Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 mattyrm wrote:
It must suck having tits in America..

Frazzled?

I kid, I kid...

 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And yet, somehow, Republicans still try to claim with a straight face that they aren't against women.

Vs. the party that kills females on demand. Gotcha.

lol

how do you expect anyone to even respond to this?

INFANTICIDE!

Put their fingers in their ears and start mouthing 'nanananana!' It always worked for me.

Sometimes I forget you're a masterful troll.

But then you remind me.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

This donkey-cave says one of the dumbest things I've read lately (which in itself is quite a feat) and then pulls the "you misunderstood me" line, only to clarify that the misunderstanding was that the girl in question isn't actually -his- daughter!

This douche is a living man-bites-dog punchline.

What? I find the prudent use of 'nananana!' combined with the time honored fingers in the ear technique to be one of the greatest defensive moves in the history of mankind.

Just ignore Frazz when he gets like this. The mods give him some extra latitude, so you're the only one who's going to get in trouble arguing with him about things like 'kills women on demand' and other such nonsense.

 Vulcan wrote:
Just ignore Frazz when he gets like this. The mods give him some extra latitude, so you're the only one who's going to get in trouble arguing with him about things like 'kills women on demand' and other such nonsense.

Sorry its accurate. There's no violation of Dakka Rules.
If you accept the right of abortion you have to accept that fact. I do. Put on your big girl panties and man up on your position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
It must suck having tits in America..

Frazzled?

I kid, I kid...

Well, if you said beelly you'd be right.

Yeah, Ryan is a lying donkey-cave.

In short, a politician. Slightly worse than the average politician mind you, but still.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Just ignore Frazz when he gets like this. The mods give him some extra latitude, so you're the only one who's going to get in trouble arguing with him about things like 'kills women on demand' and other such nonsense.

Sorry its accurate. There's no violation of Dakka Rules.
If you accept the right of abortion you have to accept that fact. I do. Put on your big girl panties and man up on your position.

Strictly speaking, no it isn't accurate. The word "women" connote adult females, not girls, infants, or fetuses.

And, even if we put that aside and accept your phrase as accurate, it doesn't prevent a holier than though attitude as killing a fetus doesn't imply any particular abrogation of rights for one sex or the other; only the abrogation of rights for the fetus if it can in fact be said to have them.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Just ignore Frazz when he gets like this. The mods give him some extra latitude, so you're the only one who's going to get in trouble arguing with him about things like 'kills women on demand' and other such nonsense.

Sorry its accurate. There's no violation of Dakka Rules.
If you accept the right of abortion you have to accept that fact. I do. Put on your big girl panties and man up on your position.

Strictly speaking, no it isn't accurate. The word "women" connote adult females, not girls, infants, or fetuses.

And, even if we put that aside and accept your phrase as accurate, it doesn't prevent a holier than though attitude as killing a fetus doesn't imply any particular abrogation of rights for one sex or the other; only the abrogation of rights for the fetus if it can in fact be said to have them.

It connotes a female zygote. Its accurate. You're killing a future female human child. Don't like it, don't do it.
Me, just stay the hell of my lawn and I don't care what you do. It should be legal. But I am fully aware of what is occurring. Anything else is sugarcoating your consciousness because you can't handle the truth.

So just to be clear, you are of the opinion that masturbating = murder? After all, all those sperm could've been "future female human children" too.

dogma wrote:only the abrogation of rights for the fetus if it can in fact be said to have them.

It's got a right to vote like anyone else!!

 Lynata wrote:
So just to be clear, you are of the opinion that masturbating = murder? After all, all those sperm could've been "future female human children" too.

Its not a separate and distinct cell, just like an unfertilized egg, or cells from your left buttock.

I'm a fiscal moderate or a fiscal conservative, depending on how savage my mood is on any given day. I'd really like to vote for a Republican again.

But if they don't drop the fething social stuff, I never will.

Frazzled wrote:Its not a separate and distinct cell, just like an unfertilized egg, or cells from your left buttock.

Irrelevant. A sperm has the potential to result in the birth of a sentient human being, just like a foetus.

If you accuse other people of riding on a high-horse based on stupid comparisons like "abortion = murder", you've gotta expect a backlash, and no amount of dancing around the issue will get you out of that corner you've argued yourself into.

 Frazzled wrote:

It connotes a female zygote. Its accurate.

