I never thought I would say this, but we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.

[Seymour Flops]

The great social media problem is that the greatly improved communications is not approaching the "better society" that founders of social media believe their product will provide.

A person is not going to develop a communications platform just for some personal thrill. They are inclined to believe, and promote, their idea as being for the better approach to community. They did not expect people to use their product without their altruistic ideals of good community.

There is just no way Zuckerburg and the Twitter guy, thought that their products would be great revenge devices for people to use. Nobody id going to sign up to be ridiculed by "friends," and annonomous trolls.

It seemingly appears that social media is a verbal shooting gallery.

Ah, I see. I might call it the “Great Social Media Disappointment,” but I agree with you on most of that.

Many years ago, when I worked at a television station, I was editing an episode of Jerry Springer with people throwing things and screaming over who the baby daddy was. Typical Springer BS. I said sarcastically to my boss, “When they invented television, this is exactly what they had in mind.”

I don’t know what the inventors of television, Philo Farnsworth and the others, had in mind, but I doubt it was that. But you can either give the people what they want, or they will make what you give them what they want.

Any medium is only as good as its users make it. Sometimes worse, but no better. Social media is an outlet ideal for people who lack self-confidence in social situations, or some other inability to socialize face-to-face. It could be a great way for them to socialize and even overcome their anxieties enough to make face-to-face socializing possible. Instead, it seems to bring out the worst in people.

 

[forkup]

So, you are not a liberal in any way, shape or form, then, since you support enriching Jeff Bezos at the expense of countless little guys.

So let's see if I get this right. You are claiming that because I'm for taking common-sense measures in order to prevent the spread of a deadly disease I'm anti-small business and therefore for Jeff Bezos?

This is what's called the False dilemma fallacy. Just because I'm not for something, that doesn't mean I'm automatically for something else. I'll demonstrate.

If I'm against people jumping off skyscrapers does that mean I'm anti-mortician? Isn't it just possible I think jumping off the Empire State is simply a bad idea?

 

[forkup]

Perfect! Full disclosure, I'm libertarian not conservative. It happens that at this time, it is liberals who tend to push authoritarian policies and cons who oppose them. In the sixties and seventies I was more in synch with liberals.

Still am on issues like drug legalization and LGBT rights (for grownups).

I'll look for your posts.

Do you think so?

-At the moment it is judges appointed specifically by conservatives, ruling to put the issue of abortion in the hands of the State. Whereas before individuals could decide whether or not to have one. Pretty soon, at least in some States, that decision will now be taken out of their hands.

- At the moment the Republican front runner for the presidency is not just arguing that the winner of the election
actually lost, but he's arguing that the vice-president and/or the state legislatures are empowered to ignore the official election result and declare him the winner by fiat.
- At the moment the most likely candidate for the presidency if the current front-runner isn't willing to run is using his power as a governor to go after people and businesses he doesn't like. Not by statements but by actual legislation against them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you think so?

-At the moment it is judges appointed specifically by conservatives, ruling to put the issue of abortion in the hands of the State. Whereas before individuals could decide whether or not to have one. Pretty soon, at least in some States, that decision will now be taken out of their hands.

Individuals can still decide whether or not to have one, until the ruling is official. But even now, only one individual involved in an abortion has a say. Neither the father of the baby, nor the baby have any say in whether the baby is to be killed.

One can argue over whether the baby is a baby, if one is willing to use outlandish definitions tailored to make the argument that the baby is actually just a clump of cells (as are we all). But those arguments can now be made at the state level.

- At the moment the Republican front runner for the presidency is not just arguing that the winner of the election
actually lost, but he's arguing that the vice-president and/or the state legislatures are empowered to ignore the official election result and declare him the winner by fiat.

I disagreed with Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, just as I disagreed back in 2000, when Gore tried the same.

- At the moment the most likely candidate for the presidency if the current front-runner isn't willing to run is using his power as a governor to go after people and businesses he doesn't like. Not by statements but by actual legislation against them.

I don’t think DiSantis is “going after” people because he doesn’t like them. Although they are very unlikeable people.

