(05-20-2022, 02:24 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You're like an encyclopedia of irrelevant information.
Bro, when you include a word like "always" in your special pleading, no part of history is irrelevant. There is no place or time that is not part of "always." You can do better. You made a bad argument about the overton window with multiple logical fallacies. No one else cares but you. Take the L, move on.
Good grief.
You guys are exhausting. Just put each other on the ignore list and move on with your lives.
(05-20-2022, 02:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 02:24 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You're like an encyclopedia of irrelevant information.
Bro, when you include a word like "always" in your special pleading, no part of history is irrelevant. There is no place or time that is not part of "always." You can do better. You made a bad argument about the overton window with multiple logical fallacies. No one else cares but you. Take the L, move on.
Ah, so that's what you're using to justify your stupidity. Reading comprehension will get you places. Here's the follow up that puts always in context: "
At no point in history of public debate on abortion was there ever a group that didn't advocate for life at conception, dude." Does that include your pixie worshippers from Ireland? Take the L, lol. You're delusional.
Maybe I should have included "American" debate before you go Google some other useless piece of information.
(05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Good grief.
You guys are exhausting. Just put each other on the ignore list and move on with your lives.
No.
(05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 02:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Bro, when you include a word like "always" in your special pleading, no part of history is irrelevant. There is no place or time that is not part of "always." You can do better. You made a bad argument about the overton window with multiple logical fallacies. No one else cares but you. Take the L, move on.
Ah, so that's what you're using to justify your stupidity. Reading comprehension will get you places. Here's the follow up that puts always in context: "At no point in history of public debate on abortion was there ever a group that didn't advocate for life at conception, dude." Does that include your pixie worshippers from Ireland? Take the L, lol. You're delusional.
Maybe I should have included "American" debate before you go Google some other useless piece of information.
(05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Good grief.
You guys are exhausting. Just put each other on the ignore list and move on with your lives.
No.
Well then, by all means, continue to look foolish arguing with him in circles every hour.
(05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 02:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Bro, when you include a word like "always" in your special pleading, no part of history is irrelevant. There is no place or time that is not part of "always." You can do better. You made a bad argument about the overton window with multiple logical fallacies. No one else cares but you. Take the L, move on.
Ah, so that's what you're using to justify your stupidity. Reading comprehension will get you places. Here's the follow up that puts always in context: "At no point in history of public debate on abortion was there ever a group that didn't advocate for life at conception, dude." Does that include your pixie worshippers from Ireland? Take the L, lol. You're delusional.
Maybe I should have included "American" debate before you go Google some other useless piece of information.
(05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Good grief.
You guys are exhausting. Just put each other on the ignore list and move on with your lives.
No.
There were groups that did not advocate for life at conception at multiple points in the history of public debate on abortion, including this point in history. That sentence is obviously misphrased, and, out of charity to you, I ignored it. Do better.
As for Cleatwood, thank you for reading along, but, maybe you should put us on ignore.
(05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Good grief.
You guys are exhausting. Just put each other on the ignore list and move on with your lives.
I like it. Free exchange of ideas. I enjoy reading the back and forth, as long as it doesn't devolve into ugly name calling. And those two don't usually go there, at least not at a personal level.
(05-20-2022, 03:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 02:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, so that's what you're using to justify your stupidity. Reading comprehension will get you places. Here's the follow up that puts always in context: "At no point in history of public debate on abortion was there ever a group that didn't advocate for life at conception, dude." Does that include your pixie worshippers from Ireland? Take the L, lol. You're delusional.
Maybe I should have included "American" debate before you go Google some other useless piece of information.
No.
There were groups that did not advocate for life at conception at multiple points in the history of public debate on abortion, including this point in history. That sentence is obviously misphrased, and, out of charity to you, I ignored it. Do better.
As for Cleatwood, thank you for reading along, but, maybe you should put us on ignore.
It's not misphrased, you dolt. There was always a group that advocated for life at conception in the abortion debate in America. Maybe Cleatwood is right.
(05-20-2022, 03:24 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 03:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There were groups that did not advocate for life at conception at multiple points in the history of public debate on abortion, including this point in history. That sentence is obviously misphrased, and, out of charity to you, I ignored it. Do better.
As for Cleatwood, thank you for reading along, but, maybe you should put us on ignore.
It's not misphrased, you dolt. There was always a group that advocated for life at conception in the abortion debate in America. Maybe Cleatwood is right.
OK now that we've untangled the unnecessary negatives out of your statement, my equally valid counterstatement applies. There was always a group that was willing to look the other way, or blame superstition, as mothers murdered their newborns, in the abortion debate in America. This group was more prevalent in Europe of course but it also existed here.
Yes, "we've untangled..." In other words, you can't read.
I'm not going to accept your conjecture as proof of any mainstream position. Face it, dude. You were in over your head here and are literally just trying to win a debate. It is this reason exactly that you fall for this spurious nonsense. You are willing to accept the conclusion and contort the world to fit your point of view. Try having some principles, man.
