The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives

[rightwinger]

[
Graduate high school, stay out of trouble with the law and your job opportunities are endless. If there are no jobs in your neighborhood, it's likely that the businesses all moved away because of high crime, high taxes and a meager qualified labor pool. Make your neighborhoods attractive to business and businesses will come, but if I want to open a factory, I'm going to put it where I can get employees to come to work without fear of being mugged, where I won't be broken into every week and where I won't get burnt out when cops have to shoot a "gentle giant".

It's not my responsibility to fix your families. It's not my job to educate you. I don't force you to sell drugs or steal cars. Grow the fuck up and take responsibility for your actions and get the hell out of my wallet.

Yeah, Ernie, you aren't at all racist.

Hey, funny thing. The mostly white neighborhood I grew up with meets all your criteria, and guess what, most of the manufacturing jobs vanished there, too.

The 1%ers aren't destroying and offshoring jobs because the police can't shoot "Gentle Giants" in cold blood inthe middle of the street when they have their hands up.

They're doing it because they are insanely greedy.

They're doing it because they are in business to make a profit. They're doing it because consumers won't pay for a product that costs what it would if it were made with union labor. They're doing it so they can provide you with consumer goods that you can afford and will buy. When the cost of doing business goes up, a company must find ways to cut costs in order to remain competitive. Go ahead! Mandate that all consumer goods be manufactured in the US and see what that will do to the cost of your 60" plasma TV.

Why would I want a 60" Plasma TV?

Also, I've never bought that things would be that much more expensive if made here. I price components all day, and yeah, I guess the Chinese components are cheaper. They also have longer lead times, the costs of shipping, the frequent quality problems.

90% of my quality issues come from two Chinese suppliers.

Also,f rankly, if no one has a good paying job, no one can afford a 60" plasma TV regardless of how cheaply you make it.

Do they even make plasmas anymore?

 

[Czernobog]

In any instance where the life of the mother is not in clear, present and immediate danger.
Otherwise you do nothing but end an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.

You keep throwing around these terms that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean, as if that adds weight to your argument.

Hardly.

You do realize that cancer cells also carry all of the DNA of humans, and therefore do fit your very definition of a "human life", right?

Not hardly. An arm, a leg, a tumor -- these are not human lives, these a part of a human.
An unborn child, at any stage? A human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life. A human life is capable of independent viability. A fetus, just like any other group of undifferentiated cells in the human body, is not; thhus to try to call it something is it not is disingenuous, at best, grossly ignorant, at worst.

see, here is the thing
See, there are seven processes that are required for an object to be considered "living":

Movement:	Moving parts of the body	a fetus does this
Sensitivity:	responding and reacting to stimuli	there is no evidence of this in a fetus until, at the earliest, the 6th week.
Nutrition	consuming food	a fetus does this
Excretion	producing waste	a fetus does this
Respiration	converting food into energy	a fetus does this
Growth	Maturing to adulthood	a fetus arguably does this
Reproduction	create offspring	a fetus most certainly does not do this

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In other words, a fetus does not fit the definition of a living organism. It is not a human life. It is a mass of human cells.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In any instance where the life of the mother is not in clear, present and immediate danger.
Otherwise you do nothing but end an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.

You keep throwing around these terms that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean, as if that adds weight to your argument.

Hardly.

You do realize that cancer cells also carry all of the DNA of humans, and therefore do fit your very definition of a "human life", right?

Not hardly. An arm, a leg, a tumor -- these are not human lives, these a part of a human.
An unborn child, at any stage? A human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life.

It is:
1: Human
2 : Alive.
Thus, human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

 

[Czernobog]

In any instance where the life of the mother is not in clear, present and immediate danger.
Otherwise you do nothing but end an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.

You keep throwing around these terms that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean, as if that adds weight to your argument.

Hardly.

You do realize that cancer cells also carry all of the DNA of humans, and therefore do fit your very definition of a "human life", right?

Not hardly. An arm, a leg, a tumor -- these are not human lives, these a part of a human.
An unborn child, at any stage? A human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life.

