Hey Jay....how many kids will you personally commit to adopt of druggie mothers that dont have a chance in hell of raising a child or possibly even giving birth to a healthy one?
You bettah buy a bigger house! Or maybe they could just live in that prison......
Kool!
Yeah because we all know that those kids would be better off dead. Sorry, but the arguments that "they will be abused", "they won't be loved" etc. just don't hold water. Because even those things are better than being dead.
And your vast experience actually TALKING to kids/adults who were or are in those situations is what? Because, see, the truth is that is NOT what many of them would say.
Nor do you have any idea what it is to have a child who will never speak, walk, talk, etc and to have to deal with that child and your others. I don't claim to fully, but I do listen to those who do. Also, to claim that God decided those children should live.. is as wrong as claiming that God decided it was OK to shoot people because humanity was allowed to invent guns or the atomic bomb, etc. With technology/knowledge comes increased responsibilty. That IS very much what the Bible teaches!
jay_a2j wrote:
If I'm swimming in the Atlantic Ocean and see a school of sharks and get out of the water, should I say anything to you as you pass me on the beach to go into the same water? Or should I let "God enforce it"?
No, actually, I would probably keep swimming and not get out at all, unless it was a bull or great white shark.
Yeah because we all know that those kids would be better off dead. Sorry, but the arguments that "they will be abused", "they won't be loved" etc. just don't hold water. Because even those things are better than being dead.
Except one of our main points is there's little "alive" about a collection of fertilised cells. They may very well develop sentience, but at the time of "murder" they have none.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
Sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with posting. I have read it all, but just haven't had time to respond. But I would just like to say that I totally agree with BigBallinStalin. Genocide is Hilarious!
I mean... look at these pictures... do they look human?
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
Sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with posting. I have read it all, but just haven't had time to respond. But I would just like to say that I totally agree with BigBallinStalin. Genocide is Hilarious!
I mean... look at these pictures... do they look human?
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
Sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with posting. I have read it all, but just haven't had time to respond. But I would just like to say that I totally agree with BigBallinStalin. Genocide is Hilarious!
I mean... look at these pictures... do they look human?
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
Sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with posting. I have read it all, but just haven't had time to respond. But I would just like to say that I totally agree with BigBallinStalin. Genocide is Hilarious!
I mean... look at these pictures... do they look human?
rhe·tor·i·cal [ri-tawr-i-kuhl, -tor-]
adjective
1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
2. marked by or tending to use bombast.
3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.
ques·tion [kwes-chuhn]
noun
1. a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.
2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
3. a matter of some uncertainty or difficulty; problem (usually followed by of ): It was simply a question of time.
4. a subject of dispute or controversy.
5. a proposal to be debated or voted on, as in a meeting or a deliberative assembly.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:rhe·tor·i·cal [ri-tawr-i-kuhl, -tor-]
adjective
1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
2. marked by or tending to use bombast.
3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.
ques·tion [kwes-chuhn]
noun
1. a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.
2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
3. a matter of some uncertainty or difficulty; problem (usually followed by of ): It was simply a question of time.
4. a subject of dispute or controversy.
5. a proposal to be debated or voted on, as in a meeting or a deliberative assembly.
If that was a rhetorical question, then what was the intended rhetoric?
PLAYER57832 wrote:
And your vast experience actually TALKING to kids/adults who were or are in those situations is what? Because, see, the truth is that is NOT what many of them would say.
Nor do you have any idea what it is to have a child who will never speak, walk, talk, etc and to have to deal with that child and your others. I don't claim to fully, but I do listen to those who do. Also, to claim that God decided those children should live.. is as wrong as claiming that God decided it was OK to shoot people because humanity was allowed to invent guns or the atomic bomb, etc. With technology/knowledge comes increased responsibilty. That IS very much what the Bible teaches!
It is posts like these that confirm the notion that you can be educated yet dumb as a rock. Have you talked to any of the aborted babies to ask them, "Are you better off now than if you had been born?" ALIVE is ALWAYS better than dead. Humans have a survival instinct....we want to LIVE!!!!!!!! God did not create us TO DIE in the womb! DO NOT use the Bible to defend your indefensible position! You obviously have no clue what the Bible teaches. So shut it, please..... I can not take much more of your mindless babbling.
