Lye said: »
"Because reasons."
I'm going to quote you on that.
I'm going to quote you on that.
Please do.
Be sure to take it out of context as well.
Paged.
Planned Parenthood Video Makers Indicted
Planned Parenthood video makers indicted
Please do.
Be sure to take it out of context as well.
Paged.
Funny! That's actually close to how this thread started.
Lye said: »
I just want to get all the facts here.
You're:
1) ffxiah.coms least ignorant poster on reproductive issues
2) Not ignorant on any topic because "life owes you nothing."
3) Not willing to address the possibility of being mistaken or having limited understanding of complex issues despite citing only your personal experience as "reasons" for why you have concluded what you've "concluded."
4) Probably the funniest thing I've read all week.
Right?
You're:
1) ffxiah.coms least ignorant poster on reproductive issues
2) Not ignorant on any topic because "life owes you nothing."
3) Not willing to address the possibility of being mistaken or having limited understanding of complex issues despite citing only your personal experience as "reasons" for why you have concluded what you've "concluded."
4) Probably the funniest thing I've read all week.
Right?
Nice ninja edit.
Considering no challenger has stepped up to the Plate #1 is fairly accurate.
You've got number 2 screwed up. lrn 2 raed.
3 is biased, I was merely using my own experiences to form my own opinions.
As for #4 you should be reading RP&R, Vic is having a laughing fit, maybe you could join him.
So 1/4 ain't bad, considering you think youre just as right as I am.
Altimaomega said: »
It is never Okay to be ignorant. Sorry. It is especially never Okay to be willing ignorant and be unwilling to educate yourself because reasons. Life owes you nothing.
I have to quote this in full because it really captures you (from what I've read.)
It's overly simplified and deterministic. It's mistaken. (Perhaps you meant "willfully" instead of "willing."). It assumes that, through education, everyone arrives at the same destination; with answers and not more questions. Finally, it takes the building blocks of your reasoning/argument and adequately expresses them: "reasons."
You are a poet. Rarely can people express themselves so genuinely. The above quotation IS you. Well done. Sleep well knowing you have, with but the flutter of a keyboard/smart phone, captured so compelling a self portrait.
So it comes down to spelling mistakes. Not surprising.
Altimaomega said: »
Phoenix.Demonjustin said: »
Were there any shortage of children waiting to be accepted into a home I'd be inclined to agree.
I understand people may prefer infants to children, especially since children are already molded in certain ways which the new family may not like, whilst the baby is a fresh mind waiting to be taught. Even so, trying to increase the number of babies this way serves to allow people to ignore the children and yet creates more of them that shall go ignored. Without the option for babies many will simply go with children as an alternative and as such will help to curb the pain of those in the system waiting for a family.
Altimaomega said: »
Except for I am only giving out this information to show that it can and has been done and is possible! The ignorant thing is thinking it is impossible, hard and rofl luck based.. it's really not lol..
Luck based? I think you fail to understand what people mean by. If you accept that it's a 99.999% chance your significant other won't get pregnant, then you're accepting there's a 0.001% chance that they will. To have not fallen into this 1/100,000 margin for error you are in some part lucky.
Altimaomega said: »
Lye said: »
You're:
1) ffxiah.coms least ignorant poster on reproductive issues
1) ffxiah.coms least ignorant poster on reproductive issues
Altimaomega said: »
It is never Okay to be ignorant. Sorry. It is especially never Okay to be willing ignorant and be unwilling to educate yourself because reasons. Life owes you nothing.
It's really quite true.
Altimaomega said: »
Phoenix.Demonjustin said: »
I tend not to post in P&R, or on the forum much at all. You've never changed my mind, but part of that is due to lack of opportunity. Many others have succeeded in such a goal whilst in conversations such as these with me, who knows, with the proper amount of effort you too may be among them. Writing it off as a meaningless attempt however is sure to fail.
Jetackuu said: »
The stupid, it burns.
Out of curiosity, Alti, because we again find ourselves in strikingly similar situations, at least in some ways, and at least on the surface:
How did your wife feel about those 9 years? Did you use protection 100% of the time? In that time, was she ever late and spent a week or more terrified that protection failed?
However, since you now have children, I have to assume she wanted them all along -- or, at least, was ambivalent toward the idea -- and it was just a matter of timing. So maybe despite some similarities, our situations are still vastly different.
