Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
kleep wrote:I am gonna start murdering kittens for 9 months, and I'll document it all and make my own website: http://www.kittenslaughter.com
You think 20/20 will wanna interview me?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?
If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:spurgistan wrote:Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?
If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.
So, nearly everything that has to do with reproduction is not only creating life, but also destroying it. Depressing.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Yaledailynews wrote:"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:
There are less messy ways to kill a kitten, nappy.
The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.
MeDeFe wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.
Napoleon Ier wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.
Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?
Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.
Napoleon Ier wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?
Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.
Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.
Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?
You dogmatically adhere to a position that others have dictated for you but cannot offer any compelling arguments that might convince a non-believer? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users