 | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) For one thing I did not condemn them for supporting the choice of abortion. There is absolutely no condemnation there at all. As I stated I fully support legal abortion so I would be stupid to condemn someone who does so too. Your argument (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) But our government supports a system of protecting the rights of its citizens-- the real debate isn't whose choice it is, but rather whether or not the fetus has rights which need protecting by the government. Obviously, 1 second after birth (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) If you took all clone purchasers and boiled them alive, TLG's competitors would go bankrupt and it would be good for AFOLs (assuming what's good for TLG is good for AFOLs). I just said that, but do I actually advocate it? Of course not. But it (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Again, your selection of words is questionable. NARAL supports a system that allows for reproductive choice. It's true that choice may allow for abortion, but it also allows for non-abortion; why do you condemn NARAL for one avenue of choice (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) By supporting a system which allows for abortion I would argue that they are indeed supporting abortion. The whole pro-choice/pro-life facade is just emotional manipulation. One group believe that abortion is immoral, the other group believe (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) Boiled down, Bennett did indeed say "Abort all black babies and cut crime." You can slap qualifiers on it such as he said it might be morally reprehensible, but I think his very statement was pretty morally reprehensible regardless on a rather (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) At the risk of splitting hairs, I have to take issue with your choice of words here. NARAL does not support abortion but instead supports the right of reproductive choice. To say that NARAL supports abortion is like saying that the NRA (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) This article is not talking about the Left, it is talking about supporters of abortion throwing an event. This is a liberal point of view but not a Left wing point of view. Please don't bandy about terms incorrectly. As for the event, I would (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) I have to admit I find it similar in nature to stating that aborting black babies would lower the crime rate. The message of the event would appear to be "don't force abstinence on people", but calling it "Screw Abstinence" gives it a slant (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Screw Abstinence?
|
|
I'm curious about how folks weigh in on (URL) this event>. Not surprisingly, I find it beyond stupid, and the story even cites one person of the left as calling it "cringe-worthy". Well, "good times" or "cringe-worthy"? This is the Left that I fear (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Fair enough. But the link to crime and being black (in Bennett's mind) is merely from drawing on statistics. Blacks do account for a disproportionate amount of crime in our country, regardless of reason (which is a different discussion). (...) (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) That is an accurate summary of what he said. It's not up to the headline to provide the context; that's what the article and the original transcript are for. I suspect that you're taking issue with the use of "Republican" here, and that's not (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) But the "out of context" charge doesn't work, either, because Bennett's comments are little redeemed even if you read the entire transcript. For him to claim "not guilty by reason of quoting out of context," he would have to show that his (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Bennett should have said "the crime rate would go down if you aborted all babies." The absurdity would have been more succinctly demonstrated, and he would have avoided any perception of racism. The fact that he explicitly singled out an (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Sorry to butt in when you were on a roll:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Really? "Abort all black babies and cut crime, says Republican". That doesn't come off as a proposal? Please. (...) Therein lies the rub-- "accurate". (...) That's my whole point, Lenny! It is a non-story. The "story" comes as a result of the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) I stand corrected. I should have read the title better :) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Not at all! In fact, I state that the rag is even unworthy of smearing:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) In fact, John is not only metaphorically smearing it, he is proposing literally smearing it as well ;) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) I'm not John. But I think the title of the article is the smeary (or 'sensationalist' if you prefer) part, not the body. But then, so's the title of this thread (as John chose it), it smears the Guardian, doesn't it? It does so in the name of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
