I knew this was where this discussion was headed when he started up two pages ago.
Who called it?
Coercing other people into paying for things they don't want or need is unethical. Yes or no? And I'm not asking you to state, as a fact, that this is "ethical", I'm simply asking your opinion.
The logical progression of thought which dictates that coercing people to pay for things they do not want or need is unethical. I thought that was blatantly obvious.Doesn't make sense according to whom?
Well, I suppose I just assumed you and I would share a common ethical basis which holds unjust coercion in contempt. I didn't know you liked unjust coercion.Your ideology and values? I should hope it doesn't, as that'd mean you were inconsistent. It sure makes sense to me, according to my ideology and values, and you'll be hard pressed to show otherwise, but i would welcome the attempt.
It is my opinion that two plus two equals five.Prove that opinions can be correct or incorrect first.
Gee, that was easy.
I could not prove it, I could only show it to be illogical, based upon an agreed set of moral standards, which I falsely assumed you held. Apparently, you think unjust coercion is okay. That is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be reconciled. The letter and spirit of this nation's laws do not suite you. Perhaps you should exercise your right to leave the country.Then prove that my opinion on this is incorrect.
You sound like you're having a great time reading my posts. I'm glad of it. Maybe we could be friends...This should be fun.
Mmmmm, not addressing the point.Nope, but three lefts do.
Stop whining.I think that it's silly and unconstitutional.
Yes...AND?I'd fight against it. Wow, what a shocker. So what? You're going to voice your opinions and "fight" against the laws with which you don't agree. I'm going to voice my opinions and "fight" against the laws with which i don't agree. This the american way.
Actually, the fact that such a law is unconstitutional means you would have a logical basis for your argument.That your law is unconstitutional would help my fight, but that's irrelevant.
Touché.Every post of mine in this thread has been a "winner". That you suddenly notice is of no concern to me.
I must remind you that I am perfectly comfortable with you admitting that your statements are illogical. There's no need for you to insist on driving my point home, although I do appreciate it.It would depend on what i had previously said to which that was your reply. Did i ever say that "stop whining" was a logical refutation of anyone's position? I think not.
All i see from you is whining and more whining. Even now, as you attempt to obscure the issue in an avalanche of non-sequiturs instead of rational syllogisms, it's just more bitching and moaning. I still have yet to see one robust, logical presentation in favor of your position.
The smack-talk is strong with this one...
I'd love to eat some steak. Are you paying? Where are we going?With all your hemming and hawing, there's no meat amidst all the tendons and cartilage. Are we going to ever eat steak, Ethereal, or are we just going to talk about the color of the plates and the name brand of the knives?
So long as you admit your question was a loaded one with no basis in sound reasoning or logic I'm in no position to complain.Anybody can ask loaded questions. Who cares? All i see you doing is being obscure and rhetorical. Why not address the issue at hand? Are you so scarred of the actual issue that you feel the need to dodge with red herrings every other sentence? I explained to you the REALITY of how the process works. You don't have to answer my questions about that reality, but you can't deny it. Again, I think you should have the right to be vocal about abortion paid for with tax dollars and that i should have the right to be vocal about whatever i please and that's what make this country so great. You can say something about that or not. What do i care?
Then get busy contesting it and quit pointing out such obvious points as could be picked up by any 4th grader that knows how to read the English language. You've yet to say anything at all, really. What's your point, that you can throw red herrings and non-sequiturs around all day long? Hell, people who can do that are all over the place. They hardly need to advertise.
This is very amusing.
Splendid chat!To a fault, it appears. You just keep stating the facts over and over that everybody already knew from the get go. Let me know when you've got something to say that isn't already blatantly obvious to every single person who takes a 2-second cursory glance at the thread title.
In the case of a war, sure innocent people die, but it is the result of conflicts between governments. You being from the UK should appreciate the fact that the United States was willing to come to the defense of your country in 1941 after the enormous loss of life suffered by your fellow countrymen from the bombing raids of the German air force. How many more innocents would have died had the United States not intervened in that conflict?
However, abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Say what you want about the rights of the mother’s womb, but if she had taken advantage of her right to NOT get pregnant in the first place and shown some personal responsibility, she would not be in a position to make the innocent child she carries have to suffer for her sins.
The problem with abortion in the United States is that it has become a form of birth control due to its availability. If it was not so readily available, maybe more people would use better judgment and personal responsibility.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville