• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let’s Punish Planned Parenthood; Abortion Doctors Must “Be Afraid for Their Life”

Just for fun, I reconsidered my response AgentJ. Like you, I've posted thousands of responses on DP. I am aware there are many posters here who suffer from challenges I'd rather not exploit. Perhaps DP gives them some emotional outlet or validation they don't otherwise feel they have access to.

In the matter from which you've attached yourself, I posted an observation about a single person identified in the OP. In response, a poster asked the following question:

"Is it your position that vitriol directed towards PP and abortion providers in general is limited solely to this one "fringe idiot"?"​

Of course I don't believe the vitriol directed towards PP and abortion provider in general is limited solely to the one guy profiled in the OP. In fact I wrote this in post #15:

"My statement had nothing to do with the vitriol and rhetoric coming from both pro and anti in general."​

This statement that vitriol and rhetoric comes from pro and anti in general answers the question completely. It refutes the assertion by the other poster that my position is that the vitriol comes "solely" from one "fringe idiot", and states quite clearly the vitriol and rhetoric is coming from both sides in general. Do I need to define what "in general" means?

I don't know what motivates posters on this website. As I stated above, it may be that this site represents the only source of affirmation they have access to. It's also true that many posters here lack the age, experience, and wisdom, to engage in thoughtful debate without exposing their stalking/trolling approach to topics.

Further, some find a need to claim "victory", when the other has merely grown weary of a tedious exchange with someone who has lost credibility and objectivity. These hollow claims of victory are little more than an exclamation into a mirror.

Obviously your claim that "the thread history proves you 100% wrong" is a complete lie. As demonstrated above, I answered the question quite clearly and completely.

Again, I don't think the vitriol against PP is coming solely from this one fringe idiot. I stated as much.

Perhaps you need to rethink your affiliation with the "we" you team up with. It's been an abject demonstrable embarrassment and failure for "all" of you.

thanks for that long meanignless post that doesnt change the fact you dodged the question, thread history does prove you dodge the question and so does your qoute above LMAO
facts are not on your side but please keep dodging and deflecting its halarious . . thanks for playing
 
What a load of dishonest crap, but all in all there is little more that can be expected and yes your posts prove that. The question you bring up and claim to have answered was in response to your earlier post in which you lamely attempted to dismiss the the real issue the OP brings up.
The subsequent posts clearly and undeniably show that and the extent to which you will go in evading that which you either can not or will not address.

DING DING DING DING
100% right
 
thanks for that long meanignless post that doesnt change the fact you dodged the question, thread history does prove you dodge the question and so does your qoute above LMAO
facts are not on your side but please keep dodging and deflecting its halarious . . thanks for playing

Thanks for the reply AgentJ. I'm going to leave it at that because I chose not to exploit your challenges.

Have a great weekend.

:peace
 
Thanks for the reply AgentJ. I'm going to leave it at that because I chose not to exploit your challenges.

Have a great weekend.

:peace

Translation: ANOTHER dodge and defection.
that what I thought! As others pointed out you got nothing and the fact remains you dodged the question LMAO
Thanks, its always a great weekend when exposing failed posts and pointing out facts.
 
There's nothing to think about. Either you're sane and realize that advocating killing automatically disqualifies one from being pro life or you're not. That's all there is to think about and no level of poorly disguised snark will change it.

It is one of the enigmas to me that people can say such embarrassing things and disclose total ignorance about significant sections of very closely related research. Pro-life is only sensible, where it puts the consequences of actions in relation to one another. It is otherwise absurd. And you are taking the absurd position. Now don't get me wrong. The Philosophy of the Absurd was quite interesting. Your argument does not, however, unfold the level of argument they brought to bare.
 
You probably are certain of that... for entirely the wrong reasons.
I doubt it.

Your claim is that wanting the right to life protected by law somehow makes me not "pro-life,"
That has not been my claim at all. How can you even argue when you clearly don't know what you're arguing about?

I assume you are alleging I have advocated for the death of others. I have not.

Yes, you suggesting that anyone is "anti-choice" because they are anti-abortion
You don't even know what's being discussed, as made obvious by the fact you keep claiming I'm saying things I have not said. Did you not pay any attention to any post in this thread? Not even the OP? Please take the time to learn what's being discussed before you jump in and speak ignorantly. Thank you. When you demonstrate that you've actually taken the time to understand what I'm saying, then I'll be more than happy to respond to anything you wish to discuss.
It is one of the enigmas to me that people can say such embarrassing things and disclose total ignorance about significant sections of very closely related research.
This is not research related. It is a direct contradiction. You cannot favor killing and claim to be pro life. They are completely at odds with one another, if one is sane and rational.

