1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 8/2/06 12:12 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Haha. Natural and proper have two different meanings, no?
Homosexuality is naturally occuring - being that man has not used intrusive or alteration methods to create this homosexuality. It is indeed a natural factor.
However, it would be considered 'inproper', though, in what would be considered a normal reproductive theory of a species.
I believe you'll be able to find more information here.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, there are several mistakes on that page. Penguins raise children in groups. It is often left up to the male penguins of the species to raise the children. While they "pair up" to raise the children, no homosexual activity has ever been observed.
Most of this can also be attributed to bias in research. Such as dogs humping other dogs has often been attributed to "homosexuality in animals", though there is no penetration and usually the penis is not even exposed from it's "sheath". Whereas most animal trainers know that humping is a form of dominance.
I'm not familiar with the studies on birds or insects, but the thing on penguins is definate misinformation.
At 8/1/06 01:38 PM, Visual wrote: I still stand by my point. If Israel is anything in the middle east it's a thorn in our ass. That we can't remove.
You don't have a point.
First part of your name suits you well. That map is very accurate, I live in the jounieh area and I clearly heard and saw the bombings. All the rest has been reported.
Lebanon disagrees, Israel disagrees, even HEZBOLLAH disagrees. But hey....you know, they all must be wrong and you right.
The U.S attack on Irak is not the same thing, even though it was wrong too. So you're admitting that the Irsaeli attack on Lebanon was uncalled for?
The US attack on Iraq was justified. Though you're right, it is not the same thing. Israel was directly attacked (and is STILL beeing attacked), we went in with no threat to our civilian populous.
And when he said the jews he meant Israel genius. All the crap happening in the middle east is because of Israel and America wanting to protect Israel.
No all the stuff happening in the middle East is due to the fundamental flaws in Islam mixed with dictator states and terrorism groups advancing the cause of jihad, including the goal to destroy Israel.
Here are the countries that agree on a ceasefire plan.
No one important cares what they think.
At 8/1/06 03:54 PM, RedGlare wrote: You are aware that Hezzbolah(sp) isn't just militant there are civilians in that organasation.
And? This is important how?
More dangerous then those dropping bombs?
Hezbollah is "dropping bombs" as well.
Well hezbollah is a Social Ideology and it did fight the Syrian occupiers.
No Hezbollah is a terrorist organization running off of Sharia law (I assume that's the social ideology you meant).
But you've just admited that Israel deliberatly targets those civilian homes.
Because they include military targets, which is what Israel is aiming at. You fail War 101.
At 8/1/06 04:13 PM, RedGlare wrote: I mean especialy as Israel is Taking active measure to kill Lebanese citizens/civilians.
You were disproved here.
And also why the Fuck should they have to leave its there country and there homes why should leave so Israel can destroy there homes?
Because BOMBS ARE BEING FIRED AT THEIR HOMES. You must be dumb.. You leave your house when staying puts you in danger. Hell, even little kids understand that.
Such things that would be good to leave: Hurricanes, floods, plague, or a foreign country bombing the crap out of your city.
Two words: Common sense.
If anything your increasing Hezbolahs numbers. By hurting civilians your saying "hey Hezbolahs right we are bent on wiping you out".
There is no evidence to corroborate the idea that accidental killing of civilians creates terrorists.
At 8/1/06 04:52 PM, Visual wrote: Hezbollah are more accurate with missiles that shouldn't be launched from that far than Israel with their advanced planes who killed a lot more civilians than anything else.
Hezbollah aims at nothing but civilians and hits nothing but civilians. Israel aims at Hezbollah and hits Hezbollah. The aim of both parties is impeccible. But the difference in targets and Hezbollah's tactics to defend it's sites sets them apart.
At 8/1/06 01:20 AM, Visual wrote: Well you're seeing what you want to see unfortunately.
Everytime there is a cease fire plan the U.S stops it, and are the only ones who opposes it.
Not to mention the many countries that are showing their support to Lebanon.
Yet, they're not ACTUALLY doing anything. Even in your warped worldview, you are wrong.
And they SHOULD be supporting Israel by the way.
At 8/1/06 01:23 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:At 8/1/06 01:09 AM, IgnorantSentient wrote: Israel as the only beacon of democracy in the middle east is the only thing keeping that region from total destruction.Considering that the formation of Israel was one of the catalysts for the current problems, please explain how they are the only ones keeping the region from falling apart.
Even Arabs have discounted this myth. I think you'll have a hard time defending this one.
At 8/1/06 02:05 AM, Visual wrote: Here's a picture showing the locations of the Israeli bombings for those who still think that only Hezbollah areas are being targeted.http://sms4collegemo..60725094816
185_1.jpg
Even though that's a photo shop made by a SMS professor, and proves nothing (making your point fail), I feel the need to hammer it home further. Since Hezbollah is hiding in the cities...the cities get bombed. This was like sending out a 15 year old 3 legged dog to get an intruder.
At 8/1/06 03:20 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 8/1/06 01:09 AM, IgnorantSentient wrote: Israel as the only beacon of democracy in the middle east is the only thing keeping that region from total destruction.PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Valid criticism.....
At 8/1/06 12:45 AM, Visual wrote: Now waiting on the U.S.A to wake up.Might be awhile. Bush isnt exactly our most competent leader.
And he's far from our worst.....
At 8/1/06 04:39 AM, lapis wrote:
Hezbollah wins if a feeling of "We vs. Israel" feeling arises in the Arab world and Israel is well on its way of creating such a feeling.
That feeling has existed in the Arab world for decades.
If Hezbollah is seen as the ones who started this conflict in the Arab world and if they're forced to fight their own people then their popularity in the region will plummet, they'll eventually be forced to hand over the hostages.
One can only hope.
Your logic here is fallacious: you admit that diplomacy could have been effective, you don't give any specific reasons as to why trying it at first would be harmful in the end and yet you commend Israel for instantly going to war. The Hezbollah had staged similar attacks in the past so we can safely assume that they were already entrenched, so waiting a few weeks wouldn't have significantly aided Hezbollah and it would at the very least have averted a lot of future international criticism.
Israel would still get massive criticism if they waited 3 years. Stop pretending that all Israel had to do was show restraint. The world won't back Israel no matter what. And from past experiences with Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel knows diplomacy doesn't work. This was an act of war.
Pfft, what a great way to oversimplify a faceted problem like this one. And the insurgency in Iraq wasn't started for a number of reasons including the fact that a lot of former Baathists had lost their jobs and their power after Saddam was removed but because they just simply hate America, right? Thinking like that might make international affairs a lot more comprehendable to you but a mindset like this won't bring you any closer to achieving a long term solution for the problem.
Nor will ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that a major part of Hezbollah's platform IS the destruction of Israel. As is Hamas's. PC claptrap helps no one.
Well, then they're not attempting hard enough, are they? Firing missiles and artillery shells into urban areas is not what I call "trying to avoid civilian casualties".
If that's where the Hezbollah monsters are hiding...shrugs. It sucks that Hezbollah feels the need to use human shields. The blood is on THEIR hands. The pamphlets that Israel is dropping on the vallages prior to bombings prove they're trying to reduce civilian casualities.
Trying to scare civilians into not supporting Hezbollah? Act of frustration? I can think of a few reasons. They knew that the city was bound to be inhabited, they knew that Hezbollah uses mobile rocket launchers and that they aren't going to stay in the same location for a very long time, so they knew that this would only kill civilians. They're either deliberately killing civilians or they're incompetent, and I've never heard anyone make a case for the latter option.
As opposed to Hezbollah which is deliberately targeting exclusively civilian areas. Civilian deaths are sad, but when Hezbollah fights this way, unavoidable. At least Israel's hitting their targets.
UN forces have been sent to Lebanon in the past, this doesn't even have to be in full "support of Israel" but simply with the intent of maintaining stability in the region. If a UN force could not be formed then a NATO force could have bent sent out, in compliance with the General Assembly. France, the former coloniser of Lebanon, and Turkey, which has also expressed willingness to send soldiers, are both NATO members.
Yea, we saw what a great job UN troops did in Rwanda....what a joke.
At 8/1/06 09:08 PM, Crusty_Wiwuh wrote: Bullshit. All they ask is acceptance.
Nonsense, the gay lobby demands special treatment under hate crimes acts, special protection from "hate speech" (e.g dissent), wants radical sex ed taught to children in school, and wants to promote homosexuality as preferable to heterosexuality.
For more on this read "The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce which chronicals (in part) the gay lobby's agenda.
If this is true, it's only as a form of rebelion against the oppression of homophobia.
Homophobia is almost non-existant. A gay person would be right to be more worried about being kicked to death by a horse in New York, or being stoned by a fashion designer for wearing white after labor day.
This is a media steriotype created to make money. It's not homosexuals making these shows, it's people who know that a homosexual character will make people laugh or draw intersest. If homosexuality was removed from the media spotlight, there would be less steriotype and quite possibly less prejudice.
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, made by homosexuals. Will and Grace, made by Homosexuals. Sex and the City by homosexuals......
Should I continue?
So accepting a minority that is totally innofensive and harmless is wrong?
The way it's presented yes.
You're an arse.
He's right.
Bullshit.
He's right again.
Homosexuals are a small minority and they don't ask for much.
Oh please. Stop deluding yourself.
Dunno about that one, but I'de imagine these people do feel threatened. What would you do if you were oppressed for a feeling you had no control over, or an act which hurts nobody?
Yea, gay people aren't oppressed. They're a protected minority.
I dunno about that one either, sounds like an exaggeration to me.
Jerry Falwell made the comment "You will know them by their fruits..." a biblical scripture. (Fruits means works for those of you who don't know). Gays everywhere demanded an apology.
Homosexuality is natural and is doing nothing to your country.
While I agree with part two, homosexuality is NOT natural.
At 7/30/06 09:37 PM, Anti_Noob wrote: We are not fighting terrorism, if that was true then we would be after Saudi Arabia and Egypt, because that is where most terrorist organizations thrive.
The Taliban was an oppressive regime that financed terrorism. Iraq was an oppressive regime that both commited and financed terrorism, not to mention relentlessly attacked our forces for a decade.
We were in Afghanistan to create a conflict between terrorist organizations, so that we could later turn our attention to Iraq for its oil.
This whole "war on terrorism" is actually a "war for oil."
This is such a stupid claim. BLOOD FOR OIL! Yet gas prices are at an all time high and we're not getting oil from Iraq. Gee, we're on top of that "getting oil stuff" Rolls eyes.
And eventually we'll be invading Iran for their oil, Syria for their oil, Jordan for their oil, Kuwait for their oil, Egypt for their oil, and finally Saudia Arabia and Jordan for their oil.
Iran is a threat to our ally. Kuwait is our ally and gives us oil. Syria sponsors terror and is the financier for the terror cells in Iraq (one of those countries you said we should be going after). Saudia Arabia is our ally (ugh) but also one of the countries you said we should invade....
You know what...we're done here. Your little crackpot comments have been shown to be worthless.
At 7/31/06 06:33 PM, SonicSheep wrote: america, cowardly... they fit together so well,
There's an irony to someone sitting at their computer in complete safety calling people getting shot at cowards....
At 8/1/06 10:58 PM, BilboTornado wrote: Well, thats because the USA gave weapons to the Afghans to figth Russians. Hi-tech rockets. Werent for the US weapons, Russians would have completely wiped out the Afghans. At least shows that Russians have much more courage than Americans.
Yea, because openly initiating hostilities with the only other nuclear power in the world and starting nuclear holocause is sooooo much better than doing something a little kid today would call cowardly.
And killing all those innocent millions of unarmed civilians....I question your putting that into the "brave" column.
It's ok...you can admit it...you hate America....go on.....
Not that we really care.
At 8/1/06 11:02 PM, BilboTornado wrote: You are an ignorant. Its not the same. Socialism tends to protect the rights of the poors, mostly, whereas fascism tends to make richs stronger.
No, fascism and socialism are intrinsically related. Fascism is just extreme socialism. Socialism DOESN'T protect the poor, it just devalues everyone else. USSR certainly didnt elevate the poor....it just lowered everyone else. And even today, socialism doesn't help anyone. The welfare state has created a system of perpetual poverty, crime and drugs. France's extreme socialism has created record unemployment and is pushing the economy to the point of collapse. England's socialistic "daddy knows best" state has led to higher crime rates.
On the contrary, China is slowly abandoning socialism and the economy is beginning to thrive. Same in India. Secular capitalism mixed with christian undertones protects the poor. Socialism just elevates the state to the level of God and leads to the eroding of freedom and finally, fascism.
See: Germany, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, et. al.
And I find it ironic that I'm being called ignorant by someone talking about the poors and riches.
At 8/1/06 04:14 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:And I wonder how many of those were committed by registered, legal gun owners.Any gun owning aids and abets felonious use of guns.
That comment is indefensible on it's own merits. I don't even have to produce facts to counter you because that statement is so dumb.
"Guns in the hands of criminals helps criminals!" Granted. "Guns in the hands of citizens helps criminals!" Huh? Wait what? "Guns in the hands of police helps criminals!" Are you retarded?
At 8/1/06 06:56 PM, Occluded wrote: There was a lot of room to punch holes in what I see now as a very broad generalization. That you failed to do so is kinda sad. Vietnam? How? What are you even saying here? Vietnam is a perfect example for proving my point.
In vietnam, the US army was the superior force and won every battle....I fail to see how it proves the minority can win.
This is making a lot of assumptions about the nature of a hypothetical civil war. If you wish to come up with a scenario in which the american populous stages a coup. I will be more than happy to point out how rediculous it is.
The American Revolution
So you're saying there is no chance of Civil war? Doesn't this again prove my point?
In every case genocide was committed, it was committed on an unarmed populous. Civil war is not the only consideration.
At 8/1/06 08:40 PM, LavaTemplar wrote: I agree with much of what you've said, but I kind of fail to see why there's even a need to have a gun.
Well, I can see how a gun would be useful.....but why would you want to own one? Huh?
At 8/1/06 09:26 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:In a recent study, experts found that if "murder" is renamed "love," murder levels fall dramatically and the level of love in a nation skyrockets. Politicians are citing this study as the solution to growing crime problems in the United Kingdom.
That is flat out the funniest thing I've heard all month.
At 8/1/06 10:48 PM, BilboTornado wrote: The USA is a quasi-fascist state. In the USA, the rich people are the ones that tend to control society, not the poors. Poors, in the USA, are vastly ignored.
That is not fascism. And it's untrue. One person one vote.
Poor people are ignored? Welfare, WICK, social security, medicare/caid, etc. I think you'd have a hard time making the case that the poor are ignored.
But you could say...quasi-socialist=quasi-fascist, I suppose.
Fascism has always been preceded by socialism in every instance it has reared it's ugly head. The banning of guns, free speech, religion, press, etc.
Sorry, but you cannot even begin to make that case here. The press hammers Bush mercilessly, and even posts confidencial military secrets, and the worst that happens to them is that the white house considers revoking their pass to sit in on briefings. THE HORROR! They CONSIDER it. Not even a done deal. There has been no effort to force religion down anyone's throat, despite your little rant, well except for Islam, the "Religion of Peace". The charges of "anti-American" come from everyday people who are unable to make their case, not the administration, so stop crying about that, And no one on the right ever throws out "non-Christian", because that's idiotic, though lefties use it alot. And when it's used by people like Hannity, un-patriotic is leveled at sick bastards like Ward Churchill, Sheehan, and awful people who make signs that read "we support our soldiers...when they shoot their officers". When people throw out the persecution card, it's pathetic. Dissent may be your right, but let's not pretend that it's patriotic to spread bs, lie, and cheer on our enemies. And the alternative is just being wrong, and choosing to be uninformed...which is nither patriotic or un-patriotic.
This rant was a paranoid persecution rant. Stop crying about a Christian or two giving you shit, because athiests are general assholes to all religious people, and over-exaggerate the amount of crap they get from the one or two jerk Christians they know.
And other than Bush being the almighty Satan, I'd be amazed if you could actually tell me any three issues he believes in, what any of his policies are, or for that matter....what he's even doing "wrong" in your opinion. And going to war (without a reason why that's wrong) isn't good enough.
Have a nice day, and don't call other's sheep while you yourself are covered in wool.
At 8/1/06 08:38 PM, Snakemaster_13 wrote: But does he lynch people of different races? Free speech is one thing, killing people is another.
