Topic: Why would you force rape babies to be born
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #23,043
But then not support them? How can this be called a personal responsibility issue?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #361,008
Why Jesus said suffer the little children, did he only mean when they were in the womb?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,009
Why do Christian pundits go on television and tell people not to adopt orphans?
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,010
Why is it big government to provide welfare, but not big government when trying to shut down Planned Parenthood?
Richard Mourdock joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,012
I may be sick and twisted according to the liberals; My view is that God intended babies to be made, one way or the other.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 34 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,013
Why is it okay for Christian/Republican leaders to go on television and claim that medically necessary abortions dont exist? Isnt lying a sin?
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,015
If Christians/Republicans are against birth control and abortion, than why do they bitch about single mothers?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,016
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 47 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,018
@361,010 (A)
Planned parenthood is bad for our economy. Prevention of cancer does not help our vital robust medical industry.
Planned parenthood is bad for our economy. Prevention of cancer does not help our vital robust medical industry.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 29 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,020
Is the Catholic church anti birth control, because they always need a fresh supply of little boys to molest?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,021
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,023
Haha, yes! Stick the knife in deep! Twist it!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,026
Why do so many anti gay religious leaders, turn out to be homos themselves? Why isnt it evil for them to suck off young Latino rent boys, if its bad for the rest of us?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,027
If children are gifts from god, than why is it okay to let them rot in government sponsored group homes? Would gay parents be worse than aging out of the foster care system?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,028
If we base all of our laws and morals on the bible, than why do rapists no longer have to marry their victims?
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,031
Why did Mitt Romney put an abortion clause into his sons child surrogate contract, when he wants to outlaw abortion for the common folk?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,034
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,038
If Mitt Romney is our anti porn moral leader, than why did he have a fund raising benefit at the home of a millionaire who hosts Calligula like sex orgies?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,041
Why do Republicans claim that people are talking about abortion in order to take the heat off of the real issues (the economy), when unwanted pregnancies are one of the major causes of poverty for women?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,043
If certain organzations can claim that its against their religious beliefs to provide insurance covered birth control, could they say the same for obesity related health problems? After all, gluttony and sloth are sins as well.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,044
Do people realize that that preventing access to birth control and abortion will encourage women to have less sex? Is that what we actually want?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,047
Question everything they said. It'll be fun they said.Richard Mourdock replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,052
@361,016 (A)Rape is a horrible situation. We will never understand why God made people who rape. We cannot question the wisdom of God. Pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God’s plan.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 45 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,053
@previous (Richard Mourdock)
They actually believe that. If men could get pregnant, we would have door to door abortions on demand.
They actually believe that. If men could get pregnant, we would have door to door abortions on demand.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,103
@361,008 (A)
> Why Jesus said suffer the little children, did he only mean when they were in the womb?
maybe he meant, literally, for children to suffer.
> Why Jesus said suffer the little children, did he only mean when they were in the womb?
maybe he meant, literally, for children to suffer.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,105
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,115
@previous (A)
Richard Mourdock
Directly from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mourdock
"Mourdock has questioned the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, saying to a group of supporters: "I challenge you in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution where those so-called Enumerated powers are listed. I challenge you to find words that talk about Medicare or Medicaid or, yes, even Social Security."
Richard Mourdock
Directly from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mourdock
"Mourdock has questioned the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, saying to a group of supporters: "I challenge you in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution where those so-called Enumerated powers are listed. I challenge you to find words that talk about Medicare or Medicaid or, yes, even Social Security."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,119
@previous (C)
Oh my god. He's the devil. To spit in the face of our seniors, is just so filthy and vile.
Oh my god. He's the devil. To spit in the face of our seniors, is just so filthy and vile.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,125
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,126
@previous (B)
He'd really turn his back on the generation who fought our great wars? He'd let helpless pensioners rot in their homes? Christian love at its finest.
He'd really turn his back on the generation who fought our great wars? He'd let helpless pensioners rot in their homes? Christian love at its finest.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,141
> How could you oppose murder and oppose welfare payments? It's illogical!
