At 5/7/22 01:32 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:

At 5/3/22 06:04 PM, Gario wrote:

At 5/3/22 04:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 5/3/22 01:38 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: If Roe goes down Obergefell is probably not far behind. And we've only had a majority conservative SC for so little time. Things are looking pretty good lately!

Abortion aside, why do you want Obergefell to fall?

because fascists always have to have enemies to direct their efforts towards

if women lose their rights, homosexuals are next

if homosexuals lose their rights, black folk are on the table

after that, the jews

then the irish

then catholics

etc. etc.

eventually when there are no more enemies they will turn in on themselves, divide and conquer themselves, dissolving whatever society they were leading

this is the trajectory of fascism, you see; it is never enough for these fuckers to succeed, they are driven to oppress

This is actually what the slippery slope fallacy was meant to suppress: posts like this.

But the only thing “logical fallacies” have ever prevented are nerds on the internet losing to common ridicule.

Alright so tell me @gario of 36 years of age, what rights do you think women and minorities will lose first after filicide is abolished? I bet it’s the right to ask for no tomatoes on a burger. That’s always been a stickler for them.

DAILY REMINDER THAT THE RVW OPINION IS JUST A DRAFT AND FEDERAL TROOPS ARE OUTSIDE THE HOMES OF EACH AND EVERY SCOTUS JUSTICE TO PREVENT 30 y/o TERRORISTS FROM [redacted]

At 5/7/22 01:32 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:

At 5/3/22 06:04 PM, Gario wrote:

At 5/3/22 04:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 5/3/22 01:38 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: If Roe goes down Obergefell is probably not far behind. And we've only had a majority conservative SC for so little time. Things are looking pretty good lately!

Abortion aside, why do you want Obergefell to fall?

because fascists always have to have enemies to direct their efforts towards

if women lose their rights, homosexuals are next

if homosexuals lose their rights, black folk are on the table

after that, the jews

then the irish

then catholics

etc. etc.

eventually when there are no more enemies they will turn in on themselves, divide and conquer themselves, dissolving whatever society they were leading

this is the trajectory of fascism, you see; it is never enough for these fuckers to succeed, they are driven to oppress

This is actually what the slippery slope fallacy was meant to suppress: posts like this.

But the only thing “logical fallacies” have ever prevented are nerds on the internet losing to common ridicule.

Alright so tell me @gario of 36 years of age, what rights do you think women and minorities will lose first after filicide is abolished? I bet it’s the right to ask for no tomatoes on a burger. That’s always been a stickler for them.

DAILY REMINDER THAT THE RVW OPINION IS JUST A DRAFT AND FEDERAL TROOPS ARE OUTSIDE THE HOMES OF EACH AND EVERY SCOTUS JUSTICE TO PREVENT 30 y/o TERRORISTS FROM [redacted]

At 5/7/22 03:01 PM, DioShiba wrote:

At 5/7/22 02:44 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 5/7/22 02:34 PM, DioShiba wrote: What the fuck is even going on in this thread anymore?

Bum is just trolling for attention, while downplaying the upending of Roe vs Wade.

Honestly I can't even tell if he is trolling or not.

At 5/7/22 03:04 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 5/7/22 03:01 PM, DioShiba wrote:

At 5/7/22 02:44 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 5/7/22 02:34 PM, DioShiba wrote: What the fuck is even going on in this thread anymore?

Bum is just trolling for attention, while downplaying the upending of Roe vs Wade.

Honestly I can't even tell if he is trolling or not.

Could be drunk. At least, that is what Bum blames it on when he does this shit.

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

At 5/8/22 07:18 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

I'm glad you made that comparison because, based on how people defend the practice, I do see these situations as somewhat analogous. People excuse murdering little ones because they will not be fully conscious of the act...as though the immorality of murder stems from their awareness of your engaging in it and not the life lost as a result.

At 5/8/22 07:18 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

I'm glad you made that comparison because, based on how people defend the practice, I do see these situations as somewhat analogous. People excuse murdering little ones because they will not be fully conscious of the act...as though the immorality of murder stems from their awareness of your engaging in it and not the life lost as a result. We also "pull the plug" on hopeless cases where survival isn't likely or possible and never in situations where the person is overwhelmingly likely to recover their senses, which is much closer to what awaiting birth amounts to. Really, if you spin this idea in your head a few ways and see how it works, you realize how monstrous it really is.

