Roe V Wade has been repealed

[SyphenFreht]

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.

 

[tabzer]

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.

Dude. You literally didn't mention capitalism at all in that context, nor did anyone else that you responded to. Pregnancy being worthless was your brainchild and you are just too ashamed. I don't care if you think I am the only one disagreeing with you. I am disagreeing with you.

If you think I am misrepresenting it, then say how you think I am misrepresenting it. All you are doing is what you accused me of, skirting the topic.

 

[mrdude]

Yet I, a biological XX male, exists
Why am I not shocked that people who hold restrictive views on abortion are the same people wanting to restrict other’s freedoms of identity and expression?

You can wear a green hat with bits coming out the top of it, and a purple coat and identify as a turnip for all I care, nobody is stopping you. Others might humour you and say "yes, you look like a turnip, therefore you are a turnip" to keep you happy. However don't expect eveyone with a degree of sanity to go along with this insane idea about yourself that you have, sane people will remind you that you're just a guy wearing a stuipd hat and a purple coat.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Frankly, I'm tired of you jumping in like you are some sort of example or proof that a lifestyle is functional when half of your posts are about how you cannot function.

Someone can be representative of a "lifestyle" and still have chaos in their home, person, etc. It's rather disingenuous of you to equate someone's worth and identity to their "lifestyle", and then use that to attack said "lifestyle".

 

[Lacius]

What you just described is not related to gender but culture.

It's both. That was kind of the point. Gender is a social/cultural construct. Thanks for agreeing.

And guess what, women look like women and men look like men in every culture, every ethnic, every country and every continent. We're still natural animals no matter how many clothes you put on and how many surgeries you go through, you won't ever be an artificial genderless anthropomorphic entinity; you're a human, either male or female.

One's biological sex doesn't necessarily comport with one's gender, and that's without even mentioning being intersex.

 

[The Catboy]

I didn't "edit quotes". I used the quote format to paraphrase satire a couple of times, about a couple years ago. My intentions were transparent, and if I remember correctly, you were upset that it made you look stupid, not because it was intellectually dishonest. If you want to accuse me of something, you should accommodate with sources so we can relive the hilarity that actually took place. I believe it had something to do with you claiming that your politician was a better choice because he raped fewer people or something to that affect, when I was arguing that they all should be tossed.

So you edited people’s posts to create a strawman out of their comments, that’s literally what you are saying right now.

 

[SG854]

The argument between gender and sex is ridiculous. People think to hard on it.

However the person acts that's how they act based on themselves. All the science papers that tells me averages is completely useless when I'm talking to an individual person.

 

[tabzer]

Someone can be representative of a "lifestyle" and still have chaos in their home, person, etc. It's rather disingenuous of you to equate someone's worth and identity to their "lifestyle", and then use that to attack said "lifestyle".

Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?

So you edited people’s posts to create a strawman out of their comments, that’s literally what you are saying right now.

You need to read. I didn't "edit people's posts". That makes it sound like I took what someone said, and discreetly changed something so it looked like they said something they didn't mean.

Making a satire of someone's position =/= strawman. It was clear that I thought their position was ridiculous and I was using the medium to demonstrate it. Can't help if you felt embarrassed about how stupid you looked to me.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Dude. You literally didn't mention capitalism at all in that context, nor did anyone else that you responded to. Pregnancy being worthless was your brainchild and you are just too ashamed. I don't care if you think I am the only one disagreeing with you. I am disagreeing with you.

If you think I am misrepresenting it, then say how I you think I am misrepresenting it. All you are doing is what you accused me of, skirting the topic.

So you're implying that I need to prove where I said the word "capitalism" in order to prove my point? Or are you just going to continuously take my words out of context to preserve your dying point? If I recall correctly, you still have yet to answer any of my questions and have ignored most of my points in your quest to disprove my integrity.

From there, it's clear you're the only one disagreeing, and it's going to take a lot more than just disagreement and out of context attacks to discredit my points. It's cute that you keep trying, but there already seems to be a precedent where you consistently antagonize other people to get them to derail so you can try and break them. Keep trying, hot stuff.

If anyone else thought what I said was off, they would've disagreed. They didn't, because they comprehended what I posted. You did not comprehend, which is why you keep hammering away like a blind smithy. You may not care that no one else is disagreeing, because you don't have any valid points to uphold. I care about what other posters feel in regards to my posts, because it means I must be doing something right.

I've told you how I thought you've misrepresented my words. I'm not going to spam the thread by being goaded into saying the same thing over and over again so I can get banned or comments removed. If you can't and choose not to comprehend something, just move on. No need to beat a dead horse because you feel embarrassed that you have nothing more to add to this conversation.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You need to read. I didn't "edit people's posts". That makes it sound like I took what someone said, and discreetly changed something so it looked like they said something they didn't mean.

Making a satire of someone's position =/= strawman. It was clear that I thought their position was ridiculous and I was using the medium to demonstrate it. Can't help if you felt embarrassed about how stupid you looked to

Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?

