't want to listen to the arguments, because that would mean they would have to decide which side really was full of shit, and instead plugs his ears and says, 'lalala they're both the same!' as though there were any equivalency or common ground to be had when there is not.

-Crissa

The problem with the pro-life position is that they have a lot of inconsistencies in their policy. If you want to change the law you need a case that a middle-schooler cannot poke holes in.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

IGTN wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote: And this is why liberals are dumb.

You're a piece of shit.

No, shit can be used as fertiliser

Corpses make good fertiliser, or so I hear. Not that I'm saying someone should kill PR over an Internet argument, I'm just saying he has the potential to be as useful as shit one day.

PR wrote: Aaaaand both of your responses provide ample evidence that pseudointellectualism, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, and the inability to reason go hand-in-hand.

You've been the best evidence for that so far. Except I wouldn't credit you with/accuse you of pseudo-intellectualism. So far you've avoided that one admirably, by arguing like a total fuckwit incapable of even pseudo-intellect.

Irony: Most of the pro life people claim to be Christians, and further claim that is their primary motivation for doing so. YHWH is the worst baby killing fucker to ever exist. Usually because it involves 'terminating' the mother. Combine it with the higher body count caused by people doing it anyways, except in an unsafe way...

Guys, I saw that several pages had been added to this thread and popped in hoping to find something interesting. Instead I find a 3-page PR hatefest. Now, regardless of how I feel about the parties (my opinion of PR is well documented) there's just no reason for this kind of flamewar to happen. Why are we still posting at length about the uselessness of other poster when *we have an ignore button now*?

Roy: The world was smaller then. YHWH is competing with Hitler and Stalin and all the other evil dictators of the world. He isn't even all that impressive in that light.

Akula wrote:Roy: The world was smaller then. YHWH is competing with Hitler and Stalin and all the other evil dictators of the world. He isn't even all that impressive in that light.

That's not true. As much fucked up shit as they've done (nice Godwin by the way) the most they've managed is what? Like 1% of the world's population, maybe?

YHWH started with world population - 8. Which granted, wasn't a lot a few thousand years ago but then he went on to casually massacring cities and such.

Hitler was a Christian though.

mean liar wrote:Conflating the two into one thing is unfortunate: you should have to go with a partner, sign some papers for the Justice of the Peace about your legal obligations to each other, and then if you want to have a bigass ceremony at a church or whatever go do that - just recognize that the church is not a governmental organization and has no legal bearing.

I realize my sample size is small, but I thought that's what actually happened. It's just that the ceremony and the paper filling out frequently happen at the same time.

And this thread amply demonstrates why political debate is dumb: because 95% of the people involved can't argue without bawling, strawmanning, and spamming nonsense.

Though, I do like how you're screaming about how I might do the world some good if I were dead. It makes me laugh aloud to know that I can troll without actually trolling. Keep on raging, guys.

Psychic Robot wrote:And this thread amply demonstrates why political debate is dumb: because 95% of the people involved can't argue without bawling, strawmanning, and spamming nonsense.

Don't forget claiming things as absolute fact and truth without any material to back it up. Especially if it is slander against the cause of hate du jour.

At least tzor's argument is that he thinks that people should be required to support potential life, no matter how iffy or burdensome it may be, barring death and dismemberment. (I think that's a fair version of it) He may have sources on his side which lie to him - which I bet upsets him as much (or more) than us, because he'd like to have the same solid ground to fight for his principles, too. I don't use the Green Pages because I want sourced articles, and it's kinda not fair that he doesn't get the same choice between sources that are no holds barred and ones that aren't.

But PR, you're just here to flame people, rather than discuss, and that just seriously sucks. What have you posted here which actually supported or continued the discussion?

-Crissa

Boolean wrote:Guys, I saw that several pages had been added to this thread and popped in hoping to find something interesting. Instead I find a 3-page PR hatefest. Now, regardless of how I feel about the parties (my opinion of PR is well documented) there's just no reason for this kind of flamewar to happen. Why are we still posting at length about the uselessness of other poster when *we have an ignore button now*?

Simple, by calling people who are opposed to gay marriage despicable in public I hope to get that message into people's heads. If PR was worth anything he'd explain why gay people deserve less rights. But hes worthless so he just cries about how mean lefties are. Lefties being mean isn't even worth mentioning, they aren't in favour of banning some people from getting married. That shit is mean.

And let's not forget the way he dismisses people who refute any of his points by merely asserting that they didn't refute his points. He's mostly complaining about his thread because people refuse to bow down to him as some kind of God of Reason whose judgements are beyond question.

