If my child received one I’d consider it a dick move and be pissed off on that basis. Why be a dick to little kids having a bit of fun and expecting candy?
By the by, ISTR that “Chocolate Fetus” was on Jello Biafra’s list of Recommended Band Names.
With a big ass warning sign I hope. Peanuts can be dangerous.
Can’t someone tape this guy’s mouth, er, fingers, shut?
This one specific nut owns a ministry (Project: Ignite Global Ministries), hence why I said “the church”. Could you at least not nitpick?
Persecution? What are you talking about?
I’m sorry, but who are you talking to? It can’t be me. Funny thing, really. When I was in fifth grade, I had to watch a video about sex and some class about sexual health, which was mandated if you wanted to graduate high school.
points a bit below
No. Who said it?
And here comes the faux intellectual superiority from the left. Oh well. I do love these debates.
-First of all, why do you hate the English language?
-Second of all, why do you hate science and modern medicine (especially embryology)? I mean, I’ve done this enough times. Do you seriously want to see me post 100+ individual quotes from like the past-- I don’t know-- 200 or so years? I’m sure no one wants to read that, though I’m not so sure that even if I did if it would matter one lick if I did.
-Third of all, why do you hate reason? Well, because you’re a liberal, clearly (partisan dig!), but I mean beyond that.
But, yes, I will enjoy my candy. I bet you’ll enjoy feigning wilfull ignorance or trying to come up with a reason why you’re so smart and knowledgable and crap.
Oh, shoot, OMG a Black Conservative, I should have saved you all that work and let you know that if I’m ever confronted with a fetus doll in my boy’s treat bag, I plan to take your initial advice and shut down the lines of communication before any relevant questions are asked:
Because damned if I would be led into a conversation about reproduction by some fundy’s lame stunt. But gee, thanks for a hair-splitting tour of the dictionary! That must have taken some time.
It took all of three minutes, if that. But you’re welcome. Glad I could impart a little bit of knowledge upon you.
And does this ministry consist of more than just him and his immediate family?
Dream on, bub. Your arguments in general are shit, and your arguments in specific are shit, so it doesn’t really matter if I nitpick or just call you an overall idiot/troll; the contempt level’s about the same.
If GD, though, I will continue to refute and demolish you without making it personal, because I’m very skillful.
No idea. Does it? Actually, no, it doesn’t matter if it did.
Is that so? Because, if memory serves me correctly, and if I really wanted to drudge up prior arguments (I don’t), I’d totally point out that:
1.) You don’t know what happens in your own country.
2.) You make a copious amount of predictions which are easily refuted by a simple internet search (i.e., “If abortion is banned there will be millions of children in waiting to be adopted!”) or
3.) You completely refuse to provide a source whenever I ask for it. Which is quite often.
But, hey, nitpicking is really all you got, so I can’t fault you too much. Some, but not totally.
Well, I don’t like tearing people down, so if you want to remain high on yourself by all means, continue. It’s good to have a positive view of yourself and don’t let anyone ever tell you opposite. Now I’m off to GD.
Knock yourself out, sport.
Gadzooks, I’m not fully versed in the daily details of a country of nearly 10 million square kilometers and ~34 million people.
Gadzooks, I observed that if there are a million abortions per year in the U.S., and abortion is banned, there will be some significant fraction of a million extra unwanted babies in the U.S, per year, steadily accumulating. How unreasonable of me!
Well, that’s because the stuff I say is generally self-evident and obvious, whereas your arguments stem from random tidbits you draw from equally random right-wing bloggers, rife with random claims about random liberals.
I got plenty. You get far more equitable and thoughtful treatment than you deserve in the various GD threads where I casually demolish your specious and obvious trolling attempts by generously pretending that they’re not specious and obvious trolling attempts, simply because GD rules prevent me from openly calling you a specious and obvious troll. Thus, I have to skillfully dance around the blatant by asking you to clarify your claims, though I know full well they consist of “I believe liberals are bad, but I’m too much of a coward to actually say liberals are bad, so I’ll just use the words ‘liberal’ and ‘bad’ in various mixtures in hopes I’ll get somebody angry.”
I’m not angry, though. It amuses me to bat you around. You’re my newest yarn ball, like that communist guy and the guy who believed in Uri Geller were before you.
Liar. You clearly like to try to tear people down, but you’re so bad at it that only the stupid fall for it.
And I’ll be happy to keep destroying you there, anytime I come across another of your vacuous “libruls iz bad” threads. Without making it personal, of course.
Why? Since both you and I know how it’s been, that’s good enough for me.
You don’t have to be fully versed, but you should, in general, know more about what occurs in Canada than I do as you live there and I don’t (and never plan on it).
No, it’s not unreasonable, but if you’re going to get involved in a debate, it’d be in your best interest to arrive with some sort of knowledge regarding the subject instead of the not-so-obvious talking points (which are generally fearmongering).
Correction. You tend to believe the stuff you say is self-evident. Unfortunately, it tends not to be and contradicts actual hard, empirical evidence we have to the contrary. “I don’t need to source any of my claims because they’re true to anyone who accepts them as true!” really isn’t much in the way of arguing. In fact, it isn’t so much as it is willful ignorance.
And, fwiw, only once did I ever link you to a “right-wing” blog, and that was a blog which had data regarding the abortion rate and poverty. Otherwise, I tend to end up linking you to something dealing with econometrics, data taken from Guttmacher or studies published at some college. Though it might as well be from a “right-wing” blog, since you don’t read them anyway.
This is kind of getting into a “yes-huh!”/“nuh-uh!” kind of thing, but no, you don’t. Generally, you’ll show up, overcomplicate some issue (i.e., if I say the grass is green, you’ll ask me how I know it’s not red and whether I like chocolate milk), it’ll go on for a while and then you, may, begrudging answer the question first posed to you. Which will then get dragged out into some other unrelated topic for a while, until one of us grows bored. And such is our dance. But I’ve grown quite fond of it and, as such, will dance the dance.
Weird. I quite like seeing you do your best to avoid questions posed to you.
(You know, I have a slight feeling of deja vu. Almost… almost like I’ve had this exact same conversation with you.)
No, not really. You rarely see me break out the personal insults. I think the only people of whom I’ve outright insulted have ever been curlcoat and, I think, Zeriel. There might have been someone else, I forget.
Wait. When did I ever make one of those threads?
Well, it turns out Canadian politics (to pick a particular category of what “occurs” in Canada) is boring, because it’s so gosh-darn stable and sane and not at all like the two-year popularity contest of an American primary system.
And our financial system isn’t a disaster, either.
For more general uses of “occurs in Canada”, i.e. what the weather is like in the next province, I cheerfully admit ignorance and find it comical that you’d consider this a failing worthy of mention, especially in such a uselessly nonspecific way.
So your example of an “easily refutable” prediction of mine turns out to be “not unreasonable.”
God, you’re so fucking spineless. If you’re going to accuse me of something, stand by it, will you? Or if you can’t, at least have the good sense to drop the subject.
So you say. I stand by the various and numerous claims and statements I’ve made, I’ve retracted the ones that were clearly in error, and I modify my positions as new information comes to light.
Early on, for example, I was pro-invasion regarding Iraq, and I could still cite the reasons why I felt that way. Nowadays, I could cite the reasons the invasion was so badly bungled that it would have been better to not have done it at all.
Well, bloggers, pundits, general internet commentators… I don’t care if your sources were specifically in blog form or not, I just observe that you cull from internet commentary of a particular and consistent political slant, and/or dig up stories about some left-wing bit of nonsense so you can fatuously generalize it to all liberals.
I’m prepared to cheerfully withdraw this comment if I am demonstrated wrong. I accept the possibility that I’m attributing to you actions performed by others on this board. It’s not exactly a big deal - you’re not posting under your real name so it’s not like I’d be libeling you.