Have em hit this post first

 

[SG854]

Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?



You need to read. I didn't "edit people's posts". That makes it sound like I took what someone said, and discreetly changed something so it looked like they said something they didn't mean.

Making a satire of someone's position =/= strawman. It was clear that I thought their position was ridiculous and I was using the medium to demonstrate it. Can't help if you felt embarrassed about how stupid you looked to me.

And how did you achieve that satire? What steps did you do to make a satire from what they posted?

 

[chrisrlink]

pretty supprised Ohio didn't make an exception for abortion due to child Molestation burn in hell Ohio https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pc=U531&cvid=b4d2e0f1174d47d99ff7abafb07feb9b

 

[SG854]

pretty supprised Ohio didn't make an exception for abortion due to child Molestation burn in hell Ohio https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pc=U531&cvid=b4d2e0f1174d47d99ff7abafb07feb9b

Just like gun control if you don't ban it everywhere they'll just go to another state to get what they want.

 

[The Catboy]

Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?



You need to read. I didn't "edit people's posts". That makes it sound like I took what someone said, and discreetly changed something so it looked like they said something they didn't mean.

Making a satire of someone's position =/= strawman. It was clear that I thought their position was ridiculous and I was using the medium to demonstrate it. Can't help if you felt embarrassed about how stupid you looked to me.

Editing people’s posts and arguing that edit isn’t a “satire.”

 

[tabzer]

So you're implying that I need to prove where I said the word "capitalism" in order to prove my point? Or are you just going to continuously take my words out of context to preserve your dying point? If I recall correctly, you still have yet to answer any of my questions and have ignored most of my points in your quest to disprove my integrity.

From there, it's clear you're the only one disagreeing, and it's going to take a lot more than just disagreement and out of context attacks to discredit my points. It's cute that you keep trying, but there already seems to be a precedent where you consistently antagonize other people to get them to derail so you can try and break them. Keep trying, hot stuff.

If anyone else thought what I said was off, they would've disagreed. They didn't, because they comprehended what I posted. You did not comprehend, which is why you keep hammering away like a blind smithy. You may not care that no one else is disagreeing, because you don't have any valid points to uphold. I care about what other posters feel in regards to my posts, because it means I must be doing something right.

I've told you how I thought you've misrepresented my words. I'm not going to spam the thread by being goaded into saying the same thing over and over again so I can get banned or comments removed. If you can't and choose not to comprehend something, just move on. No need to beat a dead horse because you feel embarrassed that you have nothing more to add to this conversation.

Bandwagoning doesn't work on me.

I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless. You say you aren't going to spam this thread with rationale that clarifies what you mean, but you will spam it with information that you already know to be useless.

You seem to think that pregnancies have no value. But after you posted, you pretend that it was intended in a capitalistic pov. You are wrong. Everything has "intrinsic value", even in a capitalistic system, no?

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's irredeemable.

 

[tabzer]

Editing people’s posts and arguing that edit isn’t a “satire.”

You are going to have to post a source. I'm telling you that what I posted was an artform, but you are acting like I ripped someone off. Evidence, now please.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Bandwagoning doesn't work on me.

Great. It wasn't used to sway your opinion, it was used to highlight how everyone else sees my comment the way it was intended, not for the bastardization you're trying to make it.

I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless. You say you aren't going to spam this thread with rationale that clarifies what you mean, but you will spam it with information that you already know to be useless.

That's because no one, including me, has made that claim. When I posted the idea originally, it was in relation to the society America lives in.

What information have I presented that's been useless? The only person spamming the thread at this point is you, trying to constantly take people's words out of context.

You seem to think that pregnancies have no value.

Please show where I said I held that ideal, and that the idea was not an implied product of living in a capitalistic society.

...but after you posted, you pretend that it was intended in a capitalistic pov. You are wrong.

Not even remotely. On either of your two comments.

Everything has "intrinsic value", even in a capitalistic system, no?

That's the idea behind the design, yes.

It's irredeemable.

What's irredeemable?

 

[smf]

A newborn cannot survive without his/her parents or community. Does he/she share the same body?

Once born, the baby is separate and can provably survive without the mother.

 

[Lacius]

Bandwagoning doesn't work on me.

I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless. You say you aren't going to spam this thread with rationale that clarifies what you mean, but you will spam it with information that you already know to be useless.

You seem to think that pregnancies have no value. But after you posted, you pretend that it was intended in a capitalistic pov. You are wrong. Everything has "intrinsic value", even in a capitalistic system, no?



It's irredeemable.

Bodily autonomy > Pregnancy

 

[The Catboy]

You are going to have to post a source. I'm telling you that what I posted was an artform, but you are acting like I ripped someone off. Evidence, now please.

The fucking irony in you asking for evidence when you’ve literally never provided any for your bullshit claims in the past I am not going through thousands of posts to find posts that I know were removed.