He was a former Kleagle (KKK) and he falls into the category of racism set forward by Classic Star.
I find that statement to be overall uneeded. Sure, maybe I don't have the highest love of this country, but if they truely hated this country, then they would be forming anti-american orginizations, not going into an established political party.
Like the ACLU? Or support of groups like CAIR? Gold Star Mothers? Etc?
At 8/1/06 09:46 PM, Snakemaster_13 wrote: He was a kleagle, but lost interest and quit, the only reason he joined was that the KKK was opposed to communism, he never actually lynched people.
One joins the Klan because they are a white supremecist. Of course he quit...no one would allow a current Kleagle to be a senator, he had to for his career. He has never renounced his membership however. He is known for anti-black remarks, and to have kept in contact with the Klan long after he left:
http://www.freerepub..us/news/827607/posts
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=383
http://www.washingto..AR2005061801105.html
He has called the clan "upstanding", "promoting virtue", etc. Sorry, those are not the words of an apologetic man. And it says something that a great many Democrats look to him for brilliance and leadership.
At 8/1/06 07:05 PM, Occluded wrote: WolvenBear
You're an idiot. If you're gonna jump into the middle of an arguement. READ IT FIRST.
I have thoroughly refuted each and everyone of your points. And every part of your argument is demonstratably false. Your case has been ripped to shreds. Have a nice day. As far as I'm concerned, this little ignorant outburst is just the same as admitted you got caught spouting crap, and have nothing.
Sorry but I won't be called an idiot by someone who doesn't have a fact in his case. And I don't need to read back several pages to call you on crap you're spewing now. There's nothing to support any of your claims. And does anything you've said previously mitigate how utterly wrong your claims are NOW?
At 8/1/06 07:57 PM, Occluded wrote: Saddam wouldn't have stepped dwon it's true. But, there were other ways to go. We didn't invade Cuba when Russia gave them Nukes and we avoided nuclear anihilation. I think it's sad that we only think outside the box when face with extinction.
I'd hardly call Cuba a success story.
And thousands of people were killed. There now we've both oversimplified the effect of our action.
Thousands of people were killed before we invaded. I hope there's something better to your case than this.
The UN decided to investigate our claims. We forced them out. What good would telling us 'no' do?
Well hell, if they're just going to let people do things without even a "no" because they're going to do them anyway, then the UN is absolutely useless and should go away.
The UN's biggest problem is that they are disregarded. It can't maintain the peace if countries put on the pretense of membership, but then pull out when they are the ones breaking the rules. I'll be the first to point out that it's not just the US.
The UN's biggest problem is that it doesn't DO anything. It issues proclaimations and then...nothing. Considering the UN CAN use military force, but doesn't, it has rendered itself ineffective.
I will go through this later. I may not even have anything to refute. I know the UN has fucked up. But they have still been a stabilizing force for good in the world.
Oil for Food. The sexual scandals all throughout Africa. It's complete inaction to stop ANY single genocide or act of war in the world. At best the UN is useless, at worst criminal and corrupt.
What? These are the kind of people who don't believe in global warming. This is hardly objective journalism. And they were retyped. So, again that makes it false? Again, I'm not saying the Downing street memo is genuine. It was merely an example.
Most scientists don't believe in global warming, none in the field of atmospheric study (which is the field that matters most). Besides, objective journalism doesn't exist. And yes, if the memos were retyped it makes them completely unreliable. This isn't Dan Rather "fake but true" time.
That isn't proof he didn't lie. I'm not saying he didn't find someone to say "Iraq has WMD's" I'm saying he was going in anyway and he looked for someone else to do the lying for him. Then he could pin the blame on that person organization (the CIA), but it's still lying. I'm not even saying that the person with the evidence was lying. That person or organization might have merely been wrong. What I am saying is that Bush didn't care. It was never about WMD's for Bush's Admin. that was the lie, and the difference was as semantic as the Clinton thing.
And there's nothing to support this contention. You can't prove he lied. The evidence says he didn't lie. And all you have is a retyped memo which doesn't even support the theory that he lied.
And there is quite a bit of evidence against you...such as the Iraqi papers:
http://www.washingto..AR2006031602212.html
That Iraq was being rearmed from outside:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0209_s2.htm
http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,163721,00.html
The word of a top Iraqi general on where the WMDs went:
http://www.townhall...sh_lied,_people_died
http://www.townhall...sh_lied,_people_died
:_part_ii
Some of what we found:
http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,120137,00.html
Plus there's the satelite photos, the world wide intelligence that unanimously argeed that Saddam had WMDs, the unaccounted for weapons, the munitions stolen after we arrived, and the speculation that some of the weapons used against us were originally Iraqi stockpiles.
There, you've been disproven.
At 8/1/06 05:48 PM, bradford1 wrote: 2. Not all Christian churches condemn gay marriage.
Not all churches condem abortion, suicide, or murder either. Quite irrelevant.
I say, let the homosexuals have civil ceromonies, as they are government ceremonies, and the government has no right to deny it to anyone.
Of course they can, as described repeatedly.
For this to work, however, I believe the government needs to do two things: give the exact same benifits as Marriage to Civil Ceremonies, as well as backing off completely of controll over Marriage. The government should not be "banning" gay marriage OR allowing it: they should be handing it off completely to the church and letting them handle it.
Thats a dumb plan. If the government gets out of defining marriage, then it gets out of giving benefits. There would have to be a consensus on what churches would allow and what they wouldn't.
No! The church has no right at all to impose their beliefs on the entire country! There are other groups of people in this country besides Christians, and it is unfair for the Christian church to be able to control the lives of non-Christians!
No it's not. It's called majority rules. And, by the way, that majority also includes: jews, muslims, athiests and GAYS. Oh my god, not all gays support gay marriage? That hurts the cause.
By even getting involved, this would be like if the government passed some legislature to officially re-write the bible. We need to maintain a sepperation of church and state.
Seperation of church and state is an imaginary concept. And the "re-writing of the Bible" is a bad analogy.
We can't achieve a separation of church and state by allowing the church to control marriage! That is ridiculous.
The church DOESN'T control marriage. Don't be dense. Society controls marriage. And again, the seperation doesn't exist in the Constitution, so there's no need to honor it.
There is a difference between whether a gay couple should marry and whether a gay couple can marry. Stop confusing the two.
It's a semantic difference. We base laws on what people should do. If they break those laws, we imprison them, impose fines...or in this case, nullify the marriage.
And before any of you idiots try to go "wel den dat meant u have 2 not let pagans and satanists marrry!!!!1 lol like i got u!"; exactly: once again, Christian Ceremony, so it's only for CHRISTIANS.
What?
Actually gay marriage is an issue that relates to civil services as well. This isn't just a matter of "the preists won't perform the wedding service" this is a matter of the government not allowing the preists to legally marry gays.
Yea. That's why the priest always says "And now by the power vested in me by the state of..." And despite that, preachers still marry gay couples despite it not being a legal marriage.
I am one of the Paganistic religions (and bi, before any of you want to pull out the "homophobe" card) and therefor I have absolutely no right to get married.
OK, then don't get married. Whatever. That hurts your argument, it sure as hell doesn't strengthen it. If the government can deny pagans marriage, then they can deny gays.
What? Yes you do. You can get married under a civil service if you object to the church, and you can get a scientoligist (or whatever you are) to wed you religiously.
Then you'd have to be a scientologist. If the government turned over marriage to the churches, pagans COULD NOT get married. Because a church would have to be seen as valid.
Besides, you are a bi. That means that if you fall in love with a woman you could marry.
I probably WILL get marriage because of the benifits not offered with civil ceremonies, but if the government would get it's head out of their ass and give the benifits I mentioned earlier, I would do the right thing and take a CC.
Civil unions have benefits too. So yea, don't criticize, if you don't know what you're talking about.
That was all over the place. You were jumping from one thing to the next, and it was difficult to keep track of what you were saying.
At 8/1/06 05:12 PM, DiabloCloud wrote: do you know that in these instant, Hezbollah are winning this war. the Israeli generals themselfs stated that it is impossible to disarm Hizbollah, and every day 10 to 20 Gulany soldier from the israli army are dying. do you think Hezbollah cares obout his dead members. in fact he celebrates every dead soldier in his troops.