It is:
1: Human
2 : Alive.
Thus, human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Yes. The fact that only half of your statement is true. By the scientific definition of "living", as I already pointed out, and I notice you chose to delete from my quote, so you could pretend it didn't exist, a fetus is not living.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Actually, no it's not. Viability is about independent survival.

So if you have a stroke and need to be put on a respirator then you're no longer viable, therefore no longer a person, and people can walk up to you and snuff out your life just as though you were a bug that they were stepping on. It's not murder to kill a bug and it's not murder to kill a non-person.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, no it's not. Viability is about independent survival.

So if you have a stroke and need to be put on a respirator then you're no longer viable, therefore no longer a person, and people can walk up to you and snuff out your life just as though you were a bug that they were stepping on. It's not murder to kill a bug and it's not murder to kill a non-person.

Actually that is correct. This is why the family members of people on life support get to make the decision about "pulling the plug". You'll notice the law doesn't call that murder; they call letting the family choose to give the person dignity in death. Nice try, though.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Actually, no it's not. Viability is about independent survival.

So if you have a stroke and need to be put on a respirator then you're no longer viable, therefore no longer a person, and people can walk up to you and snuff out your life just as though you were a bug that they were stepping on. It's not murder to kill a bug and it's not murder to kill a non-person.

Actually that is correct. This is why the family members of people on life support get to make the decision about "pulling the plug". You'll notice the law doesn't call that murder; they call letting the family choose to give the person dignity in death. Nice try, though.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't mean that you're a vegetable, I mean that you temporarily need a respirator in order to recover. Lots of people enter a hospital and they don't meet your definition of viability.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, no it's not. Viability is about independent survival.

So if you have a stroke and need to be put on a respirator then you're no longer viable, therefore no longer a person, and people can walk up to you and snuff out your life just as though you were a bug that they were stepping on. It's not murder to kill a bug and it's not murder to kill a non-person.

Actually that is correct. This is why the family members of people on life support get to make the decision about "pulling the plug". You'll notice the law doesn't call that murder; they call letting the family choose to give the person dignity in death. Nice try, though.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't mean that you're a vegetable, I mean that you temporarily need a respirator in order to recover. Lots of people enter a hospital and they don't meet your definition of viability.

Now you're again trying to make up your own definitions. Inviable doesn't mean sick, or temporary weakness; it means complete, permanent reliability on outside sources (whether that be a machine, or a host) for survival. But, hey. You keep right on trying to make up your own definitions for words in order to justify your position.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Actually, no it's not. Viability is about independent survival.

So if you have a stroke and need to be put on a respirator then you're no longer viable, therefore no longer a person, and people can walk up to you and snuff out your life just as though you were a bug that they were stepping on. It's not murder to kill a bug and it's not murder to kill a non-person.

Actually that is correct. This is why the family members of people on life support get to make the decision about "pulling the plug". You'll notice the law doesn't call that murder; they call letting the family choose to give the person dignity in death. Nice try, though.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't mean that you're a vegetable, I mean that you temporarily need a respirator in order to recover. Lots of people enter a hospital and they don't meet your definition of viability.

Now you're again trying to make up your own definitions. Inviable doesn't mean sick, or temporary weakness; it means complete, permanent reliability on outside sources (whether that be a machine, or a host) for survival. But, hey. You keep right on trying to make up your own definitions for words in order to justify your position.

A fetus doesn't need PERMANENT support, just temporary support, like all other people.

I'm not making up words, I'm exploiting the weakness of your argument because I've seen your argument before.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, no it's not. Viability is about independent survival.

So if you have a stroke and need to be put on a respirator then you're no longer viable, therefore no longer a person, and people can walk up to you and snuff out your life just as though you were a bug that they were stepping on. It's not murder to kill a bug and it's not murder to kill a non-person.

Actually that is correct. This is why the family members of people on life support get to make the decision about "pulling the plug". You'll notice the law doesn't call that murder; they call letting the family choose to give the person dignity in death. Nice try, though.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't mean that you're a vegetable, I mean that you temporarily need a respirator in order to recover. Lots of people enter a hospital and they don't meet your definition of viability.

Now you're again trying to make up your own definitions. Inviable doesn't mean sick, or temporary weakness; it means complete, permanent reliability on outside sources (whether that be a machine, or a host) for survival. But, hey. You keep right on trying to make up your own definitions for words in order to justify your position.