Psychic Robot wrote:

How about her politics and personality were repugnant

In short, you don't like her. I think Palin's nomination was brilliant because it managed to expose the sheer hatred and bile that fuels left-wing politics.

If the situation were reversed, a significant percentage of Americans should be seriously worried that every freedom they've fought for in the last 50 years is about to get undone.

Are you insane?

ckafrica wrote: As for Biden and Palin, in what fucking world would she rate higher?

Palin talks like the mom from Bobby's World and has a $150,000 wardrobe. Biden is a plagiarizer.

Explain this Hatred and Bile.

I didn't like Palin because she not only wasn't obviously qualified to play the big league National game, but she didn't want to learn what was needed for the Big Leagues.

McCain's people seriously asked her to learn specific things that would be asked of her, and she said no.

Then she got asked those things, and was made to look like a fool. She was a fool too. Not because she couldn't answer legitimate questions, but because she dismissed people from trying to prep her. I guess she thought she could coast on "personality" alone.

Protip: Good looks, are not personality. They're just a pretty package. Women can be fucking hideous, and still have "good looks". I'm sure the Count can vouch for this. I know that I can.

Seriously, it's not that McCain made a bad choice, it's that Palin is seriously an untintelligent enough person to be VP. She lacked the wisdom to listen to people who do play the National Big League game.

She wanted to be in the big leagues, but didn't want to even bother learning the rules, even when she was told that she should by her own people. I don't see why one couldn't logically hate the personality of such a person. They're seriously the sort of people that want to have society go backwards and want people to not learn or think.

Her Politics are also pretty henious, and at one point she was all for going into shooting wars with Russia. That's very bad for the Americans to have people gunning for leadership positions with that sort of mindset.

Like Sun Tzu said, "war is the last option". Even Ghengis Khan echoed that idea. Warmongers are seriously the last people you want in charge of a nation. Agressive people are okay, but out and out warmongers are not.

Look at how Bush nose-dived the economy to where it is now based on both his own warmongering, as well as the advice of his advisors, one of which is a part owner in a Merceary Company (conflict of interests much? Probably a lot).

On insanity,

The republicans would seriously reverse all sorts of shit given the power. They all vote in lock-step.

Bush reversed some abortion stuff that Clinton had passed. Funny enough, Bush signed his bill with a bunch of guys.

Clinton had more than half the signers on his bill as women.

Pro-lifers are almost invariabley sexist and mysogynist.

Myself... I'll probably always grapple with the idea of abortion. People must be able to make the choice; but they must make informed choices.

Abortions have a lot of small scale, and large scale benefits for individuals and society; but there are costs to everything, and it doesn't always work for the best.

We should also have lots of info on birth control available to people, if people can get access to condoms, know about stuff like IUDs/diaphrams/cervical caps, how to get access to birth control pills, and other stuff; the incidence of abortions would go down.

Seriously Pyschic Robot, I'm surprised that you aren't advocating more birth control stuff actually. You are not advocating how to prevent abortions.

Then again, I'm not surprised. For some reason Pro-Lifers do not advocate the use of birth control in order to prevent abortions. The insanity and lack of logic of that position is immense. You want abortions to not happen? Then you better make it so that there's no need for them at all.

On Palin,

She's a lot more henious, and a lot less moral than the mother on Bobbie's world.

She's a person that assumes people will like her no matter what, and when they ask her hard questions, she gets angry and defensive.

If Biden does plagarize, he speaks well enough to appear educated.

Oh wait, that's what most education is. You plagarize what you read and hear, and form some ideas on your own about said reading and hearing.

Give me some more solid stuff on the plagarism, it's interesting, but I don't know what you're reffering to. I was entirely too busy and tired to watch much of the American elections, due to school and health reasons.

Biden often included quotes in his speeches and law writings; and because of their repetition did not include who the quote was from 100% of the time. So, say you quoted Frank twenty time, you might leave off his name some number of times. Frank wouldn't mind. This is what happened with his speeches.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... ki-reveals

Also, he's accused of styling or taking whole sentences from prior politicians' speeches. And that his essays in college sometimes paraphrased instead of quoted and vice versa. And there was a five page section of a law report which was supposed to be attributed, but wasn't, but the target audience knew it was an inclusion, so it did no harm. At no point did he say those words were only his own.

So he's not the best writer, but he didn't try to get paid for other people's words and works, and never failed to append anything which was caught later.