OK, so you admit Hezbollah are the bad guys. Good for you. However, Hezbollah is losing. Israel will level Lebanon to defend themselves (as they're doing). Hezbollah will either surrender or it will be eradicated. And 10 to 20 soldiers a day in a war is nothing. The Generals said that about disarming them as a prelude to war. They're not trying to "disarm them". They're killing them instead. Much more effective.
than why your medias are showing you the israeli doings and killing the civiliens? why are they hiding these photos?
Because the media hates Israel. It's run by the same people who refuse to cover the successes in Iraq and falsely report on war crimes. The same media that played the "massacre of civilians" in the one Lebanese building....who despite being dead for a few hours had no blood around them, and were ashy grey and decaying. The media reports what it wants.
there is no problem in other Gov. suppling Hezbollah.
Yea, it makes them our enemy and Israel's enemy. That's why we're supplying Israel with more weapons.
i showed you the civiliens that israel have killed. israel has killed 800 civiliens since the war had begun. why isn't israel showing us the pics of Hezbollah's bases that she is bombing near the houses or in the houses or wherever you want them to be.
Because it's a war, not a photo op. And they don't care about convincing a child.
ah yes... Hezbollah will steal the weapons that the USA is giving to the Lebanese army!!??? r u talking seriously!? and the government is against Hezbollah so she won't fund it. so how is Hezbollah being part of the government affect the fortification of the Lebanese army!?
I'll just simply repeat what you said to show how dumb it is.
"How will funding a government run in part by Hezbollah fund Hezbollah"
but Bush sent weapons to Israel in this war to help her!
Yea, and the UN condemns Israel. If the US controlled the UN, they'd support Israel. Thanbks for proving yourself wrong. :)
r u playing with me! how was Israel condemned and not punished?
Because the UN condemns people all the time and does nothing. Mostly it's because the UN has no real power. List of the countries that the UN has condemned: Iran, North Korea, Iraq, the US, Israel (every couple of days), etc. Yea, you just keep showing you have no clue what you're talking about.
if the missles were behind the houses then why hitting the houses?
Because they're missles.....duh.
how old r u?
Old enough to type correctly, make coherent points, know what I'm talking about and shoot down your pathetic arguments. Yourself?
Your inability to type a coherent argument is rather boring. As is the repeated reliance on the failed picture point in response to every. single. question.
But since I'm growing bored with you, and feel the need to crrush you completely.
From the very liberal CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2..east.main/index.html
Things you were absolutely wrong on: 25 IDF forces have died PERIOD, not per day. Israel is making severe gains in the war. They have killed approximately 15% of the Hezbollah forces. The Lebanese government confirms the Israelies are trying to evacute civilians and target only Hezbollah. Hezbollah is now on the defensive, and the attacks into Israel are tapering off (in other words Israel is winning). 557 civilians have been killed not 800.
So in plain terms, you have no clue what you're talking about.
http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,206514,00.html
Also confirming the pamphlets and evacuations of civilians.
You can admit you're wrong now.
At 8/1/06 05:20 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I'm done. All you idiots ignore the fact that documents change over time and that the constitution is a living document.
The idea of a "living constitution" is a bs idea, made up to ignore the clear wording of the document, and write hundreds of thousands of laws and rulings ignoring our basic rights. Documents DON'T change over time, and your claim is bunk. Last time I checked....Huckleberry Finn didn't write itself a new chapter....and the ending is still the same. The documents however can be ignored or subverted...which is exactly what the idea of the "Living Constitution" is.
Viva equal rights!!
They have equal rights. Your argument is worthless.
"No one agress with me! So I'll throw out nonsense and insult all of you for being right and then cite the imaginary "evolving Constitution."
Next....
At 8/1/06 05:07 PM, Occluded wrote: I smell a lot of oversimplification coming off of this theory. It's not as simple as kill or be killed. Even if they intended to use the hypothetical WMD's on us. (Which, by the way, we had no intelligence showing this intent.) We had the time to do things the right way. When we do what is convenient instead of what is right we create as many problems as we solve. Good intentions are only half of doing right.
We spent a year and a half in the UN, sorry. Rushed you cannot call this war. And we didn't need evidence saying they'd attack the US, that's just being a Saddam apologist.
Why, did we call in the UN? If we couldn't wait for them, why bother in the first place?
You call the cops if someone attacks you. But after a while, if they don't come, you can't wait anymore. Pathetic argument.
In three months we found out the documents were forgeries. Three months were all we needed to wait at most. How long would have the full UN investigation have taken? A year? Maybe 2 tops? Had they actually been trying to aquire what our intelligence reports said they were we had 10 years. We had until 2012 at the earliest. Again, this is assuming they would immediatly try to kill us. Which also doesn't make any sense.
Um, we never found that the documents were forgeries. That's why EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, had seperate info that confirmed Saddam having weapons. And the whole argument "we could've waited, is ridiculous. Let's use Clinton's words "We have constantly underestimated Saddam, especially in his regards to obtain and make WMDs. He will rebuild and he will use those weapons on his neighbors." And again, your argument fails. We should've waited two years to let the UN (who hadnt done their job for a decade...who missed the signs that Iran was going after nukes, and is now doing nothing) continue their failed inquiry.
Sorry, but I still don't think this was good. There were an infinite world of possibilities that had just as good a chance of working and didn't involve such a huge sacrifice of money, personel, and integrity.
There wasn't a single other option. Sorry. Your dead wrong.
That quote came directly out of the document. And also why not? It fits the available evidence.
If one ignores as much as you do I suppose.
When we presented our case to the UN, they simply called 'bullshit'. And they were right. I say again. They were right. Doesn't that in and of itself speak volumes? We want the UN to be a place where a country can be held accountable to the world. Except us. How hypocritical is it to go in to enforce UN policy in violation of a UN descision?
No, they simply said "We know but don't care". Even France said pre-war "We know Iraq has weapons...we need to impose harsher penalties." So your claim here is dead wrong.
Not what I was saying. I'm saying that the assumption the Intelligence agencies failed massively on three occasions is crazy. If they did heads should've rolled. There should have been massive restructuring. Why not investigate the CIA and FBI for their massive failure? Since nothing happened, what are we left with? The simplier explanation that remains is that the Administration was hearing what they wanted to hear.
That explaination also exists with you. You are ignoring the MOUNTAINS of evidence which prove you wrong, and hearing only what you want to hear. It is impossible to make the case that "Bush lied." Though, with the way you present it, a reasonable person could say he was mistaken (tho he wasn't).
I'm not saying they manipulated the media. As long as we are here I will say that the induced panic lead to the support of a lot of knee-jerk reactionaries who used and perverted this new-found support to attack anyone in the media who disagreed with them. There is, however, a lot of empirical evidence that points to the Bush Admin manipulating intelligence reports to suit their policies.
Clinton's continued support of him negates your conspiracy bs. And there was no "attack of anyone who disagreed in the media". This is purely paranoid conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up.
Find a hole in my rationale. If all you have in your defense is that there is no hard proof then will you at least agree that there are enough unexplainable inconsistancies to warrant an investigation? At least of our intelligence?
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
There's questions, but there's also quite a bit of evidence to support Bush's claims. And not a single shred to support yours.
As semantic as Clinton saying oral sex wasn't adultery. His administration said they had WMD's. He said we couldn't wait until the final proof... a mushroom cloud. Those sixteen words were only part of a theory the american people were being sold.
He didn't wait until we were attack? THE MONSTER. Your argument fails on every point.
At 8/1/06 04:25 AM, ClassicalStar wrote: Anywho. Since your Conservative Nazi ass can't seem to get her head out of her blood-stained twat about the Iraq war, perhaps maybe you would like to try to humor me with how come we're in the fucking trade deficit instead of the surplus (when Clinton was in office).
The country ran on a deficit when Clinton was in office, sorry. The country has run deficit spending under every president for at least the past 50 years.
How about why didn't he sign the Kyoto Treaty?
Because it's a useless treaty that would decimate our economy, increase poverty, and even the greens admit would do nothing but delay their imaginary global warming by 6 years.
Does your Fuhrer have any reasons why he wanted to see about replacing all of the judges of the supreme court with people to whom of his liking?
What a stupid insult. Every president puts people on the bench they like. Your insult lacks that certain...punch. And the constant Nazi crap shows lack of intelligence.
Why does he want to get rid of Social Security?