You are very stupid.
You are very stupid.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,146
@previous (G)
> He'd let helpless pensioners rot in their homes? Christian love at its finest.
Except if you follow the logic, when people are helpless and rotting in their homes, that is in fact Gods plan.
> He'd let helpless pensioners rot in their homes? Christian love at its finest.
Except if you follow the logic, when people are helpless and rotting in their homes, that is in fact Gods plan.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,152
@361,141 (G)
you care about them being born, but you dont care if they rot neglected in their homes? You'd let poor babies die from lack of medical care after forcing them to be born? Christianity really is the religion of love?
you care about them being born, but you dont care if they rot neglected in their homes? You'd let poor babies die from lack of medical care after forcing them to be born? Christianity really is the religion of love?
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,160
@previous (A)
> You oppose murder AND theft? How illogical!
You are very stupid.
> If you don't want the government to do it, you mustn't want it to be done at all!
You are very stupid.
> You oppose murder AND theft? How illogical!
You are very stupid.
> If you don't want the government to do it, you mustn't want it to be done at all!
You are very stupid.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,225
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,228
@361,160 (G)
It's funny because you're playing with semantics instead of directly addressing his point.
It's funny because you're playing with semantics instead of directly addressing his point.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #361,348
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> implying you can separate the two
Who knows what his point is if he can't even communicate it? I am dealing with what I am being presented with.
> implying you can separate the two
Who knows what his point is if he can't even communicate it? I am dealing with what I am being presented with.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #361,355
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,449
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,453
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 41 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,455
lol Mountie is a pedo lol
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,456
@361,228 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> you're playing with semantics instead of directly addressing his point.
That's his fallback tactic when calling people stupid starts to get repetitive.
> you're playing with semantics instead of directly addressing his point.
That's his fallback tactic when calling people stupid starts to get repetitive.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,475
@previous (J)
Expound your criticism. As it stands is it essentially meaningless. If the argument presented is "if you advocate action a because of principle x, why don't advocate action b?" This is not a good argument. Demonstrate that action b follows from the same principle x.
Expound your criticism. As it stands is it essentially meaningless. If the argument presented is "if you advocate action a because of principle x, why don't advocate action b?" This is not a good argument. Demonstrate that action b follows from the same principle x.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,482
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,484
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,486
@361,482 (K)
The mother if she wishes to raise the child, otherwise a church or other agency if the mother wishes to give up the child, or an adoptive family who wishes to adopt the child.
The mother if she wishes to raise the child, otherwise a church or other agency if the mother wishes to give up the child, or an adoptive family who wishes to adopt the child.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,487
@361,484 (L)
Which someone? Also, what do you do with the abandoned chidren that will result from banning abortions? Do they starve?
Which someone? Also, what do you do with the abandoned chidren that will result from banning abortions? Do they starve?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,488
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,489
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,490
@previous (L)
I feel warm from your Christian love. Murder must be gods will, Theft must be gods will. Religion poisons people. You would rather children starve to death, instead of being aborted. Thats sick.
I feel warm from your Christian love. Murder must be gods will, Theft must be gods will. Religion poisons people. You would rather children starve to death, instead of being aborted. Thats sick.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,493
@previous (A)
No one knows what God is thinking. You may ask why the God of love, permits such things in His world as war, sickness, pain, and death, especially when their effects often are felt most keenly by those who are apparently innocent?
We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that.
No one knows what God is thinking. You may ask why the God of love, permits such things in His world as war, sickness, pain, and death, especially when their effects often are felt most keenly by those who are apparently innocent?
We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,495
@previous (L)
Its terrifying that people like you exist. People who feel moral for forcing children to be born, and then letting them starve. Look at what your religion has done to you.
Its terrifying that people like you exist. People who feel moral for forcing children to be born, and then letting them starve. Look at what your religion has done to you.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,499
@previous (A)
We of faith, are free to seek for ways in which we can profit spiritually from the sufferings in life, as well as the blessings.
