Abortion & gay marriage should not even be controversial

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Meyer6

No, you do not capisce. The above tortured logic would only be true if the ability or inability to get pregnant was the *only *factor involved in whether or not a person supports abortion access. But actually there are many other factors - the chief among them being religious belief. Perhaps women are more likely to be heavily religious than men, therefore skewing the poll results. As a general rule, if there are many factors then you cannot draw specific conclusions about a single factor from statistics. You’ve tried this trick several times and it just won’t fly. Didn’t you have to take statistics to get your degree? I know I did. Maybe that was another class you slept through.

…Yeah…

Hold the phone. Time out. Foul. Penalty. Flag. Card. Delay of game. Whatever.

In multiple threads across the SDMB there are literally hundreds of arguments which effectively state that “Only women can have an opinion on abortion because only women become pregnant”; there are multiple such posts in this thread. Hell, there are multiple “If men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrament” posts on this board and the notion that women are more permissive of abortion than are men is held as an absolute truth. Keep that in mind for a moment.

In post #299, curlcoat said that since I’m a male I, and by extension every other male, “cannot get the issue and never will”. It does not take any kind of genius to understand why she would state this or the underlying meaning behind her post. The point she was trying to make is that men cannot, and never can, understand the abortion issue because men do not, and never can, become pregnant. She, as is common on this board, was assuming that the ability to become pregnant bestows upon someone some intimate understanding regarding the abortion issue.

Now let’s assume that the ability to become pregnant bestows upon someone some intimate understanding regarding the abortion debate, which is the prevailing thought around here (and in pro-choice circles, generally). If women were more permissive of abortion than men every last pro-choicer on this board would be touting that as proof that having the ability to become pregnant, or having had become pregnant in the past, is the ultimate factor in determining whether one supports abortion access. In fact, they already do state this (I DARE you to disagree). Unfortunately, the above is untrue and women, in general, are less permissive of abortion than are men. So if the above about the ability to become pregnant, or having had become pregnant in the past, is determined to be the ultimate factor in whether or not one supports abortion access when it’s assumed that women are, in general, more permissive of abortion than men, then why isn’t it considered to be the ultimate factor in whether or not one supports abortion access when it’s pointed that women are, in general, less supportive of abortion than men? I’ll let you think about that one for a while.

So, as I said before, capisce?

(I have a mind to add in more about your post which somehow assumes that women don’t think like you are either brainwashed, ignorant or hypocrites, but I’m content to just mention it again in passing.)

No, the inevitable ‘this is a matter of opinion’ response. As I said before, I know exactly what the biology textbooks say. None of them opine on matters of philosophy. If you genuinely don’t understand the difference between a blastocyst and a living, breathing, thinking, human person, then I just don’t know what to tell you.

I’m not surprised in the least in the above response, which is nothing more than one of those self-evident rationalizations Bryan is fond of (“If you disagree with my criteria, I don’t know what else to say to you!”). Unfortunately, aside from being a gigantic intellectual cop-out, it does not answer the specific question I asked you. Therefore, I will simply restate the question, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you missed it:

[QUOTE=Me]
The pertinent question is “why not?”. It is important to know the defining characteristic of a person in order to know what a person is not, [and to do that] you first have to know what it is. So would you care to provide for me the exact definition, and qualifications, of a person?
[/quote]

It’s not, and was not, a trick question. And since you seemingly already know the defining characteristics of a person already, I figure it should have been rather easy to answer.

You want every fertilized egg to receive the full protection of the law, right? But you are aware that not all fertilized eggs implant, right? And that a woman can reduce the chance of implantation by doing such hideously criminal things as drinking caffeine or smoking. So lots of women are creating little tiny human beings and then killing them and just flushing them merrily down the toilet. OMG arrest them all now!

Unless she acts in a deliberate manner which would be considered to be unreasonable and with foreseeable negative consequences, I see no reason to punish and/or investigate every woman who has a miscarriage. Though I’m sure you would love for that to happen.

…And snark is a lost art.

How about the objective truth that a fetus is dependent on a woman to incubate it and a baby is not.

Because that’s not an objective truth. In fact, it’s just false. Fetus is a medical term while baby is a colloquialism. The two are not necessarily different; in fact, in many instances, the two are interchangable. As I said to curlcoat words, terms and concepts have meaning within society.

I really don’t see why you find it so difficult to distinguish between these two states.

