1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 4/24/11 10:35 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Wolven Bear, you are plain pathetic... I won't bother quoting your post, because your lack of intelligence is just stunning....
You won't bother debating me because you are too stupid to do so. It's cool. I get it.
But please stop pretending it's because I'm not more intelligent than you. No one on your side of the aisle buys it. And even you know you're too stupid to debate me. So just admit it. You're a retard tryingto play intelligence games with the big boys.
At 4/24/11 11:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Knives construct by cutting. They can be used the precision needed to destroy in a manner that is actually constructive. Guns just cannot.
Incorrect, as shown above. On all counts.
Actually swords are meant to fight with. That's what a sword is. That is why they were invented. Just because decorative swords are made does not change their desctructive intent.
Actually it does. If a sword is made WITHOUT sharp blades, it is NOT a weapon of destruction.
You're wrong.
I wouldn't consider dynamite to be constructive. Dynamite was made for destructive purposes, adn that what it does.
Clearing the way for roads isn't contructive? Destroying worthless buildings to make new ones doesn't count?
You're being silly.
The animal lover thing is a lame argument. I am sure you can find anybody to beliueve anything, so taking a fringe group doesn't change anything. Kitchen knives are meant to construct by deduction.
No, it's the same argument, just made to a higher extreme.
How does a bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound not harmful? Firing a bullet is the goal of guns. Bullets cause harm to their targets. That is the intent aand purpose of guns.
So, you are now claiming that saving life is not useful or constructive?
We're done here.
At 4/24/11 10:50 AM, Illegal-Product wrote: so the 12 people dead, those innocent people don't count? or since it didn't happen in america it dont concern you.
Give me a direct cause/reaction argument as to why this is his fault,
Don't feel bad, you won't be able to do it.
The idea that a man is responsible for others killing strangers thousands of milesaway is moronic, as is anyone who espouses it.
At 4/24/11 01:34 PM, Ravariel wrote: Obama has vetoed a grand total of 2 bills so far. Neither of which had to do with job creation. You're full of shit.
How am I full of shit?
I mentioned that it would be virtually impossible to override an Obama veto. You have just proven me correct. Next?
By... two whole years! OMG! The HORROR!! Considering that the development cycle for most FDA-approved drugs is 7-8 years, that only gives them 4-5 years of exclusivity in order to make the multiple millions in development costs back.
Is there a point, or are you pretending to have a point to pretend I'm wrong.
I'm sure this will cripple the tanning industry. *eyerollie*
Yea, cause no one EVER looks at price before purchasing a service. *eye rollie
The insurance is still paid for, it just lowers the burden on those who probably don't make enough to easily afford insurance. Also, the amount of insurance payouts that people from the ages of 21-26 use is miniscule. Statistically insignificant on anyone's books. This change is a huge help to kids just out of college that has a minimal effect on the bottom line of insurance companies. Profit losses will easily offset by the mandate that comes into effect in a few years.
Let's pretend your entire points are all valid. Why should this be in effect.
Well, it shouldn't.
Number of banks failing is not the only factor at play here. The context of the entire world was different, as was the type of bank failures at the heart of the problem.
Yawn. Nonsense. "All factors that hurt my case are irrelevant!"
Bored, sorry.
At 4/24/11 08:57 AM, Illegal-Product wrote: if your actions will cause pain and suffering of others.
His actions have yet to cause harm to anyone. So, yea. Let him keep going.
you dont need people's opinion's to do as you please. but if you want to do something that will enrage and cause chaos, you need to stop. (this idiot is saying as long as minority remains a minority) what the fuck are you talking about? you racist shit head.
What the fuck are YOU talking about?
By the way, retard, Muslims aren't a race.
why? for being a racist idiot who dont know what hes talking about?
He knows exactly what he's talking about. And if you are too stupid to know that "Muslim" is not a race...you have no grounds to call anyone else stupid.
an average person would do a bit of research and background about the subject or what the argument is about, this guy couldn't even answer a simple question.
so no, he is a fool for the lack of knowledge on the subject.
He's protesting the violence of Islam. EVERYONE acknowledges that Muslims may respond violently to his protest. Therefore he is correct.
At 4/24/11 09:06 AM, B151 wrote: Because she was definately acting slutty and had it coming right?
No, because she put herself in a bad situation.
Go away, fool.
At 4/23/11 09:16 AM, Earfetish wrote: ok, it doesn't have a functioning brain but there's a big hole where the developing brain should be. Do you have a speciality in infant ultrasound abnormalities?
No, and you don't either. As evidenced by the above.
Yes, but that's not very likely to happen. What's happened time and time again is, people have gone on to conceive the amount of children they intended to.
Actually, it's very likely. Many women have problems during abortion and cannot re-conceive. Some just never get pregnant again. Others, obviously, die in accidents, murders, or have some sort of trauma that prevents child birth. This is far more common than the example you used, which happens to something like 1 out of every 300,000 kids.
She would, however, be more likely to die going through childbirth for a child that has a serious disability that will give it a worse chance at life.
No, she absolutely wouldn't. Mental disabilities have nothing to do with childbirth. She would be more likely to die or have complications from abortion than pregnancy.
I'm afraid it is. Having a healthy child who comprehends the world in a meaningful way and will not need to be taken care of for their entire life is preferable to having a child who doesn't.
Circular logic. Though it does admit that you just don't want a handicapped child.
If you don't want a handicapped kid, at least have the stones to just say that. Stop hiding behind fake rationalizations that are so out there that it's not funny.
At 4/24/11 07:52 AM, Illegal-Product wrote: Gen. Petraeus and a bunch (protesters worldwide american and non american of different religion's) of people asked this thickheaded (fuck head) not to go with his plan, 12 people died and now he's mad.
if you are asked not do something by enough people, especially when the consequences is attacks on innocent people and murder (is the respond to his stupid actions) a normal person with the right mind would apologize and stop. but this idiots actions is responsible for the dozen death.
So if enough people don't want you to do something, you don't do it.