A fetus doesn't need PERMANENT support, just temporary support, like all other people.

I'm not making up words, I'm exploiting the weakness of your argument because I've seen your argument before.

The problem is, I have also seen your argument before. You are trying to equate a non-viable - by medical definition - fetus, with a full-function adult human being. And you can do that, if you like, but it is irrational, and unscientific.

You see, the biggest problem you are facing is that you are trying to apply a term that is specifically used for fetal development to an adult medical condition. Viability only applies to fetal development. Like I said, you are trying to make words mean what you want them to, rather than what they actually mean, in order to support your irrational argument.

Now, here's the part that will really blow you away. I am anti-abortion. That's right. I happen to agree with your general view of abortion. However, because I choose to be rational, rather than emotional, I also recognise that my opinion of abortion is based solely on my own philosophical, and theological preconceptions. I also recognise that attempting to impose that personal opinion on other people through the use of the law is unreasonable, and infringes on their right to come to their own personal ethical decisions. Therefore the only thing that my opinion dictates is that I never advocate an abortion in my persona life. I have to allow every other adult in this country to have the individual freedom to come to their own conclusions. This is why, while being anti-abortion, I am also Pro-Choice.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem is, I have also seen your argument before. You are trying to equate a non-viable - by medical definition - fetus, with a full-function adult human being. And you can do that, if you like, but it is irrational, and unscientific.

The argument is sound. You made a claim that a biological organism doesn't qualify as human if it cannot survive on it's own. Both a fetus and an injured human thus don't meet the viability criteria and so are not human and can be destroyed. Clearly no one buys your definition of injured people not being human because they are temporarily non-viable, so that disqualifies viability as the necessary condition for being human. A fetus will be viable at some point in its development, just like the injured adult human will return to viability after they've recuperated from their trauma.

You see, the biggest problem you are facing is that you are trying to apply a term that is specifically used for fetal development to an adult medical condition. Viability only applies to fetal development. Like I said, you are trying to make words mean what you want them to, rather than what they actually mean, in order to support your irrational argument.

No, it doesn't apply only to a fetus. This is you trying to disqualify a position you can't rebut. There are adults who take longer to return to viability than a fetus would take to reach viability.

Now, here's the part that will really blow you away. I am anti-abortion. That's right. I happen to agree with your general view of abortion.

And I don't have much problem with abortion. "I actually disagree with this movement - I think there should be more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, not less."

However, because I choose to be rational, rather than emotional, I also recognise that my opinion of abortion is based solely on my own philosophical, and theological preconceptions.

If you're being rational, then you should be acknowledging my rational arguments instead of irrationally trying to weasel out of accepting the conclusions. I've checkmated you on the moment of decision argument and on the viability argument.

I also recognise that attempting to impose that personal opinion on other people through the use of the law is unreasonable, and infringes on their right to come to their own personal ethical decisions.

No one has a personal right to murder someone else so please stop trying to paint protests against abortion as unreasonable.

The inconvenience that birthing a child would present to a mother's lifestyle is not society's problem. The only defensible positions for abortion are rape, incest and the woman or baby becoming a public charge, for in all three cases innocent people are being victimized.

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is, I have also seen your argument before. You are trying to equate a non-viable - by medical definition - fetus, with a full-function adult human being. And you can do that, if you like, but it is irrational, and unscientific.

The argument is sound. You made a claim that a biological organism doesn't qualify as human if it cannot survive on it's own. Both a fetus and an injured human thus don't meet the viability criteria and so are not human and can be destroyed. Clearly no one buys your definition of injured people not being human because they are temporarily non-viable, so that disqualifies viability as the necessary condition for being human. A fetus will be viable at some point in its development, just like the injured adult human will return to viability after they've recuperated from their trauma.

The fact is that you are trying to use the term viability in a way that t is simply not used. Unless you can present a case of viability being used for anything other than fetal development, you are simply trying to expand the term to include conditions that it simply is not meant to.

i see no reason to respond to any of the rest of your post, because all of the rest of it predicates on this misuse of the term viability.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Do they even make plasmas anymore?

