 | | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) Because he is neither the idiot nor the racist he's painted to be. (...) Fair enough. (...) Well, yes, because I know of him and know his politics, and so I know that the charges against him are baseless. As far as "defending Bennett to get at (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: s to say it. (...) I doubt it. He chose a racist example to make his point. (...) He didn't he have an inkling? Okay, he is an idiot then. Racist, idiot: I don't see why you would bother to defend either. (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) -snippity snip snip- (...) This is the part that is making everyone upset. Bennett is saying that blacks are a large source of crime, and is linking "criminality" to "blackness." He IS using reducio ad absurdum, but he is using it on the issue (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Can this guy get any more infuriating???
|
|
(URL) Bush, in a high-profile address on Thursday, said the global fight against terrorism must continue in Iraq because it is where terrorists are centering their war on humanity. "We're facing a radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) They won't say it because it is patently absurd, just as Bennett was arguing reductio ad absurdum. (...) ???!! I'm sleighed, -->Bruce<-- (...) Come on! You seriously can't think that Bennett had any inkling that this action was anything but (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Yes but in the context of this argument it is irrelevant whether or not the implicit support also applies to other things, in a debate on abortion it is the stance on abortion that is most important. That said, I somewhat agree with bringing (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Oh? I didn't think that was what was desired. I could believe that there are some out there who would be in favor of it, but I think in general, they're talking abortions within the first few months of pregnancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, of (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Prior to any late-term abortion legislation restricting it (not doubt opposed by NARAL), yes, in theory. (...) Yes. I'm not in the "every sperm is sacred" camp;-) (...) But they want the right to do it if they choose. (...) The right to choose (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Perhaps I am, now that you mention it. But then I would still phrase it this way: NARAL supports (def 7b at (URL) YourDictionary.com>) the right of reproductive choice. As a result, NARAL supports the right to have an abortion if one so (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) And LEGO won't say it. Why? They would find it morally reprehenisble. Just like they are not going to say that if all black babies were aborted and LEGO wouldn't have to make non-yellow minifigs. Maybe that would be true, but they wouldn't be (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
