Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

rainbow kirby

Lavezzi wrote: »

Then they want to go out and be total s****,

Lavezzi wrote: »

Don't just start name-calling like a toddler.

Kettle, pot, black.

K-9

Nobody biting, good.

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

Don't just start name-calling like a toddler.

"total s****, spreading their legs ...many fools think...Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. "


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Lavezzi

old hippy wrote: »

"total s****, spreading their legs ...many fools think...Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. "


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was name-calling to make a point. He did it to compensate for his apparent inability to come up with a response as to why he disagrees.

So far no one has said why they disagree with what I have written. They've just given little arrogant responses knowing they will get thanked for it by all the other sheep.

prinz

Lavezzi wrote: »

So far no one has said why they disagree with what I have written. They've just given little arrogant responses knowing they will get thanked for it by all the other sheep.

Some of us have just been a-whittlin'.

Lavezzi

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I was going to write a well-reasoned argument out, but I realised you have many many of your own problems without me taking you to pieces.


Good luck fighting your demons, man.

So you're just allowed to make a claim about how your intellect is so superior to mine that you would 'take me to pieces' without giving anything to back it up, and you get thanked for it??

Funny because in reality your definition of "taking me to pieces" would really be spewing whatever popular opinion you've recently heard on the news using your left-brained average IQ feeble little mind.

Lollipops23

Lavezzi wrote: »

So you're just allowed to make a claim about how your intellect is so superior to mine that you would 'take me to pieces' without giving anything to back it up, and you get thanked for it??

Funny because in reality your definition of "taking me to pieces" would really be spewing whatever popular opinion you've recently heard on the news using your left-brained average IQ feeble little mind.

Nope, I mean literally.

desertcircus

Lavezzi wrote: »

desertcircus wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. Any evidence for your inflammatory claims, or are you just a hate-filled misanthrope who thinks even rape victims should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term?

Evidence? You mean like the agenda driven fake statistics people on here usually provide?

I stated my opinion. If you disagree, SAY WHY YOU DISAGREE. Don't just start name-calling like a toddler.

I disagree because you're making insane claims (most women in Ireland are baby-murdering sluts being a particularly wild example) with no evidence. Not to mention the fact that you seem unable to imagine that other people may not believe a fertilised embryo to be the same thing as a human life. And as for the name-calling; I stand by it. Anyone who hysterically denounced most Irish women as sluts IS a hate-filled misanthrope.

mloc

Lavezzi wrote: »

Funny because in reality your definition of "taking me to pieces" would really be spewing whatever popular opinion you've recently heard on the news using your left-brained average IQ feeble little mind.

A quick "Find more posts by this user" reveals either

a) someone with a really interesting combination of anger issues and conspiracy theory delusions

or

b) epic troll

Lavezzi

desertcircus wrote: »

I disagree because you're making insane claims (most women in Ireland are baby-murdering sluts being a particularly wild example) with no evidence. Not to mention the fact that you seem unable to imagine that other people may not believe a fertilised embryo to be the same thing as a human life. And as for the name-calling; I stand by it. Anyone who hysterically denounced most Irish women as sluts IS a hate-filled misanthrope.

How is an insane claim that most Irish women are sluts that would be willing to get an abortion? I thought that would be popular opinion (AKA liberal atheist's religion).

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

your left-brained average IQ feeble little mind.

More name calling & insults

Lavezzi

old hippy wrote: »

More name calling & insults

Lavezzi wrote: »

I was name-calling to make a point. He did it to compensate for his apparent inability to come up with a response as to why he disagrees.

So far no one has said why they disagree with what I have written. They've just given little arrogant responses knowing they will get thanked for it by all the other sheep.

,,

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

,,

You're just looking to provoke. Well done you.

You're dictating how people should conduct their sexual behaviour, that's why I disagree for starters.

desertcircus

Lavezzi wrote: »

desertcircus wrote: »

I disagree because you're making insane claims (most women in Ireland are baby-murdering sluts being a particularly wild example) with no evidence. Not to mention the fact that you seem unable to imagine that other people may not believe a fertilised embryo to be the same thing as a human life. And as for the name-calling; I stand by it. Anyone who hysterically denounced most Irish women as sluts IS a hate-filled misanthrope.

How is an insane claim that most Irish women are sluts that would be willing to get an abortion? I thought that would be popular opinion (AKA liberal atheist's religion).

Well, for a start, it's a claim made with no supporting evidence. How many Irish women actually have abortions each year? How many are pro-choice in outlook? How do we define slut, and what proportion of the female population meet this definition? With no answer to these questions, the claim falls at the first hurdle. And I doubt very much that such a claim would be popular opinion, not that that would have any bearing on whether it was sane or not.

Lavezzi

desertcircus wrote: »

Well, for a start, it's a claim made with no supporting evidence. How many Irish women actually have abortions each year? How many are pro-choice in outlook? How do we define slut, and what proportion of the female population meet this definition? With no answer to these questions, the claim falls at the first hurdle. And I doubt very much that such a claim would be popular opinion, not that that would have any bearing on whether it was sane or not.

