Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Current events discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RobGMN" data-source="post: 8872419" data-attributes="member: 683408"><p>"One of the biggest laws was keeping them in Mexico"? There were no laws prior that said illegal border crossings were illegal? What government was "not set up yet"? The Mexican gov't? </p><p>I thought we had one in place for a few hundred years. </p><p></p><p>Opinions and beliefs are for whether you like strawberries more than apples, or blondes more than redheads, or choose to believe in Jesus as the savior, or Allah or Buddah as your god. </p><p>Law, economic figures, price data, historical info, science, etc, are not open to subjective evaluation.</p><p>I can be like others here and believe all I want that Trump oversaw the greatest economy in the history of the world, but that belief don't mean sh*t when it comes to the numbers.</p><p>I can believe all I want that he didn't have classified docs at Mara Lago, but that don't mean sh*t when it comes to the fact that he AND his attorneys confirmed he had them.</p><p>Thx can believe all he wants that his degree in biology makes him just as much an expert as any immunologist or virologist out there, but his belief don't mean sh*t when it comes to the fact that he isn't.</p><p></p><p>Yep. No proof so it cannot be argued. However, Buck claims he was resurrected from the dead.</p><p>There is no scientific evidence it has ever happened in RECORDED history. yet, he claims he rose from the dead.</p><p>Until it can be proved, a claim like that can be considered BS></p><p></p><p>Yes. it is a human life form, but one that is solely dependent on the host that it lives in and that is procreating it. It is a consequence of an action, but it is not independent in any way. Why is it the second that zygote happens, we decide a woman has no right to decide that she does not want her body to host the parasitic organism?</p><p></p><p>I fully understand it will eventually be human life, but that is not something that should be used in determining whether the gov't should decide what we do with our own bodies. The decision should lie with whether we have privacy and autonomy.</p><p>people were outraged when it was said that China was forcing women to abort a ***** if it was female. How DARE they tell a woman what to do with her body?!?!?!</p><p>Yet we have no problem int he US telling a woman what to do with her body.</p><p>And that creates a damn slippery slope. What happens when the religious right decides people should not be allowed to use contraception or birth control because it makes god mad?</p><p></p><p>Crazy idea? No. A bill was introduced to ensure such things continued to be available. 195 Republicans in the House voted AGAINST it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A reasonable scientific approach would be if the baby can live without major life support, it is too late to abort.</p><p></p><p>The "brith control" fallacy comes up a lot. Turns out it's a false argument, and the stats show why: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/women_who_have_abortions.pdf</p><p></p><p>The argument with Spokey was using the definition that he provided for procreation. The word means many things, but does not have to be used in a way that is inclusive of all those things. Insisting that the use of it encompass ALL of them is a fallacious argument.,</p><p>Just like saying a dog bark must be the skin of a tree coming out of its mouth.</p><p>And in matters of great import, like our rights, words and their proper usage is critical.</p><p></p><p>The US government has no place in matters of morality for the country. Morality can be universal, but can also be religion-based. Imagine the government deciding that one religion's moral code is superior to another, and those codes contradict each other.</p><p>Outlaw burkas in the US, even though it is a religious requirement to be worn. Tell Christians they are not allowed to wear a crucifix in Federal buildings. Tell Islamic people(?) they cannot face the east and pray at the proper time. Tell a married guy it is illegal to cheat on his wife, or vide versa.</p><p>No. Morality is not the job of our government to control for us.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. Imagine getting busted in (whatever state it's still illegal) because you smoked pot in Vegas.</p><p>Utterly ridiculous.</p><p>But the Republicans would be happy for a woman to be arrested and convicted for going tout of state for an abortion.</p><p></p><p>"God" should NEVER be a part of ANY discussion regarding laws, the constitution, human rights, science, etc.</p><p>But I find it interesting that you think women should not have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Does this strictly lie with the carrying of a *****, or does it extend to other choices? Does it extend to men doing what they choose?</p><p>Should a Catholic woman be allowed to have a hysterectomy in order to prevent the possibility of childbirth? </p><p>Should a Catholic man be allowed to have a vasectomy for the same reason?</p><p>How about birth control pills or implants?</p><p>Those are all against the rules of "God". Should the gov't be allowed to decide/tell a person yes or no to their use?