Then no one would do anything, because more than 13 people oppose virtually everything.
Appeal to authority is bad argument.
And anyone who wants him to apologize is a fool.
At 4/23/11 03:34 PM, Illegal-Product wrote: and the worst line in this video is he (the pastor) thinks the country's should be held responsible for the 12 murders. not his actions.
Why is this stupid? That he feels that the murderers of these 12 people should be held to account and not him is undisputedly correct. You'd have to be retarded to disagree.
At 4/23/11 08:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You mean liek Christianity? So Mr. Jones is espousing a messagfe of violence by preaching the bible?
Is this biblically inspired? It isn't?
Does it espouse (which means promote or encourage) violence? It doesn't?
So how does this prove your point?
Yes, and we also think with our own brains, not the ones FOX News provides for us.
Obviously not, as evidenced by the nonsense above.
At 4/24/11 12:28 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Wait, so you mean employers don't make decisions on their own about how much hiring and firing to do? It's based solely on what the President does or doesn't do?
Did I say that? Well, no I didn't. I said that the President was the final voice on whether job LEGISLATION passes. Since overriding his veto is unlikely, more like impossible given the two congresses he's had, he gets the final say. Is that the same as Obama making every decision for every business? Of course not.
Reducto ad absurdum is crappy debate.
Also that whole "insure every employee from the time they get hired" stuff hasn't gone into effect yet, but employers (especially in the retail sectors) still aren't hiring and being cautious. You really want to blame that solely on the healthcare law? That seems a bit off the mark to me, to put it politely.
Did I blame it ENTIRELY on the health care law? Or are you trying to be cute and misrepresent what I said again? Does that have an effect? Absolutely. If It didn't companies wouldn't be trying to exempt themselves NOW. Moreover, some provisions don't take place til later, but some took place immediately, and some take place this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare
Some that I particularly find idiotic that take place this year or are already in effect.
(IE) The Food and Drug Administration is now authorized to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed.[13]
GREAT! Increase the costs of generics AND increase the waiting time! Thanks for making health care more expensive!
(july) A 10% tax on indoor tanning took effect.
So tanning will decline and jobs will be lost. Awesome.
(Sept) Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday,[22] and regulations implemented under the Act include dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent's tax return, are no longer a student, or are married.
So, long after most people move out of the house and live on their own, the insurer has to cover them? Yea, that doesn't affect companies bottom lines or anything.
Just read the whole thing. It's a list of stupid ideas and cost RAISING measures.
Really? Because I would think the fact that they got paid back (but it wasn't widely publicized) would keep them from being titled "disaster" personally. But, and I stress the "but", that does not mean I completely agreed with them.
Except they haven't all been paid back. My current fav on the "paid back list" includes GM:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424 052702303491304575188473069446344.html
There's a problem with this...
It is also an important step toward eventually reducing the amount of equity the governments of the U.S., Canada and Ontario hold in our company. Combined, these governments hold a majority of GM's
If the majority of GM is still government...they still owe a lot of money.
A lot of people didn't really need or want bailout money. This is just as much Bush's fault as Obama's, but banks were often forced to take the money. That they repaid what they didn't want or need is hardly a sign of success. All of the institutes that begged for money still owe substancial amounts. Fannie and Freddy even asked for more.
Moreover, this creates what is known in economics as "moral hazard". If I know that I will be saved from my bad behavior...why moderate my behavior? These businesses now know that they are "too big to fail", and will get taxpayer injection for any future bad decisions. That's a pretty nasty side effect.
There's a yes and no to this one I think. Frankly, I've always failed to see how letting banks fail would have done anything positive (after all, failing banks cause Depressions).
No they don't. Look how many failed during the 80s, and we survived.
http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Early_1980s_r ecession
In fact more banks failed in the early 80s and the recession was relatively short lived. A less than two year recession that has a double dip is pretty decent. Several months of loss, a year of growth, several more months of loss. Not the greatest, but hardly the awful 4 year nonsense we've got now.
But I do agree the immediate effect of letting big banks like a Well's Fargo swallow up smaller (though still quite large) failing banks like Wachovia to become even bigger conglomerates does not speak well of any real sincerity in the administration rhetoric in saying banks should be more responsible. However that financial reform that passed that the Republicans are consistently and tirelessly trying to dismantle does show some effort towards making the rhetoric a reality.
The reform is the REASON these irresponsible banks are getting bigger. Trying to dismantle it is the solution.
Source? Because all the comparisons I've heard from economists (like Paul Krugman to name one) say a better comparison is the Great Depression of the 30's. But I say that without having looked extensively into the subject, so any counter source you might have that I missed would be greatly appreciated so maybe I could get a better handle on things.
Paul Krugman is a moron, who claimed that doing nothing was "Herbert Hoover" economics. This, despite the fact that Hoover/FDR are a good parallel to Bush/Obama. The previous made the bad policies, the successor expanded them, and bad times were had by all. The Depression was caused by government foolishness not bank failures.
Yet apparently we're not seeing that leading to greater employement or better standards. The tax cuts have given the wealthy a lot more money, and apparently they decided to take that money and sock it away rather then reinvest in employment or strengthening their business. My job has been nothing but cut cut cut for the last several years.
You're being disingenuous here. For years we had economic growth after the tax cuts.
Indeed, there were several tax hikes and fees included in TARP, and more included in all of Obama's bills. That new taxes are being passed kinda has more effect than decade old cuts...shrug.
The worst plan ever, really? I would have thought the absolute worst possible plan would be to have no plan and just let things continue as was. Do you personally have any other solutions?
Yes. Let things continue the way they were. That is a much better plan. Is it the perfect plan? Well, no. Of course not. Is it better than what he did? Unquestionably.
Is there a better idea? Sure. Here's a few key ideas that not only are simple...but remove bad laws from the books:
1. Remove federal laws that allow states to ban citizens from purchasing out of state policies. More competition always leads to lower prices and more innovation.