And remember, along with "no birth control, or even combination, is 100%" (not a myth, despite statistical odds citing it essentially is), there are the people for whom various methods of birth control are not an option for various reasons.
And telling people to stay abstinent if they don't want children is almost as much of a fantastical concept as me expecting human greed to just disappear so we can live in a fair, kind utopia.
It's simply not reasonable no matter how much we want it to be or how "easy" it is in theory.
How did your wife feel about those 9 years? Did you use protection 100% of the time? In that time, was she ever late and spent a week or more terrified that protection failed?
However, since you now have children, I have to assume she wanted them all along -- or, at least, was ambivalent toward the idea -- and it was just a matter of timing. So maybe despite some similarities, our situations are still vastly different.
And remember, along with "no birth control, or even combination, is 100%" (not a myth, despite statistical odds citing it essentially is), there are the people for whom various methods of birth control are not an option for various reasons.
And telling people to stay abstinent if they don't want children is almost as much of a fantastical concept as me expecting human greed to just disappear so we can live in a fair, kind utopia.
It's simply not reasonable no matter how much we want it to be or how "easy" it is in theory.
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
I thought the conservative movement was about keeping the government out of your lives and from telling you what to do.
[+]
So, have we determined that fetuses have no right to live because somebody said so?
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, have we determined that fetuses have no right to live because somebody said so?
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Question: Are you okay with churches funding anti-abortion campaigns with funds they otherwise wouldn't have to do so without the tax breaks they receive from the government?
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, have we determined that fetuses have no right to live because somebody said so?
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Question: Are you okay with churches funding anti-abortion campaigns with funds they otherwise wouldn't have to do so without the tax breaks they receive from the government?
1) I'm ok with churches having tax-exempt status. It's not like most of them exist to make a profit anyway, with the sole exception of the "mega-churches" that has been popping out lately in the past couple of decades. I think that those churches should be revoked their tax-exempt status as it goes against the nature of the law itself: The spirit of charity. That's the whole reason why churches are exempt from federal taxes in the first place.
2) I don't care what sort of messages churches fund. They are allowed to have a voice as anyone else has, as long as it doesn't go beyond the scope of the organization. Abortion is just as much of a religious topic as it is a political one, so funding for anti-abortion rhetoric goes along with the scope of the organization itself.
So, to answer your actual question: When it comes to anti-abortion funding, I don't care what most churches viewpoints are, as they are specifically tax-exempt for religious purposes, but when a "mega-church" uses tax-exempt collections to push anti-abortion rhetoric, then I don't think they should be allowed to claim tax-exempt status for those purposes and should have to pay taxes equal to the amount of collections they received to fund those messages.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, have we determined that fetuses have no right to live because somebody said so?
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Does this mean that the government supports drinking since they're giving someone foodstamps which frees up that person's money so that they may buy alcohol? Does it mean that the government is paying for my video games since I have money to spend on those thanks to the aid with my food costs?
Planed Parenthood gets paid for transportation costs, not the things being transported. To use an analogy, it's like when I get a free pizza from Papa Johns, if I order it online I still have to pay the delivery fee. ***, right? Because it's a free order, except I have to pay for the delivery, the transportation, and that is why I'm paying them, not the pizza. It's no different here, PP is paid for delivering, not for aborting.
Also...
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
2) I don't care what sort of messages churches fund. They are allowed to have a voice as anyone else has, as long as it doesn't go beyond the scope of the organization. Abortion is just as much of a religious topic as it is a political one, so funding for anti-abortion rhetoric goes along with the scope of the organization itself.
In other words, it seems to go from being a issue with what the individual should do should they wish to follow the religions teachings and breaks into the realms of politics were one dictates what is allowed within society as a whole. It's the difference between saying you shouldn't eat ham if you follow religion X, and saying that no one should be allowed to eat ham at all. The first affects only the believer whilst the second can lead the believer to think they need stop everyone in the world from eating ham at all. The latter to me seems political in nature, as opposed to simply religious.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, have we determined that fetuses have no right to live because somebody said so?
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Not that I really care anyway. My stake in the game only involves the group using indirect federal money for abortions.
And regardless on what anyone says, that is what is happening. The money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood frees up other money to be used for abortions. The law states that the federal government cannot give money to directly fund abortions, but they allow this loophole to exist, because reasons.