I’d be surprised to see you base an argument on a simple, declarative and demonstrable claim like “the grass is green.” I’ve come to expect posts along the lines of “liberals like to imagine the world in pretty and unrealistic colors”, followed after getting some replies by “I never said liberals said grass wasn’t green”. Most of your posting style is an exercise in implication and evasion because I honestly think you’re a troll who wants to inspire outrage while trying to sound reasonable, then disingenuously claiming the outrage is an over-reaction.
I’ve said this before - even your chosen username is typical of this. You literally started with the premise that the concept of a black conservative was a shocking one, that your mere existence would inspire a negative reaction.
I have no idea if you actually are black or conservative, and it’s getting less and less significant as time passes.
I don’t believe that you do. I believe that you think saying that I’m avoiding questions will put me on the defensive. Good luck with that.
Put simply, I mock stupid and dishonest questions, I ask for clarifications of confusing or vague questions, and I recognize the motives of leading questions, but there’s no question you can possibly ask me that I would be afraid to answer, or compelled to evade.
Your shtick is not variable enough to justify a rainbow of responses from me. If you keep getting my indigo, it’s because it’s all you deserve. Come up with something new and different and interesting, and I’ll cheerfully go all green and violet and such.
This question is either a lie to me, which is pathetic, or a lie to yourself, which is more so.
Canadian politics isn’t boring because it’s stable, it’s boring because no one has the balls to make tough decisions. Generally speaking, if something is deemed “too controversial” or it might result in negative press, the Canadian government won’t take action.
Tbh, I have no idea.
Well, at the very least, I think you should know more about your government than I do. There really is no excuse for that, especially since I know very little about the Canadian government outside of the few tidbits I happen to read every few months.
Reasonableness has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is easily refuted.
And I stand by my demand that you offer up some evidence (“I think…” isn’t evidence) as to why I should accept your claims and/or statements as true. I don’t think that’s really all that terrible of a demand.
Great for you. Great for Iraq. Kind of irrelevant to this discussion.
Now you’re lying (that’s okay to say in the Pit, right?). First of all, as I said, I’ve only ever quoted one blog that I can recall, and in the threads I’ve made, I’ve only started one of them off a story which could be deemed to have come from a “right-leaning” site, and that was the thread I started yesterday. Otherwise, I take great care in taking my sources from either neutral or left-leaning sites, as that makes it less easier for the opposite side to cry foul.
…Well, see. You should have said this before I wrote out the above.
[quote]
I’d be surprised to see you base an argument on a simple, declarative and demonstrable claim like “the grass is green.” I’ve come to expect posts along the lines of “liberals like to imagine the world in pretty and unrealistic colors”, followed after getting some replies by “I never said liberals said grass wasn’t green”. Most of your posting style is an exercise in implication and evasion because I honestly think you’re a troll who wants to inspire outrage while trying to sound reasonable, then disingenuously claiming the outrage is an over-reaction.
You should try being a Black conservative in the U.S., and you totally would understand the username. The unspoken rule is that if you’re Black, you must be a liberal. Remember the age old saying; there are no Black Republicans. Allegedly.
You mean it was significant at first? Well, see… That just gives credence to the shock value of my username.
Hypothetically speaking, if I were going to find examples of you avoiding questions posed to you, how many would suffice?
So, in essence, you deem every question asked of you stupid and dishonest?
…Oh, wait. Ignore the above. It was a stupid and dishonest question. Right?
But I thought you said you loved to screw with me. The above post doesn’t sound like someone who enjoys what he’s professing to do.
Or, I’m genuinely curious as to where you read one of these threads.
After claiming that, you have no business saying I don’t know what occurs in Canada. Anyway, I’ll just chalk it up to typical American ignorance and not take it personally, as I assume you intended me to.
Heh, you know nothing…
Until you grow a spine and get specific, this accusation means nothing to me. Are you challenging me to a quiz on recent Canadian history, or something?
