Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:25 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Nickbaldwin wrote:You're telling him to kill himself.... while expressing your disapproval of abortion. Why is it any worse if a baby dies than a full grown adult?

Because he has, or rather, is living a life and unborn have yet to live (they are alive, but they have not "lived", saavy?) and nobody ought to joke about babies dying. Nobody. I do not care who says it, it is just plain wrong. Period, end of discussion.

It is, to some extent, admirible that you would defend someone against a perceived belligerant. However, I cannot commend you for your choice in "client" as it were.

If murder is appalling, equally so should partial-birth abortion be. Normally, I'd say all abortion is wrong save in the gravest of cases, but destroying fetuses is unthinkably monsterious.

So Fridge has no excuse. None what so ever. I don't care if he was joking, I do not find it funny. It's like laughing at holocaust survivors, it's just not cool.

Understand?

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:32 pm**

What's the difference between a truckload of bricks and a truckload of dead babies?
Answer: You can't unload bricks with a pitchfork.

Honibaz

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:58 am**

Nurse walks into a Maternity ward and starts bouncing a newly born baby against the wall before drop kicking it into its mothers arms. The mother starts screaming '' My baby,my baby you have killed my baby '' Laughingly the nurse responds " Ha ha April fool it was dead already " :lol:

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:27 am**

If babies are so smart, how come they don't have a union?

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:25 am**

Seriously, I can't believe that there's still people who think that children's right to life isn't at the discretion of their parents. I mean, until a kid is a full-grown adult then their life is entirely at their parents disposal. It's just so fucking obvious!

As such, if the parent wants it, then abortion is A-fucking-OK.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:16 am**

Yep If I ( after earnest consultation with its mother ) wish to terminate a nuisance then no talking snake or sky daddy fantasist is going to change my mind.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:43 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Hey, that's just tasteless.

Seriously. Pedophilia is just fucked up.

And baby-killing is just ignored?

Seriously, both are downright awful. As Thor explained, I do not find either matter very funny.

Prancing Custard (DM): If the parents consented to have sex, then they should have either used protection or accept the fact that they are going to end up bringing a life into the world. If they do not want to use protection, then the only other choice they have is to abstain. Don't like it? Tough.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:49 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:
Frigidus wrote:I still don't get it. Everyone makes such a fuss over a few dead babies. Who cares? Babies are so stupid, they can barely move or think when they're born, and since they aren't sentient they're open to being killed, sort of like deer and puppies. As an aside, I think that we (the US) owe a lot to the minorities we've discriminated against (whether it be slavery, mass murder, or simple prejudice), and that whatever comes out of the current economic turmoil we need to hang onto social security and affirmative action. There are hardly words that can describe the debt we owe non-whites in this country.

I suppose you don't like seal cubs either?

If they were raised like how my friends raised their rabbits and chickens (or, for that matter, sables and mink), then I wouldn't care at all. As things stand, however, I don't much care for it.

There is just something about baby-killing that is just so fundimentally wrong. Maybe Fridge and the rest never had to watch film footage of what was found in the consentration camps. Or the killing fields of Cambodia, for that matter.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:20 pm**

On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:40 pm**

hecter wrote:On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Please, don't use that as an excuse, it's insulting.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:52 pm**

Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Please, don't use that as an excuse, it's insulting.

Actually it's kinda true... I don't find disgusting things disgusting anymore...

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:11 pm**

hecter wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Please, don't use that as an excuse, it's insulting.

Actually it's kinda true... I don't find disgusting things disgusting anymore...

So, you're telling me that you wouldn't react at all if someone was shot right in front of you?

Sorry, rhetorical question. Please stop insulting me.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:15 pm**

Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Please, don't use that as an excuse, it's insulting.

Actually it's kinda true... I don't find disgusting things disgusting anymore...

So, you're telling me that you wouldn't react at all if someone was shot right in front of you?

Sorry, rhetorical question. Please stop insulting me.

See How Far Can You Bounce.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:21 pm**

Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Please, don't use that as an excuse, it's insulting.

Actually it's kinda true... I don't find disgusting things disgusting anymore...

So, you're telling me that you wouldn't react at all if someone was shot right in front of you?

Sorry, rhetorical question. Please stop insulting me.

But is is soooo easy.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:28 pm**

Dancing Mustard wrote:Seriously, I can't believe that there's still people who think that children's right to life isn't at the discretion of their parents. I mean, until a kid is a full-grown adult then their life is entirely at their parents disposal. It's just so fucking obvious!

As such, if the parent wants it, then abortion is A-fucking-OK.

So, does this mean the mommies who murder their kids are exonerated?

If so, you are an even bigger monster than Fridge!

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:55 pm**

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:25 pm**

I think we should be able to abort whump.

Honibaz

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:30 pm**

b.k. barunt wrote:I think we should be able to abort whump.

Honibaz

I forget which comedian said this, but I think abortions should be legal up to age 80.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:18 am**

Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
hecter wrote:On the contrary. Because of the internet (and places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, rotten.com and 4chan) such things are readily available and exposed to us to the point where such horrifying things are no longer horrifying.

Please, don't use that as an excuse, it's insulting.

Actually it's kinda true... I don't find disgusting things disgusting anymore...

So, you're telling me that you wouldn't react at all if someone was shot right in front of you?

Sorry, rhetorical question. Please stop insulting me.