No, it really doesn't. That may be how you intended to use the word, but that's not its proper connotation. Most likely you were trying to drum up the shock value of your comment, because I don't think your foolish enough to believe what you said was literally accurate.

 Frazzled wrote:

You're killing a future female human child. Don't like it, don't do it.

Again, that's incorrect. A fetus is not a child. You continually use incorrect terminology to describe the process, again I suspect this you're doing this in an attempt to make your comments somehow shocking.

And you can certainly do something that you don't like if you consider the alternative even more distasteful.

 Frazzled wrote:

Anything else is sugarcoating your consciousness because you can't handle the truth.

Which is an interesting line of argument coming from someone who frequently and deliberately distorts reality in order to justify his emotional appraisal of a situation. In fact you're doing it right now, but in a way that's designed to annoy others rather than protect your own psyche.

I am not going to feel guilty when off alone "corraling tadpoles" by your alls difinition

 Lynata wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its not a separate and distinct cell, just like an unfertilized egg, or cells from your left buttock.

Irrelevant. A sperm has the potential to result in the birth of a sentient human being, just like a foetus.

If you accuse other people of riding on a high-horse based on stupid comparisons like "abortion = murder", you've gotta expect a backlash, and no amount of dancing around the issue will get you out of that corner you've argued yourself into.

1. Your definition doesn't work. Does it even have a complete set of chromosomes? I think it was half IIRC. Can it beomce a viable human? nope.
2. Even if it did I wouldn't care. I fail the "life is sacred" part of the test.

Frazzled wrote:Can it beomce a viable human? nope.

That's a question of semantics. Yes, it can become a viable human the same way a bag of flour can become a loaf of bread, or a tree can become a match, or - in wiener-speak - a piece of meat can become a steak.
Just like a sperm, none of these things can achieve this transformation without "outside" help. The same goes for a foetus, unless I missed something and a woman's womb is no longer necessary for the miracle of childbirth. Again: the age of viability is when abortion becomes illegal.

Though we don't even have to get this technical. You were argueing that aborting a foetus "kills women" by negating the potential future of a human being. The same thing goes for any sperm cell "wasted" via masturbation or condom use, which actually is how some religious groups close to Republican candidates argue. There really is no difference if you want to with to argue on this basis.

I think, however, that you do realise what a silly argument this is. I think you're fed up with people "bashing" a political party that you favour, and you want to show them that they are wrong / no better / whatever. Surely, however, you can find better angles for this. Common sense dictates that no single political party is right everywhere, just like no one is wrong everywhere. Consensus and compromise seem to be dying concepts in the current elections, but that doesn't mean that you have to follow suit and condemn everything just because it comes from the opposite camp.

 Lynata wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Can it beomce a viable human? nope.

That's a question of semantics. Yes, it can become a viable human the same way a bag of flour can become a loaf of bread, or a tree can become a match, or - in wiener-speak - a piece of meat can become a steak.
Just like a sperm, none of these things can achieve this transformation without "outside" help. The same goes for a foetus, unless I missed something and a woman's womb is no longer necessary for the miracle of childbirth. Again: the age of viability is when abortion becomes illegal.

Though we don't even have to get this technical. You were argueing that aborting a foetus "kills women" by negating the potential future of a human being. The same thing goes for any sperm cell "wasted" via masturbation or condom use, which actually is how some religious groups close to Republican candidates argue. There really is no difference if you want to with to argue on this basis.

I think, however, that you do realise what a silly argument this is. I think you're fed up with people "bashing" a political party that you favour, and you want to show them that they are wrong / no better / whatever. Surely, however, you can find better angles for this. Common sense dictates that no single political party is right everywhere, just like no one is wrong everywhere. Consensus and compromise seem to be dying concepts in the current elections, but that doesn't mean that you have to follow suit and condemn everything just because it comes from the opposite camp.

Er no.

Biologically I can take an egg. If nurtured properly it becomes a human and is instantly disliked by Frazzled.
Biologically you can nurture a butt cell and make big butts. Well...maybe you can.

Frazzled wrote:If you accept the right of abortion you have to accept that fact. I do. Put on your big girl panties and man up on your position.

So this begs the question: do all men in Texas wear big girl panties, then?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you accept the right of abortion you have to accept that fact. I do. Put on your big girl panties and man up on your position.

So this begs the question: do all men in Texas wear big girl panties, then?

Only if I'm getting dressed in a hurry and accidentally put on your moms.

Hurrr!

