Trump gets another SCOTUS appointment?

Fly is a good example of the exception that proves the rule. A number of different research projects and surveys on relative IQs between conservatives and progressives have come up with similar results despite different methodologies.
The results are generally, that overall progressives are rated 10 points higher than conservatives. One theory is that some dumb people are threatened by change as they are unsure if they will cope.
However another finding across the board is that highly intelligent people are found in each category. Possibly because highly intelligent people aren't afraid of change, and can cope regardless of ideology.
A totally different field of research indicates that highly intelligent people don't give a f**k about what others think of them (being self secure), so exhibit behaviours like messy desks, contrary views, and poor spelling.

The E wrote:


Wait, which bit was sarcasm? The drive-by disrespecting of muslims? The consistent ignorance of why certain things are actually bad things despite being couched in reasonable-sounding rhetoric?

All of those things are common features of your political postings here. Do you mean to tell us that everything you wrote here is, in fact, just you playing the stupid, ignorant Trump supporter with no regard for the dignity of women, of non-christians, of poor people?

Colour me intrigued.

Oppossing infanticide is not disrespectful of women.

Recognizing some of the more adhorent beliefs of muslims is not disrespectful of non-Christians.

My sarcastic comments about making abortion mandatory and retroactive obviously compel a reader to contemplate the presumptions that enable them to delude themselves into arguing that killing unborn babies is not adhorent. Since Virginia's Governor, who is a pediatric neurologist, among others are now advocating killing babies that are born alive, pro abortion advocates can no longer claim some biological and moral distinction between babies that have been born and babies that are still in Utero. They have allowed themselves to embrace totally arbitrary standards to define who is a person.

Just FYI, I am aware of the extraordinary cases of babies who are born without a brain or are functionally brain dead. I suspect that these are the cases that Govrrnor KKK Blackface wouldcite as examples when he made his comment. I do recognize this destinction. However; I also recognize that the advocates of abortion intended this law to enable women to abort perfectly viable, late term babies for purely arbitrary reasons.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

The E wrote:


Wait, which bit was sarcasm? The drive-by disrespecting of muslims? The consistent ignorance of why certain things are actually bad things despite being couched in reasonable-sounding rhetoric?

All of those things are common features of your political postings here. Do you mean to tell us that everything you wrote here is, in fact, just you playing the stupid, ignorant Trump supporter with no regard for the dignity of women, of non-christians, of poor people?

Colour me intrigued.

Oppossing infanticide is not disrespectful of women.

Recognizing some of the more adhorent beliefs of muslims is not disrespectful of non-Christians.

My sarcastic comments about making abortion mandatory and retroactive obviously compel a reader to contemplate the presumptions that enable them to delude themselves into arguing that killing unborn babies is not adhorent. Since Virginia's Governor, who is a pediatric neurologist, among others are now advocating killing babies that are born alive, pro abortion advocates can no longer claim some biological and moral distinction between babies that have been born and babies that are still in Utero. They have allowed themselves to embrace totally arbitrary standards to define who is a person.

Just FYI, I am aware of the extraordinary cases of babies who are born without a brain or are functionally brain dead. I suspect that these are the cases that Govrrnor KKK Blackface wouldcite as examples when he made his comment. I do recognize this destinction. However; I also recognize that the advocates of abortion intended this law to enable women to abort perfectly viable, late term babies for purely arbitrary reasons.

Just how many cases do you think there are of women going through with an entire pregnancy and then decide to abort for nonmedical issues?

And AFAIK the law in question doesn't actually say what you say it does.

Eyal wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:



Oppossing infanticide is not disrespectful of women.

Recognizing some of the more adhorent beliefs of muslims is not disrespectful of non-Christians.

My sarcastic comments about making abortion mandatory and retroactive obviously compel a reader to contemplate the presumptions that enable them to delude themselves into arguing that killing unborn babies is not adhorent. Since Virginia's Governor, who is a pediatric neurologist, among others are now advocating killing babies that are born alive, pro abortion advocates can no longer claim some biological and moral distinction between babies that have been born and babies that are still in Utero. They have allowed themselves to embrace totally arbitrary standards to define who is a person.

Just FYI, I am aware of the extraordinary cases of babies who are born without a brain or are functionally brain dead. I suspect that these are the cases that Govrrnor KKK Blackface wouldcite as examples when he made his comment. I do recognize this destinction. However; I also recognize that the advocates of abortion intended this law to enable women to abort perfectly viable, late term babies for purely arbitrary reasons.

Just how many cases do you think there are of women going through with an entire pregnancy and then decide to abort for nonmedical issues?

And AFAIK the law in question doesn't actually say what you say it does.

Third trimester abortions are extremely rare, especially in Southern States such as Virginia. Abortions that are performed because of rape, incest or the mothers' life is in danger are also extremely rare. Most abortions are performed because men and women like to have sex but dont want to accept responsibility if pregnancy is the outcome.