I look forward to our discussion on white replacement theory, which is just the latest push of the Overton Window to frame bad democratic policies.
(05-12-2022, 08:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No minor should ever receive a transgender surgery.
But forcing a kid to go through puberty when they don't want to, and their parents don't want them to, strikes me as cruel.
Perhaps my reading comprehension is lacking, but I think you said it is “cruel, to force a child into puberty”. Did I read that right?
Edit: disregard my last. After reading past the first few pages, I realized this is the same old “Republican” Mikesez arguing for the democratic points. You read one political thread, you’ve read them all.
(05-20-2022, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 09:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you aren't very good at pretending to be what you aren't. Haven't been since you got here.
And you're a terrible moderator. You've been that way since I got here.
I wasn't a Moderator when you got here, so another half brained distortion of reality to suit your delusions. And I'm a great moderator, you should be grateful; if I weren't you'd be long banished for your amateur attempts at trolling. Anyway, you can get back to your breezy demonstrations of your inanity now.
(05-20-2022, 07:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]And you're a terrible moderator. You've been that way since I got here.
I wasn't a Moderator when you got here, so another half brained distortion of reality to suit your delusions. And I'm a great moderator, you should be grateful; if I weren't you'd be long banished for your amateur attempts at trolling. Anyway, you can get back to your breezy demonstrations of your inanity now.
You’ve been a mod since 2021? 2020 at best? Mike shows on the board since 2005. His math doesn’t check out….amongst other things.
(05-20-2022, 07:29 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 07:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't a Moderator when you got here, so another half brained distortion of reality to suit your delusions. And I'm a great moderator, you should be grateful; if I weren't you'd be long banished for your amateur attempts at trolling. Anyway, you can get back to your breezy demonstrations of your inanity now.
You’ve been a mod since 2021? 2020 at best? Mike shows on the board since 2005. His math doesn’t check out….amongst other things.
February-ish last year. In that time I've been called a terrible Moderator by Mikesez, ChrisJagsBoy, MVP, OzJohnnie, and the guy who has like 12 alts thatareallonewordlikethis. If you're known by your enemies I'd say I have an excellent track record.
(05-20-2022, 07:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 07:29 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]You’ve been a mod since 2021? 2020 at best? Mike shows on the board since 2005. His math doesn’t check out….amongst other things.
February-ish last year. In that time I've been called a terrible Moderator by Mikesez, ChrisJagsBoy, MVP, OzJohnnie, and the guy who has like 12 alts thatareallonewordlikethis. If you're known by your enemies I'd say I have an excellent track record.
Well I’m glad no one with any credibility or importance has bad mouthed you. You can’t please everyone. Hell, even bad publicity is good publicity, right?
(05-20-2022, 07:44 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 07:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]February-ish last year. In that time I've been called a terrible Moderator by Mikesez, ChrisJagsBoy, MVP, OzJohnnie, and the guy who has like 12 alts thatareallonewordlikethis. If you're known by your enemies I'd say I have an excellent track record.
Well I’m glad no one with any credibility or importance has bad mouthed you. You can’t please everyone. Hell, even bad publicity is good publicity, right?
There's actually posters here that don't like Bunny, can you imagine?
(05-20-2022, 07:47 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 07:44 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]Well I’m glad no one with any credibility or importance has bad mouthed you. You can’t please everyone. Hell, even bad publicity is good publicity, right?
There's actually posters here that don't like Bunny, can you imagine?
That’s a tough pill to swallow. I believe you, but damn, how does one have a beef with her?
I don’t even have a beef with the only mod that gave me a 40% warning level, haha.
First we were discussing puberty blockers for kids. At first none of you were understanding my point of view, reacting as if I was proposing to make it mandatory. Some of you came back with incorrect information about it having permanent physical effects. Certainly a kid should not be allowed to use a drug with permanent harmful physical effects, however, puberty blockers are not in that category. Some of you came back with arguments against the emotional harm, which is real of course, but besides the point if the kid, the doctor, and the parents are choosing it. By this point it should have been clear to most of you that I was actually making a limited government argument, not a pro-promiscuity or pro-gender-fluidity argument.
I think the only person who actually digested enough of the argument to understand it was L2L, who unfortunately is of the belief that small government would be nice but big government is needed to fight the big bad cultural Marxists. Then the big guns came out and he said that puberty blockers were just part of a big conspiracy to undermine everything about culture today and make the US ripe for a Marxist revolution. A lot of things are in this category for L2L, not just puberty blockers of course. Every time he invokes this, we have to realize (1) it's not about puberty blockers or whatever anymore. He genuinely does not care that lives may be saved by accepting an idea, if that idea is in this category for him. (2) it's a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments ignore human agency when they assume that if A is permitted to happen, B is inevitable. The argument is sometimes valid. For instance, it is true that if you make marijuana more available, it is inevitable that more teens will have access to it and use it, even if it's only legal for ages 21 and up. The argument is valid because ultimately each teen gets to decide if they will seek out marijuana, and if they will use it. It's not inevitable that all of them will use it, but it's probably inevitable that more of them will. But slippery slope arguments are almost always invalid for things that we vote on or Congress votes on. When the Florida Constitution was amended to guarantee minimum crate space for pregnant pigs, it didn't suddenly become inevitable that the Constitution would also mandate hens be kept cage free. Obviously we would have to do another signature gathering and vote on the hen issue. If there are people who support pig rights but not hen rights, they could break the supposed slippery slope right there. And that it why I ignore most of L2L's slippery slope arguments. Most of them require a vote to be taken at each step along the slope. We can get off the train at any time.