"You said that like John F Kennedy would."
"Yeah, I did."
\

-Crissa

So, he quotes.

That's not terrible, but it's not awesome either. Making a bigger deal isn't worth it, since it's not like he's hiding it. I'm pretty sure that everyone makes quotes. If a potential leader is inspired by other great leaders, and tries to emulate them, I just hope that they're up to the task. Republican or Democrat.

I think that's been a big thing with Bush; he wanted to have a big effect on America. The problem is that he had a large negative effect, isntead of a large positive effect. If Iraq had been handled better (more troops early on, re-create/retrain the Iraqi army, protect Iraqi Police Officers); then perhaps this would have been better.

Maj wrote:

mean liar wrote:Conflating the two into one thing is unfortunate: you should have to go with a partner, sign some papers for the Justice of the Peace about your legal obligations to each other, and then if you want to have a bigass ceremony at a church or whatever go do that - just recognize that the church is not a governmental organization and has no legal bearing.

I realize my sample size is small, but I thought that's what actually happened. It's just that the ceremony and the paper filling out frequently happen at the same time.

Yes and no. You actually need to file with the state before they recognize it, but I didn't make myself clear. Its the conflating in the public's mind that's the problem. "Marriage in a church" can be an official marriage, and that's the problem (IMO): it should be explicitly a "have fun but don't fool yourselves into thinking the state cares about this" kind of thing, so that people don't think they can go mandating religious reasons a marriage is one thing or another.

I fail to see how preventing gay people from marrying is AT ALL the province of any state with equality as an understood right.

Judging__Eagle wrote: Pro-lifers are almost invariabley sexist and mysogynist.

That they are does not invalidate arguments put forth by their more intelligent peers.

It's the same reason why separating the positions of Republican politicians from their supporters can be a useful exercise, since there are still good, conservative ideas worth consideration.

mean liar wrote:Yes and no. You actually need to file with the state before they recognize it, but I didn't make myself clear. Its the conflating in the public's mind that's the problem. "Marriage in a church" can be an official marriage, and that's the problem (IMO): it should be explicitly a "have fun but don't fool yourselves into thinking the state cares about this" kind of thing, so that people don't think they can go mandating religious reasons a marriage is one thing or another.

Ahh... I didn't get married in a church, so to us it was pretty obvious that getting married was a party + an official document signing.

mean_liar wrote:

Judging__Eagle wrote: Pro-lifers are almost invariabley sexist and mysogynist.

That they are does not invalidate arguments put forth by their more intelligent peers.

It's the same reason why separating the positions of Republican politicians from their supporters can be a useful exercise, since there are still good, conservative ideas worth consideration.

Yes, however... What ideas? What intelligent peers?

We're not the ones doing the purging, they are.

-Crissa

What intelligent peers? The ones that think that health care reform should more prominently address the cost of health care, rather than just having a national insurance plan. Increasing competition is a good idea to drive costs down, but its an inadequate response.

Hawaii has 95% market concentration of its insurer, but its out-spent per capita by California, which has a very intense competition amongst insurers. Pretending its a universal panacea is not going to help anyone, especially if it reduces the yearly health care cost increase to only 5-6%.

Health care has been increasing at 10+% for over a decade, and its not solely a function of insurance companies.

Just because the Republican party has been hijacked by mouthbreathers doesn't mean that there are good conservative ideas.

Why do Pro-Lifers hate abortion, but love capital punishment?

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Why do Pro-Lifers hate abortion, but love capital punishment?

The argument I have heard is that people condemned to death have had their chance, while fetuses are innocent.

Mean Liar wrote:Just because the Republican party has been hijacked by mouthbreathers doesn't mean that there are no good conservative ideas.

Honestly, the good conservative ideas are being articulated by Paul Krugman and Larry Lessig. The Right completely dominates all aspects of the discussion in the US. The leftist answer to healthcare is to nationalize the service. That's not on the table. The rightist answer is to keep it private and throw money at the problem so people don't die but rich people still rake in money. The crazy right wing answer is to do nothing at all and pretend that we're proud of being 37th in the world and having the highest costs at the same time. And that's the discussion. Capitalist answers vs. insane answers.

Claims that the right wing is somehow being frozen out of debates are not grounded in reality. The entire discussion is simply between different sides of the right wing. You want to hear the left wing answers to problems? You fucking can't. At least, not on TV. You have to go to WTO protests and talk to the protesters. The guys with the puppets? Those are the moderate left wing. The far left wing is the people with molotov cocktails.

-Username17