If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

[j2k4]

Oh and j2, since you wanna go off-topic

Are you still a supremely intelligent individual whose personal integrity is above reproach, who regularly spanks stupid board members for their unrelenting idiocy and who also lives on a compound?

Yes or No.

Yes-indubitably.

[Busyman]

Oh and j2, since you wanna go off-topic

Are you still a racist redneck that is part of a militia and lives on a compound?

Yes or No.

Yes-indubitably.

I thought so.

I love it. All of this 'cause I asked an unambiguous question. You then counter with an obvious ambiguous question to prove a point. (see below about spanking stupid board members)

That's not the mark of a supremely intelligent individual whose personal integrity is above reproach, who regularly spanks stupid board members for their unrelenting idiocy.

You doling out pwnage? CaptainObviously not. Maybe talk a person indirectly, over the river and through woods with a possible clue as to what you meant somewhere in there.

All you could do is resort to some of off-topic, personal attack out of the blue. It's obvious you are the prick and bully. (see above about personal intergrity above reproach)

Check your ego.

[JPaul]

So he is a wife beater

Hoi Mod, can I suggest the Lounge for this, I think it at best unlikely that it will ever get back to the troll laden topic it started as.

I suppose it has achieved something tho' if only that busyman ended up outing himself as a women beating thug.

[Busyman]

I beat her regularly...at backgammon. That's ambiguous questions for you.

And hoi mods, if you noticed it is j2 and JPaul doing the trolling.

All I was doing was defending himself.

There was no cause for j2 to ask such a question. It sure didn't go along with my initial question and it didn't go along with any history on the board.

This is what happens egotistical members are proven wrong. They resort to being pricks and bullies.

Their perception of themselves and perceived high standing allows no wiggle room.

Notice who started the trolling in this topic. The topic surely wasn't directed at those members.

[JPaul]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It's all there for people to read.

Your first post, the one which opened the thread ends with

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

[Busyman]

This guy

the man himself

is full of shit.

Since his whole basis against abortion is that it is killing a child.

I made an assertion and (rather easily) backed it up.

If it is that the woman would harm the unborn child what of a woman that doesn't claim religious status?

[JPaul]

What are you talking about now. Your first post in it's entirety was

If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

and believes a human comes into being at the moment of conception then the only reasonable circumstance for an abortion would be to save the mother's life.

To say that there are other extenuating circumstances is bunkum.

Rape? So you, Joe Pro-Lifer, condone the killing of a child due to an unwanted participant of the mother?

Incest? So kill the child because of possible birth defects or embarrassment?

Birth defects? See above. So kill the child because it will be inconvenient to manage?

If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.

Nothing about some guy that vidcc pointed to later.

Bear in mind that some people are actually reading this and can see you squirming about, changing what you are saying because it was, without question, you who was the troll.

[Busyman]

I have seen folks like Bill Napoli that want to make laws like that and such in news. He is one of many.

It's what prompted the thread.

Who'd have thunk that a trolling first post would have resulted in claims of trolling 4 pages later after regular participation?

I wonder how that happened? Maybe the topic was laid out nicely and the ego wasn't checked so you have to resort to bullying and when that doesn't work simply cry foul. Perhaps no one thought of it as trolling 'till it was convenient.

I don't have to squirm since I have logic on my side. Cries of bully and then complaining to the mods (pages later I might add) is squirming.

Who was it that couldn't answer an unambiguous question and then resorted to a personal attack with an ambiguous one.

There are claims that some on here are fair-minded and such but then they ignore obvious crap for their own evil ways.

[JPaul]

To any pro-lifer, don't fanny about with what is justifiable.

On one hand killing a child is wrong. On the next, it's ok if the mom was raped.

In both cases you kill a child.

Bill Napoli is clearly a hypocrite. The female in question has no more right to an abortion than a female that simply says they are not ready to take care of a child....since it's about not killing a child and all.

Which part don't you understand, killing a child is always wrong.

Again, which part is difficult to understand.

Oh and who complained to a mod, I certainly didn't. I just pointed out that the thread had gone so far away from it's original, trolling start that it was unlikely to go back on topic.

You don't have logic on your side. Try to understand this time. Non sequiturs are what is known as logical fallacy. You put forward arguments and then draw a conclusion which is not supported by the arguments. I explained that much earlier in the thread and as you didn't read it then I see little point in explaining it again.

You repeatedly post the most dreadful nonsense, claiming that it is using logic. You think that just because you use the word logic that you are being logical. It simply isn't true.

[Busyman]

1. Killing a child is not always wrong.

2. It's amazing you don't understand sentence context so I indulged with #1.

3. Also when one commits to an action, they think it is the right thing to do at the time.

Bill Napoli can think abortion is wrong to the high heavens but he thinks in his example that allowing the female an abortion is the right thing to do in that circumstance.

You can fanny around with wording all you want. He thinks in that case an abortion is just.

I say that he is full of shit to allow his example an abortion and not someone that doesn't claim religious status and is a virgin.

What part didn't you understand?

Your claim of a non sequitur is a non sequitur. You talking down to me doesn't make you correct. What I am saying is quite easy to follow along.