At 5/8/22 09:19 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 07:18 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

I'm glad you made that comparison because, based on how people defend the practice, I do see these situations as somewhat analogous. People excuse murdering little ones because they will not be fully conscious of the act...as though the immorality of murder stems from their awareness of your engaging in it and not the life lost as a result.

Since your argument is heading into the realms of baby murder (which I doubt most participants in this thread desire), how many weeks from conception do you consider a life has started?

For example, I would consider it to be when the baby’s heartbeat has started.

At 5/8/22 09:19 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 07:18 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

I'm glad you made that comparison because, based on how people defend the practice, I do see these situations as somewhat analogous. People excuse murdering little ones because they will not be fully conscious of the act...as though the immorality of murder stems from their awareness of your engaging in it and not the life lost as a result.

Since your argument is heading into the realms of baby murder (which I doubt most participants in this thread desire), how many weeks from conception do you consider a life has started?

For example, I would consider it to be when the baby’s heartbeat has started.

At 5/8/22 01:46 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/8/22 09:19 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 07:18 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/7/22 06:50 PM, TecNoir wrote:

At 5/7/22 11:30 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how huge numbers of people are strongly emotionally attached to industrial scale human slaughter.

Yeah we really need to outlaw pulling the plug on people.

I'm glad you made that comparison because, based on how people defend the practice, I do see these situations as somewhat analogous. People excuse murdering little ones because they will not be fully conscious of the act...as though the immorality of murder stems from their awareness of your engaging in it and not the life lost as a result.

Since your argument is heading into the realms of baby murder (which I doubt most participants in this thread desire), how many weeks from conception do you consider a life has started?

For example, I would consider it to be when the baby’s heartbeat has started.

I respect the fact that you want to bring the topic back to the most important point, which is where human life actually begins.

I basically take this stance.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception (princeton.edu)

At 5/8/22 01:46 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/8/22 09:19 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Since your argument is heading into the realms of baby murder (which I doubt most participants in this thread desire), how many weeks from conception do you consider a life has started?

For example, I would consider it to be when the baby’s heartbeat has started.

I respect the fact that you want to bring the topic back to the most important point, which is where human life actually begins.

I basically take this stance.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception (princeton.edu)

At 5/8/22 02:38 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 01:46 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/8/22 09:19 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Since your argument is heading into the realms of baby murder (which I doubt most participants in this thread desire), how many weeks from conception do you consider a life has started?

For example, I would consider it to be when the baby’s heartbeat has started.

I respect the fact that you want to bring the topic back to the most important point, which is where human life actually begins.

I basically take this stance.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception (princeton.edu)

You could just say “life begins at fertilisation”; it’s your opinion. Posting a bunch of references neither you nor I can access is unnecessary.

By the looks of these titles, they just elaborate on the fertilisation process rather than anything else.

At 5/8/22 02:40 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
No, it's pretty clearly a black and white scientific matter, as are all biological questions. Unless you believe in some metaphysical religious stuff, but that is a whole other topic, and we all know the religious are some of the primary drivers of the pro life side of things as is. The science being in their favor is just a plus.

Are you eating babies to survive? I thought that was just a meme. We typically put moral categories on how we take life to survive and, ideally, do not do so needlessly, cruelly, and never on members of our own species. To the extent that we do not, that is our failing and we should seek to change it.

At 5/8/22 02:44 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/8/22 02:38 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 01:46 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: I basically take this stance.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception (princeton.edu)

You could just say “life begins at fertilisation”; it’s your opinion. Posting a bunch of references neither you nor I can access is unnecessary.

By the looks of these titles, they just elaborate on the fertilisation process rather than anything else.

People complain if I use references, complain if I don't. I guess you just can't please everyone!

At 5/8/22 03:53 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 02:44 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/8/22 02:38 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 5/8/22 01:46 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: I basically take this stance.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception (princeton.edu)

You could just say “life begins at fertilisation”; it’s your opinion. Posting a bunch of references neither you nor I can access is unnecessary.

By the looks of these titles, they just elaborate on the fertilisation process rather than anything else.

People complain if I use references, complain if I don't. I guess you just can't please everyone!

These references are useless - you haven’t read them, nor can anyone read them.

Was this intentional?

At 5/8/22 03:57 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 5/8/22 03:53 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: These references are useless - you haven’t read them, nor can anyone read them.

Was this intentional?

Speak for yourself lol. My position has been settled on this long ago, this is a topic I went into years ago and I found all the information I needed.