2. Remove state and federal mandates that require certain things be put on plans. If you want catastrophic injury insurance only, you should be able to buy it. This will drop insurance costs like a rock.
3. Remove any and all requirements that insurers cover adult/non-dependant children.
4. Cut the requirement that seniors be on medicare. If they have private insurance, it is asinine, complicated, costly, and unnecessary that medicare pays anything on them. It is also a burden to them.
5. Eliminate any and all laws that force insurers to cover anyone with a pre-existing condition.
That's a good start.
At 4/23/11 08:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Swords fall into the same catergory as guns, however I make a distinction for knives. Knives are made to destroy by cutting, however, most knives are meant to cut constructively. Butcher knives are meant to construct meals through cutting, same with other culinary cutlery. Go ahead and say i am splitting hairs, I very well may be, but I see this distinction as very important.
It is splitting hairs, in my book. Knives are made to cut through meat and bone. Many on animals that have just been killed. If this exact same purpose is used on humans...then it's used on humans. There are, however, no shortage of knives that are made for military or other purposes.
Swords fall into the same category as knives, as they are simply bigger versions of the same thing. To counter your contention, the number one purpose swords are made for is decoration. While you can sharpen them and use them to destroy...that is not why most of them are made. Yet, you have a problem with swords, made to be useless, and not with knives, often made to kill. I find that curious.
There is a great deal of deterrents that are covered. Hammers, kitchen knives, drills, baseball bats. Essentially anything that has a primary purpose that is constructive, or at least no destructive.
Im sorry but...This is a useless distinction. No one rushes out after a bombing and says "BUT GUYS! Dynamite can be used constructively too!" It's irrelevant. The knife one is flat out incorrect, you just like the purpose. To an animal lover...butcher knives are no different than guns. Before you dismiss that as nonsense...you kinda have to think that their position is just a more extreme version of your own.
Paintball guns definitely are not in the catergory I was thinking of. As for the rest, except when used with blanks, or those practice rounds that disintegrate upon contact, both of which are minor uses, they are still involved in destruction, and not in any constructive manner like kitchen knives.
Saving a life is constructive. Police regularly use guns to force violent attackers to stand down...as do other civilians. There is nothing more constructive in the world than taking a woman who was about to be raped and saving her from that, or allowing a mother to get home to her children who would otherwise be dead in a gutter.
Don't take what I say too far. I am just setting a philosphical ground for which the decision of whether to restrict of outlaw can be properly made.
That's not how it works. Ignoring the terrible flaws in your argument so far...the most logical question is "how does this work out?" If we ban something because it causes harm, then we ban it for causing harm. Soda has no value whatsoever. It's garbage. It rots teeth, contributes to obescity and health problems. BAN IT! While you may not like that I am taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion is irrelevant. It is the INEVITABLE conclusion. Because you have retards like HeavenDuff influencing policy, where does the line get drawn. Is any harm too much, as he has idiotically claimed, "One dead child is too many?!?" Or do we subjectively say that something that causes more than a certain amount of harm is too much? Perhaps if it causes more harm than good, as knives can be argued to do, we should ban it? These aren't idle questions. And, as we see in England, where such bans on knives and baseball bats have been considered, they are not only within the realm of possibility, they are a next step that any society who adopts your conclusions will go to. Even here in America, we ban things that lead to one injury, one death. We make products have asinine labels reminding people not to swallow fishing tackles with hooks, or don't drink bleach.
If you think that I shouldn't take the state of the world, and America, into account when I consider your arguments, you're silly. Even if I dismissed everything I know about guns and self defense...I have to look at where this goes. And it's NOT pretty.
How things are used is one thing. Guns are meant to fire bullets. Bullets that are meant to destroy what they strike. Just because many people don't actually use it as intended doesn't change the purpose of the object.
Knives are meant to cut through things. What the person uses them to cut through then, doesn't matter. If the intent is to destroy meat and bone, then they MUST go.
Sorry man, your logic kinda sucks.
If there is a robbery where the robber has a gun. That robber sees the victim grab a gun. The robbery is likely to escalate beyond a simple robbery because the victim upped the ante with a gun of their own.
That's ridiculous. And it defies not only logic, but what criminals themselves tell us about armed victims. No criminal ever rapes a woman because she pulled a gun. "Hey man, I just wanted her purse. But she pulled a gun and I just got so mad I had to shove it up her ass!" The ONLY way that this works is that the robbery becomes a gun battle. And if the robber has no real intention to do more than robbery...he's going to get away if he can. So you have an extremely narrow slice of all crime that could possibly escalate. Something on the nature of one or two crimes a year. Such an unlikely scenerio is not worth seriously considering in determining overall gun policy.
I was talking scenario and you jump to guilt. And yes, getting drunk in a frat house IS a way for a girl to get herself raped. Did her conduct greatly increased the chance of her getting raped? Yes. Does this make the rapist any less guilty? No.
This doesn't work though. The comparison is invalid. The girl puts herself in a bad situation by falling asleep in a drunken frat boy party. The victim of senseless crime is a victim from the word go. Whereas, at least, we can look at the drunk rape victim and use it as a lesson to other girls, we can't do that with home invasion. The guy did not "contribute" by having a home, or a nice TV.
At 4/23/11 05:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: What a pathetic excuse. "Dismiss their idiocy without much comment." That's the excuse of a lazy stupid asshole. Often, morons tend to believe that their opinions are obvious facts and do not explain why someone else should be wrong, because people like that, most of the time, just don't know how to rebut an argument.
I'm going to delete the rest, because it's irrelevant.
I don't write volumes in response to people who dismiss statistics as boring. Most idiots, like yourself, refuse to provide ANY facts. They sit back on arguments like "ONE DEAD KID IS TOO MANY!" or "I HATES TEH GUNZORS!" Again, kinda like you.
I don't waste the time, not because of a weakness in my argument, but because there are intelligent and honest commentators who are wrong, and they are more worthy of my time than a stupid child like you. Also, I see little reason to write volumes to someone who admits they have no desire to read an ACTUAL argument. You did that. Why would I waste time looking up statistics and studies and facts, when you have already said "Screw that shit! Reading things that prove me wrong is beneath me!"
Sorry, you bore me. Go back to being stupid in silence and do us all a favor. I'm going to go back to other people who are wrong, but not retarded.
At 4/23/11 06:52 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well, this has gone downhill fast.
anywho, when we do see these studies where guns are in favor for less crime, what crimes are we talking about? less murder or less theft. both are crimes however one is much more severe and heinous than the other. Further more, most of us would agree that one crime to be the victim of is not as bad as being the victim of the other.
Well, I did post one above.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html
However, it's fair to want more. Here's one that demolishes the idea that gun laws prevent crime. From the FBI no less:
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/det ail.html?serial=62
Here's another that dismisses the idea that availability of guns affects crime:
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564 /
I know it says it's an abstract, but it allows you to download the paper.
Here's some more without commentary:
http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/why_vermon t_ccdw.htm
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/R TCResearch.html
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/
Read.aspx?ID=18
OK, I understand the last one is NRA, but it's heavily sourced, and I went for the more sourced articles.
At 4/22/11 01:19 AM, Ranger2 wrote: One year ago the Russian metro was bombed by Chechnyan separatists. Putin vowed that the terrorists would be caught and killed. That's recent.
That's a single attack. That's hardly a conflict. You're getting more foolish by the comment.
It's hard to see the words, "what are you, stupid?" as anything else.
Yet, I'm coming back to that. I'd prefer to think of you as stupid to dishonest. But, it's hard considering that you're claiming that a single attack that killed a few people is a problem the international community should address. This DOES NOT QUALIFY as Russia fighting Chechnya. When Russia FOUGHT Chechnya it was 1905. That is the correct date of their troubles. Not "some Chech committed a crime in Russia at some point later".
You're being less than honest here.
The Troubles were from 1969-1997 when Northern Ireland terrorists (the Irish Republican Army or IRA for short) launched guerilla assaults against British troops and civilians stationed there. Britain, faced with a terrorist situation right by its own cities, responded how it should have; attack the enemy. I think it has some paralells with Israel and Hamas.
Fair enough. I'd never heard it called that before. But, are you seriously claiming that the international community didn't get involved?
I don't understand this paragraph. Saying that the Quebec group was a terrorist group helps my case. And I wasn't talking about the Chechen conflict 100 years ago, I was talking about it today. And in this case you made a worthless statement that "Northern Ireland was a province of the UK." That added absolutely nothing to your argument. If you don't know about the conflict in Ireland, then don't talk about it. That's a BS sentence that makes you look ignorant.
There is NO Chechen conflict today, fool. One bombing? Really? A year ago? That's a conflict? You need a dictionary man.
My whole point of this was to draw the similarities between Canada, Britain, Russia, and Israel. At one point in time, they all had homegrown terrorist situations. Their enemies fought in guerilla warfare right in and by their own cities. While Britain, Canada, and Russia went in and attacked the insurgents without international condemnation, Israel does the exact same thing and is condemned. It's inconsistant. Britain, Canada, and Russia can attack homegrown terrorism, but if Israel does it, then they're blasted by the UN.
But the situations AREN'T the same. Palestine is an external force, and has been for quite some time. Neither Britain nor Quebec had that. And even your Russian example is little different than the Oklahoma City Bombing on a much tinier scale. These were governments going after people who broke the law and fought the government. We may disagree with the government on those, but it was never a disputable matter. The UN/NRA conflict lasted so long that the international community got involved.
Yet, Israel faces EXTERNAL opponents. Much like Canada or Mexico bombing the US is different than the Oklahoma City Bombing, so too is Israel different from Britain, Canada and Russia.
I still fail to see the (lack of a ) point.You fail to see the lack of a point? Then in other words, you see my point.
Whatever makes you feel better, man. I don't even see how you're TRYING to make a point.
At 4/22/11 08:36 AM, Earfetish wrote: The first child is born fine and happy. When the second child is conceived, ultrasound reveals it suffers from a mental handicap severe enough to be revealed on ultrasound. The foetus does not yet have nerve endings or a functioning brain.
It doesn't have a functioning brain...but a mental disability can be picked up... on ultrasound? What?
What are you talking about?
If me and my hypothetical wife choose to have this child, we will give birth to someone who will have a lower quality of life than my first child. We will also not have any more children, depriving someone else of their chance of life, because we only want 2 and this second one is definitely going to be a handful.
None of this is counter argument. This assumes that your wife won't die before getting pregnant again, or become infertile. This also assumes that the mentally disabled child will have a poorer quality of life...which isn't a given. It also assumes that it is ok to end an actual life for a potential future life is ok. Maybe you change your mind in the future and have three. Maybe your birth control fails and you have five. Nothing about your argument makes sense.
If we abort this child, we will later have another child. This child will have no mental handicaps and will therefore have a better quality of life.
Again, this is nothing but assumptions, all rebutted above.
I'm sorry if I seem cold, but this is the way I see it. It is a matter of personal choice and personal morality whether to abort the mentally handicapped child, but I am determining the best quality of life for the 2 children I previously had decided I was going to have.
Well then, it's a matter of personal morality to decide to rape my girlfriend, or to kill a child I have, or to leave my family destitute, or any other number of personal things. What does personal morality have to do with anything?
I can't see the holes in my logic and would imagine I would play it out like this if the same situation comes up when I'm trying to have children. This is the way I understand it and it is how I view the best and most moral way to have 2 children. You may disagree but it seems totally normal to me to want what's best for your children and to use contraception to decide when you want children and how many you want.
Then you are not only mentally deficient if you don't see the holes in your logic, but I question your morality. Killing one child to benefit another (much less one that doesn't exist) is inherently IMmoral. But whatever.
At 4/22/11 02:16 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Which opens up a whole different kettle of fish: Is Eugenics really that bad a thing?