It's a good thing that he has been preconditioned to the idea of people being shot right in front of him. The notion of numbing to disgusting things comes from being witness to those disgusting things over and over again.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:54 am**

Snorri1234 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Reagonomics is Voodoo economics. Wealth does not trickle down - in fact, the circulation of money, goods, and services, is tipped in favor of the rich. The gap between the rich and the poor only grows wider with time. Without a lot of redistribution of that wealth, the middle class disappears, and the poor eventually become slaves to the rich.

Word. You guys need some sort of people's movement that will end the corruption in washington and let everyone get what they deserve. The redistribution of wealth according to what people need and not what they've earned is vital in keeping the nation afloat. The working-class should rise up against all those oppressing politicians and wealthy stock-owners, the money they have could be far better used to help kids in the ghettos and establish means to represent minorities in companies and politics fairly.

Reaganomics isn't trickle down economics, if anything,it's a form trickle-up economics, if you think about it: imaginary capital is invested by the entrepreneur, the workers produce goods, and only then does the actual real value get passed on to the capitalist if he's made a profit.

So Heavycola, see you're 100% behind Comrade Paulson's seizure of the means of production, eh?

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:01 am**

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Reagonomics is Voodoo economics. Wealth does not trickle down - in fact, the circulation of money, goods, and services, is tipped in favor of the rich. The gap between the rich and the poor only grows wider with time. Without a lot of redistribution of that wealth, the middle class disappears, and the poor eventually become slaves to the rich.

Word. You guys need some sort of people's movement that will end the corruption in washington and let everyone get what they deserve. The redistribution of wealth according to what people need and not what they've earned is vital in keeping the nation afloat. The working-class should rise up against all those oppressing politicians and wealthy stock-owners, the money they have could be far better used to help kids in the ghettos and establish means to represent minorities in companies and politics fairly.

Reaganomics isn't trickle down economics, if anything,it's a form trickle-up economics, if you think about it: imaginary capital is invested by the entrepreneur, the workers produce goods, and only then does the actual real value get passed on to the capitalist if he's made a profit.

So Heavycola, see you're 100% behind Comrade Paulson's seizure of the means of production, eh?

maybe, but at least i don't love Hitler.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:06 am**

heavycola wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Reagonomics is Voodoo economics. Wealth does not trickle down - in fact, the circulation of money, goods, and services, is tipped in favor of the rich. The gap between the rich and the poor only grows wider with time. Without a lot of redistribution of that wealth, the middle class disappears, and the poor eventually become slaves to the rich.

Word. You guys need some sort of people's movement that will end the corruption in washington and let everyone get what they deserve. The redistribution of wealth according to what people need and not what they've earned is vital in keeping the nation afloat. The working-class should rise up against all those oppressing politicians and wealthy stock-owners, the money they have could be far better used to help kids in the ghettos and establish means to represent minorities in companies and politics fairly.

Reaganomics isn't trickle down economics, if anything,it's a form trickle-up economics, if you think about it: imaginary capital is invested by the entrepreneur, the workers produce goods, and only then does the actual real value get passed on to the capitalist if he's made a profit.

So Heavycola, see you're 100% behind Comrade Paulson's seizure of the means of production, eh?

maybe, but at least i don't love Hitler.

That's nice dear.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:15 am**

Jenos Ridan wrote:Prancing Custard (DM):

Good to see you resorting to childish username insults already... you must be one of these really clever internet debating types I've heard so much about.

Y'know, I find that it's always the people with the most to say that feel the need to pepper their posts with pre-school taunts and petty aspersions. After all, what good is reasoned argument when you could just act like a five year old?

In other words Jenos; grow up. If you honestly think you have something valid to say about abortion then try to say it in a civilised and adult fashion. There's no need to spam up this thread with tantruming just because people don't agree with your novel and curious points of view.

Jenos Ridan wrote:If the parents consented to have sex, then they should have either used protection or accept the fact that they are going to end up bringing a life into the world.

Meh, that's two ways of going about it; but you're just ignoring (without any valid reason) all the other options.

It's like saying "when you eat food then you should either accept you're going to get fat, or just not eat the food". You're forgetting all the other options, like inducing vomiting, or taking packets of purgatives to induce diarrhoea.

Jenos Ridan wrote:If they do not want to use protection, then the only other choice they have is to abstain. Don't like it? Tough.

Oh hooray, here is the laws of the world as written by Jenos teh Ridanz.

Basically, you're wrong. They have all the options that nature puts in their hands; and that just so happens to include abortion, semi-birth abortions, post-birth abortions, and wilful and terminal child neglect. Don't like it? Tough.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:35 am**

Dancing Mustard wrote:Basically, you're wrong. They have all the options that nature puts in their hands; and that just so happens to include abortion, semi-birth abortions, post-birth abortions, and wilful and terminal child neglect. Don't like it? Tough.

That isn't to say any of them are ethical, which is rather what Jenos is getting at.

Posted: **Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:36 am**

Iliad wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Iliad wrote:You know what we should we stop killing? The trees and animals. In fact I say all developed countries should immediately logging forests or hunting any kind of animals. Developing countries such as India and China should be able to continue to do so until they tell us that they are in fact developed.

That sounds a little inefficient. Maybe we could let the United Nations decide who gets to log and hunt.

That would be a good idea. And that doesn't look to do much in retrospect. Maybe it should be made illegal for developed countries to get oil. We really should just use renewable resources

The whole babies thing took this off-topic so I'm bringing it up again. Nappy can you refute the above proposal?

Conquer Club

socialism indicted

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism indicted

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism vindicated

Re: socialism vindicated