In my definition, a female who has had intercourse with 5 or more partners by the time the is 25 years of age is a slut, wouldn't you agree that this is the norm for Irish females?

Snakeblood

Lavezzi wrote: »

In my definition, a female who has had intercourse with 5 or more partners by the time the is 25 years of age is a slut, wouldn't you agree that this is the norm for Irish females?

So more than one man every year is a slut? No, it's not the norm.

dr.bollocko

mod:


Aaaaand Lavezzi banned. Generally being a dick.

Lollipops23

Lavezzi wrote: »

In my definition, a female who has had intercourse with 5 or more partners by the time the is 25 years of age is a slut, wouldn't you agree that this is the norm for Irish females?

wow...um 1st off I know PLENTY of girls who've had less than 5 partners, secondly, just who the hell are you to decide what consitutes as "slutty"?

Incidentally, I strongly dislike that term. Why is sex something you have such a hang up about? Why is someone who's had sex with more than 5 people necessarily a bad person? (I note that you say a "female" and not "person" btw, does it not apply to menfolk?)

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

In my definition, a female who has had intercourse with 5 or more partners by the time the is 25 years of age is a slut, wouldn't you agree that this is the norm for Irish females?

Why is she a slut?

desertcircus

Lavezzi wrote: »

desertcircus wrote: »

Well, for a start, it's a claim made with no supporting evidence. How many Irish women actually have abortions each year? How many are pro-choice in outlook? How do we define slut, and what proportion of the female population meet this definition? With no answer to these questions, the claim falls at the first hurdle. And I doubt very much that such a claim would be popular opinion, not that that would have any bearing on whether it was sane or not.

In my definition, a female who has had intercourse with 5 or more partners by the time the is 25 years of age is a slut, wouldn't you agree that this is the norm for Irish females?

One: I don't agree with the definition. What if someone else thinks it's anyone who's had extramarital sex - or someone else who thinks you'd have to have that many partners in a weekend to qualify?

Two: Have you any figures on the number of women who have actually had that number of partners? Or have you just picked the number out of your head?

Three: in setting the limit at five partners surely you're potentially guilty of confirmation bias?

Mickeroo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Cuba 37.0
Romania 36.6
Estonia 34.4
Bulgaria 32.0
Martinique 31.6
China (PRC) 31.1
Hungary 30.8
Latvia 30.4
Moldova 29.0
Cocos Islands 28.6
Belarus 28.2
Georgia 28.1
Belize 1996 28.0
Kazakhstan 26.8
Sweden 25.8
Korea, South (ROK) 25.6
New Caledonia 25.2
French Guiana 25.0
Slovakia 24.3
Reunion 23.5
Singapore 23.4
Armenia 23.2
Serbia 23.2
Seychelles 23.2
Vietnam 23.2
United States 22.6
Ukraine 21.9
New Zealand 21.6
France 21.4
Norway 20.9
United Kingdom 20.9

Sorry man, what to the figures mean??

Mickeroo

prinz wrote: »

In a large chunk of the world populations are decreasing, in something like 70 countries IIRC.

We reached 7billion last monday or the monday before, will hit 9 billion within the next century most likely, 9 billion is estimated carrying capacity for the planet afaik. 70 countries isn't a large enough chunk I'm afraid

Mike 1972

Mickeroo wrote: »

Sorry man, what to the figures mean??

Percentages of pregnancies ending in termination. Bolded countries have 50% or more of their population declared as Roman Catholic (debunking an earlier posters assertion that such countries necessairly have low abortion rates).

yutta

I agree with most of what Lavezzi says. It's oh so cool to be atheist and liberal these days. One wonders what the next fad will be.

yutta

Mickeroo wrote: »

We reached 7billion last monday or the monday before, will hit 9 billion within the next century most likely, 9 billion is estimated carrying capacity for the planet afaik. 70 countries isn't a large enough chunk I'm afraid

Why not legalise infanticide and enforce euthanasia so?

Mike 1972

yutta wrote: »

Why not legalise infanticide and enforce euthanasia so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Why not legalise infanticide and enforce euthanasia so?

Or everyone just go gay for a year or two

K-9

yutta wrote: »

It's oh so cool to be atheist and liberal these days.

What does that actually mean?

Snakeblood

K-9 wrote: »

What does that actually mean?

It means yutta is deeply uncool and is trying unsuccessfully to isolate the reason.

yutta

bronte

by jove, he's cracked it!

p.s. You spelt parasites wrong.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

I agree with most of what Lavezzi says. It's oh so cool to be atheist and liberal these days. One wonders what the next fad will be.

Maybe the next "fad" will be a world that gets along much better when you remove all the religious crap from day to day life. I honestly believe the world would be a much better (not perfect) place without it.

I also don't see what's so wrong with being liberal- it promotes an attitude of "you do your thing, I'll do mine, and we won't row about it".

yutta

K-9 wrote: »

What does that actually mean?