Well, you have neither refuted the statement nor shown it to be unreasonable, so I assume you have no point.
Statements that start with “I think” are self-evidently opinions, beliefs, hypotheses… Don’t confuse them with my many, many statements of fact. Meantime, I’m well aware that your opinions are frequent not prefixed with “I think”, but are presented as fact. As a result, you have little or no credibility.
I’m being generous - you have no credibility.
I know you dislike specific examples but I do not share your phobia, so I presented one which I am prepared to elaborate on as necessary, rather than follow your example and later say “I never said anything about Iraq!”
I said I don’t care about the source being a blog specifically, and I’m confident I could demonstrate that you are lying, though I’m equally confident that you’d never admit that an obvious and groundless liberal bash actually was a liberal bash - you’d simply and fatuously claim that you were speaking the plain truth or some such nonsense.
I suppose I’d have to search through your thread-starting history, and I’m not at the stage where this is sufficiently appealing or necessary.
And since I figure you for a troll, I also figure that you want the opposite side to cry foul, or just to cry, or show some angry reflexive response of some kind.
I’ve expressed the same concept to posters long before you came along. I’ll be saying after you get banned, which I figure will happen sooner or later, assuming I’m still posting here afterward.
I’ve never heard that saying, truth be told. And sure, I recognize that the combination of blackness and conservatism (or at least Republican-voting) is unusual in the U.S. (I still accept the possibility that you’re neither black nor conservative) but so what? I’m a left-handed Canadian Jew. That puts me in a rarer subset than an American black conservative, probably.
Anyway, so you’re (allegedly) black and conservative. So are Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Michael Steele. Were I American and had Powell run for office in 1992, 1996 or 2000, I can picture myself voting for him. Heck, as far back as 1988, the notion that the first black president would be conservative was casually mentioned in a Bloom County cartoon, and not as a punchline, but as a likely future event, because (I assume) a liberal black (like Jesse Jackson) would have too much baggage and be too divisive.
So don’t whine to me about your hardships. The existence of a black conservative just isn’t that unusual. You’re not exactly a unicorn.
No, but keep fucking that chicken. I contend that you intended it to have shock value (or more accurately, you were assuming that some people would indeed be shocked), and possibly there were and are some doofi on this board who are still impressed by that sort of thing, but since then it’s been trollery after trollery. I honesty can’t think of a single clever or thought-provoking thing you ever said on this board.
Admittedly, it could have happened while I wasn’t looking. What’s your single proudest moment on this board - the post where you just nailed it with a perfect mix of insight, verbal wit and clear-headed wisdom? I’m curious what you consider to be your shining moment, if it exists. You have my word I’ll read and evaluate it with as few preconceptions as possible and offer up thoughtful honest comments. If you choose not to cite any such post, I won’t mention it again, nor hold it as evidence of anything.
I dunno… start with one and we’ll see how it goes. I should point out, though, that I don’t consider mocking a question (or questioning the question, if the question needed to be questioned) to be the same as avoiding it.
I deem you stupid and dishonest. I’ve gotten good questions from other posters, though.
I didn’t say “screw”, I said “bat”, but I’ll throw in “mock” and “ridicule”.
Ah, but you’re missing the big picture. What I love to do most of all is talk about myself, and this conversation is giving me ample opportunity to explain, in extended detail, my well-reasoned thought process on why I have concluded that you are dishonest, trolling scum, to be toyed with for a while and then discarded. It’s not merely “I don’t like you”, but “I have many good and solid reasons not to like you, and here they are.”
And the reasons, incidentally, have nothing to do with politics as such. If you were a well-reasoned conservative (of any colour) who could credibly defend his views and explain the flaws in the reasoning of others, I might disagree with you, but I guess I’d respect you. You blew that chance, though, with your posts on gay marriage and abortion, which just showed a complete lack of rational thought processes. A lot like magellan01, I mention in passing, who is a yarn-ball predecessor of yours. I had lots of fun undermining him.
