Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 14:21:52 GMT -5
So......just for example....I'm Pro-Life. I'm Pro-Life because I believe abortion is murder. "Murder" is a legal term. Not some made-up-meanie term. If someone asks me how I feel about abortion, how am I supposed to say that I believe it's murder without someone thinking I'm being mean? Because the majority of Pro-Choice people are going to be very upset with that statement. That's not necessarily opinion but rather experience. So...my choices are to either say what I think and have peoples' heads explode or keep quiet.
Guess what I'm not going to do? Guess what I shouldn't HAVE to do?
What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Don't want to make this about abortion but am just using an example and the example goes both ways.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 14:29:29 GMT -5
Regarding certain suspect revisions, I think it would be wrong to assume the public is aware of even a tenth of what went on behind the scenes to motivate them. It could be the public is critically underinformed on the matter, and perhaps they might not hasten to judgment. Regarding polite discourse: I think it would be wrong to assume that posters only rarely conflate "expressing opinions politely and respectfully" with "expressing opinions conditionally, ambivalently, noncommittally, euphemistically, and phrased in the passive voice". Indeed we might consider that for some posters, "polite and respectful discourse" (as it applies to one's ideological opponents) carries the implicit requirement for soft equivocal language, a willingness to expressly acknowledge the merit (even just a bit) of opposing arguments, and "wiggle words" such as "I believe that...", "It seems to me that...", "It might possibly be right to assume that..." that clearly emphasize the writer's passivity and unwillingness to commit. Failure to present one's arguments in a way that satisfies all of these requirements might lead such posters to erroneously perceive hostility, prompting them to "retaliate" in hostile fashion. Just some theoretical food for thought. Comm'ere..... if you don't start typing stuff I can understand, I'm going to respond to what I think it says and I can guarantee you they won't be the same thing.
ETA: Gel is kidding with Virgil.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 16, 2015 14:33:54 GMT -5
The latter statement would be a personal attack that should be reported. The person making the statement is usually given a chance to edit, and if they don't, the post is deleted.
The problem is that if a personal attack is made sufficiently general ("people who believe abortion is murder are pieces of shit"), it's allowed to stand, which Virgil alluded to above.
I would love for YMAM to get to a place where debates consisted of "I disagree because... [fact],[fact],[fact]," rather than pages of hurling insults, but I have no idea how that would be accomplished.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 16, 2015 14:34:09 GMT -5
Regarding certain suspect revisions, I think it would be wrong to assume the public is aware of even a tenth of what went on behind the scenes to motivate them. It could be the public is critically underinformed on the matter, and perhaps they might not hasten to judgment. Regarding polite discourse: I think it would be wrong to assume that posters only rarely conflate "expressing opinions politely and respectfully" with "expressing opinions conditionally, ambivalently, noncommittally, euphemistically, and phrased in the passive voice". Indeed we might consider that for some posters, "polite and respectful discourse" (as it applies to one's ideological opponents) carries the implicit requirement for soft equivocal language, a willingness to expressly acknowledge the merit (even just a bit) of opposing arguments, and "wiggle words" such as "I believe that...", "It seems to me that...", "It might possibly be right to assume that..." that clearly emphasize the writer's passivity and unwillingness to commit. Failure to present one's arguments in a way that satisfies all of these requirements might lead such posters to erroneously perceive hostility, prompting them to "retaliate" in hostile fashion. Just some theoretical food for thought. I agree with this. I encounter this frequently on this board and in RL. The advantage of RL is I usually recover quicker because I have body language cues and visual cues to help me understand where the other person might be coming from.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 14:35:42 GMT -5
The latter statement would be a personal attack that should be reported. The person making the statement is usually given a chance to edit, and if they don't, the post is deleted. The problem is that if a personal attack is made sufficiently general ("people who believe abortion is murder are pieces of shit"), it's allowed to stand, which Virgil alluded to above. I would love for YMAM to get to a place where debates consisted of "I disagree because... [fact],[fact],[fact]," rather than pages of hurling insults, but I have no idea how that would be accomplished. Agree totally except for the "fact" part. Some things just aren't black and white and it's ok to have an opinion you can't post a link for. Otherwise, it's no longer an opinion.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 16, 2015 14:37:30 GMT -5
So......just for example....I'm Pro-Life. I'm Pro-Life because I believe abortion is murder. "Murder" is a legal term. Not some made-up-meanie term. If someone asks me how I feel about abortion, how am I supposed to say that I believe it's murder without someone thinking I'm being mean? Because the majority of Pro-Choice people are going to be very upset with that statement. That's not necessarily opinion but rather experience. So...my choices are to either say what I think and have peoples' heads explode or keep quiet.
Guess what I'm not going to do? Guess what I shouldn't HAVE to do?