A cursory look at boards.ie shows how hostile and militant today's hip atheist youth are. They're quite happy to reap all the benefits of Catholicism (e.g. their Catholic education, turning up at hatches, matches and dispatches; not to mention celebrating Christmas and Easter) yet kick the church when she's down (blasphemous references to flying spaghetti monsters, Jesus denial, sweeping generalisations against a group of people, ignorance, incessant sniggering, constant sneering, jumping on the moral high ground with regards child abuse).

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

I'm very happy and fulfilled, thank you

K-9

And Liberalism has been around for centuries, changing laws on homosexuality, welfare, equal rights, right to education, that type of cool nonsense. Seems pretty long term to be a fad to me.

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Maybe the next "fad" will be a world that gets along much better when you remove all the religious crap from day to day life. I honestly believe the world would be a much better (not perfect) place without it.

I also don't see what's so wrong with being liberal- it promotes an attitude of "you do your thing, I'll do mine, and we won't row about it".

Ahmadinejad would be proud.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

A jumping on the moral high ground with regards child abuse).

How is it possible NOT to take the moral high ground regarding child abuse? I'm honestly curious here.....

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

A cursory look at boards.ie shows how hostile and militant today's hip atheist youth are. They're quite happy to reap all the benefits of Catholicism (e.g. their Catholic education, turning up at hatches, matches and dispatches; not to mention celebrating Christmas and Easter) yet kick the church when she's down (blasphemous references to flying spaghetti monsters, Jesus denial, sweeping generalisations against a group of people, ignorance, incessant sniggering, constant sneering, jumping on the moral high ground with regards child abuse).

And we should aspire to be more like your gang, then? No thanks.

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

How is it possible NOT to take the moral high ground regarding child abuse? I'm honestly curious here.....

I'll give you one simple example: boardsies constantly calling for Pope Benedict XVI to be tried in front of court, yet they see nothing wrong with leaving Garret Fitzgerald, retired senior judges and retired Dept. of Education inspectors et al. to wander free. It's called selective, high-moral-ground finger-pointing and it's rooted in hypocrisy and ignorance.

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

And we should aspire to be more like your gang, then? No thanks.

Maybe if you were to focus on our common traits as human persons rather than adopting such an abrasive attitude, the world might be a better place.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

I'll give you one simple example: boardsies constantly calling for Pope Benedict XVI to be tried in front of court, yet they see nothing wrong with leaving Garret Fitzgerald, retired senior judges and retired Dept. of Education inspectors et al. to wander free. It's called selective, high-moral-ground finger-pointing and it's rooted in hypocrisy and ignorance.

Don't think Garret is wandering anywhere, in all fairness

strobe

yutta wrote: »

Ahmadinejad would be proud.

The religious zealot guy?

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Maybe if you were to focus on our common traits as human persons rather than adopting such an abrasive attitude, the world might be a better place.

You're the one who's sickened by certain acts, iirc? I'd get your rough edges smoothed out a bit before casting your stones about...

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm very happy and fulfilled, thank you

I'm sure you're young and carefree now, but you will die one day. It could be tomorrow, today or 50 years from now. You should really think about what state you want to be in in your hour of need.

prinz

Mickeroo wrote: »

We reached 7billion last monday or the monday before, will hit 9 billion within the next century most likely, 9 billion is estimated carrying capacity for the planet afaik. 70 countries isn't a large enough chunk I'm afraid

Those 70 odd countries represent almost half of the global population. The population growth in Western countries in the 150 years or so was astronomical between 1800 and 1950. It coincided with improvments in education, health care, work, life expectancy etc etc etc... and now many of these countries have peaked and are in decline. This pattern will repeat.

The developing world is booming currently. That won't continue for ever in time it too will peak, the UN has varying estimates for when peak population will arrive, I have seen everything from 2050 to 2100. Fertility rates in a lot of African countries have already dropped dramatically compared to say the 1960's. What you have is a generation born in the heydeys of fertility of the 50's-70's, these days hitting child producing age. Two of the most populous counties China and India will also see the knock-on effects of gendercide and so on. China is expected to hit peak pop in the next decade or two. India in a further two decades after that. Followed by stagnation and decline.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

I'm sure you're young and carefree now, but you will die one day. It could be tomorrow, today or 50 years from now. You should really think about what state you want to be in in your hour of need.

Can't speak for the poster but I imagine I'll be delirious and not quite concerned over my appearance at that stage...

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

You're the one who's sickened by certain acts, iirc?

Yes, I'm sickened by lots of things that go on in the world since the dawn of man. Will we ever learn?

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Yes, I'm sickened by lots of things that go on in the world since the dawn of man. Will we ever learn?

Not from your leanings, no.

yutta

strobe wrote: »

The religious zealot guy?

Yeah! Let's nuke them zealots!

prinz

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I also don't see what's so wrong with being liberal- it promotes an attitude of "you do your thing, I'll do mine, and we won't row about it".

Life doesn't work that way. Eventually a row will start, when your thing impacts on my thing and vice versa. This attitude that if we're all focusing on doing our own thing everyone will be happy is nonsense.