Our world is under God’s Curse (Genesis 3:17) because of man’s rebellion against God’s Word.
We of faith, are free to seek for ways in which we can profit spiritually from the sufferings in life, as well as the blessings.
Our world is under God’s Curse (Genesis 3:17) because of man’s rebellion against God’s Word.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,512
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,517
@previous (A)> Christianity is terrifying.
As if this is something new. Some Pope long ago started the crusades on them Muslim Turks wayyyy back in 11th century. Pope had so called God on his side. So this goes on and on and on and on and most recently George Bush Jr put his own crusade on Iraq and took out the unlawful leader. Massive number of innocent women and children and babies turned to ash-carbon.
So Christianity Yes its terrifying and so is USA Americanano policy. Bottom line shit happens nor does it see it will ever stop.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,518
Fathers' rights!
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,524
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,525
Anonymous G triple-posted this 14 years ago, 38 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,526
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,534
@361,486 (G)
> a church or other agency
This just amounts to hand-waving.
You are just assuming that someone will swoop in to take care of things once the child arrives, which sounds like a pretty shoddy argument when there are churches out there telling people not to adopt. Putting aside the cruelty of asking a raped girl to put her life on hold to go through nine months of pregnancy (plus food, plus care, plus medical, plus everything else that goes along with pregnancy that no one is going to just appear out of nowhere and take care of) for a child she doesn't want to carry, you are assuming the costs won't fall to the state by relying on someone to voluntarily step forward and cover the costs of raising a child in each instance. This may happen in some cases, but to just hand-wave the problem away by assuming it will always be the case is wishful thinking.
> a church or other agency
This just amounts to hand-waving.
You are just assuming that someone will swoop in to take care of things once the child arrives, which sounds like a pretty shoddy argument when there are churches out there telling people not to adopt. Putting aside the cruelty of asking a raped girl to put her life on hold to go through nine months of pregnancy (plus food, plus care, plus medical, plus everything else that goes along with pregnancy that no one is going to just appear out of nowhere and take care of) for a child she doesn't want to carry, you are assuming the costs won't fall to the state by relying on someone to voluntarily step forward and cover the costs of raising a child in each instance. This may happen in some cases, but to just hand-wave the problem away by assuming it will always be the case is wishful thinking.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,542
@previous (J)
> This just amounts to hand-waving.
No, it's not.
> You are just assuming that someone will swoop in to take care of things once the child arrives,
No, I am not.
> which sounds like a pretty shoddy argument when there are churches out there telling people not to adopt.
One man isn't a church. Regardless, this is ridiculous. It's like asking how did Lady Gaga sell any albums when some churches were telling people not to.
> Putting aside the cruelty of asking a raped girl to put her life on hold to go through nine months of pregnancy
How incredibly cruel it is to ask people to refrain from murder.
> (plus food, plus care, plus medical, plus everything else that goes along with pregnancy that no one is going to just appear out of nowhere and take care of)
What a strange absolute statement to make. I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.
> for a child she doesn't want to carry, you are assuming the costs won't fall to the state by relying on someone to voluntarily step forward and cover the costs of raising a child in each instance. This may happen in some cases, but to just hand-wave the problem away by assuming it will always be the case is wishful thinking.
I am assuming no state or at least the inaction of a state in such an area.
> This just amounts to hand-waving.
No, it's not.
> You are just assuming that someone will swoop in to take care of things once the child arrives,
No, I am not.
> which sounds like a pretty shoddy argument when there are churches out there telling people not to adopt.
One man isn't a church. Regardless, this is ridiculous. It's like asking how did Lady Gaga sell any albums when some churches were telling people not to.
> Putting aside the cruelty of asking a raped girl to put her life on hold to go through nine months of pregnancy
How incredibly cruel it is to ask people to refrain from murder.
> (plus food, plus care, plus medical, plus everything else that goes along with pregnancy that no one is going to just appear out of nowhere and take care of)
What a strange absolute statement to make. I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.