There's nothing more to it than that. And the fact you won't even address what I'm saying but rather make blatantly obvious ad hominems only proves how ridiculous it is for you to continue to debate this. Death is the opposite of life, so you cannot be pro life if you want people dead. It is very simple.
 
That has not been my claim at all. How can you even argue when you clearly don't know what you're arguing about?

You are claiming you didn't say "you are not pro-life?"

By context, you weren't talking in a theoretical, you were directing that to me.

And I have told you, there are killings that affirm the right to human right to life, rather than contradict it.

The use of lethal force in self-defense, for example. Law enforcement officers shooting a perpetrator in the act or violently resisting arrest.

Vigilantes like this guy are not justified in their actions though, of course.

You don't even know what's being discussed, as made obvious by the fact you keep claiming I'm saying things I have not said. Did you not pay any attention to any post in this thread? Not even the OP? Please take the time to learn what's being discussed before you jump in and speak ignorantly. Thank you. When you demonstrate that you've actually taken the time to understand what I'm saying, then I'll be more than happy to respond to anything you wish to discuss.

To be more charitable than you deserve in the face of all this snark, if I didn't "understand" you, you are welcome to clarify.

I reread your posts and I understand their meaning just fine, so if there is a disconnect it may be with you saying things you don't mean.
 
You are claiming you didn't say "you are not pro-life?"
Again, read the thread and get back to me. I was very clear in what I said multiple times.

By context, you weren't talking in a theoretical, you were directing that to me.
I was talking to anyone who advocates killing. Are you claiming people should be killed? Because, if you are, then you are not pro life.

If you had read my posts, you would know that. Which is why I know you have not.

And I have told you, there are killings that affirm the right to human right to life, rather than contradict it.
Death is the opposite of life. If you call for the deaths of some to "protect" the lives of others, you still are not pro life, you are just arbitrarily choosing who you want to be alive and who you want to be dead. That does not make a person pro life.

If a person calls for the deaths of some in retribution for abortion being legal, than that person is not pro life, they are anti-choice. If that description fits you, then I'm calling you anti-choice. If that description does not fit you, then I am not calling you anti-choice. But, at the end of the day, I have not explicitly defined you in any way, only have outlined the categories which exist.

The use of lethal force in self-defense, for example. Law enforcement officers shooting a perpetrator in the act or violently resisting arrest.
Again, we are choosing who dies, we not preserving all life. You are not pro life at that point.

This is not hard to understand. Why are you struggling so much with it?

To be more charitable than you deserve in the face of all this snark, if I didn't "understand" you, you are welcome to clarify.
I have, multiple times. I did again in this post, though I doubt you'll understand it because you don't want to understand it. If you had just read the thread, then this post would not be necessary, but since you obviosly don't read posts to which you respond, this post was written.

I reread your posts and I understand their meaning just fine, so if there is a disconnect it may be with you saying things you don't mean.
Nonsense. If you don't understand it, then it's because you either didn't read it or don't want to understand it. There's no ambiguity in what I'm saying. I've never once addressed you specifically and nearly every single one of my posts addressed the person mentioned in the OP. For you to somehow think what I said was about you is asinine and shows a complete unawareness of what I've said or a complete refusal to understand it. If it so happens you fit the profile of someone who is anti-choice, then so be it. But I did not label you as such, I labeled those who advocate killing to prevent abortion as being anti-choice. Please learn the difference, it's really not that subtle.
 
So ...all the connies who kept pointing to "no motive" and denied Dear might have been targeting PP...

(and that idiot Cruz who called him a Transgendered leftist") (oh sorry.."it was reported...")

any doubt now?

"Mr. Dear frequently disrupted the proceedings in state court here, shouting out declarations of anger and defiance.
“I’m guilty. There’s no trial. I’m a warrior for the babies,” he yelled at one point. “Let it all come out. The truth!” he yelled at another.

Mr. Dear shouted: “Could you add the babies that were supposed to be aborted that day? Could you add that to the list?”

http://www.mobile.nytimes.com/2015/...hooting.html?referer=https://news.google.com/
 
Back
Top Bottom