• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortions? not with my taxes

Bodhisattva said:
OMG... dude. You made a statement that I was ignorant and more importantly I had to ask what I was ignorant about, as if that cemented teh fact that I was/am ignorant. It doesn't. I asked in order to hear your reasoning as to why you think that I am ignorant. I don't know. I don't want to assume. I am seeking clarification ABOUT YOUR OPINION. Not about facts. Not about relevence... but about your perception of what is relevant.

So, the fact that you think that my ignorance is a sure thing because I asked you your opinion is proof that you are limiting yourself to what you want and not what might be. This is an abstract concept. Nothing tangible here... you either get it or you don't. Call it what you like, it only further shows that you are hi-jacking terms in that this example shows your method of arriving at a conclusion. Perhaps in not being a native speaker, this occurs. I know that when I was taking French and Spanish, I would often not realize nor understand the entire context of a term simply because many of the ways in which we understand languages are very subtle and taught to us from birth, almost ingraining these nuances into our being. Jeezz, I barely understand the Kiwis here, and they are speaking English, only their version of it...



You introduced the term, I am logically showing you that it has a broader aspect to it. You said:



My IQ is ten points higher than my shoe size... I think, and since you are talking about what constitutes a "person" in order to justify the killing of the unborn, then by extension, showing how the term "person" as a whole is used is displaying how you are incorrect in using this tactic.



Asked and answered...
Click to expand...

Bod, you're falling for the nonsensical bs tactic.........just sayin.
 
mac said:
Bod, you're falling for the nonsensical bs tactic.........just sayin.
Click to expand...

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt... maybe I shouldn't.
I am sensing an inability to understand, not an obtuse unwillingness to understand... maybe I am wrong though.
 
Kelzie said:
Indeed and you're welcome to. If the vote doesn't go your way though, you can't opt out of paying taxes.
Click to expand...

You can if you keep voting and get people in office you agree with....
 
mac said:
You can if you keep voting and get people in office you agree with....
Click to expand...

Which is not the same thing as opting out of paying taxes for something you don't agree with.
 
Kelzie said:
Which is not the same thing as opting out of paying taxes for something you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Opting out, perhaps not, get them changed...very much so. I believe we just saw a rather dramatic change in US government very recently over those very issues......
 
mac said:
Opting out, perhaps not, get them changed...very much so. I believe we just saw a rather dramatic change in US government very recently over those very issues......
Click to expand...

Over abortion? I don't believe so.
 
Kelzie said:
You said that they became the majority in 2009. Were you wrong?
Click to expand...

Would you please define the words "now" and "recently" before we continue chasing our tails?

This is 2010, almost 2011. In 2009 the pro-life crowd took the majority...in 2010 they still polled in the majority.

If in 2009 and 2010 (the year we are still in for at least a few more days) they were the majority.....how is saying that "the pro-life crowd is not the minority" wrong?

If you don't understand my complicated logic, please describe in detail that which is not clear to you. Please.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Would you please define the words "now" and "recently" before we continue chasing our tails?

This is 2010, almost 2011. In 2009 the pro-life crowd took the majority...in 2010 they still polled in the majority.

If in 2009 and 2010 (the year we are still in for at least a few more days) they were the majority.....how is saying that "the pro-life crowd is not the minority" wrong?

If you don't understand my complicated logic, please describe in detail that which is not clear to you. Please.
Click to expand...

This is such a stupid game.

From the 1980s-2009, pro-life was in the minority, correct?
 
Kelzie said:
This is such a stupid game.

From the 1980s-2009, pro-life was in the minority, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, with few exceptions. Now, and recently, it is not.
 
mac said:
really? We're we talking about opting out of abortion or opting out of taxes?
Click to expand...

I hope opting out of taxes. To my knowledge, you can opt out of an abortion whenever you choose. :mrgreen:
 
Kelzie said:
I hope opting out of taxes. To my knowledge, you can opt out of an abortion whenever you choose. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Then you just answered your own silly question.
 
mac said:
Yes, with few exceptions. Now, and recently, it is not.
Click to expand...

Okay, so we've got close to 30 years when pro-life was the minority opinion and 2 years when it was the majority. So when I said

...for most of abortion's recent polling history, the American public has leaned slightly to the pro-choice policy side.
Click to expand...