What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Don't want to make this about abortion but am just using an example.
GEL, I often forget you are one of our thoughtful conservative social posters. People's heads can explode or get very heated if they hear what I am saying on some topics. I don't think trans people have psychological issues necessarily. What people see as mental illness here is what I see as does not fit slot A or tab B problems.
I believe in recycled people, i.e. multiple lives, so it guides my thinking on many issues including the trans one.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,692
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Jun 16, 2015 14:40:08 GMT -5
Regarding certain suspect revisions, I think it would be wrong to assume the public is aware of even a tenth of what went on behind the scenes to motivate them. It could be the public is critically underinformed on the matter, and perhaps they might not hasten to judgment. Regarding polite discourse: I think it would be wrong to assume that posters only rarely conflate "expressing opinions politely and respectfully" with "expressing opinions conditionally, ambivalently, noncommittally, euphemistically, and phrased in the passive voice". Indeed we might consider that for some posters, "polite and respectful discourse" (as it applies to one's ideological opponents) carries the implicit requirement for soft equivocal language, a willingness to expressly acknowledge the merit (even just a bit) of opposing arguments, and "wiggle words" such as "I believe that...", "It seems to me that...", "It might possibly be right to assume that..." that clearly emphasize the writer's passivity and unwillingness to commit. Failure to present one's arguments in a way that satisfies all of these requirements might lead such posters to erroneously perceive hostility, prompting them to "retaliate" in hostile fashion. Just some theoretical food for thought. Comm'ere..... if you don't start typing stuff I can understand, I'm going to respond to what I think it says and I can guarantee you they won't be the same thing.
ETA: Gel is kidding with Virgil. Either that, or we go find Iowa Swirl and get her to translate. She was a poster from awhile back who could make sense out of any kind of dictionary-based diarrhea discombobulated discourse Silly String of syllables long-winded wordplay.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 14:41:15 GMT -5
I don't know if trans people have mental illnesses or not. If I were a betting person, I'd say they probably suffer at about the same rate as non-trans people. I wish we could get past the part where "mental illness" is seen as such an insult. It's no more insulting than it would be to say someone has cancer. At least that's my opinion!!!!
I didn't mean to turn this into another Jenner thread that will get mean and locked. Just was reflecting while I was floating on a sinus med high.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 16, 2015 14:42:39 GMT -5
The latter statement would be a personal attack that should be reported. The person making the statement is usually given a chance to edit, and if they don't, the post is deleted. The problem is that if a personal attack is made sufficiently general ("people who believe abortion is murder are pieces of shit"), it's allowed to stand, which Virgil alluded to above. I would love for YMAM to get to a place where debates consisted of "I disagree because... [fact],[fact],[fact]," rather than pages of hurling insults, but I have no idea how that would be accomplished. When I can use facts I do. However lots of things come down to belief system and preferences. So few people appreciate the fact I don't call them cock sucking mongrel dogs in heat when I disagree with how they like to hang TP or other weighty matters.
****************************************** I AM KIDDING. I HAVE SPENT DAYS LISTENING TO A LITTLE OLD PERSON SAY THINGS SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE IN BETWEEN SMALL RESPITES OF PRAYING TO GOD IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE. ******************************************
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 16, 2015 14:42:50 GMT -5
The latter statement would be a personal attack that should be reported. The person making the statement is usually given a chance to edit, and if they don't, the post is deleted. The problem is that if a personal attack is made sufficiently general ("people who believe abortion is murder are pieces of shit"), it's allowed to stand, which Virgil alluded to above. I would love for YMAM to get to a place where debates consisted of "I disagree because... [fact],[fact],[fact]," rather than pages of hurling insults, but I have no idea how that would be accomplished. so no opinions are allowed? Only fact-based posts?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 16, 2015 14:45:08 GMT -5
I don't know if trans people have mental illnesses or not. If I were a betting person, I'd say they probably suffer at about the same rate as non-trans people. I wish we could get past the part where "mental illness" is seen as such an insult. It's no more insulting than it would be to say someone has cancer. At least that's my opinion!!!! I didn't mean to turn this into another Jenner thread that will get mean and locked. Just was reflecting while I was floating on a sinus med high. wE SHOULD so have a, I have sinus issues right now thread. Raises hand. <---- Not sinus medication, but I bought a cherry flavored, liquid Mucinex last night. (Reminds me of cough syrup.)
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 16, 2015 14:47:31 GMT -5
I was the person who thought it should be shut down, towards the last page...... The thread became about a poster rather than the thread premise, many pages back. I disagree that a "certain mod" twisted quotes as was accused. I saw the posts that had been removed, from the previous day, and knew when I saw the announcement of removing such, how that would fly with the posters. I thought it was a mistake to remove any posts, as the accusations would fly, which they did.