> for a child she doesn't want to carry, you are assuming the costs won't fall to the state by relying on someone to voluntarily step forward and cover the costs of raising a child in each instance. This may happen in some cases, but to just hand-wave the problem away by assuming it will always be the case is wishful thinking.
I am assuming no state or at least the inaction of a state in such an area.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,545
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 14 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,840
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,848
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,849
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,850
@previous (A)
I know this is a bit off topic but its all about religion. Mormons make a point of doing missions to Africa. Yet up to 1979, blacks were not permitted into Mormon sanctuary's.
Christians are a very strange breed.
I know this is a bit off topic but its all about religion. Mormons make a point of doing missions to Africa. Yet up to 1979, blacks were not permitted into Mormon sanctuary's.
Christians are a very strange breed.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,853
@361,848 (A)
If no one is willing the children do not get looked after. This is what happened in many cultures before the Church arrived.
If no one is willing the children do not get looked after. This is what happened in many cultures before the Church arrived.
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,854
@361,849 (A)
As a non-raped non-woman non-American I have never sought out such services. This is why I choose not to come down definitively on the existence or non-existence of such groups.
As a non-raped non-woman non-American I have never sought out such services. This is why I choose not to come down definitively on the existence or non-existence of such groups.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 14 years ago, 28 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,855
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,857
@361,853 (G)
So you'd let them starve to death? Letting a child starve to death is more moral than aborting it?
So you'd let them starve to death? Letting a child starve to death is more moral than aborting it?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,859
@previous (A)
Christians sure do. The right wing types only care about one thing. Birth. From then on its all on the person born to make their way on Planet Earth.
Christians sure do. The right wing types only care about one thing. Birth. From then on its all on the person born to make their way on Planet Earth.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,861
@361,854 (G)
> This is why I choose not to come down definitively on the existence or non-existence of such groups.
But earlier you said:
@361,542 (G)
> I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.
So you won't say if there are or aren't but you will just assume that there are because otherwise your argument would look bad. That is some really A+ quality reasoning.
@361,853 (G)
Yes, let's abolish the state so that children will starve to death in the street. I can't even begin to describe how terrible of a person you are for advocating that.
> This is why I choose not to come down definitively on the existence or non-existence of such groups.
But earlier you said:
@361,542 (G)
> I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.
So you won't say if there are or aren't but you will just assume that there are because otherwise your argument would look bad. That is some really A+ quality reasoning.
@361,853 (G)
Yes, let's abolish the state so that children will starve to death in the street. I can't even begin to describe how terrible of a person you are for advocating that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,862
@361,859 (B)
Thats disgusting. Imagine a society where dead people litter the streets and public places. Thats a horrific way to live.
Thats disgusting. Imagine a society where dead people litter the streets and public places. Thats a horrific way to live.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,867
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,869
@361,859 (B)
You must be completely retarded. "Right wing types" are all about family and moral values and shit. Disagreeing with forced collectivization doesn't mean you have to support radical individualism. I am part of many voluntary collectives - a family, a church, a political party.
You must be completely retarded. "Right wing types" are all about family and moral values and shit. Disagreeing with forced collectivization doesn't mean you have to support radical individualism. I am part of many voluntary collectives - a family, a church, a political party.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,872
@361,862 (A)
Taken what I said to the extreme limit. What I mean is: Right wing Christians, do what they do on principle.So live birth is the objective. Because they lean strongly against welfare or any kind of support to the 47% and that is no joke! It comes down to, Birth is the starting point and if the streets end up filled with street people, so be it.
Christians tend to be on the edge of reason. However because they are afraid of catching AIDS from the air as well as other deadly shit, they will allow the Gov to shoot some sort of help into veins of poor.
So them who cry Gods will, that is their cop out.
Taken what I said to the extreme limit. What I mean is: Right wing Christians, do what they do on principle.