He doesn't. He wants to privitize it. And at his last SoTU address he BEGGED congress to come up with a solution, ANY solution to the growing threat to SS.
If he doesn't to do so, then what's this I'm hearing that people may not be able to see retirement?
Ridiculous. People retire before the retirement age NOW, so what if it gets moved back a couple more years. Wrong again.
Why isn't the Medical healthcare improving?
It IS. He signed a ridiculously complicated bill to give seniors more money for health care. My grandmother has benefitted greatly.
Oooooooooooh, looks like ArchFaggotAss needs some serious thinking time.
Why? You didn't offer a single intelligent criticism. Not a signle thing you said was right.
At 7/31/06 11:46 PM, Occluded wrote: The sources said he was aquiring the rescources to make WMD's not that he had them. So we had time. According to our intelligence reports Saddam didn't have them... yet.
Irrelevant. Not only should we not wait for him to fully acquire them, but his very seeking them violated the terms of the surrender he signed, and the sanctions he was under. However, seeing as we've found all kinds of wmds it's a moot point.
The Downing street memo states:
1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.
Really? You mean the year and a half we spent tap dancing through the UN trying to get approval didn't give you a clue?
2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
They had strong connections to terrorism, which Saddam proudly boasted of. He had WMDS, and was breaking UN regs, next.
4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").
During the Clinton administration, John Kerry advised the President on a "unilaterial response" to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN regulations.
5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.
Sadly true.
If the downing street memo is genuine then the above statements are true. If it is genuine it is proof that he lied.
No, it's not. That's you seeing what you wanted to see. Most wars ARE pre-meditated, so that's irrelevant. When one goes to war, they must justify the war with the reasons they are fighting, so that too is irrelevant. We DID go through the UN (not that we needed to), so that too doesn't matter. And poor planning is an indication of nothing except....poor planning.
I fought a dude because he stole from me. I pre-meditated it, and decided before the fight I was going to fight him. I justified it, by saying he stole from me. I decided to not go through the Jefferson County police because they were useless, and I didn't think about what would happen after the fight. Not to mention, I set my policy for the fight around the circumstances. I fit all 5 criteria, so by your logic I suppose I lied about the robbery? That's kinda flawed reasoning don't you think?
Yeah, here's the thing. We went into Iraq because they 'had' WMDs. They didn't. Evidence is now that they weren't even trying.Yes, we found this out after we invaded Iraq. Too little, too late.
We found sarin, we found evidence of them trying to get uranium, we have a memo of them transferring weapons to syria, and we have a high ranking general corraborating that. Not to mention we have a former President (Clinton) saying in no uncertain terms that it is still unquestionable that Saddam had WMDs and that the only thing Bush did wrong was not getting better allies.
The above statements were a contrast. Iraq had nothing. Iran and North Korea had both taken active steps toward nuclear proliferation. I question how our intelligence community could manufacture evidence in Iraq and not stumble upon the mounting evidence in North Korea and Iran. First there is a presumption that the intelligence community manufactured a secenario (or rushed to the highest level unsubstantiated evidence) of Iraqi weapons policy. This is a bit far fetched. This organization is also responsible for failing to find the information that did exist about North Korea and Iran. This is also a lot to swallow. Together they boggle the mind. I just don't believe our intelligence organizations are that incompetent. The organization as a whole is just too huge. And if the intelligence is wrong why hasn't it been declassified? Why haven't the reports been made public, and those responsible fired?
The entire world community knew Iraq had WMDs. Wrong again. And it's not like we didn't know N.K. was building weapons. Hell, Clinton gave them the money to do it. Yea, you're not too terribly on top of it.
I'm sorry, but of course they will. Hell, we did. Iran contra. Saddam was one of our boys. They will do what they feel is in their best intrest. Right now it's appeasing America to get us the hell out.
Yes, it's the basic flaw with the area, and some of the tenets of Islam. Most likely they will eventually become our enemies again.
I'm sorry, but that is the way it makes sense. Explain to me how I've stretched the boundries of reason. I'm not even saying all of my assumptions are correct. But, if even one of them is then Bush lied.
No, there's nothing to support that contention, and you know it.
We were talking about the media and it's ability to call the government to task. The Times is the most well respected of the 'liberal rags'. I don't think this paper is liberal. I'm being a bit hypocritical, but the pundits that really piss me off usually point first to the Times as proof of liberal bias. I feel it's because they are honest not liberal. Republicans put together a Treason case for the Times based on the very things they themselves were saying.
Um, I'm sorry, but if you don't think the times is liberal..your judgement isn't worth a whole lot. That's absolutely ridiculous. And they made a case for treason for the times for exposing military and governmental secrets that even they admit were legal for now other purpose than to do it. Even high ranking Democrats like anti-war Murtha begged the Times not to publish the info, yet they did anyway.
My point was in a nutshell. The media is under a microscope, and lack of proof is not proof of lacking.
Your entire case is because of lack of proof in the EARLY stages of the occupation. And lack of proof then becomes proof of lying. Your case is build on a foundation of loose sand.
At 7/31/06 10:48 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And I am using preemptive arguments :)
I do know how those people are. Idiots, aren't they?
Anyway- does no one agree that civil unions ought to be allowed under the 14th , as marriage is a privilege as per the 14th amendment?
Marriage is not a priviledge under the 14th Amendment. You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it so. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to apply the rules of the federal government to that of the state, so that they couldn't ignore federal laws demanding negros be allowed to vote, and scare them away from polling places. It gives people the full protection of their rights, and establishes that no state government can ignore the Constitution, or institute laws going against it (such as anti-negro voting laws). It doesn't guarantee priviledges granted to some be granted to others. It simply applies protection of the law. And since marriage is not even a right (let alone an inalienable one), nor is it a protection of the law, it is not 14th Amendment jusidiction.
At 7/31/06 10:56 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And, knowing that any treaty ratified by the US government is the law of the land as well...
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
In other words, it guarantees men can marry women! Hooray! And since marriage is essentially, man and woman, this just guarantees all races can get married.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Also enforcing the point that marriage is to have children and form a family.
At 8/1/06 02:44 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: What? My ENTIRE first post was FOR giving gays Civil Unions, which they already CAN have. And FYI, while Marriage is a privilage. a CU is a right.
Except for one or two states, gays can't have civil unions. And if marriage is a priviledge...the civil unions (marriage lite) are also a priviledge.
At 8/1/06 02:50 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: 3 very simple reasons:
And you're wrong on all three.
A) The gay community is smaller, so one guy with Aids effects them more. See what I mean?
That's just retarded. The gay community has it more than the lesbian community, but anal sex is much more unsafe and with lesbians there's not usually a flud transfer. Plus almost all straight AIDS can be tracked back to dirty needles, and the rest can be traced to bad blood transfusions, or deliberate infections by sick people, (such as the man who injected his son with AIDS).
B) The man who was origionally responcible for bringing AIDS into the U.S was gay. He was also a player and an Airline attendent. He spread it to many gay men (years ago when the gay community was smaller) and caused a lot of damage, and by the time he died HIV/AIDS hadn't been figured out yet.
This has no basis in reality since we have no clue who "Patient Zero" was. Way to make something up.
C) Anal Sex is a LOT more likely to cause the spread of HIV/AIDS then vaginal. This is because the ass was NOT built to have cocks shoved in it. It was built to deal with poo, which is MUCH softer then a penis. Anal sex causes tiny rips and tears in the Anus every time, which then bleed, and blood is the quickest way to spread HIV/AIDS.
Actually right. But that's 1/3.
At 8/1/06 04:20 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Since when? The 14th amendment states that it protects the rights of ALL CITIZENS, BORN OR NATURALIZED. ALL CITIZENS means that homosexuals have the same rights and priveliges as heterosexuals. Doesn't get plainer than that.
The plain language of the act makes it clear that "men and women can get married", and furthers this by saying that "the family is the foundation of society".
Marriage is a priviledge, based in religion and morality.
At 8/1/06 03:25 PM, SupportGlobalWarming wrote: All the war because of 2 Israeli "Recruits", I don't think Israel would start a war over them. Pffft, I never saw Hezbollah enterning Israel for the 6000 Arabs captured, I think this war is a waste of time and a death house.
Yea, because no one's ever attacked Israel or demanded the release of prisoners. Being purposefully blind serves no one well.
