[natalie]

Have you already seen the video clip of the 30 Days show? I just saw it a while ago I have here the link of the clip

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4ScUKhmD7c8

Do you think the pro-choice activist can still stand her beliefs? She will be surrounded by pregnant women living in a house run by pro-lifers. What do you think will be the most intense argument inside the house?

[StarWarsIsUs]

This little controversial debate about abortion...

is so...

Wizard.

[Dr Lecter]

Have you already seen the video clip of the 30 Days show? I just saw it a while ago I have here the link of the clip

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4ScUKhmD7c8

Do you think the pro-choice activist can still stand her beliefs? She will be surrounded by pregnant women living in a house run by pro-lifers. What do you think will be the most intense argument inside the house?

That's an American show that I can't wait to get shown over here. I would imagine that pro-life and pro-choice people would probably find some things in common, but since pro-life are majority extremist Christians, and there is no real majority over pro-choice that I am aware of, maybe not.

I have a feeling the most intense arguement would be about the babies right to live. That's the main argument that pro-life seem to use because its the only one they have that makes any sense whatsoever, as Mr. Cobant explained (accidently) for us.

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 21 August 2006 - 07:19 AM

[David-kyo]

When you said that many of the pro-choice people stand out of this idea to remain politically correct, are you also suggesting that they are hypocrites?

Being pro-choice does not necessarily entail that one is also pro-abortion. All the pro-choice people want to achieve is that people are not to be told what to do with their bodies. It's not like they're secretly working on an evil scheme beside the cover story, is it? If they are also 100% sure we could do with less people around the world, and they keep their mouths shut about this, then I don't consider them hypocritical, but wise.

And no, I probably wouldn't say the same thing into cameras, but since we're on a forum with pseudonyms, we are allowed to speak our minds.

This post has been edited by David-kyo: 21 August 2006 - 07:27 AM

[Cobnat]

You never cease to amaze me. Congratulations. How about coming up with a sensible argument for a change, instead of talking shit no one can make heads or tails of or flaming people all the time?

I guess the people who insulted me before dont count, do they? No, ofcourse not.

Saying that "the minority matters just as much as the majority" makes zero sense. If it somehow does, please explain. And I didn't insult you, I attacked your position/statement.

Just becouse there is a minority does not mean they do not count. Minorities also have a habit of making the majority look bad in the eyes of a third party.

Oh my God. You just linked me to an entry on jock itch. I guess you meant to say "too many sports" instead of "too much sex," since that's how you get it almost 100% of the time. That link did absolutely zero to back up your increasingly delusional claim (not you, your statement. Do spin this like you do everything else just so you can ignore questions and counterpoints).

Damn you wiki! Anyway, it looks like I was talking about 'uterus rot', but that is not infact an actual disease, just something I picked up somewhere. (the word, not the... yeah)

[David-kyo]

I guess the people who insulted me before dont count, do they? No, ofcourse not.

No they don't, because there is a difference in flaming someone without any reason, and pointing out the defects of someone's arguments. If you get pissed off at people because they get pissed off at your hateful rants (which don't seem to have any coherence whatsoever, by the way), then you might consider shutting up.

[Slade]

There's no such thing as "too much sex!"

Hear hear!

Cobnat, I think you're getting "lots of sex" confused with "lots of sex with multiple partners." It's a very different thing, and before you attempt to bring this up, yes, you can have lots of sex with just one partner.

[Madam Corvax]

... there is a difference in flaming someone without any reason, and pointing out the defects of someone's arguments. If you get pissed off at people because they get pissed off at your hateful rants (which don't seem to have any coherence whatsoever, by the way), then you might consider shutting up.

Slade, could you please be so very kind and give some thought to the above remark? I was pretty sure that after Cobnat got into petty bickering you would again exercise your moderator rights to call everyone into order, but no, not this time. Why do I sometimes have the feeling that people who boast narrow-minded and uneducated opinion can get away with direct insults here, only because someone attacks their OPINIONS first?

[Spoon Poetic]

I think I can answer that, but Slade, feel free to correct me later if I get something wrong.

Sometimes Sir Slade can't get to the forums but every so often, and the posts pile up. So he skims through, and can miss things sometimes. Or figures that everyone's already seen it by now, and who expects anything else from Cobby anyway, so he can't take the time to edit at the moment when he's sneaking on from work at the moment and shouldn't get caught.

Which is why I was made half-mod, to help out since he can't get to the Debate Club as often as he'd like. But as only half-mod and not whole mod, I can only make posts invisible or delete them, I can't edit the flaming away. So if a post has some actual argument in it as well as the insults, I have to choose which would be more unfair: to make the insults stay, or to delete an argument someone thought out and spent time on posting. Also, when a post is made when it's 6:43 in the morning for us (Slade and I are in the same time zone), we can't get around to it until later anyway, after many have already read it and gotten pissed.

Sorry, Madame C.! We're trying here.

P.S. Cobnat: Just because someone disagrees with your view (which you can at least admit is eccentric) doesn't mean they are insulting you personally. So when you come back with personal insults to them because they only argued against your opinion (WHICH IS WHAT THE DEBATE CLUB IS FOR), of course they're going to insult you back. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with your views, leave the Debate Club. I don't think it would be fair to shut down an entire thread just because you can't keep your trap shut. No more flaming. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 21 August 2006 - 12:46 PM

[Slade]

Yeah, thanks, spoon. Getting flamed is not an excuse to flame back. There's no justification for incendiary remarks from any parties. Just calm down and be civil, ok guys and gals? I really don't want to have to take serious action against any forum members, though I'm afraid I might have to if it continues.

Every time you flame, God kills kittens. Please, think of the kittens. And if you can't stop flaming, then just stay away from here so we don't need to be subjected to it.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

I just go with the universal message board rule..."attack the post, not the poster."