Christians tend to be on the edge of reason. However because they are afraid of catching AIDS from the air as well as other deadly shit, they will allow the Gov to shoot some sort of help into veins of poor.
So them who cry Gods will, that is their cop out.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 12 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,873
@361,861 (N)
> So you won't say if there are or aren't
Because I have no knowledge one way or the other.
> but you will just assume that there are because otherwise your argument would look bad.
> because
I assume because it seems likely to me. That's all.
> That is some really A+ quality reasoning.
Nowhere did you attack my reasoning, just the validity of the conclusion.
> So you won't say if there are or aren't
Because I have no knowledge one way or the other.
> but you will just assume that there are because otherwise your argument would look bad.
> because
I assume because it seems likely to me. That's all.
> That is some really A+ quality reasoning.
Nowhere did you attack my reasoning, just the validity of the conclusion.
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,875
@361,861 (N)
Yes, children will starve in the streeta just like they did in the 1950s before the Great Society started lol. Would you let that happen? If an orphan was starving outside your house in the street would you do nothing? Would you let it starve?
Yes, children will starve in the streeta just like they did in the 1950s before the Great Society started lol. Would you let that happen? If an orphan was starving outside your house in the street would you do nothing? Would you let it starve?
Anonymous G triple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,877
@361,862 (A)
You're hilarious. You don't have to imagine - look at pictures of the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea, where the state plans the economy totally. That actually happened. In economically-free countries it doesn't.
You're hilarious. You don't have to imagine - look at pictures of the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea, where the state plans the economy totally. That actually happened. In economically-free countries it doesn't.
Anonymous G quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,879
@361,872 (B)
> Because they lean strongly against welfare or any kind of support to the 47% and that is no joke!
You are a joke. Charity is not opposed. Helping the poor is not opposed. State confiscation and redistribution of property is opposed.
> It comes down to, Birth is the starting point and if the streets end up filled with street people, so be it.
Your entire argument is that someone else should help the poor. If someone else stopped, you would let people starve. Stupid.
> Christians tend to be on the edge of reason. However because they are afraid of catching AIDS from the air as well as other deadly shit, they will allow the Gov to shoot some sort of help into veins of poor.
da fuggg
> Because they lean strongly against welfare or any kind of support to the 47% and that is no joke!
You are a joke. Charity is not opposed. Helping the poor is not opposed. State confiscation and redistribution of property is opposed.
> It comes down to, Birth is the starting point and if the streets end up filled with street people, so be it.
Your entire argument is that someone else should help the poor. If someone else stopped, you would let people starve. Stupid.
> Christians tend to be on the edge of reason. However because they are afraid of catching AIDS from the air as well as other deadly shit, they will allow the Gov to shoot some sort of help into veins of poor.
da fuggg
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,884
@previous (G)
> You are a joke. Charity is not opposed. Helping the poor is not opposed. State confiscation and redistribution of property is opposed.
Are you one of those who is against IRS collecting tax's? Some in the Tea party considering that ''confiscation.
> Your entire argument is that someone else should help the poor. If someone else stopped, you would let people starve
Where did I say that? I said right wing Christians only care about birth. What happens from there on is Gods will. If child is raped, that must be Gods will or Devils will and God created the Devil.
> You are a joke. Charity is not opposed. Helping the poor is not opposed. State confiscation and redistribution of property is opposed.
Are you one of those who is against IRS collecting tax's? Some in the Tea party considering that ''confiscation.
> Your entire argument is that someone else should help the poor. If someone else stopped, you would let people starve
Where did I say that? I said right wing Christians only care about birth. What happens from there on is Gods will. If child is raped, that must be Gods will or Devils will and God created the Devil.
Anonymous N replied with this 14 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,885
@361,873 (G)
> Nowhere did you attack my reasoning, just the validity of the conclusion.
