RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/5/2016 7:50:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Here you were ridiculing bounty's assertion that segration in the north was different than segration in the south. Which you laughed at -poo pooing the assertion that they were different.

Suggesting that it was all racism.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a fucking duck.



When you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Stop being a racist.



bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 3:01:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
Besides, much of what he said had already been refuted.


then you should have absolutely no problem taking all of his positions and arguments, clearly articulate them and refute them in alternating paragraphs so we all can see.

otherwise, your "argument" such as it is, holds absolutely no water.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 5:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
Besides, much of what he said had already been refuted.


then you should have absolutely no problem taking all of his positions and arguments, clearly articulate them and refute them in alternating paragraphs so we all can see.

otherwise, your "argument" such as it is, holds absolutely no water.




You like to just ignore most responses. It's like the atheism topic. Outlawing abortion is forcing others to follow the actions of your beliefs. And your response of more or less "That's not true, told you you couldn't prove it." It's like arguing with a child, completely incapable of viewing someone else's point of view



bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 6:34:55 AM)

you said Colby's positions have been refuted. I haven't seen it. you have the opportunity to either show it, or do so yourself. if they haven't, or you cant, then you look like a fool saying otherwise.

"nanny nanny boo boo, I could, I just don't want to."

im completely capable of seeing another's point of view. what is not acceptable though is for you to reinvent the meanings of words to suit your fancy. you said Christians protesting in front of abortion places is them forcing their beliefs on others. the essence of my responses to you were all around either your seeming inability to understand what force is, or your misusing it in that instance. you've still not been able to answer the question or any of phydeaux's either.

and apparently you ignored the point of "protesting out in front..." is not the same as "outlawing..." answer I gave. that's called changing the goalposts.

and apparently you missed the "understand your own statement from the position of the unborn child" as a counter to your statement.

you have this grand habit of saying things that are unsupportable or that aren't true. if you would kindly stop doing it, then you wouldn't get challenged to show your evidence. I would think after the xth time you've been caught with your academic pants down, youd stop doing it.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 7:09:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

you said Colby's positions have been refuted. I haven't seen it. you have the opportunity to either show it, or do so yourself. if they haven't, or you cant, then you look like a fool saying otherwise.

"nanny nanny boo boo, I could, I just don't want to."

im completely capable of seeing another's point of view. what is not acceptable though is for you to reinvent the meanings of words to suit your fancy. you said Christians protesting in front of abortion places is them forcing their beliefs on others. the essence of my responses to you were all around either your seeming inability to understand what force is, or your misusing it in that instance. you've still not been able to answer the question or any of phydeaux's either.

and apparently you ignored the point of "protesting out in front..." is not the same as "outlawing..." answer I gave. that's called changing the goalposts.

and apparently you missed the "understand your own statement from the position of the unborn child" as a counter to your statement.

you have this grand habit of saying things that are unsupportable or that aren't true. if you would kindly stop doing it, then you wouldn't get challenged to show your evidence. I would think after the xth time you've been caught with your academic pants down, youd stop doing it.




You ignore logical argument

Outlawing abortions forces those that believe abortion to be ok to have their actions follow your beliefs. Are Christians being forced en masse to have abortions? No, you only choose to view the side of the argument you see, and then you parade what has been disproven as this flag of righteousness, no one can disprove you in your mind so you are right. At least Phydeaux has counter points



vincentML -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 9:47:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Here you were ridiculing bounty's assertion that segration in the north was different than segration in the south. Which you laughed at -poo pooing the assertion that they were different.

Suggesting that it was all racism.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a fucking duck.



When you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Stop being a racist.

Evidently, you are totally ignorant of and have never read Brown vs Board, Topeka. In your ignorance your only answer is to slander me by calling me a racist while I am claiming that America suffers from its treatment of people of color. I believe you have fallen down the rabbit's hole, Alice.



bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 11:59:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

you said Colby's positions have been refuted. I haven't seen it. you have the opportunity to either show it, or do so yourself. if they haven't, or you cant, then you look like a fool saying otherwise.

"nanny nanny boo boo, I could, I just don't want to."

im completely capable of seeing another's point of view. what is not acceptable though is for you to reinvent the meanings of words to suit your fancy. you said Christians protesting in front of abortion places is them forcing their beliefs on others. the essence of my responses to you were all around either your seeming inability to understand what force is, or your misusing it in that instance. you've still not been able to answer the question or any of phydeaux's either.

and apparently you ignored the point of "protesting out in front..." is not the same as "outlawing..." answer I gave. that's called changing the goalposts.

and apparently you missed the "understand your own statement from the position of the unborn child" as a counter to your statement.

you have this grand habit of saying things that are unsupportable or that aren't true. if you would kindly stop doing it, then you wouldn't get challenged to show your evidence. I would think after the xth time you've been caught with your academic pants down, youd stop doing it.