The bill in question as introduced would have substantially reduced the legal inhibitions on late term abortions. The Governor inflamed the controversy by suggesting (innaccurately IMHO) during an interview that the legislation would allow termination of a baby that had been born alive. The fact that the Governor would make this comment demonstrates how militant abortion advocates have undermined respect for human life.

Anyone who has seen motion ultrasounds understands that once a pregnancy has progressed beyond a few weeks the argument that the featus is just a mass of tissue is utter BS. It has become recognizable as a human being complete with a brain and a beating heart. The behaviors exhibited by the unborn demonstrate awareness and cognitive function. How can we justify routinely terminating pregnancies for the convienance of women and their partners?

It is true that people need more reliable contraception but they also need to be less eager to have sex under circumstances when they would consider a pregnancy to be so undesirable that they would get an abortion.

It is interesting to see how abortion rates vary.

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abort ... dwide-2017

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Oppossing infanticide is not disrespectful of women.

Recognizing some of the more adhorent beliefs of muslims is not disrespectful of non-Christians.

So that means that when someone, even someone sentenced to execution, wishes a priest of their own religion to watch over their last moments, it's okay to deny them that wish because "some of their beliefs are bad"?

However; I also recognize that the advocates of abortion intended this law to enable women to abort perfectly viable, late term babies for purely arbitrary reasons.

That is what "recognizing that women have bodily autonomy" means, yes.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:It is true that people need more reliable contraception but they also need to be less eager to have sex under circumstances when they would consider a pregnancy to be so undesirable that they would get an abortion.

Coming from you, Mr "I fucked half of Europe back in the day" Fly, this is hilarious. How stereotypically hypocritical of you to be all finger-wagging and moralizing now.

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Oppossing infanticide is not disrespectful of women.

Recognizing some of the more adhorent beliefs of muslims is not disrespectful of non-Christians.

So that means that when someone, even someone sentenced to execution, wishes a priest of their own religion to watch over their last moments, it's okay to deny them that wish because "some of their beliefs are bad"?

However; I also recognize that the advocates of abortion intended this law to enable women to abort perfectly viable, late term babies for purely arbitrary reasons.

That is what "recognizing that women have bodily autonomy" means, yes.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:It is true that people need more reliable contraception but they also need to be less eager to have sex under circumstances when they would consider a pregnancy to be so undesirable that they would get an abortion.

Coming from you, Mr "I fucked half of Europe back in the day" Fly, this is hilarious. How stereotypically hypocritical of you to be all finger-wagging and moralizing now.

The policy to allow only prison employees to participate in executions. There are valid security reasons fot the policy. The State is under no obligation to hire a muslim cleric. Since Islam is eclipsing Christianity in secular Europe, I suspect that most clerics employed by prisons in Germany are Imans. When Germany reinstates the death penalty under Sharia law, the only clerics participating in executions will be muslims.

The "bodily autonomy" argument ignores the biological reality that the unborn child exists and has bodily autonomy of its own that she be respected. In the past, the concept of fetal viability has been offerred to justify this position. The push to legalize late term abortions concurrently with advances in neonatal care demonstrates that the fetal viability argument was always fraudulent.

During my European insemination tour, I was always cognizant of the woman's ability to raise a child. Hence my preference for married European women. Let us be honest here, without my efforts, Europe, including Germany, would have succumbed to demographic oblivion decades ago. I spent a few nights in Munster which is not far from Bielefeld. Perhaps I impregnated your wife for you?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The policy to allow only prison employees to participate in executions. There are valid security reasons fot the policy. The State is under no obligation to hire a muslim cleric.

It is under no obligation to have a christian priest on staff either, and yet it does.

Since Islam is eclipsing Christianity in secular Europe, I suspect that most clerics employed by prisons in Germany are Imans. When Germany reinstates the death penalty under Sharia law, the only clerics participating in executions will be muslims.

You know how I can tell you have no arguments and are just ranting to distract from the fact that you're a miserable old fuck with no empathy for anyone but other old, rich white people?

Here's a hint: It's whenever you drag up stuff like the above.

I find it interesting how Tfly is anti-muslim and seems insistent that it's only really expanding in Europe.
Of course, as an American, he has no need to worry.
It's not like Muslims are patrolling places in the USA now, is it?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:It is true that people need more reliable contraception but they also need to be less eager to have sex under circumstances when they would consider a pregnancy to be so undesirable that they would get an abortion.

Why do you believe that you have the right to impose your religious rules on people who do not agree with them? You don't like the Moslems imposing their rules on others, but you are just as bad.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:It is interesting to see how abortion rates vary.

Especially when American fundamentalist Christians have some of the highest abortion rates in the world. It does not seem that many of them 'just say no'. And then, since they have been denied proper sex education, they have unwanted pregnancies, and spread diseases. Ignorance and preaching do not seem to be very effective deterrents.
———————————
The best thing about virginity is, it’s so easy to cure.

The E wrote:In further Supreme Court news: The establishment clause is apparently void.
Apparently, it is perfectly fine under the US Constitution to deny a person about to be executed the spiritual support they desire.
(Just imagine the outrage if the person to be executed was christian and the prison only provided an imam...)

The day the first amendment died.