Because you’re left with ridiculous conclusions such as:

(1) Assuming you’re using a “born versus not born” criteria, you could end up with a situation in which a 23-week old premature baby has a right to live that a 35-week old fetus, even though the 35-week old fetus is more developed than is the 23-week old fetus.

(2) Assuming you’re using viability as a criteria, you would end up with a situation where, as medical technology improves, the cut-offs for abortion are pushed back closer and closer to conception. In fact, it’s conceivable that this year’s legal abortion could be next year’s illegal abortion, for no other reason than medical technology has improved. This is a proposition I feel sure in saying that you would not agree with.

As Bryan has quite eloquently pointed out, this is utter bullshit.

Oh, boy. Piggybacking off of Bryan. Now I’ve seen it all. As I said to Bryan above and the last time he tried this, too, it’s not wrong, nor is it “utter bullshit” no matter how many times he or you want to state it. I gave Bryan a (imo) pretty good link which explains the concept of self-defense for a reason. If you don’t want to read it well, that’s both you and his problem; not mine. I’m not really in the business of fighting willfull ignorance. I’ll just let time deal with that.

There are many cases where we deem that killing another is permissible. As I mentioned above (and you conveniently cut out, presumably because you couldn’t deal with it), a woman who is being threatened with rape can kill her attacker in self-defence. Do you really think that a woman shouldn’t be able to defend herself because her right to safety is superseded by his right to life?

No, I ignored it because it was a stupid question as I’ve, on multiple occasions, flatly stated that (1) abortion is not always impermissible and (2) people have the right to defend themselves with force equal to, but not exceeding, that of the agressor.

BTW> I like how you effectively ignored arguments (1), (2) and (3), and only kind of tangentially dealt with (4). Should I be surprised?

@Euphonious_Polemic

You’re dealing with someone who thinks he was a marine biologist, because he once took a boat to collect terrestrial soil samples.

Not the sharpest spine on the urchin if you catch my drift.

Oh, look. I see you’re back again. And still running with the “no true Scotsman”, to boot.

…Plus, it was probably a few hundred times (maybe a few thousand).

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Man, you sure do type a lot. And a thousand soil samples taken does not a marine biologist make.

You’re a sad, pathetic little joke of a man.

[curlcoat]

Interesting that OMG keeps bringing up my name but for some odd reason he can’t respond to my last post. Wonder why?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Man, you sure do type a lot.

It depends on the subject.

And a thousand soil samples taken does not a marine biologist make.

No, though having a degree in marine biology and doing marine related works does.

You’re a sad, pathetic little joke of a man.

My inner liberal wants to cry about racism. My inner conservative just laughs

@curlcoat

Interesting that OMG keeps bringing up my name but for some odd reason he can’t respond to my last post. Wonder why?

I started to, but then I figured “Why bother?”. You’ll just summarily dismiss everything as either “opinion” or “biased”, as you usually do. As I say, I’m not into the business of fighting willful ignorance. I’d much rather repeatedly bash my head against a wall of reinforced concrete. Which, to be honest, would probably be a more productive use of my time.

[curlcoat]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I started to, but then I figured “Why bother?”. You’ll just summarily dismiss everything as either “opinion” or “biased”, as you usually do. As I say, I’m not into the business of fighting willful ignorance. I’d much rather repeatedly bash my head against a wall of reinforced concrete. Which, to be honest, would probably be a more productive use of my time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I win. I talked Mr Wall O Text into a corner he couldn’t get out of.
I guess I’ll never know why “You’re a sad, pathetic little joke of a man” is racist. Darn.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@curlcoat

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I win. I talked Mr Wall O Text into a corner he couldn’t get out of.

Yup. I concede to your superior intellect and your unassailable logic.

[curlcoat]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Yup. I concede to your superior intellect and your unassailable logic.

Got that right. Tho anyone who cannot counter “opinion” or “biased” with - you know - facts, doesn’t need superior intellect and your unassailable logic used on them.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@curlcoat

Why? That isn’t the same thing at all as pulling the plug on a coma patient, or a woman having an abortion. Also, you seem to be continuing to forget about that real world likelihoods thing.

I’m trying to see how you value the life of the fetus versus the life of the coma patient absent the wishes of the mother. The reason i am doing this is so taht once we figure that out, we can decide whether a woman’s right to choose is more important than the value you have assigned to the fetus.

You don’t see any difference between a fetus and a newborn?

I don’t see any difference between a fetus the moment before birth and a newborn the moment after birth.

So? Permission to engage in intercourse is not in any way permission to create a pregnancy.

It is a forseeable consequence of intercourse tho.