You ignore logical argument

Outlawing abortions forces those that believe abortion to be ok to have their actions follow your beliefs. Are Christians being forced en masse to have abortions? No, you only choose to view the side of the argument you see, and then you parade what has been disproven as this flag of righteousness, no one can disprove you in your mind so you are right. At least Phydeaux has counter points


I imagine i'll give up on you one day, but in the meantime, one more time---abortion is murder. when you can say that protesting and legislating against murder is forcing someone else's belief on the murderer, then i'll acquiesce. until then, you are starting from a premise that murder is okay.

and in case you missed it---that's the counter point to your statement.

by the way, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.





Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 12:12:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Here you were ridiculing bounty's assertion that segration in the north was different than segration in the south. Which you laughed at -poo pooing the assertion that they were different.

Suggesting that it was all racism.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a fucking duck.



When you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Stop being a racist.

Evidently, you are totally ignorant of and have never read Brown vs Board, Topeka. In your ignorance your only answer is to slander me by calling me a racist while I am claiming that America suffers from its treatment of people of color. I believe you have fallen down the rabbit's hole, Alice.


Dude, I've read Brown. I've read Plessy. I've read Zelma, and Tinker.

In your last few dozen posts you've pulled out the racist card dozens of times. You want to see the US as the most evil racist country in the world - no one can stop you. But in which case I would say to you - what have you done - personally- to fix the problem? And if you haven't why are you still here? Doesn't that make you complicit?





DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 2:19:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

you said Colby's positions have been refuted. I haven't seen it. you have the opportunity to either show it, or do so yourself. if they haven't, or you cant, then you look like a fool saying otherwise.

"nanny nanny boo boo, I could, I just don't want to."

im completely capable of seeing another's point of view. what is not acceptable though is for you to reinvent the meanings of words to suit your fancy. you said Christians protesting in front of abortion places is them forcing their beliefs on others. the essence of my responses to you were all around either your seeming inability to understand what force is, or your misusing it in that instance. you've still not been able to answer the question or any of phydeaux's either.

and apparently you ignored the point of "protesting out in front..." is not the same as "outlawing..." answer I gave. that's called changing the goalposts.

and apparently you missed the "understand your own statement from the position of the unborn child" as a counter to your statement.

you have this grand habit of saying things that are unsupportable or that aren't true. if you would kindly stop doing it, then you wouldn't get challenged to show your evidence. I would think after the xth time you've been caught with your academic pants down, youd stop doing it.



You ignore logical argument

Outlawing abortions forces those that believe abortion to be ok to have their actions follow your beliefs. Are Christians being forced en masse to have abortions? No, you only choose to view the side of the argument you see, and then you parade what has been disproven as this flag of righteousness, no one can disprove you in your mind so you are right. At least Phydeaux has counter points


I imagine i'll give up on you one day, but in the meantime, one more time---abortion is murder. when you can say that protesting and legislating against murder is forcing someone else's belief on the murderer, then i'll acquiesce. until then, you are starting from a premise that murder is okay.

and in case you missed it---that's the counter point to your statement.

by the way, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.





Then let's make cheap birth control available to married couples



vincentML -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 2:44:53 PM)

quote:

In your last few dozen posts you've pulled out the racist card dozens of times. You want to see the US as the most evil racist country in the world - no one can stop you. But in which case I would say to you - what have you done - personally- to fix the problem? And if you haven't why are you still here? Doesn't that make you complicit?
You are so fucking confused. On the one hand you say I am a racist but OTOH you say I have played the racist card because I repeatedly assert America has an abominable racist history and continues to be a racist society. You are flummoxed. can't make up your mind. Do you deny America continues to be a racist country? Or are you going to continue to dance around it with all your irrelevant comments? Which is your point?

I know what I have done and I know what I believe and who I am. No need to answer to you.



Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 4:03:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In your last few dozen posts you've pulled out the racist card dozens of times. You want to see the US as the most evil racist country in the world - no one can stop you. But in which case I would say to you - what have you done - personally- to fix the problem? And if you haven't why are you still here? Doesn't that make you complicit?
You are so fucking confused. On the one hand you say I am a racist but OTOH you say I have played the racist card because I repeatedly assert America has an abominable racist history and continues to be a racist society. You are flummoxed. can't make up your mind. Do you deny America continues to be a racist country? Or are you going to continue to dance around it with all your irrelevant comments? Which is your point?

I know what I have done and I know what I believe and who I am. No need to answer to you.


LOL. You think racists can't play the racist card? To the contrary, I would say by definition everyone that plays the racist card is a racist.



DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 4:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In your last few dozen posts you've pulled out the racist card dozens of times. You want to see the US as the most evil racist country in the world - no one can stop you. But in which case I would say to you - what have you done - personally- to fix the problem? And if you haven't why are you still here? Doesn't that make you complicit?
You are so fucking confused. On the one hand you say I am a racist but OTOH you say I have played the racist card because I repeatedly assert America has an abominable racist history and continues to be a racist society. You are flummoxed. can't make up your mind. Do you deny America continues to be a racist country? Or are you going to continue to dance around it with all your irrelevant comments? Which is your point?

I know what I have done and I know what I believe and who I am. No need to answer to you.


LOL. You think racists can't play the racist card? To the contrary, I would say by definition everyone that plays the racist card is a racist.


Unless they assert that certain races play the race card, it's not racist because they are describing behavior, not a race doing or being or believing something



vincentML -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 5:41:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In your last few dozen posts you've pulled out the racist card dozens of times. You want to see the US as the most evil racist country in the world - no one can stop you. But in which case I would say to you - what have you done - personally- to fix the problem? And if you haven't why are you still here? Doesn't that make you complicit?
You are so fucking confused. On the one hand you say I am a racist but OTOH you say I have played the racist card because I repeatedly assert America has an abominable racist history and continues to be a racist society. You are flummoxed. can't make up your mind. Do you deny America continues to be a racist country? Or are you going to continue to dance around it with all your irrelevant comments? Which is your point?

I know what I have done and I know what I believe and who I am. No need to answer to you.


LOL. You think racists can't play the racist card? To the contrary, I would say by definition everyone that plays the racist card is a racist.

You would say that, but then I suspect the amount of idiotic, silly, asinine, fabricated, self-serving, straw man definitions that arise from your flummoxed mind are endless, unlimited, and wrong.

Show me one instance were I suggested one race is in any way superior to another. Don't bother. I never even implied such a thing. You are simply lying because you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation, or you are just trolling, which reveals your ignorance.

In either case, our conversation is ended here.




Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 7:30:32 PM)

Vince, when you say that things like the US must confront the history of its abnormally evil abohorrent racism, you are saying that the country and its people are exceptionally racist.

When you criticize "white privilege";
When you say that white flight is racism;
When you say that emergency managers are institutional racism post 202
When you say that charter schools are racist and are reestablishing racism
When you say minimum wage laws are racist
When you say the determining factor in doing well isn't education - its white privilege post 207
When you say the Justice system is racist for exonerating blacks
When you say job outsourcing, black deaths by police, minimum wage, are all due to extreme racism post 188


Factually, I've proven you wrong on issue after issue. Exoneration of blacks is in line with criminalization. Charter schools are disproportionately minority; and while we agree that minimum wages hurt blacks - you're in favor of them and want to continue inflicting the pain. I've given the stats that crime stop for crime stop, whites are TWICE as likely to be killed by police than blacks.

You blame everything in the US on racism. Do you seriously think that we are more racist than Hungary, Japan, China Germany, Ruanda, South Africa, the UK, Spain, Chile, Mali, Turkey?

Because seriously mate - you need to learn some history.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 9:50:16 PM)

Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that

However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time



Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 10:13:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that

However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time


So if I was an atheist advocating that abortion is wrong, you'd have no problem with it?



Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 10:38:13 PM)

No because abortion is a legal medical procedure.



Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 11:31:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

No because abortion is a legal medical procedure.



The question was directed to Dominant. But since you chimed in..

So if abortion wasn't a legal medical procedure - as it wasn't for most of the history of the US- you'd have no problem with it, eh?


The fact of the matter is - whether its a legal medical procedure or not; whether the protests are by christians or atheists - is irrelevant. You want the unique ability to murder someone. And you don't want people to be able to protest that. So quit bringing up red herrings.



DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 11:42:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that

However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time


So if I was an atheist advocating that abortion is wrong, you'd have no problem with it?


I believe in Libretarian Socialist Capitalism. I believe second and third trimester abortions to be too far into term. I believe that even if abortion is legal, it should be a last resort. I believe mothers selling fetal tissue is amoral. I believe clinics encouraging abortion to sell tissue is wrong. I believe in stem cell research; my family has donated stem cell tissue without an abortion

More importantly, I believe we should be having this discussion. I'm not saying pro-life or pro-choice is right. I'm drawn by both sides of the argument. However, making abortions illegal is asserting certain people's views on others. I'm not saying asserting your views is wrong either; its a huge basis for democracy. But making abortion illegal is forcing others to follow the physical guidelines of certain people's beliefs.

Does that make sense? It's a complex issue which I have been torn on



DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 11:44:05 PM)

I also believe unabashedly in abortion in cases of rape and medical necessity



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875