I don't know. I tend to view most people who disagree with me as stupid. Should I be able to sterilize them? Execute them? Take away their kids? That's eugenics. Is that a bad thing to kill or sterilize the stupids?
Plus, the quality of life for someone with a severe mental handicap is going to be lower than that of an average fellow for they will usually need someone to help them with even the most trivial things.
Down Syndrome is considered a severe mental handicap. Yet DS people are usually productive members of society, who hold jobs, have relationships, sometimes have kids, etc. They hardly "need help with the most menial of tasks".
http://children.webmd.com/tc/down-syndro me-what-happens
Having worked with mentally handicapped kids, they are hardly less happy than normal kids.
But I sense that I'm kind of going off topic here.
Also, when they apologised to him it seemed less "I'm sorry, that was a dick move on my part" and more "Oh shit, someone has made me look like an ass, I better save face".
Yet that's not what it was. These people were peacefully holding signs. They weren't yelling at strangers. How do we know this? Well, it's on camera. And, if they had yelled at this dude before and called him a baby killer moments before, they'd hardly stand there and get heckled by this piece of trash who is trying to make them look like monsters. EVERY part of his story is directly contradicted by the video. They clearly don't know who he is...so they weren't shouting at him moments before. Kinda hard to forget THAT quickly. They DIDN'T have pictures of aborted fetuses. They were polite and respectful and offered condolences to his wife. And, if his wife is having an abortion she doesn't really want...but doesn't want the child to suffer...what the fuck is he doing on the street with a camera instead of supporting his wife? EVERY piece of this dude's story is a lie. Yet, for pro-choicers, it validates what they believe, and they buy it.
At 11/2/10 08:03 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: A harsh way to put it, that is. Abortion is as much a murder as writing an amateur fanfic is theft of intellectual property. Sure, eliminating unborn life is killing a human being. But it's not on the same moral statute as killing a baby, because early trimester pregnancy makes life unviable anyway. If anything, if the woman isn't ready to have a kid, forcing a baby onto her is not morally right towards the baby. A baby should be raised in a loving environment.
Allowing life is always better than murder. This is an extreme choice.
If your doctor said "Well, no one should have a foot with an ingrown toenail...so we're cutting off your foot, you'd be horrified. If we make that same dumb statement with a kid...it somehow seems brilliant...
In particular in case the baby has no chance of living a remotely normal life (for example severe cases of Down syndrome and other mental handicaps). It's no use raising a kid if he/she can never experience actual joy because of a debilitating handicap. Fun fact is that in early stages of pregnancy they test for down syndrome (also for toxoplasmosis) and if it is discovered they will advise you to terminate pregnancy, at least where I live.
That's a shame. Down Syndrome and mentally handicapped kids CAN have quality of life. Killing them because they are handicapped speaks poorly of us as a society.
At 10/29/10 12:33 AM, Davoo wrote: http://www.buzzfeed.com/phillyd/husband-
snaps-on-abortion-protesters-19oh
Seriously, this makes me so fucking mad! It started off pretty cool, but DAMN. Just look at how those women respond to him. They don't show one bit of remorse or apology. They continue, that whole time, to act like he's an evil selfish asswipe who just wants his wife to have an abortion because he's like, a lazy person or something.
What the hell. How can they be so cold to him.
Well, let's look at what he said. 1 in 100,000 is in his shoes. That means that, if every man, woman and child in the US was able to get pregnant and have a kid, there would be 30 cases like his a year. The vast majority of people are not in his shoes and he knows it, assuming he isn't lying through his teeth.
And so this dude's wife is in surgery, having the most painful thing in her entire life...and instead of being by her side...he wants to yell at strangers? And he just happens to have a camera? This is a bullshit set up. Why isn't he with his wife, comforting her as she aborts a child she wanted that didn't have a chance?
Why are these people who are supposedly" yelling at strangers" so kind to a man they just saw enter the abortion clinic? If they are rabid ideologues...why is there nothing but kindness and sympathy and sorrow for his plight?
Where are the aborted baby pictures? There are none. There are only two women...and neither has a picture of an aborted baby. One of them is holding a picture of Jesus. He idiotically claims that there's nowhere else to get an abortion...which is insane. In Massachusetts, it is a requirement that an MD do the abortion. Every hospital in Mass which is capable will perform an abortion in this case.
This guy was just trying to stir up a fight, and you can tell that by every part of the video. When he starts demanding that they do something for kids...and they tell him they do...does he back down? Of course not. This whole thing is a fraud, and guys like you buy it hook, line and sinker.
At 4/21/11 08:20 AM, Elfer wrote: Really? You don't think that say, everyone who is against transgenderism would IMMEDIATELY latch onto it and try to use the term "mental illness" or "mental disorder" to shun and/or discredit transgenders?
Do you think they don't do that now?
Moreover, that's STILL not an argument for saying it's not a disorder. There's something wrong with these people that they feel the need to cut off body parts to be something that they can never be.
Like I said, there is a stigma associated with the term. If I were to say that any adults who pray and/or consider themselves to have a personal relationship with God should be considered mentally ill, people would be offended by that suggestion, even though in other circumstances, talking to voices in your head or other invisible parties would be considered crazy.
So you shouldn't say it then? You should refuse to call something you think is insane...insane? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think you'd have a hard sell considering that 90%-95% of the world's people consider themselves religious...but it's not like people don't argue that believing in God is not normal on a daily basis. They just usually lose the argument...badly.
Not that that bolsters your claim.
If that happened, all of the vocal religious people would be shouting about how there's a conspiracy to destroy their religion, and all of the asshole media atheists would be shouting "SEE IT'S A MENTAL DISORDER YOU GUYS."
Still not an argument.
What? That's a pretty bold statement to make as though it were an assumed truth.
Life ISN'T about feelings. It's not a bold statement. It IS simple truth.
Oh, so you mean some people are assholes who will sue people over stupid shit? Sounds normal enough to me. I'm talking about the group at large here, not just people that you hear about doing things that get media attention.
