It's easy to show me what you said. Saying that it's out there somewhere is your decision.
The claim that I am purposefully misreading something is unfounded. Instead of saying that you didn't mean what you said in the interpretable manner, you pretended you never said it.
Pulled from post #1739, page 87
tabzer said:
This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.
Notheered said:
I think it's required that we add some context mr tabzer. Since he was not replying to you at that time.
Start of the reply chain in order.
The Catboy said:
I am still wondering how the “small government” crowd is ok with this happening. Shouldn’t they be against states regulating what people can do to their bodies or is only big government when it’s a federal law protecting people? It seems like the “small government” crowd really seems to focus on laws that protect people from the government but turn a blind eye the second states enact actual laws restricting people.
mrdude said:
They are against people murdering other peoples bodies - the unborn child isn't some inconvenience that needs killed, it's a sentient being that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out before it's even taken it's first breath.
SyphenFreht said:
Why doesn't it need to be snuffed out? What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society, it doesn't process pain or much of reality, especially during the first trimester. Why is it's life important to you when it has no impact on your life whatsoever except the satisfaction of having control over someone else's body?
tabzer said:
This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.
Notheered said:
Intentionally pulling out something from a similar but different argument is rather bs don't you think?
...
Look I even parsed it for you. If at this point you still can't understand what I've said, and continue to say, then you're purposely being disingenuous because you have no counter.
And here we are, two pages further from the topic at hand because you're more interested in trying to deconstruct an argument instead of enlightening yourself or anyone else to anything other than semantics. You use tongue in cheek comments when the little logic you have fails, and now you seem to be caught up in this "show me" phase because you're still the only one who chooses to, again, purposely misread and take what I post out of context because at the end of the day you've exhausted all the mental gymnastics you had and have to resort to misdirection in order to derail the conversation enough to get comments deleted and the thread forgotten.
I never pretended to not say anything, I firmly argued that I didn't say what I said in the context you're trying to paint. You can twist my words any way you want, but general consensus has shown in two pages that more people seem to understand and empathize with my stand point than anyone has with you. Must been you're the only one here having trouble figuring out my meaning and intent.