First of all, conclusions are either true or not true. Validity is a description of arguments, not premises. And I actually did attack your reasoning, because it is atrocious. You criticized @OP for thinking that if the government didn't provide adequately for children, then no one would. When you were pressed to name specific agencies or organizations that could fund every single child that is currently funded by government funds, you said that you just assume there are because, apparently, it seems likely to you. So @OP is wrong because you are assuming that she is wrong. That is textbook circular reasoning.
@361,875 (G)
Do you have any idea how many children starved in America in 1950 compared to today? Let me guess. No you don't, but since you can just "assume" that no children have ever starved in the history of America whether or not there was government funded food help for poor people, then who needs facts, right?
> Nowhere did you attack my reasoning, just the validity of the conclusion.
First of all, conclusions are either true or not true. Validity is a description of arguments, not premises. And I actually did attack your reasoning, because it is atrocious. You criticized @OP for thinking that if the government didn't provide adequately for children, then no one would. When you were pressed to name specific agencies or organizations that could fund every single child that is currently funded by government funds, you said that you just assume there are because, apparently, it seems likely to you. So @OP is wrong because you are assuming that she is wrong. That is textbook circular reasoning.
@361,875 (G)
Do you have any idea how many children starved in America in 1950 compared to today? Let me guess. No you don't, but since you can just "assume" that no children have ever starved in the history of America whether or not there was government funded food help for poor people, then who needs facts, right?
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,890
@361,884 (B)
By definition taxation is confiscation, and yes, I oppose it.
> What happens from there on is Gods will.
And the will of God is for people to love each other and help each other. The will of God is to help the poor, the sick, the alien, the widow, and the orphan.
By definition taxation is confiscation, and yes, I oppose it.
> What happens from there on is Gods will.
And the will of God is for people to love each other and help each other. The will of God is to help the poor, the sick, the alien, the widow, and the orphan.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,891
@previous (G)
Last reply of evening early morning. OK so you are one of THEM You are again Taxation. Nice try if you can wet dream about such.
> And the will of God is for people to love each other and help each other. The will of God is to help the poor, the sick, the alien, the widow, and the orphan.
Good luck cause as you know God failed. Zillions killed with onward Christian soldiers, marching off to war -
Last reply of evening early morning. OK so you are one of THEM You are again Taxation. Nice try if you can wet dream about such.
> And the will of God is for people to love each other and help each other. The will of God is to help the poor, the sick, the alien, the widow, and the orphan.
Good luck cause as you know God failed. Zillions killed with onward Christian soldiers, marching off to war -
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,892
@361,885 (N)
> First of all, conclusions are either true or not true.
Except that my conclusion wasn't a truth claim, so that is not applicable
> And I actually did attack your reasoning, because it is atrocious.
No, you didn't. You just accused me of claiming to believe something to suit an argument, I was making, as opposed to actually believing. You just accused me of being a liar, not of committing a fallacy.
> You criticized @OP for thinking that if the government didn't provide adequately for children, then no one would. When you were pressed to name specific agencies or organizations that could fund every single child that is currently funded by government funds, you said that you just assume there are because, apparently, it seems likely to you. So @OP is wrong because you are assuming that she is wrong. That is textbook circular reasoning.
The assumption was actually about organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies. I think that I have heard of pro-life groups that do that, but I can't be sure.
> Do you have any idea how many children starved in America in 1950 compared to today? Let me guess. No you don't, but since you can just "assume" that no children have ever starved in the history of America whether or not there was government funded food help for poor people, then who needs facts, right?
Enlighten me.
> First of all, conclusions are either true or not true.
Except that my conclusion wasn't a truth claim, so that is not applicable
> And I actually did attack your reasoning, because it is atrocious.
No, you didn't. You just accused me of claiming to believe something to suit an argument, I was making, as opposed to actually believing. You just accused me of being a liar, not of committing a fallacy.
> You criticized @OP for thinking that if the government didn't provide adequately for children, then no one would. When you were pressed to name specific agencies or organizations that could fund every single child that is currently funded by government funds, you said that you just assume there are because, apparently, it seems likely to you. So @OP is wrong because you are assuming that she is wrong. That is textbook circular reasoning.
