- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The definition of chutzpah...
The definition of chutzpah...Follow
The pig I'm cutting up tomorrow used to be alive!
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Speaking of terrible punishments...
Break company policy and get a four day weekend! Woohoo!
WSJ wrote:
Mr. Scarborough, who hosts the General Electric Co. network's "Morning Joe" program, made eight donations of $500 to local candidates in Florida between 2004 and 2008, the network said in a statement. His suspension, without pay, will bar him from his weekday show for two days, returning Nov. 24.
Break company policy and get a four day weekend! Woohoo!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The pig I'm cutting up tomorrow used to be alive!
I used to work with this Serbian immigrant who went one day and decided to have his five thousand Serbian family members and friends over for a pig roast. So he drove out to the country, bought a pig, trussed it and threw it into the trunk of his car and then drove it back home to the suburbs (Willowbrook for those keeping score at home). Then he slaughtered it in his garage. When the neighbors called the cops about the screaming noises, said Serbian greeted the police in the driveway with his shaky grasp of English, holding a large butcher knife and soaked in pig blood.
Laughs ensued.
Edited, Nov 19th 2010 1:53pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
nuh uh you're dumb.
So murdering someone who murders babies isn't a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Don't you like babies?
So murdering someone who murders babies isn't a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Don't you like babies?
So, you've said before, Hate the sin, and not the sinner. I see that was just a convenient lie. You base everything on your blind faith, and facts don't matter. I thought God was supposed to be the judge. What, you don't trust God to do a proper job? What kind of faith is that?
Face it, you're the Christian version of a Taliban terrorist. Good job!
Technogeek wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
nuh uh you're dumb.
So murdering someone who murders babies isn't a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Don't you like babies?
So murdering someone who murders babies isn't a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Don't you like babies?
So, you've said before, Hate the sin, and not the sinner. I see that was just a convenient lie. You base everything on your blind faith, and facts don't matter. I thought God was supposed to be the judge. What, you don't trust God to do a proper job? What kind of faith is that?
Face it, you're the Christian version of a Taliban terrorist. Good job!
Do everybody a favor and go suck on the business end of a handgun.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
nuh uh you're dumb.
So murdering someone who murders babies isn't a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Don't you like babies?
So murdering someone who murders babies isn't a good thing? Is that what you're saying? Don't you like babies?
So, you've said before, Hate the sin, and not the sinner. I see that was just a convenient lie. You base everything on your blind faith, and facts don't matter. I thought God was supposed to be the judge. What, you don't trust God to do a proper job? What kind of faith is that?
Face it, you're the Christian version of a Taliban terrorist. Good job!
Do everybody a favor and go suck on the business end of a handgun.
Who pissed in your Cherios today?
Techno,
Well except for the fact that I don't want to murder every non-christian.
Quote:
Face it, you're the Christian version of a Taliban terrorist. Good job!
Well except for the fact that I don't want to murder every non-christian.
What, you think that's out of character for Demea?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Tulip,
Of course these sentences that compose paragraphs usually express a coherent thought.
Quote:
You know, words strung together form a sentence. Sentences together make a paragraph. You read left to right, top to bottom. See if you can figure it out for yourself.
Of course these sentences that compose paragraphs usually express a coherent thought.
Jophed,
I'll answer that question just as soon as you define what it means to be alive.
I'll answer that question just as soon as you define what it means to be alive.
varusword75 wrote:
Techno,
Well except for the fact that I don't want to murder every non-christian.
Quote:
Face it, you're the Christian version of a Taliban terrorist. Good job!
Well except for the fact that I don't want to murder every non-christian.
So the rest of my post was spot on, good to know!
Techno,
Yeah i'm a christian. Obviously taliban terrorists don't think anyone outside their belief system should be allowed to live.
Quote:
So the rest of my post was spot on, good to know
Yeah i'm a christian. Obviously taliban terrorists don't think anyone outside their belief system should be allowed to live.
varusword75 wrote:
I'll answer that question just as soon as you define what it means to be alive.
You already know a definition since you asked Belkira about it. Are you really this scared to answer? Always good for a laugh!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
ARE FETUSES AND TERATOMAS BOTH ALIVE?? A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE, GOOD SIR!
Gah! Not this bs again. That's the wrong question. And yes, I'm aware that varus started with the "it's alive!" argument, but that doesn't make it any less of a completely irrelevant angle to the issue.
The question is: Which one, if allowed to progress naturally, may develop into a human being invested in self awareness, and protected by the rights we normally afford to "people"?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's the wrong question, but no one is discussing anything, they're just taunting varrus.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
The question is: Which one, if allowed to progress naturally, may develop into a human being invested in self awareness, and protected by the rights we normally afford to "people"?
I submit to you that the legality of abortion is presented in your very question. Fetuses, since they have not yet matured into a human being invested in self awareness, are not protected by the rights we normally afford to "people."
