 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Hey, something just occurred to me. With your above statement in mind, would you say that it is appropriate or inappropriate to have a citizen's private extramarital affair dragged through the media for months on end? Just curious... As (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