Dictionary.com seems to disagree with you.

Person

Person…the precise definition of which is the subject of much controversy.

Depends. My part of that argument is that any actual person is more important than a fetus, even if that person is in a coma.

And that’s why I presented the dilemma of killing the coma patient or killing the fetus.

You would force a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy if they find out in her 8th month that the baby is going to be born dead, or will die soon after delivery?

No. If the kid is already dead for all intents and purposes then there is nothing to preserve.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

…Actually, I already know what you’re doing. You’re hiding behind a self-constructed wall of ignorance.

Well, the kind you get at the store are msotly made in China and don’t last nearly as long as the ones you self-construct.

@Bryan_Ekers

Huh. Well, that’s not very impressive, though I can appreciate the efforts at highlighting the absurdity of trying to define a fetus as human or not-human, person or not-person, and then basing an argument on that. It does help clarify something Omg said a while back about positive and negative rights, which I didn’t understand at the time because he did a bad job of explaining them.

And yet with all the philosohers involved in this debate and this is about the best they can come up with. At the very least it should make you wonder about the validity of your conclusions if you come to your conclusions to quickly.

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Not in the slightest, not that it matters anyway. So care to answer the question?

No, not really. In fact, there’s very little problem. It boils down to whether or not you believe that only some humans are entitled to human rights.

A fertilized egg is a genetically distinct human being different from all other human beings the world has ever known or ever will know and while it doesn’t have much value at that point in time, but it is still human life and has SOME value.

So yes I believe its human life, and no I don’t beleive that it has the same rights as a person.

I don’t know if you should be able you can destroy such life on a whim but I would certainly put the value of a woman’s education, career, or physical comfort ahead of the value of a zygote.

There’s a stark difference between having human DNA and being a human being. Again, that’s not semantics.

Yeah but you assign humanity to something that is more potential than actually human.

That should take you to the requisite quotes.

I don’t see how this shows that Rawls would reserve a seat behind the veil for a fetus.

I don’t know. Why can’t you?

For the same reason that a woman who has assumed the risk of pregnancy cannot get an abortion (I understand that there is the concern of the fetuses rights but I am only trying to undermine the notion taht “assumption of the risk” might not be a particularly strong argument for making women sustain an accidental pregnancy or impute consent (or desire) where there is merely assumption of the risk.

Well, at least you’re at least smart enough to see why you can’t argue that a consent to sex equals a consent to potential parenthood for a male but not for a woman. Now if only others would be so willing.

Der Trihs has been pretty willing to take the same position as I just have.

The rationale for restricting a woman’s “right to bodily autonomy” is exactly the same as it is in the first month as it would be in the last month. That is, the unborn has a right to life which is paramount to the woman’s “right” to abort it. The only “difference”, and I use the term lightly, is with the people who find an abortion less tenable in the ninth month than they do the first, even though the applied rationale for restricting abortion at any point is the same.

I agree that a woman’s rights do not change during her pregnancy. But the rights of a zygote develops as it gets closer to term.

I’m perfectly aware of the violinist argument.

And you still don’t see why rape might be different?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I’d much prefer to argue the things I’ve said or positions I’ve actually taken, and not the things you’re content to have said I’ve said or have taken.

So what is the limit (if any) of the burden I can impose on you if my life is at risk).

Can the law force you to carry me to the hospital on your back?

Can the law force you to miss your final year of college and derail to some extent?

Can the law force you to give me your kidney if I can prove that your life will not be significantly reduced by taking your kidney?

Is there any limit at all to what the law can compel you to do to preserve my life short of sacrificing your own?

Aren’t you forcing the woman to do something iin order to preserve someone else’s life?

If it was between a two year-old and a 100 ninety year-olds, I’d save the two year-old. If it was between a two-year old and three forty year-olds, I’d save the two-year old. If it was between a two-year old and a hot twenty-something chick with a nice rack, a nice ass and a decent face, I’d probably save the chick. If it was between… Well, you get the point.

The question is, how does my decision to not save one party or parties affect their moral worth and/or standing? The obvious answer to that question is that it does not, as such a position says nothing about the moral worth and/or standing of the individual not chosen, but on my personal preference.

Could you chooce not to run into the burning building at all or is there a duty to rescue if the risk is minimal enough?

(4) Life > liberty > happiness/property. This is the way the law works in every case except for abortion, where somehow liberty/happiness/property is deemed to trump life. But why should abortion be different?