Question: Are you okay with churches funding anti-abortion campaigns with funds they otherwise wouldn't have to do so without the tax breaks they receive from the government?
1) I'm ok with churches having tax-exempt status. It's not like most of them exist to make a profit anyway, with the sole exception of the "mega-churches" that has been popping out lately in the past couple of decades. I think that those churches should be revoked their tax-exempt status as it goes against the nature of the law itself: The spirit of charity. That's the whole reason why churches are exempt from federal taxes in the first place.
2) I don't care what sort of messages churches fund. They are allowed to have a voice as anyone else has, as long as it doesn't go beyond the scope of the organization. Abortion is just as much of a religious topic as it is a political one, so funding for anti-abortion rhetoric goes along with the scope of the organization itself.
So, to answer your actual question: When it comes to anti-abortion funding, I don't care what most churches viewpoints are, as they are specifically tax-exempt for religious purposes, but when a "mega-church" uses tax-exempt collections to push anti-abortion rhetoric, then I don't think they should be allowed to claim tax-exempt status for those purposes and should have to pay taxes equal to the amount of collections they received to fund those messages.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify. I don't agree entirely, but it makes enough sense within the context of your previous statements.
Phoenix.Demonjustin said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
2) I don't care what sort of messages churches fund. They are allowed to have a voice as anyone else has, as long as it doesn't go beyond the scope of the organization. Abortion is just as much of a religious topic as it is a political one, so funding for anti-abortion rhetoric goes along with the scope of the organization itself.
My problem is too many of the "pro life" are also pro war and pro death penalty. I have only known of but one true pro lifer in government, Wayne Morse.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Phoenix.Demonjustin said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
2) I don't care what sort of messages churches fund. They are allowed to have a voice as anyone else has, as long as it doesn't go beyond the scope of the organization. Abortion is just as much of a religious topic as it is a political one, so funding for anti-abortion rhetoric goes along with the scope of the organization itself.
My problem is too many of the "pro life" are also pro war and pro death penalty. I have only known of but one true pro lifer in government, Wayne Morse.
I didn't mean to make it sound as though I was ignorant to the religious parts at work. I simply meant to say that I think speaking of it inside of a religious establishment can be quite political as well, and that the conversation as a whole is more political than it is split down the middle between politics and religious sensibilities.
Phoenix.Demonjustin said: »
Saying it shouldn't be allowed to happen on the other hand seems inherently political as it prompts people to prevent it from occurring at all regardless of the beliefs of those who're attempting to do it.
Well, it's not so much a political action in and of itself. It is still a very religious action.
But it's the act of injecting those religious practices into public policy that makes it political and, thereby, problematic.
And, as Hobby LOLby taught us, even birth control goes against some religious beliefs.
There is not a massive shortage of babies. Maybe you're talking about infants that people actually want to adopt or something but yeah...
Ramyrez said: »
Phoenix.Demonjustin said: »
Saying it shouldn't be allowed to happen on the other hand seems inherently political as it prompts people to prevent it from occurring at all regardless of the beliefs of those who're attempting to do it.
Well, it's not so much a political action in and of itself. It is still a very religious action.
But it's the act of injecting those religious practices into public policy that makes it political and, thereby, problematic.
And, as Hobby LOLby taught us, even birth control goes against some religious beliefs.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
+ for video being in french!
Bah. I can't watch this ***, just post it from what I know it *should* be.
Is it subtitled at least? ><
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
+ for video being in french!
Bah. I can't watch this ***, just post it from what I know it *should* be.
Is it subtitled at least? ><
edit:
Dr. Gregory House said:
"Yes. The problem with exceptions to rules is the line-drawing. It might make sense for us to kill the *** that did this to you. I mean, where do we draw the line? Which *** do we get to kill and which *** get to keep on being ***." The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge."
Jetackuu said: »
No. That show had a quote in one episode that I had actually wanted to post, but I don't believe it was that episode. I'll see if I can hunt it down.
Ugh.
Honestly, I forgot House was on Fox and Fox is a bunch of *** about their content. They're the *** who used to target X-files fan sites back in the mid-90s for using copyrighted material. Not videos. Not scripts. Just pictures and content discussion.
What a bunch of ***.
Ah well. Enjoy the video, French-speaking people! It's relevant.
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.