Gabriela Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 False. Money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 10, 2016 Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gabriela said: False. Money. Bullflop. How did money win? We had a vote. People choose to be superficial or not. Who sold their vote for $5? The loser in the presidential race spent way more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Anomaly said: Bullflop. How did money win? We had a vote. People choose to be superficial or not. Who sold their vote for $5? The loser in the presidential race spent way more money. Yeah, but the winner represents Big Money. (Of course, so did the loser. We really had no choice. Money was going to win no matter what.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 10, 2016 Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 Once Trump is sworn in, he will knock off the richest President prior to him, George Washington. (Followed in order by: Jefferson, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Jackson, Madison, Johnson, Hoover, FDR, Bill Clinton who had more than twice the worth of either Bush). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 On 11/9/2016 at 10:03 PM, Gabriela said: Honestly, calling "you can pay someone to kill you" "healthcare" is really a rhetorical somersault. I mean, in the case of abortion you can at least say it's "healthcare" for the woman. "Abortion=healthcare" is just another rhetoric somersault. How does it help the mother's health? It doesn't. But it is always harmful, for the soul. It is sometimes a traumatic experience for the mother, leaving deep scars emotionally as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 11, 2016 Author Share Posted November 11, 2016 9 minutes ago, Jack4 said: "Abortion=healthcare" is just another rhetoric somersault. How does it help the mother's health? It doesn't. But it is always harmful, for the soul. It is sometimes a traumatic experience for the mother, leaving deep scars emotionally as well. Abortion as healthcare is easy to understand and is reasonable if you consider the embryo, zygote, or fetus as only tissue. We remove cysts and tumors without qualms. When defining a Person with logic and empathy you can't just rely on a religious interpretation. A Person is not defined by ability, dependency, or viability without assistance. If so, elderly, handicapped, and coma patients would be killed or "aborted". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 On 11/9/2016 at 0:37 PM, Gabriela said: I'm pretty sure this is a contradiction in terms. There are plenty of people with college degrees who aren't well educated, and plenty of people without an college degree who are. Depends on the person, not the degree. Although the degree can be helpful. 28 minutes ago, Anomaly said: Abortion as healthcare is easy to understand and is reasonable if you consider the embryo, zygote, or fetus as only tissue. We remove cysts and tumors without qualms. When defining a Person with logic and empathy you can't just rely on a religious interpretation. A Person is not defined by ability, dependency, or viability without assistance. If so, elderly, handicapped, and coma patients would be killed or "aborted". Agreed to a degree, it's a scientific fact that a fetus has his or her own unique a DNA and is a individual living member of the Homo sapiens species aka human beings. Human beings are persons and the only time they are not is when they are unwanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 51 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said: There are plenty of people with college degrees who aren't well educated, and plenty of people without an college degree who are. Depends on the person, not the degree. Although the degree can be helpful. Right. I agree. But I objected to the use of "non-college educated suburbanites", and I'm pretty sure we can show that almost all suburbanites are college-educated. That's practically part of the definition of "suburbanite". You can't afford to live in the suburbs unless you've got a college degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 11, 2016 Author Share Posted November 11, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gabriela said: Right. I agree. But I objected to the use of "non-college educated suburbanites", and I'm pretty sure we can show that almost all suburbanites are college-educated. That's practically part of the definition of "suburbanite". You can't afford to live in the suburbs unless you've got a college degree. Lol. You must be one of the pollsters or pundits that advised Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gabriela said: Right. I agree. But I objected to the use of "non-college educated suburbanites", and I'm pretty sure we can show that almost all suburbanites are college-educated. That's practically part of the definition of "suburbanite". You can't afford to live in the suburbs unless you've got a college degree. In my life I've met many people living in suburban areas that were poor and/or on some type welfare assistance. There's census data that shows that suburban areas are actually getting poorer over time. For example: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/the-new-faces-of-us-poverty Sure some suburban areas are rich, just like some cities are rich, but then there are poor cities and poor suburban areas also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 The media-machine has introduced a new demographic this election - uneducated white men. I've not heard that term in previous elections. Previously, they were called blue collar workers or rednecks - the name has changed, but the blame-game remains the same. If I were to paraphrase "uneducated white men," I'd say Stupid White Guys. Ironically, if the media-machine had blamed Clinton's loss on uneducated Black men, people would be going ape-skit! White men (and women) with red necks and blue collars - walkin', talkin' patriotism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Anomaly said: A Person is not defined by ability, dependency, or viability without assistance. If so, elderly, handicapped, and coma patients would be killed or "aborted". Yes. I don't think I've said to the contrary. 2 hours ago, Anomaly said: Abortion as healthcare is easy to understand and is reasonable if you consider the embryo, zygote, or fetus as only tissue. We remove cysts and tumors without qualms. Removing cysts and tumours helps the patient. What about abortion? How does it give health? And yes, about Person http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 11, 2016 Author Share Posted November 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jack4 said: Yes. I don't think I've said to the contrary. Removing cysts and tumours helps the patient. What about abortion? How does it give health? I'm not disagreeing or chastising. I'm sharing the reasonable rational of pro abortion and suggesting a definition of person. Some cysts and benign tumors are removed for minor comfort, looks, etc.. If a person believes (and the belief affirmed by general social understanding and legal status) that a zygote is just tissue like a cyst, why would the put themselves in a more difficult situation and go against the grain to consider "it" a Person going through the natural stages of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 46 minutes ago, Luigi said: The media-machine has introduced a new demographic this election - uneducated white men. I've not heard that term in previous elections. Previously, they were called blue collar workers or rednecks - the name has changed, but the blame-game remains the same. If I were to paraphrase "uneducated white men," I'd say Stupid White Guys. Ironically, if the media-machine had blamed Clinton's loss on uneducated Black men, people would be going ape-skit! White men (and women) with red necks and blue collars - walkin', talkin' patriotism! I spit out my beer when the liberal media pundits on ABC kept saying, "The polls are closing, but I'm sure the heavy Latino population in the precinct haven't voted yet." And yes, they kept mentioning "uneducated white men." Do liberals even hear themselves talk? They are the racists of them all... It was very amusing and entertaining to see the media's meltdown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said: Human beings are persons and the only time they are not is when they are unwanted. That is not an argument that has any weight with abortionists (and most scientists), because they believe that there is a distinction between human beings and human persons. They have criteria for personhood such as cognizance, etc. You might be better off to prove that all human beings have a right to life, regardless of their personhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now