-
Posts
20804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by bad_teammate
-
-
Just because you were too stupid and/or unliked in high school to organize a walk-out or protest doesn't mean everyone else was, furious conservatives.
-
2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:
Why not use the medical definition? Medicine says you are dead once there is no heartbeat or brainwaves. So shouldn’t there be life when a fetus has both? When is that?
citation needed
-
Just now, relapse98 said:
Ok. Had a conversation with the little guy downstairs and reviewed his and her's facebook.
Would. She seems a little slow but that body is banging.
How soon would you go in after her dad had his turn? lol
-
16 minutes ago, JBJ said:
Select-fire exceeds common use.
Why?
Make an argument. Explain your rationale. You're just throwing dust in the air and hoping you aren't forced to actually engage with the conversation.
16 minutes ago, slorch said:I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society. Guns are not the problem. People are.
If guns are not at least part of the problem, why have any restrictions on them at all?
QuoteLet's do everything else but actually address the issue- irresponsible human behavior.
Who here advocates not punishing the violent offenders? Who ANYWHERE advocates not punishing the violent offenders?
-
34 minutes ago, relapse98 said:
Yeah but would his daughter, Bianca Turano.
Rethink that, my friend.
-
35 minutes ago, JBJ said:
I'd say the current restrictions on those items don't need to be changed for civilians. I would increase the restrictions on local law enforcement.
I'll further my explanation: most importantly - they don't have a common use. Explosives in general are are still accessible to professions who use them. And serious hobbyists are willing to go through the costs and wait to get them.
Outside of suppressors, I have no problems with current restrictions. Expanding those restritions to weapons with common uses (pistols, rifles, shotguns, knives, axes, saws) is what I am against.
What "common use" does an AR-15 have that a select-fire SCAR-H or even the LMG M249 would not have? You are basically arguing that the laws we have right now are fine because they are the laws we have right now.
And why are you guys so evasive when asked simple questions?
Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?
Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)
-
4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
The DoobieWah post is not the one you brought up as an example.
You're wrong. See post #113 and the conversation that follows. That entire chain of communication was predicated on DoobieWah's attempt to use late-term abortion pictures to characterize abortion writ large and Stros continued by doing the same thing later.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but maybe stop.
-
40 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
He and the poster he was responding to were already discussing late term abortion. Read further up the thread. It was entirely relevant in context.
Nope, the DoobieWah post was absolutely not at all restricted to late-term abortion. Click the link and re-read it.
-
8 minutes ago, JBJ said:
There is a semi-auto M249, so you can own and carry it. It is one of the few legal belt-fed weapons.
The others aren't "arms" in the normal sense and don't have a common use, so people don't give a shit.
Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?
Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)
Come on, buddy, they aren't hard questions.
-
33 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
So what this boils down to is:
1) Statistically rare cases should not be the basis of arguments
2) Unless they are arguments you like.
The only distinction you’ve drawn between the two extreme cases is your assertion that late-term abortions were implied to be a majority of abortions. Which, of course, no one implied, in just the same way that, as you correctly point out, no one implied only cases of rape/incest/life of the mother should be allowed in the first trimester. Your “argument” is based only on your arbitrary decision.
It would have been much less tortuous to say “Don’t use arguments I don’t like” instead of pretending there was some sort of logical principle at work.
That's exactly what Stros is doing in post #118.
He is asked:
So, Mr. Pro-Life, what about rape and incest? Is rape-baby murder OK?
And he responds with late-term abortion pics.
-
15 minutes ago, staboner said:
i dunno man. we got plenty of teacher child sex stories over here
banging a 60 something year old grandma while you are PM of the country that invented the word "pussy" and in you are in your 30s?
firmly not winning IMO
Minimum 2 mistresses.
-
Just now, Jiggy-Z said:
I understand that. Just trying to eliminate the fringe absolute argument that it would be ok to abort right up until birth-which is admittedly way more fringey than the life begins at conception absolute.
Life begins at conception is not fringe at all. That's the majority view.
-
17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
So you're OK with current restrictions yet you cannot even begin to imagine how some people might think those restrictions need to be somewhat tighter.
That's logical.
slorch commonly exhibits reactionary thinking at its finest. The worldview and attention span of a goldfish.
-
2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
I see. But those mentioning cases of rape/incest/life of the mother as arguments for abortion writ large are not arguing those are the majority of abortions.
That’s an astounding distinction you’re able to draw there.
Who is doing that? I don't know of any pro-abortion-rights person who argues that elective 1st trimester abortions should be illegal except in cases of the trifecta. I might be wrong, but I'd be interested to see someone argue that.
What people who are pro-abortion-rights do is probe the depth of commitment anti-abortion-rights folks have by asking the the anti-abortion folks, "Hey, do you oppose a 1st trimester abortion even in the case of rape/incest/life-of-the-mother?"
QuoteAcknowledgement on the pro-abortion side that there is going to be a time before birth where it is going to be illegal to abort a viable fetus.
As a pro-abortion-rights person who talks with others like me, the most common thought is that late-term abortions should only be allowed in the trifecta circumstance.
-
27 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
Did anyone argue the majority of abortions are late-term?
The people showing pictures of late-term abortions when arguing against abortion writ large are doing that, yes.
-
18 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
If basing an argument on statistical rarities is purposefully dishonest, it’s time to retire the rape/incest/life of the mother trifecta.
Has someone argued that the majority of abortions are rape/incest/life of the mother motivated?
Has anyone characterized abortion as primarily consisting of women in those situations?
16 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:Gun murders in schools are statistically very rare too. Does that mean the anti gun people are being purposely dishonest?
... when they say... what?
-
35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
Does the Constitution protect your right to own an atom bomb?
Gun nuts dodge these questions constantly.
- Should I be able to own and carry an M249?
- Should I be able to own and carry frags?
- Should I be able to own and carry mortars?
- Should I be able to own and carry claymores?
-
At least the cops didn't beat/shoot/rape them, right???
I hope that family business is ruined by lawsuits. Would be awesome.
-
8 hours ago, Stros said:
Do babies at 24 weeks have nerves that let them feel pain? YES
Do they have the brain structures necessary to actually experience pain at 24 weeks as opposed to the mere capability to carry the signal? NO
I think you're actually going into a fruitful part of the discussion, but let's not be misleading with our language. As mentioned ad infinitum, late-term abortions are (thankfully) extremely rare, and everyone involved in the discussion wishes for that to remain true. Holding up late-term abortions as the basic concept for legal abortion when it is an extreme statistical rarity is purposefully dishonest.
-
Naww man I done wrote "no librul shit" on my check to the IRS so ain't a penny a that shit goin' there
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:
I don’t. Bought a non compliant policy now that the mandate is gone. And have encouraged others to do so. All the coverage I need with much lower premiums and deductibles.
ITT Johnny Sack demonstrates his deep knowledge of how insurance pools work
-
10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:
More American males die from abortion in one morning than all American female combat deaths in history.
Legally speaking, this is completely untrue. No citizens die as a result of an abortion.
-
-
31 minutes ago, Chuychanga said:
Wait, so we gotta give them guns in the womb now?!
Roy Moore's got one that'd fit up in there
Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery
in Cloak Room
Posted
amen