I may disagree with or even insult an opinion or line of thought, but it serves no purpose for me to out and out attack another person just because I'm debating or even arguing with them. It cheapens any points I might have to make.

[Deepsycher]

What does fire has to do with this? I take it as attacking people personally. That may not make much of a difference to the facts stated but it could put people off from posting their ideas.

I am missing the meaning of:
Professional life
Professional choice

Is there a balance between the two?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 21 August 2006 - 05:04 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Here are some replies, but no direct flames, since I am not going to name anyone.

Whomever: Even if a man murdered 100 babies in the name of pro-life, and spread the babies on his lawn, and ate the viscera, and shoved the soft little bones into his fucking eyes, even if you could find a news report about it, this would not invalidate the pro-life movement on its own. Psychotic people committing crimes in the names of causes they don't fully comprehend will happen, does happen, has happened for ages and ages and ages, all the way back to the beginning of recorded history, and I dare say before. Anyone looking to post stats on psychotic people murdering doctors in the name of pro-life, please shut the fuck up. The "guilt by association" argument is the lamest, oldest, tiredest argument in the history of weak, lame, old, tired arguments. And I dare say no, the folks who do those killings are not especially pro-life. They just don't like that they can't control the wills of others, and so they become violent. Please remember that "violent protest" was so helpful in hurting the credibility of the Peace Movement that Peace Movement opponents would show up at sit-ins just to start violence. This has been proven. By all rights if we invlaidated any arguent that attracted psychotic people to do violence for it, we would invalidate every argument that has ever been imagined and a lot that have not been imagined yet.

Same lot: Of course it is also silly rhetoric to assume that women have abortions willy-nilly. That right-wing pandering is just as useless as the left-wing rants about pro-life murderers.

Whomever else: there is no disease specifically related to the frequency of sex had by women, or to the number of partners she has. There is no such disease. None, and certainly not by any of the names that have been proposed here. Any person suggesting the existence of such a thing would be a fucking goon, and likely has issues with women. That person ought to get laid, even if it costs money, so as to mitigate the hateful feelings he or she has regarding the sector of the populace fortunate enough to be enjoying sex. AGAIN: Sex does not cause disease. Sex is a perfectly natural enterprise and it is in fact necessary for the survival of the species. Jesus.

Anyone this may apply to: The death penalty, while cute, is irrelevant to the topic of abortion. The juxtaposition of the terms "pro-life" and "death penalty" is hillarious, I agree, but the former tries to reference innocent life while the latter is promoted with a misguided belief that such a punishment would save lives by removing violent criminals from society (It doesn't; the threat of death hangs more juries, who are more influenced by the terms "burden of proof" and "reasonable doubt" than they would be with a simple life sentence. There are stats galore to back this up). The two subjects, therefore, referring to different classes of people, are not in any way related. Before you mention also that pro-life folks often supports wars, use the same reasoning to see just how related those subjects are. Would your Democratic governments also put an end to all wars? For Christ's sake.

Everyone: Republicans and Democrats alike have supported as well as opposed both the death penalty and abortion, depending on the political environment. Don't kid yourselves.

Slade: You do use the "mod stick" more on people you think are smart enough to know better. I have seen this on a lot of forums. Folks who are seldom chastized ought to recognize they aren't considered intelligent enough to take scolding lightly, and they are left alone in the hopes that if we all ignore them, they will go away. I for one can't ignore them, as I like making fun of stupid trolls. So the more you don't mod them, the more you'll have to mod me. If you end up banning or chasing away guys like me, you'll see less of that, sure, but more of the ignorant and silly sort, the sort you won't mod. Take your pick.

New stuff: The abortion argument is always about White people. People of colour seem to be allowed to have their abortions as they please, while White folks protest the termination of White babies like it was vital to the survival of the species. I have nothing to back this up, but that's the face of the pro-life argument I always see in the news, sad little white men and women lamenting the loss of innocent life. Question: is there something racial in this argument? Are White people afraid of the death of the "White Race," or is it simply that other folks aren't represented in the media, etc?

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Whomever: Even if a man murdered 100 babies in the name of pro-life, and spread the babies on his lawn, and ate the viscera, and shoved the soft little bones into his fucking eyes, even if you could find a news report about it, this would not invalidate the pro-life movement on its own. Psychotic people committing crimes in the names of causes they don't fully comprehend will happen, does happen, has happened for ages and ages and ages, all the way back to the beginning of recorded history, and I dare say before. Anyone looking to post stats on psychotic people murdering doctors in the name of pro-life, please shut the fuck up. The "guilt by association" argument is the lamest, oldest, tiredest argument in the history of weak, lame, old, tired arguments. And I dare say no, the folks who do those killings are not especially pro-life. They just don't like that they can't control the wills of others, and so they become violent. Please remember that "violent protest" was so helpful in hurting the credibility of the Peace Movement that Peace Movement opponents would show up at sit-ins just to start violence. This has been proven. By all rights if we invlaidated any arguent that attracted psychotic people to do violence for it, we would invalidate every argument that has ever been imagined and a lot that have not been imagined yet.

I feel like a lot of the more vitriolic prose in this quote is directed at me, since I'm the only one that posted any stats. Please note that the only 2 people bringing up "pro-life" violence prefaced those statements, in my own case repeatedly, that these incidents represent a tiny minority of that political movement. I posted the stats ONLY because the attacks were dismissed as "just a guy who killed a doctor," and that was tremendously incorrect. Nobody was posting that information to prove the pro-life movement wrong, so please, don't tell me to "shut the fuck up."

[Dr Lecter]

Every time you flame, God kills kittens. Please, think of the kittens.

And who ever said there were no perks to not believing in God- instant license to flame .