I'm sure in Deliverance Country where Ernie lives, that's considered hi-tech. They also think flip-phones are witchcraft.

 

[Ernie S.]

In any instance where the life of the mother is not in clear, present and immediate danger.
Otherwise you do nothing but end an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.

You keep throwing around these terms that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean, as if that adds weight to your argument.

Hardly.

You do realize that cancer cells also carry all of the DNA of humans, and therefore do fit your very definition of a "human life", right?

Not hardly. An arm, a leg, a tumor -- these are not human lives, these a part of a human.
An unborn child, at any stage? A human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life.

It is:
1: Human
2 : Alive.
Thus, human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Yes. The fact that only half of your statement is true. By the scientific definition of "living", as I already pointed out, and I notice you chose to delete from my quote, so you could pretend it didn't exist, a fetus is not living.

I've had a vasectomy thus cannot produce offspring. Am I dead?

 

[Ernie S.]

Deliverance was filmed in North East Georgia. Nice try but wrong as usual, dickweed.

 

[MaryL]

1971. Confronted by a long haired hippy pushing anti war crap in front of a Kmart. I told him, I wasn't interested.... I was 15. Didn't stop this jerk. He practically blamed me for the war, and cursed me up one side and down the other. My brother was in the war at the time, and I knew two guys that died there...LIBERALS. They are really sensitive, Aren't they?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life.

It is:
1: Human
2 : Alive.
Thus, human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Yes. The fact that only half of your statement is true.

Sigh.
When you abort a fetus, do you kill it? Does it die?
Yes, and yes. Thus alive.
Impossible to soundly argue otherwise; to try to do so only indicates an unwuilliness to have a serious discussion on the matter.
Now that we have that settled: do you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

 

[Czernobog]

You keep throwing around these terms that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean, as if that adds weight to your argument.

Hardly.

You do realize that cancer cells also carry all of the DNA of humans, and therefore do fit your very definition of a "human life", right?

Not hardly. An arm, a leg, a tumor -- these are not human lives, these a part of a human.
An unborn child, at any stage? A human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life.

It is:
1: Human
2 : Alive.
Thus, human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Yes. The fact that only half of your statement is true. By the scientific definition of "living", as I already pointed out, and I notice you chose to delete from my quote, so you could pretend it didn't exist, a fetus is not living.

I've had a vasectomy thus cannot produce offspring. Am I dead?

That question is so stupid that it doesn't even deserve a response beyond ridicule. Try smarter.

 

[Czernobog]

Wrong. A fetus is not a human life.

It is:
1: Human
2 : Alive.
Thus, human life.
Now, did you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

Yes. The fact that only half of your statement is true.

Sigh.
When you abort a fetus, do you kill it? Does it die?
Yes, and yes. Thus alive.
Impossible to soundly argue otherwise; to try to do so only indicates an unwuilliness to have a serious discussion on the matter.
Now that we have that settled: do you have a reasoned argument agianst my position?

No, and no. As it was never alive to begin with, that makes it rather difficult to "kill". You still want to make something "alive" that, scientifically simply isn't. Unless, of course, you are referring to a fetus older than 26 weeks:

COMPLETED WEEKS OF GESTATION AT BIRTH (using last menstrual period) CHANCE OF SURVIVAL 21 weeks and less 0% 22 weeks 0-10%* 23 weeks 10-35% 24 weeks 40-70% 25 weeks 50-80% 26 weeks 80-90% 27 weeks >90% 30 weeks >95% 34 weeks >98% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In which case, we are both already in agreement. I already said that most pro-choicers agree that so called "late term" abortions (26 wks or older) should be illegal.

You really might as well move on to a different attempt. Science simply trumps your emotionally based claims every time.

 

[rightwinger]

1971. Confronted by a long haired hippy pushing anti war crap in front of a Kmart. I told him, I wasn't interested.... I was 15. Didn't stop this jerk. He practically blamed me for the war, and cursed me up one side and down the other. My brother was in the war at the time, and I knew two guys that died there...LIBERALS. They are really sensitive, Aren't they?

Sounds made up

Did he spit on you?

When you make up stories about long haired hippies, you are supposed to include spitting