At 8/1/06 04:17 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Hell yeah. Hezbollah is furthering the Iranian and Syrian agendas. No Middle Eastern state aside those mentioned WANTS Hezbollah or Hamas to exist. They just create problems for everyone- Arab or not.
Palestine wants Hamas to exist. Saudia Arabia is a big fan of both Hamas and Hezbollah. The UAE doesn't mind them. It's not like the region is a big group of sane people, and Iran and Syria are the exceptions.
At 7/31/06 10:28 PM, -Glaciar- wrote: No, my friend, YOU are the deceived one (I still dont want to use offensive words). Remember how Britain attacked Egypt, or why the US government decided to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Things are always not what they seem to be, but you have to know what to look for.
We invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring al Quida. We attacked Iraq because they had been initiating hostilities to us for a decade and ignoring the UN resolutions. Not that either of those or even the Britain/Egypt example are of any importance to this debate.
There are many books written on this subject, you should read some. But then you would be considered racist, so make your choice by yourself.
You ask me to educate myself, then say if I do, I'd be a racist. Dear God, that's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And quite possibly the dumbest technique of trying to sway someone I've EVER seen. And I've read over 100 books on the subject. Even the conspiracy theorists admit there is cause to invade these contries.
I'm not defending Hezbollah. Just hoping not to see the jews pretending to be victims after the whole thing... again...
They are victims fool. If I throw a rock through your window in the middle of the night, you are not "pretending to be a victim", you are a legitimate victim of my malicious action, and you are right to do something in your recourse...like call the cops. So on a larger scale, Israel is having rockets fired into their country by Hezbollah.
I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy awakening.
I'm sorry, chuckles, but you don't have clue one what you're talking about.
And I repeat, only an idiot would accuse Israel of trying to create an empire when they are constantly ceding land. And if you refuse to ackowledge Israel giving Palestine land (Gaza and the West Bank), then you're just stupid and unworthy of further consideration.
At 7/31/06 10:36 PM, drDAK wrote: Yeah... you're a really moral person. Shove it. Do not pin point this on Islam, I could retort many time over about Judaism.
No, you really couldn't. And I pinned it on the Islamic monsters (that would be Hezbollah since you're not all that quick). But if I really wanted, I COULD pin it on Islam, and again, you wouldn't have two things to say. Sorry, but I won't be lectured to by some PC deluded ideological hippie who's never actually ever read the Koran.
See what religion does?
Yea, Christianity and Judaism are responsible for all the great things in history. Islam is responsible for horrible attrocities. To this date, Buddhism has never done ANYTHING wrong. You fail.
Help should have been requested before they started a war, Israel is saying "we can do this without international troops, lets go ahead and bomb away". Sure, it's spur of the moment, but there would be no argument here if Israel did the right thing to begin with.
International troops aren't going to help them, buffoon. You don't know a damn thing about this. Hezbollah started transgressions, and Israel responded. Why in God's name do they need YOUR permission to defend themselves. That's like me punchng you in the face and you being forced to ask every neighbor on the block (and I'm still beating you) if you can fight back. And it has to be a unanimous vote, so you better hope you don't have any pacifists on the block who NEVER approve of fighting...or you better hope you don't have to ask my family or friends.
I understand, and agree.
Ideas are what make peace. Peace is what we need.
Peace can come about when Hezbollah stops killing Israeli civilians on purpose.
Both sides are wrong.
No, Hezbollah is wrong. Israel is in the clear.
At 8/1/06 08:00 AM, -Glaciar- wrote: If you NEED a war, there will always be someone to crush a plane into a couple of buildings or blow up a church. There are international, overnational forces, which make sure stuff like that "happen".
It's all a conspiracy. Sorry, but your stoner friend's word or some paranoid crackheads rantings are irrelevant to this debate.
Yes, terrorrists KILL people, but this doesn't mean that jews are the victims and are forced to bomb civilians. I totally agree with drDAK.
And we'll continue to regard you as a moron.
At 8/1/06 03:39 PM, DiabloCloud wrote: why isn't israel showing us the missle base that she is firing at near the houses or IN THE HOUSES!!! they do have the pic. don't they!?
Are you stupid?
how do you suppose the Lebanese has to defend themself?
Get Hezbollah out? Surrender? Stop using women and children as shields? Shrugs. Just a couple of ideas.
yes and you say that because you have seen the pics in that site(mine) in you media?
This is war dum dum, we don't pause for photo ops to convince 12 year olds of the justness of the cause.
How about the Lebanese government moaning about Hezbollah using civilians as shields? That works for me.
as i have said before... let Israel show us the video's of the missle bases surrounding the innocent children...
Yea, you keep going on about these videos. I counter this. Let Lebanon show us the videos of the evil Israelis plotting to kill nothing but civilians. Your argument fails.
there is no problem in other Gov. suppling Hezbollah.
Why doesn't the USA support the army... Hezbollah doesn't have control over the army.
Because it would be funding a government partially run by terrorists. What a stupid question.
if Bush says we have to stop the war than it will be stopped!!!
Which is completely irrelevant to the UN, and not true to boot. We won't send troops to Israel, even if Bush wants.
if the USA wanted to condemn the isareli doing in Lebanon than it will be condemned(in the security council).
It was condemned anyway and we support Israel, you lose.
how can you use a 5 or 6 or 7 or... years old boy for hidding from the strongest air weapons in all the Middle East?
By hiding the missles behind his house. What? Am I arguing a mentally deficient child?
can you give me some of your knowledge...(haha)
Yea. Look above. And unlike yourself, I don't just walk around asking about the videos to every intelligent point. When you have something smart to add, then we can talk.
At 8/1/06 03:25 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: Every abortion debate boils down to the question, “At what point does the fetus become sentient/alive?” I think we can all agree on that. The pro-choicers aren’t advocating 3rd trimester abortions.
Yes, they are, hence why partial birth abortion is STILL an issue advocated by EVERY pro-choice politician, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, et. al. So, you're wrong, strike one.
If the criteria for being alive is a hybrid DNA, then is a cell in a laboratory which a scientist modified the DNA of alive? What is that scientist to do with that cell now that it is?
The criteria (scientifically) for human life is 46 chromosomes, which is why neither an egg or sperm are considered life. And yes, that cell would be called, oh...say, an embryo at a fertility clinic?
While it is unique and special, it is not a separate being. It’s genetic code may be different but it is still just a cell. It is the seed of human life, but it is not life yet.
Yea, but by the time the mother knows she's pregnant, it's more than just A CELL. And to use the popular misconception that all pro-choicers use....that of a parasite...no one above a third grade level would ever pretend that a parasite is "just part of your body".
So you admit that, although having the potential to become sentient (your definition), they are currently not?
Depending on your definition of sentience, coma patience don't fall into the sentient category either. It's irrelevant.
Why should future potential of a nonsentient cell trump the current situation of a living person?
Why should the minor inconvenience of a person be held over the life of another?
Is there anything wrong with denying them life before they are alive?
They are alive, so life is being taken away, not denied. Another one who failed science class I see.
Who is to say that whatever soul G-d would have put in them is merely put into the next available fetus that achieves life? (Sorry, getting philosophical, you can ignore this last question if you want.)
OK, because it's a stupid question.
It is misleading to state that a fetus does not know of its own existence, because a fetus cannot know anything, having no capacity for knowledge or thought.
Fetuses have teh capacity for thought. Not on the same level that we do, but for that matter, infants don't have our capacity. Your argument fails.
At 8/1/06 02:47 PM, Tacitacial wrote:You have no scientific knowledge is personal? Fetuses feel, think, explore their fingers and toes, have dreams, kick, punch, smile, and when aborted we have videos of them screaming in pain. So there goes the whole "fetuses can't think or feel".Behaviour such as moving toes, kicking etc. don't show the presence of intelligent thought. Such physical activity only proves the existence of a still primitive nervous system capable of simple physical responses. That doesn't elevate the foetus above an animal.
Congrats, you discounted kicking off of my list. However, you failed to discount screaming during abortion, moving away from the needle during an amnio statisis (sorry, I forgot that on the original list), etc.
What are your sources anyway?
Here are mine:
Functions of the cerebral cortex link #1.
Wikipedia doesn't count, sorry.
Functions of the cerebral cortex link #2.
Yes, I'm aware how the brain works.
