Yes-indubitably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Printable View
Yes-indubitably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Yes-indubitably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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:lol:)
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.:ermm: 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.
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.
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.:idunno:
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.
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
Quote:
If you have "extenuating" circumstances to your pro-life beliefs besides saving the mother, you are full of shit.
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?
What are you talking about now. Your first post in it's entirety was
Quote:
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.
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.:dabs:
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.
Again, which part is difficult to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulWhich part don't you understand, killing a child is always wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
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?:dabs:
Your claim of a non sequitur is a non sequitur.:blink: You talking down to me doesn't make you correct. What I am saying is quite easy to follow along.
j2 how come you live on a compound?
I couldn't care less about Bill Napoli that's not what you asked about.
Killing a child is always wrong. It may be the lesser of two or more wrongs, however it is always wrong.Quote:
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.
You need to see beyond yes / no discussion.
I disagree. I am sure most others would as well (quite easily).Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Killing a child is not wrong 'cause you say so.
Also if you believe I need to see beyond yes/no discussion why do you then say killing a child is always wrong. You don't account for the shades of grey that you say I didn't previously account for.
(when I actually did):blink:
Answer me this then, when is it not wrong to kill a child.
Self defenseQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
When should abortion be justified besides saving the mama?
That doesn't make it not wrong. What you are saying is that it is justified in those circumstances. It's not the same thingQuote:
Originally Posted by BusymanSelf defenseQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It's the same as for your second point. It's wrong to kill the child, however under the circumstances that may be the lesser wrong.
Never mind I went through that earlier as well.
Sure it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulThat doesn't make it not wrong. What you are saying is that it is justified in those circumstances. It's not the same thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
It's the same as for your second point. It's wrong to kill the child, however under the circumstances that may be the lesser wrong.
Never mind I went through that earlier as well.
Thank you for using the word "justified".
You proved my point. (good question btw)
I noticed that I answer questions straight out and you and j2 avoid them. Amazing.
I will stop answering dumb questions and personal attacks though (I even answered j2's).
How did I prove your point :lol:
You really do live in a fantasy world. If anything you are supporting the position which you say is shit.
You are saying that there are circumstances which justify actions which would normally be wrong. For example killing a child when it's self defence.Thus acknowledging the arguments used by the very groups you decry.
Can't you even see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
justifiedAnyone notice my question wasn't answered? (I figured it wouldn't be answered but just pointing it out)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It's that ego thing again.
I don't remember saying anything about pro-life groups irregardless to self-defense. Post a link.
Have you actually gone mad.
What is that last load of drivel supposed to mean.
The ego thing interests me, all things considered. The rest doesn't make sense, this thread was over on post 10.
Good point, well presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
I love the internets.
No, srsly, I mean it.
You are not St Martin by any chance, are you?:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Justified. Look it up or simply look up the word "just".Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I am liking how you know you are wrong but act as if you haven't a clue.
Why on Earth would I do that, I know what it means.
Just 'cos a man likes raising the dead now and then it don't make him a saint :unsure:
Oh good, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So do you justify an abortion under extenuating circumstances besides saving the life of the mother?
Yes but are you using logic there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Yeah that happens when folks say there are mitigating circumstances without clarifying what they are.:idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Some fall noticeably silent and feel cornered, I guess.
I have explained my position with regard to that on numerous occassions, in numerous threads. Threads which I know for a fact you have taken part in.Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanOh good, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So do you justify an abortion under extenuating circumstances besides saving the life of the mother?
Either you have read my answers and are just mucking about. Or you haven't in which case why would I bother answering you again when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading it before.
You do know that he said j2 pwnd you on the first page.Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanYeah that happens when folks say there are mitigating circumstances without clarifying what they are.:idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Some fall noticeably silent and feel cornered, I guess.
Eh? Excuse me for not remembering the intricacies of your mitigating circumstances irregardless to abortion. Did j2 feel the same way too? :idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulI have explained my position with regard to that on numerous occassions, in numerous threads. Threads which I know for a fact you have taken part in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Either you have read my answers and are just mucking about. Or you haven't in which case why would I bother answering you again when you haven't done me the courtesy of reading it before.
Was I to do a search for your answer from frigging 3 years (or so) ago?
Besides that, it was a simple question. You bother "mucking about" in every other instance yet clam up when a certain question comes about.
I'd understand if we just talked about the issue.
:blink: :slap: Goodnessgeewilikers. :slap: :blink:
Maybe I will do a search. I bet that those mitigating circumstances that you say you have made, don't exist.:ermm:
How so? I'm thinking he meant everything went off-topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulYou do know that he said j2 pwnd you on the first page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Not unless you are saying j2 confirmed the examples I laid out in the first post so I put my foot in mouth.:blink:
Nah he couldn't have meant that was pwnage, fer shirley.
Did you read what j2 said.
Do you read what anyone says.
It looks more and more as if you don't
I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Oh my bad, "shoot myself in the foot".
Damn I do see that this talked about in March. I thought it would have been earlier.
And Damn, vid led off with Bill Napoli.:blink:
I'm at the part j2 is supposedly answering my question.
edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.
Then the child's life is not paramount when the participant in the sexual act is unwanted. There is an accomodation for the mother to have the child killed because it wasn't wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Nah I just went on memory. I was slightly off.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Sry.:(
Still no pwnage though.
Cheese referred to post 10.
Did you read post 10.
One assumes not, as you are now demonstrating that you didn't read j2's other posts.
:lol: you're skimming them aren't you. Then making assumptions about what he probably said.