The law generally does not impose a duty to rescue either. I can generally evict you in the middle of freezing winter even if you are likely to die from exposure, aren’t you or is there some constitutional right to life that will prevent me from doing so?

[curlcoat]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m trying to see how you value the life of the fetus versus the life of the coma patient absent the wishes of the mother. The reason i am doing this is so taht once we figure that out, we can decide whether a woman’s right to choose is more important than the value you have assigned to the fetus.

However, the scenario you came up with has extremely little to do with how much I value the life of a fetus. You give me the choice of shooting a coma patient, or causing grievous injury to a woman who may very well have wanted to carry her pregnancy to term.

If you want to know how much I personally value a fetus, just ask. I don’t. If a friend miscarries and she really wanted to have a baby, I will grieve for her but the fetus itself means zero to me.

I don’t see any difference between a fetus the moment before birth and a newborn the moment after birth.

Um, OK. What does that have to do with abortion?

It is a forseeable consequence of intercourse tho.

So is getting hit by lightening while driving in the rain. But if a woman is taking the pill, or had a tubal, or her partner had the snip, the likelihood is near zero. Shoot, take me - I’m not only wearing a belt and suspenders, I’ve stapled my pants to my shirt. Due to the results of some tests for other things, and looking at the genetics, it’s highly likely I was sterile from birth. I still got a tubal, and now I’m post menopause. It’s possible I could still get pregnant, but that still doesn’t mean that when I get sperm in me I was in any way shape or form inviting pregnancy.

You simply cannot wave the discussion away by saying that a woman invites pregnancy if she allows intercourse, if you also want to make abortion unattainable. There are a significant number of women out there like me who never want children, and another large block who don’t want them now, or only want X number. Really, it is only those quiverfull idiots who want to be pregnant every nine months. So, if the choice a woman has is either being forced to carry every pregnancy or no intercourse, guess what she is going to tell the men in her life?

Person - Wikipedia

Person…the precise definition of which is the subject of much controversy.

Exactly. And pro-choice gives you the right to choose how you want to define “person”.

No. If the kid is already dead for all intents and purposes then there is nothing to preserve.

So, you aren’t aware that virtually all late abortions are due to either the pregnancy is trying to kill the woman, or the fetus is going to die anyway?

[Meyer6]

OMG a Black Conservative, I realize that I’ve dropped out of this thread, and I just wanted to post one more time to make it clear that that’s not because I can’t figure out how to answer your devastating questions, it’s because I got tired of going around and around in circles with you while you wriggle around and pretend to not understand what I’m saying.

You obviously think that the proper way to debate is to simply grind away at your opponent with giant walls of text until they just get bored and leave. At that point you declare victory for yourself and smugly sit back and think you’ve won an intellectual victory. If that makes you feel better, go right ahead, but that doesn’t make it true.

For the record though, I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with me about anything is stupid, I just think people who are rabidly pro-life are stupid. Or at least they fall into the ‘religious, brainwashed, ignorant, hypocritical’ categories - you certainly qualify for at least one of those, probably more. And I apply that equally to both men and women, so it’s not a sexist thing. I’m not sure why you think it’s so surprising that someone could feel that way about this topic - look at the thread title, many of us see both abortion rights and SSM as no-brainers.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Meyer6

OMG a Black Conservative, I realize that I’ve dropped out of this thread, and I just wanted to post one more time to make it clear that that’s not because I can’t figure out how to answer your devastating questions, it’s because I got tired of going around and around in circles with you while you wriggle around and pretend to not understand what I’m saying.

…Yeah…

I perfectly well understand whatever argument you’re trying to make. You, on the other hand, do not understand the argument’s you’re trying to make. In this thread, you’ve jumped ship from one justification to another as someone points out how the arguments you are providing do not apply solely to the unborn and would equally apply to another group of whom you would not want to define out of rights. See, for example, the whole consciousness episode earlier.

You obviously think that the proper way to debate is to simply grind away at your opponent with giant walls of text until they just get bored and leave.

…Yeah…

The proper way to debate would be to (1) provide sources and (2) use well-constructed arguments. Both of which I do, though that’s usually lacking of the other side. Sure, it’s not nearly as fun as:

“You’re dumb!”
“You’re stupid!”
“Sexist!”
“Christo-fascist!”
“Science? Lalalalala, nope.”
“You’re not a marine biologist!”

But, hey, I’m trying to do what this board is purported to be here for; fighting ignorance. If I type a lot, it’s because it’s entertaining to watch people trip over their own convoluted logic and engage in a liberal (hah!) amount of verbal and mental gymnastics in order to try to justify their position.