I don’t like teachers who take a tax-funded paycheck, and who are entrusted with other people’s children, and think that gives them Carte Blanche to talk to other people’s young children about topics that the parents do not want them exposed to. Nor to hide information from parents about what their children are being taught.

I don’t like a large corporation that takes subsidies from a state and then bad mouths that state for protecting its children.

But DiSantis isn’t sanctioning them because they are unlikeable. He is sanctioning them because they they are pushing the most radical elements of the LBGT-Q agenda onto children.

The law shouldn’t be called the “don’t say gay law,” because it says nothing about saying gay. It should be called the “Hey . . . Teacher . . . Leave them kids alone” law.

 

[forkup]

Individuals can still decide whether or not to have one, until the ruling is official. But even now, only one individual involved in an abortion has a say. Neither the father of the baby, nor the baby have any say in whether the baby is to be killed.

One can argue over whether the baby is a baby, if one is willing to use outlandish definitions tailored to make the argument that the baby is actually just a clump of cells (as are we all). But those arguments can now be made at the state level.

I disagreed with Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, just as I disagreed back in 2000, when Gore tried the same.

I don’t think DiSantis is “going after” people because he doesn’t like them. Although they are very unlikeable people.

I don’t like teachers who take a tax-funded paycheck, and who are entrusted with other people’s children, and think that gives them Carte Blanche to talk to other people’s young children about topics that the parents do not want them exposed to. Nor to hide information from parents about what their children are being taught.

I don’t like a large corporation that takes subsidies from a state and then bad mouths that state for protecting its children.

But DiSantis isn’t sanctioning them because they are unlikeable. He is sanctioning them because they they are pushing the most radical elements of the LBGT-Q agenda onto children.

The law shouldn’t be called the “don’t say gay law,” because it says nothing about saying gay. It should be called the “Hey . . . Teacher . . . Leave them kids alone” law.

only one individual involved in an abortion has a say.

Not true, just not all have equal say. I have no problem witht the person having the fetus in their body and assuming the inherent risk of pregnancy having the final say.

if one is willing to use outlandish definitions tailored to make the argument that the baby is actually just a clump of cells

You mean outlandish like calling something that has no functioning organs, self-awareness, lungs, heart, etc.etc. etc. a baby?
I found that using loaded terms is a good and often used tactic to stop the conversation.

But those arguments can now be made at the state level.

As opposed to it being a personal choice you mean? Not very libertarian in my opinion.

I disagreed with Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, just as I disagreed back in 2000, when Gore tried the same.

You are trying to draw an equivalency between an instance where less than a thousand votes, in a single state. And a presidential nominee who CONCEDED after the Supreme Court ruled against him. And another instance where the difference was tens of thousands of votes in several battleground states. And the nominee not only refused to concede despite losing all his court challenges but actively took steps to prevent his successor from taking power. Up to and including trying to usurp the power of the people to elect his representatives. Something that to THIS day is still maintained as valid.

You don't see a tiny, little bit of difference here?

I don’t think DiSantis is “going after” people because he doesn’t like them.

He is sanctioning them because they they are pushing the most radical elements of the LBGT-Q agenda onto children.

This is a distinction without a difference.

“Hey . . . Teacher . . . Leave them kids alone” law.

I think you should read up on the law. It allows any conservative "Karen" to take offense and sue for damages.

Let me ask you. If a bill would allow me to sue a teacher for, for instance having a family picture depicting a husband and wife on the desk claiming that picture influences my child's gender identity would you be ok with that?

I find that asking yourself the question "if the shoe would be on the other foot, would I support it" is usually a good idea.

The law is purposely vague in its wording to allow for those kinds of things.

What I find interesting is that you are making excuses as to why conservatives should be allowed to have totalitarian tendencies, while condemning them in Liberals. And I have to say the ones on the conservative side seem to be more common.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Classical liberalism is not libertarianism as such. The only consistently meaningful way to regard classical liberalism is to understand that it's predicated on the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition, i.e., the Lockean iteration of republicanism. In today's parlance, classical liberalism is a synthesis of American conservatism proper and classic laissez-faire. Placing any given form of libertarianism within that range of liberty would entail more qualifications relative to real-world outcomes.

Ego-Pumping by Pathetic Losers

Libretardians take "the virtue of selfishness" to the point of treason. And if they ever took over, they would establish a police state, "to protect rugged individualists from mob rule."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The great social media problem is that the greatly improved communication is not approaching the "better society" that founders of social media believe their product will provide.

A person is People are not going to develop a communications platform just for some personal thrill. They are inclined to believe, and promote, their ideas as being for the better approach to community. They did not expect people to use their product without their altruistic ideals of good community.

There is just no way Zuckerberg and the Twitter guy thought that their products would be great revenge devices for people to use. Nobody is going to sign up to be ridiculed by "friends," and anonymous trolls.

It appears that social media is are verbal shooting galleries..

Pre-Conditioned Free Speech Is Not Free; It Is Pre-Owned

The ruling class wouldn't have allowed the Netrix if it hadn't already dumbed-down the population to the point that only strict conformity to various simplistic ideas would be expressed. Hating some imaginary enemy of the ruling class has evolved into hating one another, which also benefits the regime. Totalitarianism has become more sophisticated.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not true, just not all have equal say. I have no problem witht the person having the fetus in their body and assuming the inherent risk of pregnancy having the final say.

“Say,” meaning power in the decision process. The baby certainly has no say. The father of the baby can talk all he likes, but he has no legal power in the decision process. They often bring lots of pressure on the mother, but that pressure is much more often to abort the baby than to keep it.

You mean outlandish like calling something that has no functioning organs, self-awareness, lungs, heart, etc.etc. etc. a baby?
I found that using loaded terms is a good and often used tactic to stop the conversation.

“Baby” is a loaded term?

Luckily, I have a visual aid to refute your claim of no functioning organs, etc. See my avatar? That’s not a picture of me as a baby, but it could be, if they had that technology four months before I was born. It could be you at the same time of your life. At that age, a baby has all of its organs and they are functioning as they should during the gestational phase. At that age, also, a baby can be killed in the womb and extracted part by part, with no legal reprocussions.

It’s a baby, alright. I have a hard time believing someone can look at that picture and say, “A baby? No way!” A more intellectually honest argument would be to admit to the baby’s humanity and make a claim of self-defense.

As opposed to it being a personal choice you mean? Not very libertarian in my opinion.

It is entirely libertarian if we realize that an unborn baby is a person also.

You are trying to draw an equivalency between an instance where less than a thousand votes, in a single state. And a presidential nominee who CONCEDED after the Supreme Court ruled against him. And another instance where the difference was tens of thousands of votes in several battleground states. And the nominee not only refused to concede despite losing all his court challenges but actively took steps to prevent his successor from taking power. Up to and including trying to usurp the power of the people to elect his representatives. Something that to THIS day is still maintained as valid.

You don't see a tiny, little bit of difference here?

Of course. No one thing is ever completely the same as anything else. Which is why liberals can never be pinned down with an analogy. Orwell talked about that in 1984.

The sameness is that I condemn both. Apparently, you think it was fine for Gore to put the nation through that. So, you are selective in your outrage towards people who disrespect the election process and try to manipulate it for their personal gain.

I think you should read up on the law. It allows any conservative "Karen" to take offense and sue for damages.

Any conservative with any name can already take offense and sue for damages. Anyone can sue for anything, with little consequence if the lawsuit is frivolous. Doesn’t mean they will win. I’ve read the law, and I’m not sure which part you think guarantees the plaintiff a victory just because they are offended. Tell me the working that says that, and I will agree if it does.

Let me ask you. If a bill would allow me to sue a teacher for, for instance having a family picture depicting a husband and wife on the desk claiming that picture influences my child's gender identity would you be ok with that?

I find that asking yourself the question "if the shoe would be on the other foot, would I support it" is usually a good idea.

No, and I would not agree with a law that allowed someone to successfully sue a teacher for having a picture of their same-gender partner, or a picture of them as a child before they chose their current gender. If any of those led students to question the teacher about their sexuality (which is supposedly all that third graders and below can think about - their teachers’ sexuality), the teacher can simply say, “that is much too personal to ask me. Get out your tablet and tap on the math app.”

The law is purposely vague in its wording to allow for those kinds of things.

Then the courts will strike it down as unconstitutionally vague. Having read the law, I disagree. I can’t see a college educated teacher having difficulty understanding how to not violate it. I’m sure there will be teachers who pretend not to be able to avoid breaking it, so they can test it in court.

What I find interesting is that you are making excuses as to why conservatives should be allowed to have totalitarian tendencies, while condemning them in Liberals. And I have to say the ones on the conservative side seem to be more common.

Nothing could be more totalitarian to an individual than to live in a nation in which it can be destroyed in the womb, having committed no offense whatsoever.

Trying to corrupt the results of an election is wrong, but you only condemn it when done by Republicans.

Parents wanting a say in their kids’ educations hardly strikes me as totalitarian, while government insisting that parents stay out of what the state wants to teacher their kids seems a key part of totalitarianism.

 

[forkup]

“Say,” meaning power in the decision process. The baby certainly has no say. The father of the baby can talk all he likes, but he has no legal power in the decision process. They often bring lots of pressure on the mother, but that pressure is much more often to abort the baby than to keep it.


“Baby” is a loaded term?

Luckily, I have a visual aid to refute your claim of no functioning organs, etc. See my avatar? That’s not a picture of me as a baby, but it could be, if they had that technology four months before I was born. It could be you at the same time of your life. At that age, a baby has all of its organs and they are functioning as they should during the gestational phase. At that age, also, a baby can be killed in the womb and extracted part by part, with no legal reprocussions.

It’s a baby, alright. I have a hard time believing someone can look at that picture and say, “A baby? No way!” A more intellectually honest argument would be to admit to the baby’s humanity and make a claim of self-defense.

It is entirely libertarian if we realize that an unborn baby is a person also.

Of course. No one thing is ever completely the same as anything else. Which is why liberals can never be pinned down with an analogy. Orwell talked about that in 1984.

The sameness is that I condemn both. Apparently, you think it was fine for Gore to put the nation through that. So, you are selective in your outrage towards people who disrespect the election process and try to manipulate it for their personal gain.

Any conservative with any name can already take offense and sue for damages. Anyone can sue for anything, with little consequence if the lawsuit is frivolous. Doesn’t mean they will win. I’ve read the law, and I’m not sure which part you think guarantees the plaintiff a victory just because they are offended. Tell me the working that says that, and I will agree if it does.

No, and I would not agree with a law that allowed someone to successfully sue a teacher for having a picture of their same-gender partner, or a picture of them as a child before they chose their current gender. If any of those led students to question the teacher about their sexuality (which is supposedly all that third graders and below can think about - their teachers’ sexuality), the teacher can simply say, “that is much too personal to ask me. Get out your tablet and tap on the math app.”

Then the courts will strike it down as unconstitutionally vague. Having read the law, I disagree. I can’t see a college educated teacher having difficulty understanding how to not violate it. I’m sure there will be teachers who pretend not to be able to avoid breaking it, so they can test it in court.

Nothing could be more totalitarian to an individual than to live in a nation in which it can be destroyed in the womb, having committed no offense whatsoever.

Trying to corrupt the results of an election is wrong, but you only condemn it when done by Republicans.

Parents wanting a say in their kids’ educations hardly strikes me as totalitarian, while government insisting that parents stay out of what the state wants to teacher their kids seems a key part of totalitarianism.

The father of the baby can talk all he likes, but he has no legal power in the decision process.

Yes, no legal power. He is not the one asked to take on the inherent risk of pregnancy.

“Baby” is a loaded term?

A "baby" is specifically a newborn. Before a "baby" you are a fetus. Before a fetus, you are an embryo. Fetus or baby? Why language around pregnancy matters. Each of those terms has a specific meaning, only one of those terms is universally recognized as a person and draws the emotional response associated with that. The definition of a loaded term.

Loaded Terminology

Communicating Ideas Vagueness vs. Broad Generalities Ambiguity & Merely Verbal Clashes Potentially Manipulative Loaded Terminology Identifying Should- Statements

dmulderct.weebly.com

It is entirely libertarian if we realize that an unborn baby is a person also.

Again loaded.

Of course. No one thing is ever completely the same as anything else.

Ever heard about the false equivalency fallacy? False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons – Effectiviology

Apparently, you think it was fine for Gore to put the nation through that.

Yes, I did. Considering the election for president of the entire country hinged on a margin so small, it would trigger an automatic recount in an election for alderman in a smallish town. And especially considering that he stopped and CONCEDED to his opponent the moment the Supreme Court ruled against him.

So, you are selective in your outrage towards people who disrespect the election process

Did Gore disrespect the election process? Last I checked the election process allows for challenging results in a court of law.

Anyone can sue for anything

Not really. I can't sue anyone for having brown hair. I need at least a legal justification for it. Florida provided one.

Tell me the working that says that, and I will agree if it does.

Here you are using a strawman. I never claimed suing guaranteed victory.

No, and I would not agree with a law that allowed someone to successfully sue a teacher for having a picture of their same-gender partner, or a picture of them as a child before they chose their current gender.

So you guarantee how a judge will rule on this example?

If any of those led students to question the teacher about their sexuality (which is supposedly all that third graders and below can think about - their teachers’ sexuality)

Funny how you recognize that third graders aren't all that affected by the teacher's sexuality but find it perfectly acceptable to legislate in order to prevent teachers from discussing it even when directly asked.

that is much too personal to ask me.

So don't say gay?


In my first response, I told you that in my experience having an honest debate with conservatives is hard. This reply shows why. Not only do you use several fallacious arguments. When called out on it, you choose to claim ignorance. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not that. The problem then of course becomes that it would make you dishonest.

 

[Rye Catcher]

That's a classical liberal, now known as "libertarians," since the socialists culturally expropriated the term "liberal."

Yes, we need more of them here also.

No we don't need any Libertarians; they are more in kind with Ayn Rand and her foolish Objectivism.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, no legal power. He is not the one asked to take on the inherent risk of pregnancy.

A "baby" is specifically a newborn. Before a "baby" you are a fetus. Before a fetus, you are an embryo. Fetus or baby? Why language around pregnancy matters. Each of those terms has a specific meaning, only one of those terms is universally recognized as a person and draws the emotional response associated with that. The definition of a loaded term.

Loaded Terminology

Communicating Ideas Vagueness vs. Broad Generalities Ambiguity & Merely Verbal Clashes Potentially Manipulative Loaded Terminology Identifying Should- Statements

dmulderct.weebly.com

Again loaded.

An unborn person is a person. This is a liberal debate technique that I became so familiar with on other forums. Try to control the conversation by setting your own definitions of words. If you’ve spent any time around pregnant women, you know that they refer to the human being inside of them as a “baby,” with no intention of triggering anyone.

If you prefer the term “human,” please use it.

Ever heard about the false equivalency fallacy? False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons – Effectiviology


Yes, I did. Considering the election for president of the entire country hinged on a margin so small, it would trigger an automatic recount in an election for alderman in a smallish town. And especially considering that he stopped and CONCEDED to his opponent the moment the Supreme Court ruled against him.

Did Gore disrespect the election process? Last I checked the election process allows for challenging results in a court of law.

Yes, he absolutely disrespected the election process, and so did the media. Their clear aim was to keep counting until they finally came up with a counting method that gave Gore the win and then insist that all recounts stop.

Funny how you recognize that third graders aren't all that affected by the teacher's sexuality but find it perfectly acceptable to legislate in order to prevent teachers from discussing it even when directly asked.

Yes, because children rarely ask a teacher about their sexuality, and if they do, the teacher should redirect the conversation back to the academic subject at hand. What’s wrong with that?

I’ve been teaching at public school for a couple of decades and the only time I’ve heard a student talks about their teacher’s sexuality is when they are disrespecting a teacher by calling them “gay” or a “dyke.” They should be warned to stay on school appropriate topics.

Aside from the obvious pushing of the LGBTQ agenda on kids against their parents wishes, it takes up severely limited instruction time, if teachers talk about their personal lives instead of academics. To take it out of the “loaded” topic, suppose a teacher is explaining to his 3rd grade class how he cleaned the carburetor of his pickup truck over the weekend. Meanwhile, in the class next door, another 3rd grade teacher is explaining how to subtract fractions with unlike denominators. Which class do you want your kid in?

So don't say gay?


In my first response, I told you that in my experience having an honest debate with conservatives is hard. This reply shows why. Not only do you use several fallacious arguments. When called out on it, you choose to claim ignorance. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not that. The problem then of course becomes that it would make you dishonest.

I don’t believe that I claimed ignorance, and I don’t believe that I was dishonest.

I do believe that resorting to personal insults is an admission of inability to carry on the debate.

 

[forkup]

An unborn person is a person. This is a liberal debate technique that I became so familiar with on other forums. Try to control the conversation by setting your own definitions of words. If you’ve spent any time around pregnant women, you know that they refer to the human being inside of them as a “baby,” with no intention of triggering anyone.

If you prefer the term “human,” please use it.

Yes, he absolutely disrespected the election process, and so did the media. Their clear aim was to keep counting until they finally came up with a counting method that gave Gore the win and then insist that all recounts stop.

Yes, because children rarely ask a teacher about their sexuality, and if they do, the teacher should redirect the conversation back to the academic subject at hand. What’s wrong with that?

I’ve been teaching at public school for a couple of decades and the only time I’ve heard a student talks about their teacher’s sexuality is when they are disrespecting a teacher by calling them “gay” or a “dyke.” They should be warned to stay on school appropriate topics.

Aside from the obvious pushing of the LGBTQ agenda on kids against their parents wishes, it takes up severely limited instruction time, if teachers talk about their personal lives instead of academics. To take it out of the “loaded” topic, suppose a teacher is explaining to his 3rd grade class how he cleaned the carburetor of his pickup truck over the weekend. Meanwhile, in the class next door, another 3rd grade teacher is explaining how to subtract fractions with unlike denominators. Which class do you want your kid in?

I don’t believe that I claimed ignorance, and I don’t believe that I was dishonest.

I do believe that resorting to personal insults is an admission of inability to carry on the debate.

If you’ve spent any time around pregnant women, you know that they refer to the human being inside of them as a “baby,”

So your contention is that because you spend time around pregnant woman you are free to redefine the term to your own liking despite that it's not how we define a fetus in the womb in a dictionary, in courts, or medically? Who exactly is appropriating terms here? The same goes for human by the way. A human defines individuality. A fetus in a womb is in a very practical sense NOT an individual.

Yes, he absolutely disrespected the election process

Explain to me how availing yourself of the only remedy the constitution provides when it comes to redressing grievances in elections, amounts to " disrespecting the election process?"

I’ve been teaching at public school for a couple of decades and the only time I’ve heard a student talks about their teacher’s sexuality is when they are disrespecting a teacher

Oh? You are telling me that you have never been asked about your significant other (if you have one)? Or espoused on her in any way even when asked?

of the LGBTQ agenda

What agenda are you referring to? The only agenda I know of is that they want to be accepted as equal but please go ahead and tell me what you believe their agenda is?

I don’t believe that I claimed ignorance, and I don’t believe that I was dishonest.

So you don't know what a loaded term is? But you are not ignorant?
Or you do know what a loaded term is but didn't realize that in this context it was?

If it's not that, what besides dishonesty can you give as an explanation?

I do believe that resorting to personal insults is an admission of inability to carry on the debate.

I'm sorry that you took it as a personal insult, I can only say that from my standpoint it is hard to believe someone who uses the term "baby" to describe a fetus in the womb, something that's incorrect, medically, legally, and as a matter of dictionary definition of words, in an abortion debate no less. Is doing so not purposefully, in order to load the question. It's just not all that believable.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So your contention is that because you spend time around pregnant woman you are free to redefine the term to your own liking despite that it's not how we define a fetus in the womb in a dictionary, in courts, or medically? Who exactly is appropriating terms here?

Words are defined by usage, not by dictionary writers who fear being canceled. I’m not redefining anything. I’m using the word as I have heard it used since childhood.

The same goes for human by the way. A human defines individuality. A fetus in a womb is in a very practical sense NOT an individual.

An unborn baby is absolutely a human and a separate human from its mother and father. Do you doubt the science of DNA? An unborn baby has unique DNA, and it is the one and only human with that DNA, unless he or she happens to have an identical twin in the womb with it.

Explain to me how availing yourself of the only remedy the constitution provides when it comes to redressing grievances in elections, amounts to " disrespecting the election process?"

Again, the clear plan was to keep recounting until they finally came up with a win for Biden and then demand to be sworn in immediately. That’s not what is called for in election law, as the Supreme Court explained to Team Gore. The man tried to sue his way into the White House. He acted like a baby and so did Trump.

Oh? You are telling me that you have never been asked about your significant other (if you have one)? Or espoused on her in any way even when asked?

If a student asks me, I tell them that I have a wife, who they will meet in high school. If an LGBT-Q teacher was asked if they were married, I’m sure that if they were politically correct, they would say that they have a spouse and maybe what they do for a living.

I don’t go on about our sex life, or any other aspect of my sexuality, and neither should an LGBT-Q teacher. Nor do students ask about that; not even the emotionally disturbed kids I work with in my behavior program are that uncouth.

The LGBT-Q teachers who claim that students can’t concentrate on grammar, because they are too curious about their teacher’s sexuality are flat lying, if I may speak plainly without giving offense.

What agenda are you referring to? The only agenda I know of is that they want to be accepted as equal but please go ahead and tell me what you believe their agenda is?

They can be treated as equal, by not talking about their sexuality, which is what is expected of “straight” teachers. Neither straight, LGBT-Q, nor asexual teachers should be allowed to tell a child who goes through a typical phase of confusion and/or experimentation about their sexuality that they are transgender and then refer them to a counselor who encourages them to seek “treatement” from the transgender industry.

So you don't know what a loaded term is? But you are not ignorant?
Or you do know what a loaded term is but didn't realize that in this context it was?

If it's not that, what besides dishonesty can you give as an explanation?

My explanation is that we disagree. Something that people used to be able to do without resorting to insults. But as the liberals’ positions has more and more gotten away from any basis in reality, rational arguments fail them, and they become frustrated.

I am fully aware of what the term “loaded term” means. In fact, “loaded term” is itself a loaded term, which is ironic. I disagree that “baby” and “human” are a loaded terms. If those words truly arouse negative emotions for you, that is unfortunate. I won’t stop using them correctly, but you are free not to read my posts.

I'm sorry that you took it as a personal insult, I can only say that from my standpoint it is hard to believe someone who uses the term "baby" to describe a fetus in the womb, something that's incorrect, medically, legally, and as a matter of dictionary definition of words, in an abortion debate no less. Is doing so not purposefully, in order to load the question. It's just not all that believable.

A baby is a baby, so I call it a baby. A dog baby, is a puppy, a cat baby is a kitten, and a human baby is a baby.

If we were talking about pumping a woman’s stomach to rid her of bad shrimp that is making her sick, I would call what is being taken out “shrimp” or perhaps “vomitus.” If you prefer to call a baby or a shrimp that a woman wants removed “unwanted material,” or what have you, go right ahead. I won’t call it that, but I won’t spend three posts complaining about you saying it, I assure you.

This is one of the key disagreements I have with the liberal approach to debate. You seem to honestly expect that I will concede the argument before it starts by agreeing not to say that abortion ends a human life. All the science says that it does. An unborn baby has unique human DNA. After ten weeks, it is easily recognizable as human different from an unborn dog or cat. It is nearly universally socially accepted as a baby, just ask any expecting parent. Or anyone else, not currently arguing in favor of abortion.

Ask a pregnant woman if she has named the baby, and - unless she is on the way to the abortion clinic - she will not say, “what baby?”

 

[daveman]

Yes, no legal power. He is not the one asked to take on the inherent risk of pregnancy.

A "baby" is specifically a newborn. Before a "baby" you are a fetus. Before a fetus, you are an embryo. Fetus or baby? Why language around pregnancy matters. Each of those terms has a specific meaning, only one of those terms is universally recognized as a person and draws the emotional response associated with that. The definition of a loaded term.

Loaded Terminology

Communicating Ideas Vagueness vs. Broad Generalities Ambiguity & Merely Verbal Clashes Potentially Manipulative Loaded Terminology Identifying Should- Statements

dmulderct.weebly.com

Again loaded.

For decades, the pro-aborts declared the unborn were clumps of cells no different than a tumor or parasite, and with as much meaning and value.

Now, you're not even denying the unborn are human beings. You're just straight-up saying it's okay to kill human beings if they're inconvenient.

This is not the moral high ground you believe it is.

So don't say gay?

Tell me you haven't read the bill without saying you haven't read the bill.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I'm a former member of several heavily liberal-dominated sites.

Former because the liberals were typical in that they could not stand to have their absurdities pointed out to them with any humor whatsoever. They constantly whined about it. So, the "moderators," or the Liberal Klux Klan, as I call them, would subject me to a high-tech lynching in the form of repeated warnings for no violations, followed by a banning. That's why liberals were willing to keep posting on such sites even though they consistently lost all arguments. The bad people who bested them were sure to be sent packing by the LKK.

My idea is not for moderators to start banning non-libs who best libs in debates. Far from it. But . . . we could get delete this thread and then start several threads where we complain that the mods are all libs, they banned a perfectly decent non-lib, etc. Libs who visit for the first time no doubt look for such complaints to see if they will be happy on a forum.

As long as nobody spilled the beans, libs would keep coming. Imagine their tears when their real complaints to moderators for once do not result in banning.

I never thought I would say this, but we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.

I'm a former member of several heavily liberal-dominated sites. Former because the liberals were typical in that they could not stand to have their absurdities pointed out to them with any humor whatsoever. They constantly whined about it. So, the "moderators," or the Liberal Klux Klan, as...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Rye Catcher]

I never thought I would say this, but we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.

I'm a former member of several heavily liberal-dominated sites. Former because the liberals were typical in that they could not stand to have their absurdities pointed out to them with any humor whatsoever. They constantly whined about it. So, the "moderators," or the Liberal Klux Klan, as...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[daveman]

So your contention is that because you spend time around pregnant woman you are free to redefine the term to your own liking despite that it's not how we define a fetus in the womb in a dictionary, in courts, or medically? Who exactly is appropriating terms here? The same goes for human by the way. A human defines individuality. A fetus in a womb is in a very practical sense NOT an individual.

Now you're redefining terms.

An embryo is a human being from the instant of conception. The science proves this.

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?​

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS
​

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O�Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)​

 

[Ridgerunner]

The last true Liberals either died in the late 70s or morphed into Globalist Race baiters.

Reagan Democrats stormed the political scene in the late 70's, early 80's like flies on a piece of rancid meat...

Blue dog democrats.

What are the Blue Dog Democrats? (with pictures)

The Blue Dog Democrats are a coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats in the US House of Representatives. They focus on...

www.unitedstatesnow.org

 

[daveman]

Reagan Democrats stormed the political scene in the late 70's, early 80's like flies on a piece of rancid meat...

What are the Blue Dog Democrats? (with pictures)

The Blue Dog Democrats are a coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats in the US House of Representatives. They focus on...

www.unitedstatesnow.org

In 2008, during Obama's first campaign, he hailed Reagan as a hero.

Of course, there simply aren't any Democrats worthy of the label. No wonder Obama had to steal someone else's.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I see why you picked your nickname.

/----/ Years ago, there was a veterinarian in Brooklyn named Seymour Katz.