Heck, there’s an active one in GD right now, but I have no expectation you’ll admit it as such.
OMG it’s the Black Conservative Show!
What is offensive is the intent behind it and the execution of that intent - to insert into what is, after all, a big kiddie party, some adult’s concerns.
Also, the point of trick or treating is to get candy. A fetus may be many things to many people, but one thing it is not, is candy. The context leads to a feeling of nausea - a fetus may be “just tissue” but I would not think kindly of someone dropping a model of intestines into my kid’s halloween basket, either. It is just plain gross.
Doing something gross to make an adult point in a kiddie venue = the act of an asshole, however you slice it. This is or ought to be true even if someone supports whatever cause is being plugged. If PETA wraps models of cut-off calf’s heads as colourful presents and handed them out to kids at Christmas to promote vegetarianism, I would think they were acting as badly as these guys, even if calf’s heads are “just tissue” and even if I happened to think everyone ought to be vegetarian.
Actually, the approriate and correct way of response* to balance things would be pass out anatomically correct fetus dolls - of fetus who have been naturally aborted because they’re malformed. There are some statistics the “making fun of fundies” crowd cites, of how many babies = impregnated eggs are aborted by God because they fail to implant, implant wrongly and fail (sometimes requiring surgical removal), or develop problems and abort in an early stage.
The percentage is rather high.
The approriate place and time for that, however, would of course not be little children at Halloween, but anti-abortion rallyes and the like.
If you do think it’s approriate to use Halloween to teach little kids (the article mentions a 3-year old getting a doll, so the statement that they only handed these out with adult approval is apparently false) about babies, it’s only logical to teach them about conception => sex and abortion, therefore contraception.
Everything less than that means you have an agenda, obviously, and are dishonest.
*trying to "get even"or score a point on a topic like this is an understandable, but wrong reaction.
Why don’t I? Because you disagree with my assessment?
I know 1 + 1 = 2. Therefore, your claim is false.
Nope. Just pointing out that you typically don’t seem to know much about what goes on in Canada or the Canadian government and seem to be generally surprised when someone points something out to you regarding it.
Why would I need to do that?
So, let me make sure I understand this correctly. You make “opinions” passed off as fact and refuse to explain why one should accept your opinion as fact (I believe I’ve said this before), arguing that since they’re so self-evident that you don’t need to source them-- even if they’re not-- but you have an insane amount of credibility. On the flip side, no matter what claim I make, even if I can pull sources out of the wazoo from totally unbiased and non-partisan sites, or even sources from those left-leaning publications, then I’m presenting an opinion presented as fact, instead of a fact presented as fact? Interesting.
I’d like to live in your world, but then again, I’m quite partial to the real world.
I wholeheartedly challenge you to demonstrate I’m lying. And since you’re so confident, not to mention we’re talking about a grand total of four threads (found here, here, here and here, it should be pathetically easy for you to do so. I’ll wait.
It doesn’t much of bother me who wants to get upset and cry foul. They will, anyway, regardless of the content. I noticed that months ago.
You’re going to be waiting quite a long time.
And being a left-handed, Black conservative in the U.S. would be even rarer than being a left-handed Canadian Jew. Take out handedness, and the former would still be rarer than the latter. But I’m sure you already knew this, so moving on.
I’m sorry, but who was whining? Most certainly not I. It’s the people who don’t like my username who whine and whine and whine about it incessantly. I find that funny, but they can whine about what they wish.