…Plus, it’s kind of fun to show people their long-held notions of what’s true and false are actually wrong, and what they believed to be true was false and false to be true.

At that point you declare victory for yourself and smugly sit back and think you’ve won an intellectual victory. If that makes you feel better, go right ahead, but that doesn’t make it true.

…Yeah…

All right. You wanted to go there? Let’s go there.

You were the one who tried to turn this into a philosophy debate. It’s interesting how you wuss out after one post. ONE! You couldn’t even generate two post’s worth of response to a topic you shifted the debate to (and your first response wasn’t anything to write home about, either). And, no, it’s not because you didn’t feel like posting these super-mega-intellectual-counter-arguments; it’s because those super-mega-intellectual-counter-arguments don’t exist.

For the record though, I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with me about anything is stupid, I just think people who are rabidly pro-life are stupid. Or at least they fall into the ‘religious, brainwashed, ignorant, hypocritical’ categories - you certainly qualify for at least one of those, probably more. And I apply that equally to both men and women, so it’s not a sexist thing.

At least you’ve backtracked from being a sexist to just being a plain old idiot. Maybe I should start claiming that all (rabid, whatever that means) pro-choicers are either amoral, atheists or communists. I wonder how well that would go over?

(Around here? Not well.)

I’m not sure why you think it’s so surprising that someone could feel that way about this topic - look at the thread title, many of us see both abortion rights and SSM as no-brainers.

And when people consider things to be “no-brainers”, they tend to put no thought into their arguments. And wouldn’t you know it? It shows.

[Antinor01]

@magellan01

Feel free to use the Search function. If you, and others, were unable to read the words on the screen in the past, why should I bother typing them again only for them to be treated as invisible? And then have a bunch of dolts lie claiming I’ve never given a rationale. No, you guys feel free to circle jerk without the porn—'kay?

You’ve posted in 72 threads over the last 7 years using the word marriage. Which one contains the logical argument you’ve been asked for? Since you won’t repost it or even point to the post you made it in, could you at least point out which thread it’s in?

[Meyer6]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

But, hey, I’m trying to do what this board is purported to be here for; fighting ignorance. If I type a lot, it’s because it’s entertaining to watch people trip over their own convoluted logic and engage in a liberal (hah!) amount of verbal and mental gymnastics in order to try to justify their position.

…Plus, it’s kind of fun to show people their long-held notions of what’s true and false are actually wrong, and what they believed to be true was false and false to be true.

Right. Okay. If that’s what you believe you’ve done, then great. I think the majority of the posters on this board are smart enough to see you for what you are, so you calling my stupid or wrong or whatever does not concern me.

But, for the record - I never said you weren’t a marine biologist (I said you got a shitty education), I didn’t bring up philosophy (you apparently forget your earlier love affair with John Rawls), and I am an atheist so calling me one does not insult me.

But better luck next time and all.

[vivalostwages]

@curlcoat

So, you aren’t aware that virtually all late abortions are due to either the pregnancy is trying to kill the woman, or the fetus is going to die anyway?

Sometimes this is the case even with earlier ones. I posted some info about this in #210, a few pages back.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Meyer6

Right. Okay. If that’s what you believe you’ve done, then great. I think the majority of the posters on this board are smart enough to see you for what you are, so you calling my stupid or wrong or whatever does not concern me.

Okay, I’m sorry, but this is a really-- I mean, really– shitty justification for whatever. Never mind the fact that you’re somehow assuming there’s truth in numbers, I want you to take a good hard look at my posts. Now look at my name. Now look at the majority of posts on this board. Gee. I wonder what the posters on this board are going to see me as (considering the amount of vitriol conservative posters get around here, in general), especially since it’s been established by some (most) on this board that conservatives, in general, are stupid, ill-informed, misguided, racists, sexists, terrorists, apparent rape enablers, etc. etc. etc.

But, for the record - I never said you weren’t a marine biologist (I said you got a shitty education), I didn’t bring up philosophy (you apparently forget your earlier love affair with John Rawls), and I am an atheist so calling me one does not insult me.

I don’t believe those quotes were attributed directly to you. In fact, they were not.

But better luck next time and all.

Who needs luck when you have skill?

[Meyer6]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I want you to take a good hard look at my posts. Now look at my name. Now look at the majority of posts on this board. Gee. I wonder what the posters on this board are going to see me as (considering the amount of vitriol conservative posters get around here, in general), especially since it’s been established by some (most) on this board that conservatives, in general, are stupid, ill-informed, misguided, racists, sexists, terrorists, apparent rape enablers, etc. etc. etc.

