FlashDangerpants, henry quirk and the "big stuff"

[iambiguous]

FlashDangerpants, in your discussions with henry, please note all of the times that, in regard to the "big stuff" moral conflagrations like guns and abortions, he has conceded that he was wrong.

He has asked me to ask you about this.

Also, would you agree that if he admits that he was wrong about the "big stuff" in the past, he is basically acknowledging that he may well be wrong about the "big stuff" issues still today?

In other words, he once believed one thing about the issues you [hopefully] will note, but then a new experience or a new argument convinced him that he was wrong and he changed his mind. Meaning that yet another new experience and another new argument might result in him needing to admit that he is wrong again.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

Nobody's against "personal choice." Red herring. Everybody's very much in favour of it.

You have the choice to sleep with somebody or not, to use contraception or not, and to put a child up for adoption or not. But you don't have a choice to create a human being and then murder her, because you're too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice.

That, you never have.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm a disgusting little perverted hypocrite.

Refer to my original comment.

[Age]

There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

Nobody's against "personal choice." Red herring. Everybody's very much in favour of it.

You have the choice to sleep with somebody or not, to use contraception or not, and to put a child up for adoption or not. But you don't have a choice to create a human being and then murder her, because you're too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice.

That, you never have.

'you', "immanuel can", have chosen to allow more children to DIE than any pregnant female has chosen to end the fetuses lives within them.

Therefore, I could ask 'you' who or what has given 'you' the right to choose to MURDER these children?

But because 'you' live in DENIAL, and are NOT Truly OPEN and Honest, I will not even bother.

[Immanuel Can]

Refer to my original comment.

I did. It was daft.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Refer to my original comment.

I did. It was daft.

It's not. You are creepy sociopath. It oozes through your writing. People can't hide their true self on here, and creepy sociopaths aren't known for their kindness and compassion, especially not for unwanted cell clusters. That's strecthing credulity way beyond breaking point

[Age]

There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

Nobody's against "personal choice." Red herring. Everybody's very much in favour of it.

You have the choice to sleep with somebody or not, to use contraception or not, and to put a child up for adoption or not. But you don't have a choice to create a human being and then murder her, because you're too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice.

That, you never have.

But they do have this choice. As PROVED IRREFUTABLY True countless times ALREADY. That you do not like this choice does NOT mean that they do not have this choice.

Just like you have the choice to MURDER children, or NOT. But because you are too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice you choose to MURDER children and allow them to DIE.

[Immanuel Can]

Refer to my original comment.

I did. It was daft.

It's not....

Yeah, it is. But your whole conversational style isn't worth my time.

Too bad: you're capable of intelligence, at times. Just not now, I guess.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Only a creepy sociopath would obsess over women's reproductive choices.
Why is it that every time a thread with the topic of abortion( which doesn't even belong on a philosophy forum) fades into the ether some fuckwit brings it up again? How many threads are there on vasectomies, or castration, or condom use, or the dumping of babies on men's front doorsteps, or forced adoption of unwanted babies by anti-choice relgious fuckheads (although that would be too cruel since most of them are paedophiles), or forced sponsorship until adulthood...? Why not an endless stream of threads on the 'morality' of IVF clinics?

[Dontaskme]

There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

Nobody's against "personal choice." Red herring. Everybody's very much in favour of it.

You have the choice to sleep with somebody or not, to use contraception or not, and to put a child up for adoption or not. But you don't have a choice to create a human being and then murder her, because you're too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice.

That, you never have.

You also have the choice not to reproduce a child.

To choose to reproduce a child is to impose a death sentence on it's life, against it's will, you have forced your own will on the child without it's permission.

To be born is to die, and everything made born by choice has had a death sentence imposed upon it, against it's will.

I think you are confused as to what 'murder by choice' actually means.

No one chooses to live, or everyone chooses to live.

No one chooses to die, or everyone chooses to die. We're all guilty of sin, including you.

Stop wagging your boney finger at another persons choice, instead, point it back at yourself oh mighty judge.

The better choice would be not to make the choice in the first place.

You religious fucktards repulse and disgust me.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

Nobody's against "personal choice." Red herring. Everybody's very much in favour of it.

You have the choice to sleep with somebody or not, to use contraception or not, and to put a child up for adoption or not. But you don't have a choice to create a human being and then murder her, because you're too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice.

That, you never have.

Stop wagging your boney finger at another persons choice, instead, point it back at yourself oh mighty judge.

Love this He won't because he's a misogynistic, self-righteous, hypocritical kunt.

[Walker]

Here's something you can love.

Yeah, it is. But your whole conversational style isn't worth my time.

Too bad: you're capable of intelligence, at times. Just not now, I guess.

Instead of a style, it sounds more like the same tired old argument (see link), unless informative-persuasion has also been redefined. That means, it's as good as it's gonna get.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocI_R8lMpM

[Dontaskme]

Love this He won't because he's a misogynistic, self-righteous, hypocritical kunt.

He's a dangerous narcissistic sociopath. Religion has totally bent his arse over good and proper, he's really taken it all up the tailpipe that's for sure. He actually believes his own imaginary mental musings, over normal rational common sense.

Notice he likes to put on an air of ''Sweetness and Light'' always trying to fool everyone he is nice, when everyone knows what he is really doing, which is he is acting in a way that shows he thinks he is better than everybody else, and that everyone else is a fool, while he refuses to accept that he is the only one who is fooling around here, and that he can only fool himself.

...And it's like, err no, you can just see straight through his pretense, and that this role he insists on playing with other people, has about as much substance and reality to it as does the Red-Riding Hood character...Urgh!! ...just utterly fake and fowl and disgusting.

Sorry, but I just cannot bare these empty air-head fake fuckers, who act all so mighty and full of themselves.


If I do one good thing worth doing with my life, it would be to spend the entire time I have left, calling out the BS lying woo that comes spilling out of that damn suckers pie hole.


.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Love this He won't because he's a misogynistic, self-righteous, hypocritical kunt.

He's a dangerous narcissistic sociopath. Religion has totally bent his arse over good and proper, he's really taken it all up the tailpipe that's for sure. He actually believes his own imaginary mental musings, over normal rational common sense.

Notice he likes to put on an air of ''Sweetness and Light'' always trying to fool everyone he is nice, when everyone knows what he is really doing, which is he is acting in a way that shows he thinks he is better than everybody else, and that everyone else is a fool, while he refuses to accept that he is the only one who is fooling around here, and that he can only fool himself.

...And it's like, err no, you can just see straight through his pretense, and that this role he insists on playing with other people, has about as much substance and reality to it as does the Red-Riding Hood character...Urgh!! ...just utterly fake and fowl and disgusting.

Sorry, but I just cannot bare these empty air-head fake fuckers, who act all so mighty and full of themselves.


If I do one good thing worth doing with my life, it would be to spend the entire time I have left, calling out the BS lying woo that comes spilling out of that damn suckers pie hole.


.