No, no, you have it all wrong. Blacks are perfectly capable - it’s just that Whites (Especially *some *Jews) and Asians are super-capable. *Totally *not the same thing.
So I agree, and I have to point out that on issues like alleged origins about the differences of intelligence among “races”, lukewarm climate chance, and “centrist” anti-GMO stance, the evidence shows that Slacker is even unaware of how the “centrist” media he relies on grossly misleads people like him.
What happens here is that most people in the SDMB came here with the basic “citation needed” ingrained and like to point out things like “that cite sucks! And we will tell you how or that we do know *”
When evidence is considered in reality the Slacker falls for the idea that popularity makes right. And even when the popularity of a position can be debated, he doubles down into a position that ignores the best evidence.
Because, as the Slacker seems to miss, many posters are experts or scientists in the proper or related fields pointing what it is obvious to them.
When you say “squatters,” do you mean actual homeless? Could it be you’re talking about a campground, or just hanging around with outside people? If so, I technically squat when I go to hippie parties, because there’s no indoor plumbing.
Ah–I didn’t look in this thread, I looked in the thread that was actually about abortions.
So let’s look at your claim about that poll, that 66% want to ban all abortions after 20 weeks.
(emphasis added) So right out the door you’re lying.
But I was a little suspicious, given that this is a website designed to inspire others in the Catholic Faith. So I went to the poll, where I found that it was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus.
Second, the wording of the question is REALLY INTERESTING:
(emphasis added)
Did you catch that shitty little trick? Prime people to think about the last three months – usually from week 26-27 of the pregnancy–and then ask them about after 20 weeks.
That’s an awful question, and any pollster who let it through should be ashamed.
What a sick human being. He’s right that keeping prostitution illegal does more harm then good, but seriously? His next leap in logic is that we should allow human trafficking to continue because women forced into sex work = weed dealers?
So when your child has a cleft palate, one eye, and a nose that’s a shriveled up proboscis situated on its forehead, you’re going to say that trying to rescusitate is just a “little extra unpleasantness”? It’s better to give birth to a child that’s going to come out gasping and choking, and die with in seconds, and it’s just “a little extra unpleasantness?”
So SlackerInc and his ilk can fuck off out of here with their cavalier selfish disregard for the unnecessary suffering of patients and fetuses because they’re scared that standing up against such suffering might facilitate Republican smear campaigns against Democrats (which it likely won’t, by the way—ETA: as LHoD already pointed out).
SlackerInc’s ill-informed panic attack is an excellent example of why abortion decisions should be made by pregnant women and their doctors, not pre-empted by callous politicians whose only real concern is trying to make their political opponents look bad. I am writing to my reps today to thank them for not caving in to that kind of Chicken Little attitude.
You guys are so full of shit. You try to attack me for not knowing every detail of this bill, but your takes on it are fundamentally ignorant, dishonest, or both.
Here, let’s hear from someone who worked in the Obama White House:
Bolding mine.
Let’s also note the absurdity of claiming this has nothing to do with late term abortion. How could it possibly apply to anything else? It’s about aborted fetuses who survive the procedure. That only applies to late term abortions, duh.
No, this was in the 1990s when squatting was legal in the Netherlands (I only just learned from Wikipedia that it was, sadly, banned in 2010): Dutch squatting ban - Wikipedia
At the time I lived with them, squatters could legally take over control of an unoccupied space by sneaking in and putting a bed, table, and chair of their own in the space (based on court rulings that established this litmus test). I went along on one of their “occupations”, although this was not where I lived. They went in in the early morning, quickly but their lightweight “furniture” inside, and called a special division ol the police to come certify their legal status. Meanwhile the owner of the building and his two very preppy sons stood outside fuming, in stark contrast to the bearded, dreadlocked anarchists who were doing the squatting.
Thank you for fairly representing my views. I have no problem standing behind all of that, which was quoted appropriately.
:smack: You really are tremendously stupid. I can understand why Manda was loath to be taken for you!
It is, obviously, the human traffickers, not the sex workers themselves, who are the analogue to the weed dealers here (perhaps not to the street level dealers, but to those above them). Both the weed dealers and human traffickers are providing an illicit product/service that many people want and which in and of itself infringes on no one’s rights. But when these trades are made illegal and driven underground, they are managed by organized crime syndicates. And those syndicates engage in all kinds of nasty violence in the pursuit of their black market profits.
So if johns are morally culpable for funding a sex worker industry that engages in some degree of human trafficking (again, the experts cited by the Waves podcasters say the extent this is true has been exaggerated), then weed smokers in states where it is illegal are culpable for funding organized crime syndicates that smuggle and sell marijuana. There’s really no way around it. And I settle on “neither” rather than “both”.
-You cite multiple polls, at least one of which contradicts your thesis.
-When called on that, you point toward a poll contracted by a highly partisan organization, with a leading question that should shame any pollster. You cite it using a highly partisan analysis. And you lie about that analysis.
-When called on that, rather than address any of the multiple idiocies you conducted and I pointed out, you freak out and call me ignorant, dishonest, or both.
-In the process, you misrepresent what you’re being attacked for.
Yeah, you call me whatever names you want, dumbass.
GIGO, you are playing your usual strawman game. No one here that I have seen has endorsed Trump’s rhetoric. The excerpts from the Atlantic piece in my post that you responded to included the following:
:dubious:
You strawman more than anyone here that I can think of. Which is a truly low, dishonorable way to debate–worse in some ways than Trump’s crass insults.
Piffle, your chicken little act on that issue depends on thinking that most will listen to Trump’s rhetoric.
BTW nowhere I have said that you are saying that, that was directed to the opinion’s bolded part, so in reality this is about the third time that you show all that you do not even know what a straw man is. As Left Hand of Dorkness says, you are a dumbass.
Too late, I already noticed in this thread about your ‘going grammar Nazi’ act so as to not reply to what was posted. Unless you are so inept and incapable of reading what Politifact posted about this, it is actually a general reply to your chicken little act and I did reply directly to the bolded part of the opinion that you linked too. So, not a straw man.
Again: you are not only a dumbass at logic but a coward too. *