The assumption was actually about organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies. I think that I have heard of pro-life groups that do that, but I can't be sure.
> Do you have any idea how many children starved in America in 1950 compared to today? Let me guess. No you don't, but since you can just "assume" that no children have ever starved in the history of America whether or not there was government funded food help for poor people, then who needs facts, right?
Enlighten me.
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,894
@361,891 (B)
Great argument.
God didn't fail. Knobs like you and @OP fail, and try to palm off their moral responsibility to care for the poor onto "government"
Great argument.
God didn't fail. Knobs like you and @OP fail, and try to palm off their moral responsibility to care for the poor onto "government"
Anonymous N replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,896
@361,892 (G)
> Except that my conclusion wasn't a truth claim, so that is not applicable
I'm confused. If your conclusion was "I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.", then how is that not a truth claim? You are concluding that there are in fact organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies, which is either true or false. If your conclusion is something else, then what is it?
> No, you didn't. You just accused me of claiming to believe something to suit an argument, I was making, as opposed to actually believing. You just accused me of being a liar, not of committing a fallacy.
No I did not accuse you of being a liar. I accused you of reasoning poorly.
> The assumption was actually about organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies. I
Yeah, my mistake, I mixed up the posts in my head.
> Enlighten me.
I spent 15 minutes trying to find info, but it's hard to come by. It is not my responsibility to back up your claims though. That is your job. So either come up with statistics showing that child hunger wasn't an issue before the Great Society, or retract your critique.
> Except that my conclusion wasn't a truth claim, so that is not applicable
I'm confused. If your conclusion was "I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.", then how is that not a truth claim? You are concluding that there are in fact organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies, which is either true or false. If your conclusion is something else, then what is it?
> No, you didn't. You just accused me of claiming to believe something to suit an argument, I was making, as opposed to actually believing. You just accused me of being a liar, not of committing a fallacy.
No I did not accuse you of being a liar. I accused you of reasoning poorly.
> The assumption was actually about organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies. I
Yeah, my mistake, I mixed up the posts in my head.
> Enlighten me.
I spent 15 minutes trying to find info, but it's hard to come by. It is not my responsibility to back up your claims though. That is your job. So either come up with statistics showing that child hunger wasn't an issue before the Great Society, or retract your critique.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,898
@previous (N)
> I'm confused. If your conclusion was "I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.", then how is that not a truth claim? You are concluding that there are in fact organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies, which is either true or false. If your conclusion is something else, then what is it?
I am not concluding anything. I am challenging the claim that such organizations definitively do not exist.
> I spent 15 minutes trying to find info, but it's hard to come by. It is not my responsibility to back up your claims though. That is your job. So either come up with statistics showing that child hunger wasn't an issue before the Great Society, or retract your critique.
You're the one claiming that people would die without government! Point to a period in modern history where that has happened. Even the Great Depression saw no spike in the death rate.
> According to this 1939 report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1937_1.pdf)(warning: pdf) the death rate in the U.S. actually remained pretty steady from 1929-1937, between 10.7 (in 1934) - 11.9 (in 1929) per 1,000. Compare that to 1928, when the death rate was 12.1/1,000.
> I'm confused. If your conclusion was "I would assume there are many groups that counsel and aid raped women through pregnancy.", then how is that not a truth claim? You are concluding that there are in fact organizations that would aid raped women through their pregnancies, which is either true or false. If your conclusion is something else, then what is it?
I am not concluding anything. I am challenging the claim that such organizations definitively do not exist.
> I spent 15 minutes trying to find info, but it's hard to come by. It is not my responsibility to back up your claims though. That is your job. So either come up with statistics showing that child hunger wasn't an issue before the Great Society, or retract your critique.
You're the one claiming that people would die without government! Point to a period in modern history where that has happened. Even the Great Depression saw no spike in the death rate.
> According to this 1939 report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1937_1.pdf)(warning: pdf) the death rate in the U.S. actually remained pretty steady from 1929-1937, between 10.7 (in 1934) - 11.9 (in 1929) per 1,000. Compare that to 1928, when the death rate was 12.1/1,000.
Anonymous N replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,899
@previous (G)
> I am not concluding anything. I am challenging the claim that such organizations definitively do not exist.
Where did @OP say "There are exactly zero organizations other than the Government that can care for people"? That's not their concern. As far as I can tell (and I don't want to put words in their mouth), the problem is there isn't an adequate supply of non-governmental help.
> You're the one claiming that people would die without government! Even the Great Depression saw no spike in the death rate.
I like how you quoted verbatim a post on an internet forum to prove your point. Good thing you don't have to analyze data or think critically for yourself! That would be mentally challenging. And while I enjoy dancing the "burden of proof shuffle" as much as the next guy, it's long past due for you to back up your claim that there was no significant childhood hunger problem before the Great Society.
Also, I find it curious that you cite the Great Depression as evidence that people fare fine without government, when the Great Depression saw massive government interference in the private sector to ensure that people had money for food and jobs.
> I am not concluding anything. I am challenging the claim that such organizations definitively do not exist.
Where did @OP say "There are exactly zero organizations other than the Government that can care for people"? That's not their concern. As far as I can tell (and I don't want to put words in their mouth), the problem is there isn't an adequate supply of non-governmental help.
> You're the one claiming that people would die without government! Even the Great Depression saw no spike in the death rate.
I like how you quoted verbatim a post on an internet forum to prove your point. Good thing you don't have to analyze data or think critically for yourself! That would be mentally challenging. And while I enjoy dancing the "burden of proof shuffle" as much as the next guy, it's long past due for you to back up your claim that there was no significant childhood hunger problem before the Great Society.
Also, I find it curious that you cite the Great Depression as evidence that people fare fine without government, when the Great Depression saw massive government interference in the private sector to ensure that people had money for food and jobs.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #361,911
@previous (N)
see
@361,534 (J)
> (plus food, plus care, plus medical, plus everything else that goes along with pregnancy that no one is going to just appear out of nowhere and take care of)
Remember the discussion is about groups that care for rape victims during a pregnancy.
I read the whole 6 million (lol) died in the great depression thing a couple months ago, apparently the reference is traceable back to a Soviet historian. I thought of that thread immediately as a good reference that even in the most dire circumstances of the modern age, and before the welfare state truly kicked off in the 1960s, people (en masse) did not starve to death. From this it can be assumed that in times of plenty and prosperity there was even less risk of starvation. I notice you have subtly attempted to change the topic from "dead bodies in the street" and "starvation" to "childhood hunger". This is very intellectually dishonest. I am sure you are aware of the impossibility of (despite your constant requests for me to) prove a negative.
As the Great Depression was brought about by state interference in the market, and prolonged and worsened by continued state interference in the market, and given that there was massive unemployment and widespread hunger throughout the period, I feel at ease using this as an example.
see
@361,534 (J)
> (plus food, plus care, plus medical, plus everything else that goes along with pregnancy that no one is going to just appear out of nowhere and take care of)
Remember the discussion is about groups that care for rape victims during a pregnancy.
I read the whole 6 million (lol) died in the great depression thing a couple months ago, apparently the reference is traceable back to a Soviet historian. I thought of that thread immediately as a good reference that even in the most dire circumstances of the modern age, and before the welfare state truly kicked off in the 1960s, people (en masse) did not starve to death. From this it can be assumed that in times of plenty and prosperity there was even less risk of starvation. I notice you have subtly attempted to change the topic from "dead bodies in the street" and "starvation" to "childhood hunger". This is very intellectually dishonest. I am sure you are aware of the impossibility of (despite your constant requests for me to) prove a negative.
As the Great Depression was brought about by state interference in the market, and prolonged and worsened by continued state interference in the market, and given that there was massive unemployment and widespread hunger throughout the period, I feel at ease using this as an example.