What part of THOU SHALL NOT KILL do you NOT understand?
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:What part of THOU SHALL NOT KILL do you NOT understand?
The part where you think its perfectly OK to let a mother and/or her future children die, be unable to be born to save a life that is tenuous at best.. . to name just one example.
Oh, and the best translation is "murder", not "kill". That, too makes a difference.
natty_dread wrote:I've always secretly suspected jay_a2j to be a brilliant parodist... he's actually a liberal who just pretends to be a right wing nutcase to make their arguments look ridiculous.
With this insight, jay_a2j has become the funniest poster in the forum.
Sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with posting. I have read it all, but just haven't had time to respond. But I would just like to say that I totally agree with BigBallinStalin. Genocide is Hilarious!
I mean... look at these pictures... do they look human?
- pretend that your opponent is secretly on your side
- call them a troll (phatscotty, anyone?)
- imply that they should be dead
- insist that they aren't "enlightened" because of where they live
i will keep these tips in mind during my next debate. thanks, liberals!
edit: oh, and i forgot player's method: take an unusual minority of cases that make your ideals easier to stomach, and repeatedly make the argument ONLY about those cases. maybe if we ignore the vast number of cases where abortion is obviously murder, people will be less likely to call you a heartless murderer if you support abortion rights!
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:when you can't win an argument using logic,
- pretend that your opponent is secretly on your side
- call them a troll (phatscotty, anyone?)
- imply that they should be dead
- insist that they aren't "enlightened" because of where they live
i will keep these tips in mind during my next debate. thanks, liberals!
edit: oh, and i forgot player's method: take an unusual minority of cases that make your ideals easier to stomach, and repeatedly make the argument ONLY about those cases. maybe if we ignore the vast number of cases where abortion is obviously murder, people will be less likely to call you a heartless murderer if you support abortion rights!
Those are great ideas Johnny. Myself, I prefer generalizing everyone who disagrees with me into a single, uniform group, and then creating strawmen to argue against, rather than what's actually being put forward as debate.
john9blue wrote:when you can't win an argument using logic,
- pretend that your opponent is secretly on your side
- call them a troll (phatscotty, anyone?)
- imply that they should be dead
- insist that they aren't "enlightened" because of where they live
i will keep these tips in mind during my next debate. thanks, liberals!
edit: oh, and i forgot player's method: take an unusual minority of cases that make your ideals easier to stomach, and repeatedly make the argument ONLY about those cases. maybe if we ignore the vast number of cases where abortion is obviously murder, people will be less likely to call you a heartless murderer if you support abortion rights!
Those are great ideas Johnny. Myself, I prefer generalizing everyone who disagrees with me into a single, uniform group, and then creating strawmen to argue against, rather than what's actually being put forward as debate.
it's like you haven't even read the last few pages. or anything in this forum, for that matter.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:
edit: oh, and i forgot player's method: take an unusual minority of cases that make your ideals easier to stomach, and repeatedly make the argument ONLY about those cases. maybe if we ignore the vast number of cases where abortion is obviously murder, people will be less likely to call you a heartless murderer if you support abortion rights!
You mean like exactly what TFK did in his post with those abortion pictures, except he was ignoring the vast number of cases that take place in the first trimester?
john9blue wrote:
edit: oh, and i forgot player's method: take an unusual minority of cases that make your ideals easier to stomach, and repeatedly make the argument ONLY about those cases. maybe if we ignore the vast number of cases where abortion is obviously murder, people will be less likely to call you a heartless murderer if you support abortion rights!
You mean like exactly what TFK did in his post with those abortion pictures, except he was ignoring the vast number of cases that take place in the first trimester?
yep, exactly like that.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:maybe if we ignore the vast number of cases where abortion is obviously murder, people will be less likely to call you a heartless murderer if you support abortion rights!
And I suppose this is a logical, rational argument then
Hope all is well!