</p><p></p><p>I appreciate you discussing this reasonably, unlike others here who simply demand their beliefs be accepted as facts or choose to fight back against facts with lame attempts at insults. Or maybe just sidestepping answering any simple question that will immediately show they are wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RobGMN, post: 8872419, member: 683408"] "One of the biggest laws was keeping them in Mexico"? There were no laws prior that said illegal border crossings were illegal? What government was "not set up yet"? The Mexican gov't? I thought we had one in place for a few hundred years. Opinions and beliefs are for whether you like strawberries more than apples, or blondes more than redheads, or choose to believe in Jesus as the savior, or Allah or Buddah as your god. Law, economic figures, price data, historical info, science, etc, are not open to subjective evaluation. I can be like others here and believe all I want that Trump oversaw the greatest economy in the history of the world, but that belief don't mean sh*t when it comes to the numbers. I can believe all I want that he didn't have classified docs at Mara Lago, but that don't mean sh*t when it comes to the fact that he AND his attorneys confirmed he had them. Thx can believe all he wants that his degree in biology makes him just as much an expert as any immunologist or virologist out there, but his belief don't mean sh*t when it comes to the fact that he isn't. Yep. No proof so it cannot be argued. However, Buck claims he was resurrected from the dead. There is no scientific evidence it has ever happened in RECORDED history. yet, he claims he rose from the dead. Until it can be proved, a claim like that can be considered BS> Yes. it is a human life form, but one that is solely dependent on the host that it lives in and that is procreating it. It is a consequence of an action, but it is not independent in any way. Why is it the second that zygote happens, we decide a woman has no right to decide that she does not want her body to host the parasitic organism? I fully understand it will eventually be human life, but that is not something that should be used in determining whether the gov't should decide what we do with our own bodies. The decision should lie with whether we have privacy and autonomy. people were outraged when it was said that China was forcing women to abort a ***** if it was female. How DARE they tell a woman what to do with her body?!?!?! Yet we have no problem int he US telling a woman what to do with her body. And that creates a damn slippery slope. What happens when the religious right decides people should not be allowed to use contraception or birth control because it makes god mad? Crazy idea? No. A bill was introduced to ensure such things continued to be available. 195 Republicans in the House voted AGAINST it. A reasonable scientific approach would be if the baby can live without major life support, it is too late to abort. The "brith control" fallacy comes up a lot. Turns out it's a false argument, and the stats show why: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/women_who_have_abortions.pdf The argument with Spokey was using the definition that he provided for procreation. The word means many things, but does not have to be used in a way that is inclusive of all those things. Insisting that the use of it encompass ALL of them is a fallacious argument., Just like saying a dog bark must be the skin of a tree coming out of its mouth. And in matters of great import, like our rights, words and their proper usage is critical. The US government has no place in matters of morality for the country. Morality can be universal, but can also be religion-based. Imagine the government deciding that one religion's moral code is superior to another, and those codes contradict each other. Outlaw burkas in the US, even though it is a religious requirement to be worn. Tell Christians they are not allowed to wear a crucifix in Federal buildings. Tell Islamic people(?) they cannot face the east and pray at the proper time. Tell a married guy it is illegal to cheat on his wife, or vide versa. No. Morality is not the job of our government to control for us. Agreed. Imagine getting busted in (whatever state it's still illegal) because you smoked pot in Vegas. Utterly ridiculous. But the Republicans would be happy for a woman to be arrested and convicted for going tout of state for an abortion. "God" should NEVER be a part of ANY discussion regarding laws, the constitution, human rights, science, etc. But I find it interesting that you think women should not have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Does this strictly lie with the carrying of a *****, or does it extend to other choices? Does it extend to men doing what they choose? Should a Catholic woman be allowed to have a hysterectomy in order to prevent the possibility of childbirth? Should a Catholic man be allowed to have a vasectomy for the same reason? How about birth control pills or implants? Those are all against the rules of "God". Should the gov't be allowed to decide/tell a person yes or no to their use? I appreciate you discussing this reasonably, unlike others here who simply demand their beliefs be accepted as facts or choose to fight back against facts with lame attempts at insults. Or maybe just sidestepping answering any simple question that will immediately show they are wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Current events discussion
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