Ignoring that, again, this doesn't bolster your case....
It is hardly a rare phenomenon. Transgendered people tend to demand access to opposite sex locker rooms, bathrooms, and other such areas. Ignoring that this is uncomfortable for the other employees, it is a violation of OTHER federal and state laws and opens the business owner to civil and criminal action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_
Non-Discrimination_Act#Existing_law
It IS widespread amongst the transgendered community.
So, I'm sorry. It's a mental illness. They demand people bend over backwards for them. They have higher rates of all illness than every other sector of the population, including non-gender confused homosexuals, and there is no compelling argument to the contrary, other than a simple "nuh uh".
At 4/22/11 03:58 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: We have the perfect example of "more guns= less crime" in America. America is 100% proof that more guns= less crime, lets abolish all laws and give everyone with a functioning hand a gun.
Or we can look at England.
Banning guns removes the chance of gun crime, right?
Well, no, not at all:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/21 /arrest-northern-ireland-murder
Owning guns is illegal! Why didn't that stop him! They certainly aren't allowed to have bombs!
Crime rates have been rising in England for quite some time, while they fall here. While I do not agree with all the contentions in this article, the general trends are undeniable:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html
While we got laxer on our guns, crime went down, while the opposite happened in England. Hmmm.
At 4/21/11 09:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I never said guns were specifically made to harm. Guns were made to shoot a projectile into a target and to cause harm to that target. That is their purpose, plain and simple. The reason they can be used as deterrence is because their purpose is to cause harm.
OK, but what other deterrence doesn't fall into the same category? If I use a knife or a sword made to defend me...the purpose remains. The blade was made to cut through (usually) meat, and sometimes bone. If it is a sword or a long dagger I bought to protect me, the purpose of making it was to inflict bodily injury, and the intent of me harnassing it is to inflict bodily injury.
There is simply no deterrent that isn't covered by this.
There is no reason to be blind or naive here. Harm is the intended purpose of guns plain and simple. That does not necessarily mean guns are bad, as there are numerous uses where the harm or threat of harm does good.
Well, if we wish to be real...
The intended purpose of guns varies from gun to gun. The starting gun has no potential for harm. Paintball guns are for sport and people deliberately get shot for fun. Target guns are intended to shoot targets. While hunting rifles are intended to kill animals, that is their purpose.
What else can we remove from society because it has no practical purpose beyond harm? Swords? "Excessive" knives? Nascar? Weapons of any kind?
Even most people who buy a gun don't WANT to use it. They have it for protection. And the vast majority of guns are NOT used to cause any harm to anything (sorry, we're not including paper targets, as that's ridiculous). So the numbers alone hurt your case, and the various ways in which guns are used that have zero potential of harm hurts your case.
At 4/21/11 07:40 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE !!! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK !!! I'm not talking about MY FEELINGS !!! I'm talking about how FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, SOCIAL FACTORS AND YOUR FUCKING BRAIN COMES IN THE PLAY WHEN IT'S TIME TO USE A WEAPON !!! Jesus... man, I'm really feeling that I'm wasting my time with this! Statistics are shit unless you know how to read them right. Statistics =/= arguments. Use them like that in ANY University work, and you are fucking screwed !!!
Idiots do tend to get aggravated talking to me...as I call them idiots and dismiss their idiocy without much comment. If you'd like to argue a point other than "guns are bad, m'kay?" I'll give you a shot. But as long as we are debating your personal feelings and dismissing statistics (and that is indeed what you are doing), I will continue to write you off as an imbecile.
You started that useless name calling shit... fucking hypocretical jerk...
Did I? Well, no. It turns out I didn't. After putting forward lots of facts and arguments, you came in spouting half-retarded theories about nothing. In fact, the quote I responded to started with:
That's a flawed logic no matter how true your facts are...
In other words, no matter whether the person was right or wrong...you rejected their logic. I did address ALL of your arguments in some detail. I went into C&C laws. I talked about the rates of crime after adopted. I went into the crime rates in England after the ban started. While I will admit that I didn't write volumes...I DID address your points. The closest I can be said to insulting you was:
:: Really, explain me how it works, cause I really fail to understand.
Obviously.
What was the response?
You know what... if you are going to play the fucking smart-ass with me, I'm not reading your post. You are obviously biased, and I was merely just sharing my opinion on a matter I really don't know that much, and asking for questions.
You are not stating facts. You take stupid statistics,
Did I curse at you or call you a smart-ass? Well, no. Did you instead refuse to read ANY of my response and lie through your teeth claiming I provided no facts? Well, yes. Was my somewhat mocking response taking that into account? Well, yes. Duh.
So, you didn't read my post...but I stated no facts.
Pardon me if I don't take that criticism with anything but mockery. Idiot.
HAHAHAHAHA intellectual superior !!! HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! I've went back in this thread and read your posts and realised that you didn't ever use fucking statistics... My original post was not even intended to you... and now you are going apeshit, thinking that you are smart. If you really were, you would stop claiming it. Intelligent people, don't try to put other down with countless Ad Hominem "fake" arguments, they talk about the real matter
Well, I am certainly smarter than you. Not that that means I'm brilliant or anything. But I am clearly more intelligent than you. While I have mocked you as a moron...you're a moron. I've reread your debates too. You specifically refuse to counter any assertion I have made. Indeed, you simply say "statistics are stupid". I do call you names, but I have backed up every claim I have made. You simply say you are right, and if the facts disagree, the facts are stupid.
If you'd like to be taken seriously, address the argument. Because if you're claiming I never used factual arguments in this thread...you're a fucking retard. Compare your treatment with that of Iron Hampster, who is just as wrong as you, but isn't a complete idiot and a jackass to boot.
But, in all fairness, perhaps I worded it poorly and you misunderstood?
I took the opportunity to claim I had perhaps inarticulately worded my argument and said the fault may lie with me inadequately arguing my case. Because IH may be wrong, but is generally respectful. The only time I can see I mocked him was when he said that an 80 year old woman should just outrun a youthful mugger.
Compared to you who I routinely mock as a mental midget. The fault is with you. You're a terrible debater, and a prideful fool...not to mention a raging asshole. Do your mea culpa and maybe I'll be nice to you again.
At 4/21/11 03:11 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Claiming that statistics are fact, is pretty much third grade level.
Um, no. Claiming statistics are fact is solid debate. As such it is the hallmark of intelligent argument. Dismissing debate for feelings is third grade. Next?
You have no fucking braincells cause you waste your time sniffing gun powder. I don't care if I'm using insults now. I really don't care, cause you are a fucking moron who can analyse statistics and realise how dumb he sounds, claiming that he knows about "objective facts". Do that in any fucking University project and they will give you an F, fucking dumbshit.
Um, again, no. If you use statistics in a university project to bolster your case, you get an A. (I'd know, being a solid A student in college. Perhaps you'd get a better grade if you tried using facts?)
Besides, what moron claims that "reading statistics makes someone dumb"? Good God, you're an idiot.
I'm using examples, real life situations and I try to take care of important factors so we can get to a better understanding of the situation. But you seem to believe that "human emotions" and socialization are not to be considered when debating about the use of firearms. You are stupid, just plain fucking stupid. It saddens me to read such pathetic pseudo-intellectual posts.
No, you try to avoid debate and argue in emotional terms because you're a braindead asshole who's first, last and only line of defense is to call others names. While I have piled on the facts you have called me every name under the sun. Go home junior. You're dealing with your intellectual superior and you are looking like a stupid child in the process.
At 4/20/11 07:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Like I said before. The President doesn't have much effect on the economy. The 6% to 10% was going to happen regardless of who was in office. It was in the works for years, and in some aspects well over a decade. No one person could have stepped in and rebuffed that. Blaming it on Obama is about as assinine as blaming Bush for Al Qaeda and 9/11.
Sure he does. The President is the final voice on whether job affecting legislation gets passed. So if a bill to force bosses to fully insure every employee passes, it is the President's fault as well. We WOULDN'T have had 10% unemployment with any other candidate. Obama is just awful.
He's doubled the debt in his first term. For the last two years of Bush, he voted like crazy to up the debt/defecit.Yeah, he did the bailouts which worked. He did the stimulus which had some short term, and some long term benefits, even though the price tag was much higher than what eventually came from it. However, I place the biggest blame on the debt in nothing other than low revenue. The economy went from getting wounded, to laying on the floor comatose, to slowly learning to walk again all in his term. The revenues, severely depleted by massive tax cuts, were lowered even more due to a massive drop in income.
The bailouts are a disaster. They have proven to the financial markets that if they do not behave responsibly, that they will get federal funds. The current recession is far worse than the 80s recession, in which no bailout was given. This...despite the fact that the 80s crash was worse.
And the revenues were BOLSTERED, not depleted by the tax cuts.
What did he exactly do again?Google it. There's a lot there. Sure much of it is small, but he has had a lot to work with. I would say a successful racheting down of Iraq was pretty darn good. His public health plan is at least turning people's attention to the mess known as priavte health isurance. I would also characterize Obama by how little he has messed up too.
The ratcheting down of Iraq predates him. It was Bush's plan. His public health plan is the worst possible idea ever put forward to "fix" the problem. Obama has messed up substancially.
Most of what you credit to Obama hasn't worked. Some of it wasn't even his idea. And the rest was bleh, to say the least.
I'll stick with keeping Obama in the "sucks" category.
At 4/20/11 10:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you are splitting hairs here. Duff is right. Cars number one intended use is for peaceful and harmless driving. the fact that it can be used others, or that the privilege may be abused does not change that. A gun's number one purpose is to shoot. It is to cause harm toward what it is aimed at. The fact that it is often used safely and not toward other humans does not change that.
To put it succinctly: Cars can be used to harm; guns are intended to harm.
But to put that simply too...
How many times do police pull out their guns to simply force compliance? How often do people use guns for self defense without firing a shot?
If those numbers are higher than the number of people who use them to injure others (and they are) then the point is wrong. Guns can work as a deterrent. Moreover, is the purpose of guns specifically to harm other humans? Or do the guns kill animals?
Seems a tad more gray than we make it out to be.
At 4/20/11 07:11 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:At 4/20/11 06:59 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Useless junk.Shut the fuck up... your whole post is a shitload of nonsense and insults. Just prooving how much of a cuntface you are. Now go die, and I really hope it's a fucking firearm that kills you...
"There is no human factor"
What a fucking MORON!
That would be what on your picture again? Oh Name Calling.
There is no factual basis to your debate. You're a simple minded idiot who is unable to debate facts, so he insults without some factual basis and demands that preference be given to him because he is unable to converse well in English.
Piss off simpleton.
At 4/20/11 06:48 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: First how, I am French speaking first, and barely ever gets to discuss such matters in English. So I really have a lot more difficulties expressing my thoughts on this
I'm sorry. Should I care? Your background doesn't interest me. I don't care who you are. I am here to debate. Your ideas suck, and when you are told that, you basically tell people to go fuck themselves. That you are French really doesn't change anything for me.
Second of, this is the internet, it's a lot more harder to debater over the internet, and I really wasn't going to read the whole thread just to tell you my point of view.
No one asked you to. However, you don't know what you are talking about. Even you seemed to realize that for a moment. When I agreed, you ignored facts and made it about you.
Third of, you seem to be one of these guys who think you can argue with statistics. It's not the case, especially when studying human being. You talk about guns... you are talking about shooting people. One thing that your statistics will ever fail to grasp, are emotions, stress, fear, awareness, personnal judgement. You seem to believe that you can calculate human beings, I'm sorry, but there is a lot more to human beings than numbers.
I'm sorry, but if you think statistics DON'T matter, you're an imbecile. Do guns save more lives than they take? Yes. Do they save A LOT more? Yup. Does that matter to the debate? More than anything else. Unlike you, I've had a gun pulled on me, I've been shot. I understand what that it like. And buddy, it sucks. But I'll be the first to tell you that my first hand knowledge doesn't mean anything. The numbers show that guns save lives.
If you are unwilling to look at statistics and try and find a meaning....I don't believe you are a PoliSci major. Unless France has low standards.
One thing you'd know if you ever did any Social studies... you would know that most of your "objective proofs" are not worth jackshit. I've recently studied how surveys and elections fail to really collect reality on a sheet of paper.
Huh? More nonsense?
I'm trying to use examples. Get to analyze real life situations, because your statistics, will always fail to grasp the HUMAN FACTOR.
There is no human factor. Guns save lives. Sometimes guns take lives. Sometimes the lives taken by guns save other lives. The facts matter. Not the emotion behind them.
If you think that guns can save lives, you have to wonder who's most likely going to get a gun if they are made legal for the most part, and that the registration is not required anymore.
100% of those who get guns hat way will be law abiding citizens. Because criminals still have guns in England...where guns are illegal. That was easy.
I'm sorry. I feel little inclination to continue a "fact free debate" with a dude who is demanding I abandon logic and intelligence and instead accept his feelings as proper argument. I'm done with you, sorry.
At 4/20/11 03:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While I am mixed on some things he has done, I feel he has done an overall positive job. He inherited a terrible situation and has done admirably to help keep it from getting worse. Had he inherited a normal situation and ended up where he is now, I would most definitely fault him. Then again, the President doesn't really have that much effect on the economy.
We went from 6% unemployment to over 10%. He's doubled the debt in his first term. For the lasttwo years of Bush, he voted like crazy to up the debt/defecit.
What did he exactly do again?
At 4/18/11 03:37 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: the whole thing is one hypocrisy after another. Republicans condemn our actions there when they started 2 wars, one of which was Iraq which the UN did not sanction or even give the "ok" on.
Both of those wars were OKed by the US Congress, which is all that matters.
Moreover, in Iraq, Saddam's violation of the ceasefire was enough reason to go in WITHOUT even Congressional approval. Clinton got it right when he ordered air strikes, and claimed he could do it unilaterally.
I saw one republican on CNN saying he was going to impeach Obama because he went to a war with a country that posed no threat to American national security. Meanwhile there were other Republicans saying he should have acted before the UN told him to, and others saying he needs to do more.
People disagree even when they are of the same party? Color me SHOCKED!
the man is 80 something years old in a third world country how long do we expect him to live after this war anyways?
Is that really an argument for war?
At 4/20/11 06:24 PM, Elfer wrote: Because it allows them to pursue their own goals and desires without being harassed for it? There is a stigma associated with calling something a mental illness.
In this case, getting all huffed up over the technical definition gets in the way of the larger issue, which is that calling something a mental illness isn't going to make things better.
It's simply NOT going to make things worse either. If it isn't called a mental disorder, they will still face the same looks, the same "wtf is wrong with him" conversations, and the same things they face in everyday life. The technical definition of whether it's mentally sound or not will not affect that one iota.
Life is not about feelings.
This is another point I brought up earlier: There is no existing "treatment" for transgenderism that could be said to improve quality of life. On that note, the only ethical way to develop potential treatment methods would be to use people who volunteer to be un-transgendered, and even then you're having a huge impact on a person's life to, in most cases, demonstrate that a given method doesn't work.
Nobody is asking anyone to "bend over backwards" to pretend the behaviour is normal. They're just saying "We're fine the way we are, don't treat us like freaks please"
Ignoring that they're not normal, they DO demand people bend over backwards for them. After Katrina, transgendered people sued because the emergency relief shelters didn't have special bathrooms for them, or, barring that, let them shower with the women. I'd call that having to bend over backwards. Transgendered usually get angry over being asked to use the appropriate bathrooms, because it makes the others uncomfortable. Several lawsuits have followed.
Spare me this "we just want to be left alone" noise. It's not at all true.
At 4/20/11 05:52 PM, Elfer wrote: But what I'm asking here is, how does treating it as a mental illness actually help the individual to lead a better quality of life? Apart from the broad generalizations and assumptions you made about transgenders in your last post, you still haven't really answered that.
The counter argument is, how does treating it as normal help the individual?
It IS a mental illness. If people don't wish to be treated, that's fine. But there's also no reason to bend over backwards to pretend it is normal behaviour when it isnt.
At 4/20/11 12:19 PM, SolInvictus wrote:At 4/20/11 05:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The ONLY example you provided of an external dispute was Russia/Chechnya...and that was in 1905. Was the UN supposed to stop that before it was even conceived?to be fair, just because something is a national doesn't mean the UN hasn't tried to weigh in.
That's very true. Libya is a great example. Rwanda is another, where the UN tried to flex their muscles...without having any muscles to flex. The UN was also heavily involved in getting a ceasefire in Northern Ireland.
Weighing in and intervention are not always bad, or always good. They simply are, and must be judged in each situation.
At 4/19/11 10:50 PM, Elfer wrote: Even if transgenderism was a disorder in the technical sense, there currently exists no treatment or therapy that could really be said to improve the quality of life of a transgendered person, over simply living life with their own gender identity.
Furthermore, the existence of transgenderism does no harm to society at large. "Treating it as a disease" would do no good at best, and at worst, would probably ruin a lot of people's lives.
That's an interesting argument, but on the whole, therapy doesn't help society. It seeks to help the individual. Most alcoholics are somewhat responsible and only endanger their own life. However, we see that they are destroying themselves, and their loved ones step in to help with an intervention.
Not about society, about the person.
It's hard to say that making people understand that wanting to mutilate themselves is against their best interests...is somehow draconian or would hurt the quality of their lives. After all, if there is something wrong with them...the surgery only fixes it superficially. They are still what they were, but now without the sex organs. They are reminded everyday that they are still not what they want to be when they take their hormones.
I don't believe that they should be forced into therapy, but if we care about them...the open discussion should be what it actually is. "Transgenderism is a mental illness".