There were a few posters who did flame conservatives, who do not necessarily agree with the thread premise. I would have posted more on the thread, but unfortunately, I did not have enough knowledge to argue the points under consideration, and was wise enough to stay away, for the most part. I do admit I learned a few things. A lot of things. On both sides.
Should't this thread be on the "I have a complaint" title?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 14:52:29 GMT -5
How is there a grey area when being pro choice = baby killer. When believing in marriage equality = wanting to destroy the very fabric of civilized life. Etc. It was 'the majority' that went black and white. Heck. 'The majority' on that thread was a group of vastly different individuals with diverse belief systems and backgrounds. Not some homogenous mass. This just illustrates my point. There is a whole world of gray area. It's people discussing that pigeon holes other's with dissenting views. What I'm saying sroo is that it seems like the ones bring asked to 'look for the grey' are not the ones spouting black and white to begin with. Virgil gets to be black, and everybody else is asked, why can't you see the grey? Additionally, what is grey here? The stance that everyone can have their opinion as long as it doesnt threaten the rights of others... That isn't grey? What is grey here?
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 14:57:05 GMT -5
I was the person who thought it should be shut down, towards the last page...... The thread became about a poster rather than the thread premise, many pages back. I disagree that a "certain mod" twisted quotes as was accused. I saw the posts that had been removed, from the previous day, and knew when I saw the announcement of removing such, how that would fly with the posters. I thought it was a mistake to remove any posts, as the accusations would fly, which they did. There were a few posters who did flame conservatives, who do not necessarily agree with the thread premise. I would have posted more on the thread, but unfortunately, I did not have enough knowledge to argue the points under consideration, and was wise enough to stay away, for the most part. I do admit I learned a few things. A lot of things. On both sides. Should't this thread be on the "I have a complaint" title? No...because it's not a complaint. Just a reflection. However, I don't pay too much attention to what goes where. I'm sure somebody will move it if it needs to be moved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:05:45 GMT -5
A favorite saying around here is, you are free to say whatever you want, but you are not free from the consequences of what you choose to say.
What I see too often, and irl too, is people who want the 'Freedom' to say their opinions... But without being judged for their opinions. They think people dissenting or arguing the opposite point, or challenging their facts, is somehow persecution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:09:44 GMT -5
Many posters are not interested in debate. They accuse others without backing up the accusation. They think they have the high road because they are accepting or whatever, but acceptance or whatever might not be the only values to be considered. Some posters are more interested in cheap shots then logic. Virgil is one of my favorite posters to read. I think he is logical and has well thought out arguments. I also think he likes to incite a bit and phrases some of his arguments to do that , Idk, though. eta: It is very easy, for the most part, to not read the posts of people you think are complete a-holes or dumb asses. I kind of understand why people don't put others on ignore, but it is a more enjoyable forum now that I use that feature. Some posters should maybe try it., just a thought for what it is worth.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 15:12:19 GMT -5
A favorite saying around here is, you are free to say whatever you want, but you are not free from the consequences of what you choose to say. What I see too often, and irl too, is people who want the 'Freefom' to say their opinions... But without being judged for their opinions. They think people dissenting or arguing the opposite point, or challenging their facts, is somehow persecution. I don't know anybody here who thinks that. Anybody smart enough to sign onto this board knows better. That may be what YOU think others think, but I don't see it at all.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 16, 2015 15:13:32 GMT -5
So......just for example....I'm Pro-Life. I'm Pro-Life because I believe abortion is murder. "Murder" is a legal term. Not some made-up-meanie term. If someone asks me how I feel about abortion, how am I supposed to say that I believe it's murder without someone thinking I'm being mean? Because the majority of Pro-Choice people are going to be very upset with that statement. That's not necessarily opinion but rather experience. So...my choices are to either say what I think and have peoples' heads explode or keep quiet.
Guess what I'm not going to do? Guess what I shouldn't HAVE to do?
What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Don't want to make this about abortion but am just using an example and the example goes both ways.
You can believe that abortion is murder, but you would be wrong. As you point out, murder is a legal term and therefore has a legal definition. That legal definition specifically excludes abortions. Therefore, believing that abortion is murder is a fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:15:49 GMT -5
It's fine to state your opinion in a respectful way. Asking for facts and then ignoring them when they don't fit your worldview is intellectually dishonest. So is saying specific things about specific people when there is no way you would have that information. That was the case over and over in the Duggar thread. And it is very dishonest.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 16, 2015 15:16:53 GMT -5
IMHO, the jenner thread was great. I wish more threads could be like that. I am not sure what the issue is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:17:51 GMT -5
So......just for example....I'm Pro-Life. I'm Pro-Life because I believe abortion is murder. "Murder" is a legal term. Not some made-up-meanie term. If someone asks me how I feel about abortion, how am I supposed to say that I believe it's murder without someone thinking I'm being mean? Because the majority of Pro-Choice people are going to be very upset with that statement. That's not necessarily opinion but rather experience. So...my choices are to either say what I think and have peoples' heads explode or keep quiet.