Furthermore, since you want to play this game, go ask Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Allen West and even Herman Cain what their experiences with not walking lock in step with the Democratic machine are. They’d tell you, and you can find articles on it online, that they have labels attached to them, and they’re not the good kind of labels. In fact…
Well, buddy boy, you contend wrong. I realize that your average Doper, apparently, lives in some bubble sheltered from the real world where life is all rainbows and roses, where liberals are the moral and intellectual superiors and conservatives the big bad racists on the block, but I happen to live in the real world, where being Black and being conservative is generally met with a large amount of shock, awe and racial epithets from those on the left, not to mention the media. I remember a few years back, on CNN, one of there news hosts couldn’t believe some Black guy didn’t vote for Obama (I believe it was Sanchez or whatever his name was). Just because you refuse to believe so, my name actually has applicable meaning. All you need to do is-- I don’t know-- read the news/watch your TV. On this board alone, I’ve gotten no less than ten “Are you really Black?” comments because people disagree with one or more of my posts. But, yeah, like you said-- keep on fucking that chicken.
Tbh, I have no idea. I don’t keep tabs on my posts like that as I have 600 - 700 posts on this board. It doesn’t much matter to me what you find my posts. No one is making you read them. Of course, if you really want to know the answer to your question, I suppose you’ll have to start paying attention to them more.
Let’s start with the thread in GD, which I’ll look at after this one.
You thought process is well-reasoned? Well, I’m into fighting ignorance, but I can’t fight delusion. So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
See, now I know you’re lying. Not that I didn’t know this before.
First of all, the only time I’ve ever said anything about gay marriage is that when it comes to social issues, gay marriage ranks lower on the totem poll than does abortion. Other than that, you’ve never seen me mention anything about gays being wed. But, as I’m now curious, and since you apparently are a mind-reader, please tell me what do I think about gay marriage? I predict you will fail harder than that guy who went on some mini-tirade about sex ed or whatever.
Second of all, and probably more importantly, you do realize that every time I get into a “debate” on abortion or something similar with you, it goes the same. It basically boils down to you not liking and actively disregarding any source I give you, regardless of the source, and you treating your arguments as self-evident, thereby needing no justification, even if they’re simply wrong (and, yes, I’ve seen you repeat the same thing ad nauseum even after it’s proved wrong). That’s not an arguing tactic; that’s simply sticking your finger in your ear and refusing to engage in an actual debate or admit you’re wrong. But it’s par for the course with you. And, if you so deem, I can actively go find examples of this.
You don’t much of do anything except to, as you put it, “undermine yourself”.
Really? Where is it?
:snore:
Huh, only four threads. For some reason I thought there were more. Anyway, on review I see I was active to varying degrees in all of them, pointing out the flaws in your various premises. I’m actually rather proud of the reasoning and wit I showed in all four - your premises were ignorant and I addressed this intelligently. In none of them do I see myself disagreeing with on mere ideological grounds. Rather, I consistently disagree with you because your opinions are stupid and short-sighted, and on a few occasions, the only response you can give to someone pointing out the obvious flaw in your premise is to accuse them of strawmanning you.
Well, assuming that you actually are a black conservative (and, I further assume that since you chose this particular link, also a tea party backer, though it would be perfectly and predictably in character for you to turn around and say “I never said I was a tea party backer”)… so? Are you expecting me to be impressed by how oppressed you are? Go sell that story to some stereotypical guilt-written white liberal, bub. Your race is of no significance to me, and I personally think it’s a failing of Americans for whom it is significant. Your attempts to keep brandishing your race (and indeed, to choose a corresponding username) are no cover for how stupid you and your opinions are.
And, of course, there’s always the possibility these these are not your opinions at all, that your behaviour on this board is just a massive troll-run. If so, I don’t think of myself as feeding a troll - rather, I’ve been using the troll to express well-reasoned arguments against what the troll claims to believe, which happens to be virtually identical to what many Fox News-watching, Limbaugh-listening, Palin-voting Americans claim to believe. Anyway, I don’t think I’ll bother accusing you of trolling again. Just assume that there’s always a little asterisk somewhere in my responses, linked to a footnote that says: (*Assuming of course, you actually believe what you’re claiming.)
Oh, and… uh… giving out fetuses for Hallowe’en is gross.
Those options are not mutually exclusive. A deliberate shit-stirrer who is 100% sincere is still a deliberate shit-stirrer (i.e.: a troll).