Just for fun, I reconsidered my response AgentJ. Like you, I've posted thousands of responses on DP. I am aware there are many posters here who suffer from challenges I'd rather not exploit. Perhaps DP gives them some emotional outlet or validation they don't otherwise feel they have access to.
In the matter from which you've attached yourself, I posted an observation about a single person identified in the OP. In response, a poster asked the following question:
"Is it your position that vitriol directed towards PP and abortion providers in general is limited solely to this one "fringe idiot"?"
Of course I don't believe the vitriol directed towards PP and abortion provider in general is limited solely to the one guy profiled in the OP. In fact I wrote this in post #15:
"My statement had nothing to do with the vitriol and rhetoric coming from both pro and anti in general."
This statement that vitriol and rhetoric comes from pro and anti in general answers the question completely. It refutes the assertion by the other poster that my position is that the vitriol comes "solely" from one "fringe idiot", and states quite clearly the vitriol and rhetoric is coming from both sides in general. Do I need to define what "in general" means?
I don't know what motivates posters on this website. As I stated above, it may be that this site represents the only source of affirmation they have access to. It's also true that many posters here lack the age, experience, and wisdom, to engage in thoughtful debate without exposing their stalking/trolling approach to topics.
Further, some find a need to claim "victory", when the other has merely grown weary of a tedious exchange with someone who has lost credibility and objectivity. These hollow claims of victory are little more than an exclamation into a mirror.
Obviously your claim that "the thread history proves you 100% wrong" is a complete lie. As demonstrated above, I answered the question quite clearly and completely.
Again, I don't think the vitriol against PP is coming solely from this one fringe idiot. I stated as much.
Perhaps you need to rethink your affiliation with the "we" you team up with. It's been an abject demonstrable embarrassment and failure for "all" of you.
What a load of dishonest crap, but all in all there is little more that can be expected and yes your posts prove that. The question you bring up and claim to have answered was in response to your earlier post in which you lamely attempted to dismiss the the real issue the OP brings up.
The subsequent posts clearly and undeniably show that and the extent to which you will go in evading that which you either can not or will not address.
thanks for that long meanignless post that doesnt change the fact you dodged the question, thread history does prove you dodge the question and so does your qoute above LMAO
facts are not on your side but please keep dodging and deflecting its halarious . . thanks for playing
Thanks for the reply AgentJ. I'm going to leave it at that because I chose not to exploit your challenges.
Have a great weekend.
eace
There's nothing to think about. Either you're sane and realize that advocating killing automatically disqualifies one from being pro life or you're not. That's all there is to think about and no level of poorly disguised snark will change it.
I doubt it.You probably are certain of that... for entirely the wrong reasons.
That has not been my claim at all. How can you even argue when you clearly don't know what you're arguing about?Your claim is that wanting the right to life protected by law somehow makes me not "pro-life,"
You don't even know what's being discussed, as made obvious by the fact you keep claiming I'm saying things I have not said. Did you not pay any attention to any post in this thread? Not even the OP? Please take the time to learn what's being discussed before you jump in and speak ignorantly. Thank you. When you demonstrate that you've actually taken the time to understand what I'm saying, then I'll be more than happy to respond to anything you wish to discuss.I assume you are alleging I have advocated for the death of others. I have not.
Yes, you suggesting that anyone is "anti-choice" because they are anti-abortion
This is not research related. It is a direct contradiction. You cannot favor killing and claim to be pro life. They are completely at odds with one another, if one is sane and rational.It is one of the enigmas to me that people can say such embarrassing things and disclose total ignorance about significant sections of very closely related research.
That has not been my claim at all. How can you even argue when you clearly don't know what you're arguing about?
You don't even know what's being discussed, as made obvious by the fact you keep claiming I'm saying things I have not said. Did you not pay any attention to any post in this thread? Not even the OP? Please take the time to learn what's being discussed before you jump in and speak ignorantly. Thank you. When you demonstrate that you've actually taken the time to understand what I'm saying, then I'll be more than happy to respond to anything you wish to discuss.
Again, read the thread and get back to me. I was very clear in what I said multiple times.You are claiming you didn't say "you are not pro-life?"
I was talking to anyone who advocates killing. Are you claiming people should be killed? Because, if you are, then you are not pro life.By context, you weren't talking in a theoretical, you were directing that to me.
Death is the opposite of life. If you call for the deaths of some to "protect" the lives of others, you still are not pro life, you are just arbitrarily choosing who you want to be alive and who you want to be dead. That does not make a person pro life.And I have told you, there are killings that affirm the right to human right to life, rather than contradict it.
Again, we are choosing who dies, we not preserving all life. You are not pro life at that point.The use of lethal force in self-defense, for example. Law enforcement officers shooting a perpetrator in the act or violently resisting arrest.
I have, multiple times. I did again in this post, though I doubt you'll understand it because you don't want to understand it. If you had just read the thread, then this post would not be necessary, but since you obviosly don't read posts to which you respond, this post was written.To be more charitable than you deserve in the face of all this snark, if I didn't "understand" you, you are welcome to clarify.
Nonsense. If you don't understand it, then it's because you either didn't read it or don't want to understand it. There's no ambiguity in what I'm saying. I've never once addressed you specifically and nearly every single one of my posts addressed the person mentioned in the OP. For you to somehow think what I said was about you is asinine and shows a complete unawareness of what I've said or a complete refusal to understand it. If it so happens you fit the profile of someone who is anti-choice, then so be it. But I did not label you as such, I labeled those who advocate killing to prevent abortion as being anti-choice. Please learn the difference, it's really not that subtle.I reread your posts and I understand their meaning just fine, so if there is a disconnect it may be with you saying things you don't mean.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?