Guess what I'm not going to do? Guess what I shouldn't HAVE to do?
What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Don't want to make this about abortion but am just using an example and the example goes both ways.
You can believe that abortion is murder, but you would be wrong. As you point out, murder is a legal term and therefore has a legal definition. That legal definition specifically excludes abortions. Therefore, believing that abortion is murder is a fallacy. Murder also has a colloquial definition. I do not believe GEL is a lawyer and she is certainly not speaking in court.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:18:09 GMT -5
"What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Seriously... Who has ever responded with B versus A here?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:19:29 GMT -5
You can believe that abortion is murder, but you would be wrong. As you point out, murder is a legal term and therefore has a legal definition. That legal definition specifically excludes abortions. Therefore, believing that abortion is murder is a fallacy. Murder also has a colloquial definition. I do not believe GEL is a lawyer and she is certainly not speaking in court. She specifically said she was using it as a legal versus colloquial term.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 16, 2015 15:19:33 GMT -5
The latter statement would be a personal attack that should be reported. The person making the statement is usually given a chance to edit, and if they don't, the post is deleted. The problem is that if a personal attack is made sufficiently general ("people who believe abortion is murder are pieces of shit"), it's allowed to stand, which Virgil alluded to above. I would love for YMAM to get to a place where debates consisted of "I disagree because... [fact],[fact],[fact]," rather than pages of hurling insults, but I have no idea how that would be accomplished. so no opinions are allowed? Only fact-based posts? Not at all... feel free to insert [opinion] into the quote if that suits you better.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 16, 2015 15:21:46 GMT -5
You can believe that abortion is murder, but you would be wrong. As you point out, murder is a legal term and therefore has a legal definition. That legal definition specifically excludes abortions. Therefore, believing that abortion is murder is a fallacy. Murder also has a colloquial definition. I do not believe GEL is a lawyer and she is certainly not speaking in court. True. She could also mean that abortion is a group of crows.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 16, 2015 15:21:53 GMT -5
"What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" Seriously... Who has ever responded with B versus A here? Nobody, oped. It was an exaggeration. I bet, tho, that I could find almost every word there in some abortion thread along the way. Guess who isn't going to spend the time? Me!! I'm not sure why you are so angry and confrontational today other than Virgil pissed you off. If he made me that mad, I'd block him. Just sayin'........
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 16, 2015 15:23:47 GMT -5
It depends on their job. I think actually finding a job that would not in some way be impacted by volatile statements is very rare. Should employers be forced to keep employees on payroll when those comments made by employees, even if they have nothing to do with the day to day operations of the business, are drawing negative attention to the company?
As long as they can fully support, with citation, the research - absolutely not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:24:59 GMT -5
A favorite saying around here is, you are free to say whatever you want, but you are not free from the consequences of what you choose to say. What I see too often, and irl too, is people who want the 'Freefom' to say their opinions... But without being judged for their opinions. They think people dissenting or arguing the opposite point, or challenging their facts, is somehow persecution. In some cases it's turning into that though. Do you agree that people should lose their jobs for making a statement(s) not on company time, that has nothing to do with the company they work for, about things that is not related to the company? In other words, if I came out and put on my facebook page that I support "X" cause and it's one my company doesn't agree with, should I face being fired? Do you think student's should be graded down on a research paper if that research paper is in opposition to what the school or teacher believes? I do not think people should be free from the consequences of what they say, as far as judgement of others. Employers? Well in an at will state you can be let go for anything. Would I do it? I'd like to say no. I guess it would depend. Teachers? No. Papers should be graded on research, ability to make a coherent argument and support it by fact. The position taken should not matter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:25:51 GMT -5
"What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" Seriously... Who has ever responded with B versus A here? I'm pretty sure I've had people respond to me that way. I'd love to see the reference.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 9:30:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 15:28:51 GMT -5
"What about a rebuttal of something like, "I don't believe abortion is murder because...." instead of "You pieceofshit woman-hating general in the war on women...dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" Seriously... Who has ever responded with B versus A here? Nobody, oped. It was an exaggeration. I bet, tho, that I could find almost every word there in some abortion thread along the way. Guess who isn't going to spend the time? Me!! I'm not sure why you are so angry and confrontational today other than Virgil pissed you off. If he made me that mad, I'd block him. Just sayin'........ I'm not angry at all. Confrontational? I don't usually back down from a debate. What was your purpose in posting this thread? If you think I'm being argumentative and confrontational by not agreeing with you?
|
|