Abou the neocortex, part of the cerebral cortex and home to the higher mental functions of humans.
Yes, I'm aware how that part of the brain works too.
(And here I was getting excited thinking I was going to have a challenge.)
Third and fourth paragraph under 'anatomical and functional requirements for pain perception'
Before the 20th week, the cerebral cortex isn't functionally mature nor have any synaptic connections been established between the dendrites of the neocortex and the axons from the thalamus. Without these connections, these sensory pathways are incomplete and no impulses can be transferred.
Also a few other snippets from YOUR source: THE evaluation of pain in the human fetus and neonate is difficult because pain is generally defined as a subjective phenomenon.1 Early studies of neurologic development concluded that neonatal responses to painful stimuli were decorticate in nature and that perception or localization of pain was not present.2 Furthermore, because neonates may not have memories of painful experiences, they were not thought capable of interpreting pain in a manner similar to that of adults. (They can't remember the pain, so they're really not feeling it. That's the basic theory. So by this definition, alzheimer patients aren't people.)
And this one: Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area of the human fetus in the 7th week of gestation; they spread to the rest of the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet by the 11th week, to the trunk and proximal parts of the arms and legs by the 15th week, and to all cutaneous and mucous surfaces by the 20th week.
So in other words, infants can feel pain as early as 7 weeks.
This is YOUR source. The entire thing talks about the "pervasive belief that infants cannot feel pain", and the author seems to generally dismiss it. Did you read your own source?
Look under 'when does the fetus' brain begin to work?' This link shows that the cerebral cortex is the last to mature and that the cerebral cortex is responsible for the higher brain functions.
From source two:
Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)
Based on all of this I conclude that the foetus can't be considered human by cognitive standards before week 20. It can't 'think' like we can before at least the 20th week. This, combined with the fact that the foetus resides inside the mother and draws upon the resources from her body, gives the mother to terminate the foetus before the 20th week.
The baby can't "think" like we do at a year old either. Do you have a point? I suppose you're proud of yourself but yet you prove nothing.
http://brainmind.com..rainDevelopment.html
As will be detailed below, the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality (Joseph, 1996a, 1999; Levene, 1993; Sroufe, 1996). It is the much slower to develop forebrain which generates higher order cognitive activity and purposeful behaviors, and which is responsible for the expression and experience of true emotions including pleasure, rage, fear and joy and the desire for social-emotional contact (Joseph, 1992, 1996ab, 1999; MacLean, 1990).
By your definition it is not a person after birth either.
NEXT
At 8/1/06 07:40 AM, Athlas wrote: Alright than, I suppose abortion completely depends on the situation. Yes, if the woman is being forced into doing it by her boyfriend or parents, it would be a gruesome act of murder.
Of course, if someone ELSE MAKES her do it then it's murder. Retarded. That's not even defensable. Either it's a child or its not. It's irrelevant who makes the choice.
Yes, I was mixing up fetuses with embryos. Everyone makes mistakes every now and than. But most of the time, it's an embryo that's being aborted, not a fetus, as abortion has to take place within the first 13 weeks of pragnency.
Abortion is legal throught all of pregnancy. You're making a lot of mistakes.
I think that if the woman is determined to have the abortion take place, she has the right to decide what's best for herself and her child. don't think it wouldn't be a heartbreaking decision, seeing how te child is still a part of her at that point.
Well, she's going to do it anyway...we can't stop her. Might as well make it legal. Ridiculous. Yea, you can stop spouting the "doing what's best for the child" mantra too, it's lacking in intelligence.
I just don't think any form of government or religion has the right to intervene with prsonal decisions that don't endanger anyone but the person that makes the decision.
Endangers the child....
For instance, you gcan get fined for driving without your seatbelt on. I find that ridiculous, seeing how you're only endangering YOURSELF by doing so, and no one else. It's something completely different than driving through a red traffic light, as you're endangering OTHERS by doing so.
Yea, because driving without your seatbelt is SOOO related to abortion.
And by the way, I've never heard of this firing for not wearing a seatbelt...so I've gotta believe you're making it up til you source me.
So yes, restrictions ARE necessairy, but abortion shouldn't be banned.
Again, indefensible. If it's her right then how do we have the right to restrict it? Your entire argument is double speak. As pro-abortion arguments always are.
At 7/21/06 11:57 AM, Begoner wrote:I'd like to see proof that global warming exists before I see proof that there is a way to slow it down.How about the global increase in temperatures worldwide? You know, global warming? As in, the world's getting warmer? If you don't believe in global warming, you are very ignorant and most likely stupid, too.
Hey, bud. No offense, but people have actually put forward evidence to shoot you down. And according to real scientists....the Earth has only warmed on average by .9 degrees C from 23 years ago. That is roughly an increase of .05 degrees a year. Hardly an epidemic.
And CO2 isn't pollution, it's a naturally occuring gas that is an integral part of our atmosphere. What ARE you on?
So don't mock someone for being stupid for "not believing in global warming", when you yourself are pretty far off:
- CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that is vital to our atmosphere
- We are not the most polluting country in the world.
- You probably think Kyoto was a good thing.
- Thicker ozone increases global warming, thinning ozone creates global warming....pollution is the problem, pollution solves the problem....This is the philosophy of a madman.
Contrary proof:
http://www.newsmax.c..001/7/2/185108.shtml
And onto the two great movies about global warming:
Day After Tommorrow:
http://www.boston.co..e_on_global_warming/
Basically, any change that drastic, (especially if caused by "global warming") would kill all life on Earth before we even saw the freakish storms in that movie.
An Inconvenient Truth:
http://www.opinionjo../extra/?id=110008597
And who can forget that bastion of science...The Core (while not about global warming, it still shows the average scientidic knowledge of those who endorce global warming).
Basically, most climate scientists (the only ones who really matter) don't endorce the global warming hullaballoo, and if it is real, they see no evidence that it is caused by human activity. It's quite telling that two decades ago all the "global warming scientists" predicted an ice age coming. The temp of the Earth naturally fluctuates, as shown by the little ice age. If global warming is real....then why do its proponents continue to put forward "evidence" to support it that is completely false...like Mt. Killimanjaro, and the USSR lakes.
What a joke.
At 7/30/06 10:11 PM, Anti_Noob wrote: Religion should be taught in school, but not as a requirement.
Religion is more important than almost everything else. Without understanding religion, one does not understand the world. It should be a requirement.
I insist that there should be a religion course that teaches they fine nature of not just christianity, but also Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and many other religions that exist throughout the entire world. Fair account of all faiths = no threat to the constitution and people's rights.
Not all of those religions have a fine nature, but whatever. All should still be required. Teaching about religion doesn't violate the Constitution period.
However to keep religion and the government seperate... I would insist that we should make these courses optional electives. And that no one is to be forced at any account to take these electives as a requirement of graduation.
Should definately be required. As stated above.
That if any student dares to offend someone else's faith or to force someone to abide by their faith, shall be instantly expelled and trialed in court.
Now that DOES violate the 1st amendment. You couldn't try them in court anyways. That's just moronic. And I'd rally to the cause of anyone expelled and help pay for their defense, and for a lawyer to sue the shit out of the school.
And that if any threats should be made by such a person to protect him or her from being notified about, then that person will be instantly trialed in court under the same conditions of executing an act of terrorism.
What in the hell are you talking about. You're a fool for wanting to try people as terrorists for insulting religion. Thats idiotic.
Of course evidence must be obtained in order to guarantee full jurisdiction of the crimes that have been commited.
There would be no crime.
However, philosophy should be taught as the sole requirement in every school at an even greater level that learning proper English.
What? Teach people philosophy that don't even speak proper English. Your whole philosophy is insane.
Do not confuse philosophy with religion. Philosophy is a core fundamental of how one sees reality and interprets it and not how someone should abide by a faith.
But who's philosophy should be taught.
At 7/31/06 02:59 AM, Oblivia wrote: At my school, they allow to have a unofficial youth group in the school. However, with the Seperation of Church and State, they can't have an official class of a religion/spirituality/ect.
That doesn't violate the first amendment. They can legally have a class. Many states do.
At 7/30/06 08:51 AM, Ranger2 wrote:Should religion be taught in school?Fuck NO!
Private schools I'm okay with, because in religious schools there is prayer in class. When you say school, I think public school, which I disagree.