How was that wrong?
 
Kelzie said:
Okay, so we've got close to 30 years when pro-life was the minority opinion and 2 years when it was the majority. So when I said



How was that wrong?
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, you changed your argument slightly rather than admit you were wrong in your original assertion that pro-life is the minority.

To say that for most of recent history pro-life was in the minority is technically correct, if you would like to extend that beyond the last two years.. But, since for the last two years (most recent history) it has been the majority, then your argument becomes misleading as the trend has shown a steady increase in the pro-life percentage which is continuing. Your original assertion that pro-life is now the minority is absolutely false, though.
 
mac said:
Oh I get it, you changed your argument slightly rather than admit you were wrong in your original assertion that pro-life is the minority.

To say that for most of recent history pro-life was in the minority is technically correct, if you would like to extend that beyond the last two years.. But, since for the last two years (most recent history) it has been the majority, then your argument becomes misleading as the trend has shown a steady increase in the pro-life percentage which is continuing. Your original assertion that pro-life is now the minority is absolutely false, though.
Click to expand...

I changed my argument? You're the one who disagreed with my statement for no apparent reason except for the fact that I'm pro-choice, so everything I say must be wrong.
 
Kelzie said:
I changed my argument? You're the one who disagreed with my statement for no apparent reason except for the fact that I'm pro-choice, so everything I say must be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah he must be reading a different thread or something because you didnt change your argument? lol
 
Kelzie said:
I changed my argument? You're the one who disagreed with my statement for no apparent reason except for the fact that I'm pro-choice, so everything I say must be wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you said something along the lines of "Thank goodness they are the minority." Which kicked this off and was, in fact, wrong. But yes, you are pro-choice and that is wrong.
 
mac said:
No, you said something along the lines of "Thank goodness they are the minority." Which kicked this off and was, in fact, wrong. But yes, you are pro-choice and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

What kicked "this" off is that you disagreed with the statement I reposted on this page. I still don't know why you disagreed with it.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
What kicked "this" off is that you disagreed with the statement I reposted on this page. I still don't know why you disagreed with it.
Click to expand...

Because it is misleading, though I concede.....technically correct if you want to extend "recent" to beyond when the scales switched sides. Not to mention you being misinformed to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
OMG... dude. You made a statement that I was ignorant and more importantly I had to ask what I was ignorant about, as if that cemented teh fact that I was/am ignorant. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
It does in this instance. You were ignorant about the argument brought by Jerry and that is undeniable. He used a weak and sarcastic argument based on numerously debunked notion that the personhood of the fetus is supported by fetal homicide laws.
When that was show, again, to be fallacious and embarrassing in light of the tone it was presented, to divert attention from that fact, the drivel about corporations was introduced by him and defended or supported by you. It had and still has no relevance to the topic and your further attempt to divert and make it about limitations is nothing more but more attempts to mask your collective error.
 
prometeus said:
It does in this instance. You were ignorant about the argument brought by Jerry and that is undeniable. He used a weak and sarcastic argument based on numerously debunked notion that the personhood of the fetus is supported by fetal homicide laws.
When that was show, again, to be fallacious and embarrassing in light of the tone it was presented, to divert attention from that fact, the drivel about corporations was introduced by him and defended or supported by you. It had and still has no relevance to the topic and your further attempt to divert and make it about limitations is nothing more but more attempts to mask your collective error.
Click to expand...

That might make a little sense if indeed anything had been debunked. However, making sense isn't really something that seems to matter to you.
 
mac said:
Because it is misleading, though I concede.....technically correct if you want to extend "recent" to beyond when the scales switched sides. Not mention you being misinformed to begin with.
Click to expand...

oh-oh look out Kelzie i think "misinformed" is his buzz word, dont worry (because I know you are ;) ) he told me that to but when I asked how and why I never got an answer, go figure LMAO
 
Centrist77 said:
oh-oh look out Kelzie i think "misinformed" is his buzz word, dont worry (because I know you are ;) ) he told me that to but when I asked how and why I never got an answer, go figure LMAO
Click to expand...

You never asked me how or why. To be fair, the word I used in your case was "uninformed" not "misinformed".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom