Current events discussion

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

That doesn't answer the question.
I'll try again:
IS THE DEFINITION YOU USED TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT CORRECT, OR IS IT INCORRECT?


EDIT: Thxone did not post that. I can't erase the nested quote.

It absolutely is...unfortunately you can't seem to comprehend what it actually means

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It absolutely is...unfortunately you can't seem to comprehend what it actually means

So the definition is correct. Not just correct, but "absolutely" correct.
Your word.
And there is no "OR" or "AND" between the SEPARATE sections. This means they can exist as standalone definitions of the word.
The very FIRST line is "generation and production of young".

Soooo, if a woman is pregnant, she is generating and producing young.
You cannot argue this, as you said the definition is correct.

Since a pregnant woman is procreating, by the definition you just said is "absolutely" correct, then stripping her of the right to stop that procreation, you are forcing her to continue the procreation. You will not allow her to stop it, so you are FORCING her to continue it.
Can we agree that similarly, if you will not allow someone to have a tumor removed, you are FORCING them to continue life with that lung tumor?

Or do you think there is some other thing that happens when a woman wants to abort a ***** but cannot? Maybe she does the magic dance and the ***** is taken by the stork to another uterus? Maybe she can pray it away? Maybe travel back in time and just not have ***?
Same with the lung tumor.

And while you are trying to think up your spin, keep in mind that if you try to argue all four points of the definition MUST be met for procreation, then you have just invalidated the lives of approx 8 MILLION people who have been born without any ****** activity happening.
Test tune babies. Been happening without ****** activity since 1977.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

OK ROBGMN, answer this!

How can you strip a person of their "right" even though it's not a right, and "FORCE" them to procreate if they have other options?

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

OK ROBGMN, answer this!

How can you strip a person of their "right" even though it's not a right, and "FORCE" them to procreate if they have other options?

It's a right covered under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. We as US Citizens have the right of privacy and personal autonomy.

Let's get to the very base of this argument: Do you believe a person has the right to do with their own body as they wish, or do you think the government should be able to tell us what we can do with and to our own bodies?

If you truly believe we should not have personal privacy and autonomy of our own bodies, then the discussion with you is moot, and you are living in the wrong country.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It's a right covered under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. We as US Citizens have the right of privacy and personal autonomy.

Let's get to the very base of this argument: Do you believe a person has the right to do with their own body as they wish, or do you think the government should be able to tell us what we can do with and to our own bodies?

If you truly believe we should not have personal privacy and autonomy of our own bodies, then the discussion with you is moot, and you are living in the wrong country.

SHE HAS OPTIONS. Are you saying she has no other options?

1. She can choose to abstain from ***.
2. She can get on birth control.
3. She can become a lesbian.
4. Oral/Anal.
5. Plan B.
6. Abortion in a legal state.
7. Abortion in another country.
8. Vote differently.
9. Choose to raise her child.
10. Identify as a man.

 

[Old_Slapper]

Is there a comparative list somewhere?
Trump can't even remember his wife's name, lol

.

Saying he was "locking the doors" is not an answer to how he was "locking the doors".

What does that have to do with Republicans in 2024 forcing people to procreate?
And most eugenicists felt birth control would hurt the human race. But she was a eugenicist for supporting birth control?
Interesting.
I don't know a ton about her work. Can you provide proof of her racist ideals?

I answered your border question a while back. My comment about "Locking the doors" was an example I used later. I'm guessing you either read my original comment and forgot, or you just didn't read it. Either way, It's obvious you don't care about facts. You just turn away from it and continue to believe and preach what you wish.

We get what you're saying, "Biden is a supreme being and a democrat has not, and will never, commit a crime or be unethical in any way, and Trump is a dirty low life who has not, and never will, do anything good for mankind."

We all know you had tears of glory when you were watching the State of Union speech last week. We all know you were sitting at your Biden shrine, bowing at every word he said, and thanking your holy creator, Obama, for bringing you such a great and spiritual person.

 

[Old_Slapper]

Rob,
You're doing that thing again, where you pull false information out because it sounds like a good thing to say. Problem is, it makes absolutely no sense. For you to say republicans are forcing people to procreate goes to show your delusion. If that was the case, republicans would be speaking against birth control. Think about it!

Pro-life people are only saying that people should live with their consequences. Every person knows, if you have *** without protection, there's a 99% chance you will get pregnant. If you have protected ***, there's a 1% chance of getting pregnant. These people can't come crying if they play Russian Roullet and lose. You can't put the bullet back in the chamber.

Abortion is such a huge division. It should be something that the federal government should be over seeing. It is something each state should be controlling. Scientifically, although libs wish to deny the science in this case, having an abortion is the termination of a life. Sure, there are instances where an abortion is necessary, but using it as a form of birth control is not a necessary reason.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

SHE HAS OPTIONS. Are you saying she has no other options?

1. She can choose to abstain from ***.
2. She can get on birth control.
3. She can become a lesbian.
4. Oral/Anal.
5. Plan B.
6. Abortion in a legal state.
7. Abortion in another country.
8. Vote differently.
9. Choose to raise her child.
10. Identify as a man.

11. Hand jobs/circle jerk OR

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

SHE HAS OPTIONS. Are you saying she has no other options?

1. She can choose to abstain from ***.
2. She can get on birth control.
3. She can become a lesbian.
4. Oral/Anal.
5. Plan B.
6. Abortion in a legal state.
7. Abortion in another country.
8. Vote differently.
9. Choose to raise her child.
10. Identify as a man.

11. Hand jobs/circle jerk OR
View attachment 57297

I raise you to virtual ***:



Ahh shit I'm an idiot you beat me, didn't recognize the pic

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

China Planted Mystery Devices On Cranes Used In US Ports, Could Seize Control Remotely: Congressional Letter | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Idk when people are gonna listen to me:

"Exclusive: U.S. Must Move ‘Decisively’ to Avert ‘Extinction-Level’ Threat From AI, Government-Commissioned Report Says"

U.S. Must Act Quickly to Avoid Risks From AI, Report Says

The U.S. government must move “decisively” to avert an “extinction-level threat" to humanity from AI, says a government-commissioned report

time.com

"In late 2021, the Harrises say Gladstone finally found an arm of the government with the responsibility to address AI risks: the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. Teams within the Bureau have an inter-agency mandate to address risks from emerging technologies including chemical and biological weapons, and radiological and nuclear risks."

"The report focuses on two separate categories of risk. Describing the first category, which it calls “weaponization risk,” the report states: “such systems could potentially be used to design and even execute catastrophic biological, chemical, or cyber attacks, or enable unprecedented weaponized applications in swarm robotics.”

Go get your gene altering vaccines

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Soooo, if a woman is pregnant, she is generating and producing young.
You cannot argue this, as you said the definition is correct.

See you're like every other innerweb expert...you latch onto a small portion of the meaning (the end result not the process as is described in the definition) and go full tilt looking like an idiot the whole way

What's your first language Rob...cause it's definitely not English

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Macron on brink of kickstarting WW3 with 'empty' boots on the ground threat

Emmanuel Macron sparked a furious response from the Kremlin after suggesting he was considering deploying French troops to Ukraine to help fight Russia.

www.express.co.uk

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

See you're like every other innerweb expert...you latch onto a small portion of the meaning (the end result not the process as is described in the definition) and go full tilt looking like an idiot the whole way

What's your first language Rob...cause it's definitely not English

Ever heard of the term "polysemous"? It means a word can have multiple definitions.
The result is that every definition does not apply at all times. But if you think it does, can you explain to us all how procreation MUST involve ****** activity, when there have been 8 million test tube babies since 1977.

Are you suggesting those 8 million people do not exist by procreation?
Answer the questions.
And while you're at it, tell me how both of these definitions can apply at the same time to a singular thing
bark- the characteristic short loud cry of a dog; the tough exterior covering of a woody root or stem

I answered your border question a while back. My comment about "Locking the doors" was an example I used later. I'm guessing you either read my original comment and forgot, or you just didn't read it. Either way, It's obvious you don't care about facts. You just turn away from it and continue to believe and preach what you wish.

You said it was locked down by being locked down. Not much of an explanation of HOW.
I asked you the question in post 1,245, and in post 1,305 you said you answered it.
But you didn't have any posts between 1,245 and 1,305.
How exactly did you answer my question without posting anything?

We get what you're saying, "Biden is a supreme being and a democrat has not, and will never, commit a crime or be unethical in any way, and Trump is a dirty low life who has not, and never will, do anything good for mankind."

Never said that, never would. Look at my post history and you'll see that i call out people who are full of sh*t, and I speak the truth with facts, proof, evidence.
As opposed to guys who claim they have been resurrected, that Trump is not a liar, that Trump won the election, that Biden broke the law by selling oil from the SPR, that bones do not have nerves in them, that the Republicans had nothing to do with Roe v Wade being overturned, that monoblock amps have multiple outputs, that Biden sets gas prices, that people didn't drive less during the pandemic lockdowns, that Trump oversaw the best US economy in the history of the world, that Trump only "allegedly" had classified documents at Mara Lago, that Trump won the election, that the insurrectionists on Jan 6th were "tourists" who were only "wearing hats and waving flags", that the events of Jan 6th didn't HAPPEN.

All of those things have been said by people here, and it's the tip of the iceberg.
How do YOU consider people who say stupid sh*t like that?

We all know you had tears of glory when you were watching the State of Union speech last week. We all know you were sitting at your Biden shrine, bowing at every word he said, and thanking your holy creator, Obama, for bringing you such a great and spiritual person.

Nope. I've never seen a SOTU address.

Rob,
You're doing that thing again, where you pull false information out because it sounds like a good thing to say. Problem is, it makes absolutely no sense. For you to say republicans are forcing people to procreate goes to show your delusion. If that was the case, republicans would be speaking against birth control. Think about it!

Show me where I am incorrect.
If a pregnant woman wants an abortion, but the Republicans have made it so she cannot, would you agree they are forcing her to continue with a pregnancy by taking away her right to end it?
Answer with a yes or no, please.

Pro-life people are only saying that people should live with their consequences. Every person knows, if you have *** without protection, there's a 99% chance you will get pregnant. If you have protected ***, there's a 1% chance of getting pregnant. These people can't come crying if they play Russian Roullet and lose. You can't put the bullet back in the chamber.

OK. So a pro-lifer who smokes and gets lung cancer from smoking should just live with the consequences, and not be allowed surgery or medicine to deal with it. They played Russian Roulette and lost. Correct?
A kid who crashes his bike going over a jump and breaks his arm should be required to let it heal in situ with no setting of the bone, no cast, no painkillers. Live with the consequences. Correct?
A priest who diddles a kid and gets worked over or even shot by the irate father should just live (or die) with the injuries. Correct?
Or are those "living with the consequences" examples unfair because they don't gel with your rule?
Answer the questions, please.

Abortion is such a huge division. It should be something that the federal government should be over seeing. It is something each state should be controlling. Scientifically, although libs wish to deny the science in this case, having an abortion is the termination of a life. Sure, there are instances where an abortion is necessary, but using it as a form of birth control is not a necessary reason.

I assume you mean it is very divisive.
So I'll ask this: Why do you think the federal government should decide what we get to do with our bodies?
I don't know you and I don't know your situation, but what if YOU got cancer? Would you be OK with the gov't telling you you may not have treatment for any number of reasons (age, cause of cancer, type of cancer, cost of treatment, skin color, ***, etc)?
Answer the question honestly, please.