Why would you expell anyone who's not the religion? Religious zealots say "It'll help the world be a better place, but they're being a religious form of racists, KKKish,
Anti Semitic, if it was Christian they'd expell homosexuals because "the bible says it's wrong." whoop de doo."
With all this, America is becoming like Europe during WWII and in the 19th century, when every night there was a pogrom (burning, destroying, and rioting of Jewish villages in Poland, Russia, etc.
Dear God, that rant was illiterate. First, religion should absolutely be taught in schools. The vast majority of Americans are religious in one denomination or other. Teaching about the major religions can only bring people together as they understand each other better. And considering most jobs have a customer service aspect...anything that teaches children to understand people better can only help them in the long run.
No one would EXPEL the kids for not being religious. That's nonsense and you know it. And the rant about the KKK not onl;y makes you sound stupid, but intolerant too. And America is nothing like WW2 Europe. Jesus, you're an anti-religious d-bag.
At 7/30/06 05:56 PM, kj44 wrote: no its rediculous!!! i remember having to sing christian hymns in primary school regardless of your personal beliefs. the only way out of it was a letter fromm your parents but they cant tell you what to believe. you have to work it out for yourself!!! for all the so called "diversity" in western civilisation nowadays they still seem to want to force christianity down everyones throats! just last weekend i got stopped in the streets by some physco christian lady asking me all these questions and by the end she was screeching at me that if i didnt "repent my sins" i would burn in hell! so apparently no matter how good a person i am if i dont believe in god i go to hell. bullshit
Another illiterate rant! It's obvious you went to CHRISTIAN school. They made you sing Christian songs in a Christian school? Dear God! Stop whining. If theres any religion the West seems to want to shove down our throats....it's either athiesm or Islam.
At 7/30/06 06:02 PM, Kasualty wrote: No
For one i'm atheist, that probably sways my opinion. But basically we shouldn't teach religion in school because if we did we would half to teach every main religion, because why should a jew or muslim half to sit through a lecture about jesus and half to say amen to everything even if they don't believe in jesus? This is a waste of time, it's hard for me to get the words out but no religion should not be taught in school.
Ya, so everybody has to learn about every religion. The problem is? Oh, we just don't want to be subjected to other beliefs. My only objection is that we'd get some PC bs version of Islam instead of a real study.
At 7/30/06 09:10 PM, Kev-o wrote:At 7/30/06 05:07 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: The bigotry of Atheists rivals any bigotry of the religious.That's completely untrue. People get in my face for being an athiest, but I never get in anyone's face about their religion.
Sorry, bud. It's completely true. Maybe one or two people get in your face, and maybe YOU'RE ok, but that's the exception not the rule. Athiests are far more bigoted than Christians overall.
At 7/31/06 06:58 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote: not everything in the bible is to be taken literally. Say what you wish about me but no that common insults show ignorance.
While I'm not quite sure what you're saying, it sounds like "We can just ignore parts of the Bible we don't like." Kinda like the whole liberal..."We can just ignore parts of the Constitution we don't like."
At 7/31/06 07:14 PM, Dark_Oracle wrote: there is also this old biik about jesus that hints that he could have something to do with starting this trend (I only know what I read don't blame me) so if these texts were to be taken seriously we might be able to trace homosexuality to christianity or at the very least Jesus. so who do we blame?
Yea, sorry, if you want to make this claim, you're gonna have to back it up. Cause I don't buy it.
At 7/31/06 08:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Gay marriage is not a question of religion. It is whether two gay men or women have the same rights at heterosexuals. If they have the same rights under the 14th amendment, which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" etc., and, therefore, for marriage is a PRIVILEGE, if the statement that marriage is permitted to one group of citizens, it had better be permitted for all.
Sorry, but that's crap. It says states can't make laws denying equal protection of the laws. So no one can say that gays: can't vote, can't work, can't own property, etc. It does NOT demand marriage. Sorry. For the same reason that states can deny tax exempt status for one group but give it to another, marriage doesn't have to be allowed for all. Same way that a married couple with no kids doesn't get the same status tax wize as a family with kids. Besides, if it's a priviledge, not a right, then the state doesn't have to do anything.Sorry, try again.
At 7/30/06 05:59 PM, Music_Man123 wrote: Firstly, Buddhism is, I'm possitive, known to allow gay marriage. As well as Judaism. And why shouldn't they become "husband 'n wife?" Just because one of them doesn't have a vagina that means they can't marry each other? Does that mean a woman can't work in government because she doesn't have a penis?
While I'm not sure about Buddhism, no Judiasm bans gay marriage. Yes, because one of them doesn't have a vagina, they can't marry each other. Marriage has always been linked to procreation. And your comparison to government work is stupid. Not to mention completely unrelated.
At 7/30/06 06:29 PM, HeinousDude wrote: The problem arises when the government also gives tax benefits to married couples but not equal benefits to civil unions. In that case the government is not providing equal rights.
They don't HAVE to give them equal benefits. But regardless, civil unions GET governmental benefits like tax write-offs. Always have. But civil unions and marriage are not considered equal. Common law marriage is a civil union, and it varies from state to state. Moving can invalidate the union if it's to another state (depending on time frame and other considerations).
And there's no way his view will last anyway.
It's the view of the supra-majority, and there's no indication it'll change.
At 7/31/06 02:49 AM, zendahl wrote: I can't believe that nobody said a word about this, but I'll throw myself in front of this train. You can not honestly believe that aids is only spead to you if you are gay . The way you worded your agument contradicts its self. You say that only gays can get aids, but then you say you are afraid of getting aids from some sort of Gay convert through a hederosexual encounter. You are just as likely to get aids from a strait person as you are to get it from a homosexual person. You can also get it from sharing needles, blood transfusions (though this is almost unheard of now), and any time you come into contact with blood. It is a blood born disease. It doesn't care what you sexual orientation is. Education dude, get some. Read a bokk or something. None of this is new info. I can't believe that there are people who still think this way.
Sorry, but no. AIDS is much more prevalant in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual one. You are NOT as likely to get it from a straight encounter...it's much more likely for homosexuals. Dirty needles are the other major spread of it, so on that you are correct. So don't go jumping all over him to get an education, when you don't know what you're talking about.
At 7/31/06 03:29 PM, ReiperX wrote: There have been studies on this, and the studies have shown that homosexuals are competant parents without any long lasting psychological problems to their children. I don't remember who linked the studies, its been about a year but probally was Maus, Redskunk, or Fli.
Correct, the vast majority of homosexuals are competant parents, and good people. However, there is a slight lack in perspective with either two fathers and two mothers. So under the same conditions, a straight family is preferable to a gay one.
Marriage isn't solely for procreation. My wife and I are married and don't want children does that mean that we should get a divorce? No, we love each other and want to be married.
Marriage has ALWAYS been linked to procreation. Many religions even have tenets about the marriage not being blessed by God if childbearing does not occur. The refusal of one partner to bear children has always been looked at as a valid grounds for termination of marriage, or annulment. True there are other factors besides having kids, but let's not pretend marriage isn't centered around having children.
At 7/31/06 08:20 PM, Nylo wrote: That's how people want Israel to fight their wars; dragging it's own citizens out of their homes and giving those parts of the country away. The strategy is to keep doing it 'till the terrorists can't find parts of Israel to attack anymore. Take THAT terrorists!
No, people want Israel to paint a huge three mile target on the ground, hand over a nuke to Palestine, have all their citizens stand in the target and sing We Are the World as Palestine locks on the missle. And heaven forbid anyone survives, because then they'd be "denying the world community". Until the last Jew stands at the edge of a pit of bodies, screams I surrender in French and then is executed, the UN and the Arab world won't be happy.
At 7/30/06 10:12 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: Me thinks you quoted wrong.
He cited the wrong verse. It is in every Bible though. Wish I could remember the verse. However, it's always cited by athiests and non-Christians to prove our religion is "violent".
At 7/31/06 08:22 PM, therealsylvos wrote:a) how do you know their goodWhy does god let bad things happen to good people?
b) if their good their not perfect, he gives them all their punishment here to save them from greater punishment in hell
No one is perfect. This is not the issue. Withoutevil there is no good, without pain, no pleasure, without darkness, no light. And without mistake and hardship, we do not grow as people, so we would be shells, robots.