If you choose to so starkly identify yourself with your race and your political leanings, then you’ve got to accept the fact that people are going to approach conversations with you from that starting block. Nobody on this board needed to know those things about you, you could have just let your personality come out naturally like most posters do. But you feel that those things are so important that they are in fact the only things we need to know about you, and you jumped into this board with a rather inflammatory name that basically accuses the rest of us of not believing you about who you are.

Still, I actually have formed my opinions about you based on the things you’ve posted, not on the ‘black’ or ‘conservative’ thing. For what it’s worth, as a Canadian I wasn’t especially exposed to American conservatives until I started reading this board, but I rather quickly came to the conclusion that they *are *mostly pretty stupid and also that they tend to cry like whiny little babies when someone dares to disagree with them. Anyways, if the terrible persecution of us not agreeing with you is simply too much to bear, why don’t you go post somewhere more agreeable to you?

I don’t believe those quotes were attributed directly to you. In fact, they were not.

Only the marine biologist part came from the quotes. The part where you wrongly said that I tried to turn this into a philosophy debate was quite clearly addressed to me. Or are you going to try and lie and say that’s not what you meant or I’m just a big meanie who is making assumptions about you?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Meyer6

If you choose to so starkly identify yourself with your race and your political leanings, then you’ve got to accept the fact that people are going to approach conversations with you from that starting block. Nobody on this board needed to know those things about you, you could have just let your personality come out naturally like most posters do. But you feel that those things are so important that they are in fact the only things we need to know about you, and you jumped into this board with a rather inflammatory name that basically accuses the rest of us of not believing you about who you are.

That is not what I was getting at. I’m a 100% conservative. Around these parts, that’s pretty much akin to being a KKK member, Bin Laden, Satan and George W. Bush all wrapped into one. In other words, if you’re a conservative, your opinion will almost always be instantly discredited and you will find yourself swarmed upon by five or six individuals when you post.

Still, I actually have formed my opinions about you based on the things you’ve posted, not on the ‘black’ or ‘conservative’ thing. For what it’s worth, as a Canadian I wasn’t especially exposed to American conservatives until I started reading this board, but I rather quickly came to the conclusion that they *are *mostly pretty stupid and also that they tend to cry like whiny little babies when someone dares to disagree with them.

A lot of this post is actually really very super wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I feel obliged to divert away from the topic at hand, if only for a few minutes.

For what it’s worth, conservatives are more likely than liberals to read stuff from “the other side” as they are generally more confident in their views than are liberals. Personally, I think that the person who would be more apt to “whine like a little baby when someone dares to disagree with them” would be the person who isn’t all that confident in their views. And just looking at this board as an example, I’d say that’s pretty much true of those persons of a liberal persuasion, who probably do a hell of a lot more whining about someone disagreeing with them than do conservatives.

Of course, since generally any conservative who posts ends up swamped by hundreds of responses, most usually being blatant straw men, they may not have time to complain

Anyways, if the terrible persecution of us not agreeing with you is simply too much to bear, why don’t you go post somewhere more agreeable to you?

I’m sorry, but where was I complaining about persecution? I missed it.

Only the marine biologist part came from the quotes.

Okay, and…? There appears to be something missing here. All of those quotes were in quotes; none of them were specifically addressed as being said by you. In case you’re wondering, those are all quotes which have been directed at me in some form in this thread.

The part where you wrongly said that I tried to turn this into a philosophy debate was quite clearly addressed to me.

Errr, because you did. It’s right there in the post I quoted.

Or are you going to try and lie and say that’s not what you meant or I’m just a big meanie who is making assumptions about you?

No. I’m just going to ask what the hell you’re on about, because I’m clearly lost.

[Condescending_Robot]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

That is not what I was getting at. I’m a 100% conservative. Around these parts, that’s pretty much akin to being a KKK member, Bin Laden, Satan and George W. Bush all wrapped into one. In other words, if you’re a conservative, your opinion will almost always be instantly discredited and you will find yourself swarmed upon by five or six individuals when you post.

Wah wah, poor you.

People who oppose gay equality are fucking assholes. You are a fucking asshole. You hold opinions which serve no end but to make other people miserable, for no other reason than your own sadism, and you lie about your own motivations and pretend you are the victim. There is nothing to debate; people like you are scum and the world would be better off without you. That other people deign to treat you as if you were an actual human being is an act of undeserved grace.