• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Animals protected - humans rejected

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unborn Bird’s protected by law.

Unborn humans are not protected by law.

Our priorities are wrong.
 
jimmyjack said:
Unborn Bird’s protected by law.

Unborn humans are not protected by law.

Our priorities are wrong.

Just where are you drawing this conclusion from? :confused:
 
jimmyjack said:
Do you deny it?

Are you going to show us what gave you this idea...or are you trying to bait me into saying something you think I will regret. Your attempt is very transparent.
 
:roll: Humans aren't going extinct.....








Could someone PLEASE authorize a simple intelligence test as a prerequisite to posting??? I'm beginning to think Freedom of Speech needs some revising.....
 
ngdawg said:
:roll: Humans aren't going extinct.....



Could someone PLEASE authorize a simple intelligence test as a prerequisite to posting??? I'm beginning to think Freedom of Speech needs some revising.....

Neither are birds.
 
jallman said:
Are you going to show us what gave you this idea...or are you trying to bait me into saying something you think I will regret. Your attempt is very transparent.

It is a fact not an idea.
 
jimmyjack said:
Neither are birds.

Several species are....it would behoove you to actually READ something before you comment on it. Might help whatever case you think you're making....but continue...I need a new punching bag





Edited so as not to get flagged:mrgreen:
 
ngdawg said:
Several species are...


Yes, and some are not, but it doesn’t change the facts stated in the beginning.
 
jimmyjack said:
Yes, and some are not, but it doesn’t change the facts stated in the beginning.
/me puts the kidgloves on...

Nah... I can't fight a battle of wits with an unarmed person.....you're a waste of good bandwidth.
 
A source might be good. Something that has relevance to what you're saying. They can't all be protected, or I wouldn't have bought eggs from the supermarket this morning. :lol:
 
vergiss said:
A source might be good. Something that has relevance to what you're saying. They can't all be protected, or I wouldn't have bought eggs from the supermarket this morning. :lol:

Thats really all I was asking for too...he is trying to bait someone into making a comment that he can "rebutt". The only difference between jimmyjack and a ghost though is that a ghost is harder to see through.
 
vergiss said:
A source might be good. Something that has relevance to what you're saying. They can't all be protected, or I wouldn't have bought eggs from the supermarket this morning. :lol:


I didn’t say they where all protected.

The statement is true, end of argument.
 
jallman said:
Thats really all I was asking for too...he is trying to bait someone into making a comment that he can "rebutt". The only difference between jimmyjack and a ghost though is that a ghost is harder to see through.


There is no need, the statement is true, accept it, or prove it wrong.
 
jimmyjack said:
I didn’t say they where all protected.

The statement is true, end of argument.

no, continue your absurd point by showing a source to base it off of and then I will be happy to show you why you are making a serious topic like abortion an exercise in opinionated absurdity...then the argument really gets fun while I hand you your azz. :mrgreen:
 
jimmyjack said:
There is no need, the statement is true, accept it, or prove it wrong.

In other words: jimmyjack didnt really have a point, just an absurd assertion which he never intended to back up, but instead wasted bandwidth over a non issue. Good job...other pro-lifers must really look at you as an asset to their team. :rofl
 
jallman said:
no, continue your absurd point by showing a source to base it off of and then I will be happy to show you why you are making a serious topic like abortion an exercise in opinionated absurdity...then the argument really gets fun while I hand you your azz. :mrgreen:

No, I made a statement, you want to challenge it? -then go for it.

Are you denying the statement is true?
 
jallman said:
In other words: jimmyjack didnt really have a point, just an absurd assertion which he never intended to back up, but instead wasted bandwidth over a non issue. Good job...other pro-lifers must really look at you as an asset to their team. :rofl

In other words you don’t deny the statement and you accept the government is unethical for putting birds before humans.
 
jimmyjack said:
I didn’t say they where all protected.

The statement is true, end of argument.

WTF?

Abortion is a right in a civilised country. The statement is true, end of argument. :lol:

jimmyjack said:
In other words you don’t deny the statement and you accept the government is unethical for putting birds before humans.

What in God's name are you on?
 
jimmyjack said:
No, I made a statement, you want to challenge it? -then go for it.

Are you denying the statement is true?

You made the assertion, so you are responsible for proving it in some way or another. But okay, lets play, I can still win by your rules. No one in his or her right mind believes that animals are more protected than humans. Now post something to disprove my rebuttal or call it quits, pal. :mrgreen:
 
vergiss said:
WTF?

Abortion is a right in a civilised country. The statement is true, end of argument. :lol:

What is so civilised about killing our own species for convenience?
 
jimmyjack said:
What is so civilised about killing our own species for convenience?

I said the statement is true, so end of argument. :lol:
 
jallman said:
You made the assertion, so you are responsible for proving it in some way or another. But okay, lets play, I can still win by your rules. No one in his or her right mind believes that animals are more protected than humans. Now post something to disprove my rebuttal or call it quits, pal. :mrgreen:


Unborn Bird’s protected by law.

Unborn humans are not protected by law.

FACT!

DO YOU DENY THIS?
 
jimmyjack said:
Unborn Bird’s protected by law.

Unborn humans are not protected by law.

FACT!

DO YOU DENY THIS?

Yes. I had a fried egg on toast less than 30 minutes ago. :mrgreen:

(Now maybe we'll get a bloody source or two.)
 
vergiss said:
Yes. I had a fried egg on toast less than 30 minutes ago. :mrgreen:

(Now maybe we'll get a bloody source or two.)

Good for you, and I said something to the effect that not all eggs are protected.
 
Back
Top Bottom