(05-20-2022, 07:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2022, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]And you're a terrible moderator. You've been that way since I got here.
I wasn't a Moderator when you got here, so another half brained distortion of reality to suit your delusions. And I'm a great moderator, you should be grateful; if I weren't you'd be long banished for your amateur attempts at trolling. Anyway, you can get back to your breezy demonstrations of your inanity now.
Moderators aren't supposed to take sides in a conversation or debate unless one side is violating the code of conduct. And even if they feel they must, they certainly shouldn't reply with personal attacks.
I am not pretending to be anything. I have been a registered Republican for as long as I've been a user here. I've been a Burkean conservative in favor of restoring the original constitutional order by increasing the power of Congress and decreasing the power of the Executive. This was never a problem for anyone here until Trump came along.
Anyhow I was here before you.
(05-20-2022, 07:11 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2022, 08:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No minor should ever receive a transgender surgery.
But forcing a kid to go through puberty when they don't want to, and their parents don't want them to, strikes me as cruel.
Perhaps my reading comprehension is lacking, but I think you said it is “cruel, to force a child into puberty”. Did I read that right?
I said it "strikes me" as cruel. It gives me sympathetic feelings as if someone is being punished, if they want to take a medicine and some powerful person won't let them take that medicine.
Obviously, puberty is natural, and the simplest ethical argument is usually to let nature take its course, but, science is always developing new ways to control nature that our sense of ethics struggles to understand.
(05-20-2022, 09:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]First we were discussing puberty blockers for kids. At first none of you were understanding my point of view, reacting as if I was proposing to make it mandatory. Some of you came back with incorrect information about it having permanent physical effects. Certainly a kid should not be allowed to use a drug with permanent harmful physical effects, however, puberty blockers are not in that category. Some of you came back with arguments against the emotional harm, which is real of course, but besides the point if the kid, the doctor, and the parents are choosing it. By this point it should have been clear to most of you that I was actually making a limited government argument, not a pro-promiscuity or pro-gender-fluidity argument.
I think the only person who actually digested enough of the argument to understand it was L2L, who unfortunately is of the belief that small government would be nice but big government is needed to fight the big bad cultural Marxists. Then the big guns came out and he said that puberty blockers were just part of a big conspiracy to undermine everything about culture today and make the US ripe for a Marxist revolution. A lot of things are in this category for L2L, not just puberty blockers of course. Every time he invokes this, we have to realize (1) it's not about puberty blockers or whatever anymore. He genuinely does not care that lives may be saved by accepting an idea, if that idea is in this category for him. (2) it's a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments ignore human agency when they assume that if A is permitted to happen, B is inevitable. The argument is sometimes valid. For instance, it is true that if you make marijuana more available, it is inevitable that more teens will have access to it and use it, even if it's only legal for ages 21 and up. The argument is valid because ultimately each teen gets to decide if they will seek out marijuana, and if they will use it. It's not inevitable that all of them will use it, but it's probably inevitable that more of them will. But slippery slope arguments are almost always invalid for things that we vote on or Congress votes on. When the Florida Constitution was amended to guarantee minimum crate space for pregnant pigs, it didn't suddenly become inevitable that the Constitution would also mandate hens be kept cage free. Obviously we would have to do another signature gathering and vote on the hen issue. If there are people who support pig rights but not hen rights, they could break the supposed slippery slope right there. And that it why I ignore most of L2L's slippery slope arguments. Most of them require a vote to be taken at each step along the slope. We can get off the train at any time.
(05-20-2022, 07:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't a Moderator when you got here, so another half brained distortion of reality to suit your delusions. And I'm a great moderator, you should be grateful; if I weren't you'd be long banished for your amateur attempts at trolling. Anyway, you can get back to your breezy demonstrations of your inanity now.
Moderators aren't supposed to take sides in a conversation or debate unless one side is violating the code of conduct. And even if they feel they must, they certainly shouldn't reply with personal attacks.
I am not pretending to be anything. I have been a registered Republican for as long as I've been a user here. I've been a Burkean conservative in favor of restoring the original constitutional order by increasing the power of Congress and decreasing the power of the Executive. This was never a problem for anyone here until Trump came along.
Anyhow I was here before you.
I honestly don't know how you ended up at any of those conclusions. I never made a slippery slope argument. There's no evidence your [BLEEP] plan would save lives. And I never said puberty blockers were some giant conspiracy. The rest of your post is, wait for it.... irrelevant.