Get it? Because I was having relations with your mom. And there were clothes on the floor the next day. and I was in hurry. because I was having relations with your mom all night. Get it?

Dear god, another Republican says something really stoopid about rape and then plays the 'misspoke' card when they used plain english. There's nothing remotely similar about having a child out of wedlock and having been raped. To claim as such to say you've lived through 'something similar' in your own family just shows a gross lack of understanding and empathy from what rape actually does to a person. He's trivialising it and as much as such people backpedal and try to claim rape is very bad afterall, you're seeing the mask slip time and again from various people and it all shows the same thing; they just don't fething get it.

Much like that school in Texas that was in the news because a cheerleader was booted out the team for not agreeing to cheer the boy who raped her. Now you have to ask what sort of culture is in a school where a guy who raped a fellow school girl, plead guilty, is then allowed back onto the football team to represent the school? I'm told football is big in Texas, so apparently that means you can sweep a little rape under the carpet for the sake of a stronger team, and the crowd will still cheer him.

There's a distinct impression I'm getting that there's a culture among a not insignificant number of people that rape isn't seen as being the awful crime it is, and that the feelings of victims aren't given much sympathy. That's apparently why women get criticised for aborting a rapist's child (how dare they not want to carry that child), but are damned to the prospect of their rapist trying to get visiting rights (wtf???). This lack of understanding is where the talk of 'legitmate rapes' come from. That's why as in the school case above, rape is trivialised by some to the point that the pupil can still represent the school on the football team. There's no real sense of the hurt and violation of it, how destructive it is to its victims. That's why someone can think that something as benign as their daughter having a child out of wedlock can given them a window into the life of someone who has been raped.

If that's the sort of culture about rape among parts of the public, being very dismissive of the feelings for victims and not really appreciating their victimhood, then it's no wonder that politicians exhibit the same behaviour, and for all the 'outrage' over their comments, the public still vote for them.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


Much like that school in Texas that was in the news because a cheerleader was booted out the team for not agreeing to cheer the boy who raped her. Now you have to ask what sort of culture is in a school where a guy who raped a fellow school girl, plead guilty, is then allowed back onto the football team to represent the school? I'm told football is big in Texas, so apparently that means you can sweep a little rape under the carpet for the sake of a stronger team, and the crowd will still cheer him.

Not a fan of the Steelers then I guess?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Dear god, another Republican says something really stoopid about rape and then plays the 'misspoke' card when they used plain english. There's nothing remotely similar about having a child out of wedlock and having been raped. To claim as such to say you've lived through 'something similar' in your own family just shows a gross lack of understanding and empathy from what rape actually does to a person.

It also hints at the idea that the politician in question does not believe rape can transpire in the course of marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Biologically I can take an egg. If nurtured properly it becomes a human and is instantly disliked by Frazzled.

Unless there's something you're not telling us about your original gender, that's not true. But, either way, the fertilized egg requires a host to carry it to term, it can't do anything of its own accord.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you accept the right of abortion you have to accept that fact. I do. Put on your big girl panties and man up on your position.

So this begs the question: do all men in Texas wear big girl panties, then?

big frilly pink ones. Thats why we have all the guns, to compensate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:


Unless there's something you're not telling us about your original gender, that's not true. But, either way, the fertilized egg requires a host to carry it to term, it can't do anything of its own accord.

i said properly nurtured. A sperm or butt cell can't.

Pro Life appeals to a higher law against abortions.
Pro Welfare appeals to a higher law to justify redistribution of wealth.

Why is one valid and the other not?

That comment from Tom Smith is straight up worse than Akin's. I mean, holy crap, that is just fethed up.

 Frazzled wrote:
Vs. the party that kills females on demand. Gotcha.

So basically you're just not going to bother with reasoned debate at all then? Too hard to defend Smith and the rest of the sexist bigots who've worked their way into positions of power in the Republican party, so you're just going to claim nonsense instead?

I wish the media would start calling these politicians liars when they claim they "misspoke" to walk stuff back. Seriously, just like that. "No, sir, you are a liar, and you're lying."

I wish the media would start calling these politicians liars when they claim they "misspoke" to walk stuff back. Seriously, just like that. "No, sir, you are a liar, and you're lying."

I like to stab babies in the face with big knives.


EDIT: I misspoke what I meant to say is that I acknowledge the fact it's important that children shouldn't have to live in violent homes.

Noice, noice.