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question is: Which one, if allowed to progress naturally, may develop into a human being invested in self awareness, and protected by the rights we normally afford to "people"?
I submit to you that the legality of abortion is presented in your very question. Fetuses, since they have not yet matured into a human being invested in self awareness, are not protected by the rights we normally afford to "people."
Exactly what I was going to say. By the very basis of gbaji's proposed question, they are not yet to be afforded the rights of people, as he is clearly suggesting they are not people.
gbaji wrote:
And yes, I'm aware that varus started with the "it's alive!" argument
Someday you'll understand when I'm just jerking someone around.
I'm not sure which is funnier, Varus being afraid to answer an obviously facetious question or you railing on about me asking it.
Ah, hell, they're both pretty funny.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And yes, I'm aware that varus started with the "it's alive!" argument
Someday you'll understand when I'm just jerking someone around.
I'm not sure which is funnier, Varus being afraid to answer an obviously facetious question or you railing on about me asking it.
Ah, hell, they're both pretty funny.
Not really.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question is: Which one, if allowed to progress naturally, may develop into a human being invested in self awareness, and protected by the rights we normally afford to "people"?
I submit to you that the legality of abortion is presented in your very question. Fetuses, since they have not yet matured into a human being invested in self awareness, are not protected by the rights we normally afford to "people."
Exactly what I was going to say. By the very basis of gbaji's proposed question, they are not yet to be afforded the rights of people, as he is clearly suggesting they are not people.
Precisely. Which is the correct pro-choice argument. Insisting that a fetus is no more or less important or valuable than any other random cell growth, and that we should be able to discard it with no greater consideration is not only wrong, but fails to address the key question of the issue: At what point does a fetus become close enough to a "person" to gain sufficient amounts of rights for its right to life to exceed the mothers right to control her own body and health?
There are a relatively small number of people who are on the extremes of this. Some argue that a fetus isn't a person at all and has no rights at all until the day it is born. Others argue that it is a full person with full rights from the moment of conception (ok, it's not a fetus at that point yet, but whatever). The overwhelming majority of people (as well as the Supreme Court) believe said rights scale into effect during gestation. Which begs the question as to why it seems like the loudest and most frequent positions taken in this debate always seem to be just those extremes?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
MoebiusLord wrote:
Not really.
Well, funny in a "late seasons Simpsons" sort of way.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
There are a relatively small number of people who are on the extremes of this. Some argue that a fetus isn't a person at all and has no rights at all until the day it is born. Others argue that it is a full person with full rights from the moment of conception (ok, it's not a fetus at that point yet, but whatever). The overwhelming majority of people (as well as the Supreme Court) believe said rights scale into effect during gestation.
Joe Biden wrote:
Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.
And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.
And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.
Ironically, you ******* about Biden's answer at the time.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There are a relatively small number of people who are on the extremes of this. Some argue that a fetus isn't a person at all and has no rights at all until the day it is born. Others argue that it is a full person with full rights from the moment of conception (ok, it's not a fetus at that point yet, but whatever). The overwhelming majority of people (as well as the Supreme Court) believe said rights scale into effect during gestation.
Joe Biden wrote:
Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.
And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.
And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.
Ironically, you ******* about Biden's answer at the time.
I ******* about it because he uses that as a justification for the Roe v. Wade decision. I know that this might be too nuanced for most people, but I don't actually disagree at all with the broad standards for abortion set in that court decision. What I disagree with is that the court is the correct method for creating those standards in the first place.
As I have stated for years on this forum, the methods you use do matter. There is a huge difference between all 50 states adopting similar abortion laws because they choose to on their own, and having a court rule from on high that every state must pass laws which comply with the courts view on the issue, even if the resulting laws are exactly the same. How you accomplish something is as important as what you accomplish.
Or, to put this back in a recent perspective: The end does not justify the means.
Edited, Nov 19th 2010 3:14pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Back on page 1, I wrote:
Reading around, there's a claim that Rangel inappropriately used leadership PAC money in his defense which would be a problem. That money is stuff a politician raises to give to other politician's campaigns and wouldn't be usable for his own legal battles. How accurate the claims are, I couldn't tell you.
Political Wire wrote:
The New York Post reports that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is facing a new ethical inquiry from the Federal Election Commission, just days after the House voted to punish him with censure for 11 ethical violations.
Ironically, the probe concerns whether Rangel misused funds from his political action committee to pay legal fees to deal with the very charges for which he was censured on Thursday.
Ironically, the probe concerns whether Rangel misused funds from his political action committee to pay legal fees to deal with the very charges for which he was censured on Thursday.
Heh.
Edited, Dec 6th 2010 12:10pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Back on page 1, I wrote:
Reading around, there's a claim that Rangel inappropriately used leadership PAC money in his defense which would be a problem. That money is stuff a politician raises to give to other politician's campaigns and wouldn't be usable for his own legal battles. How accurate the claims are, I couldn't tell you.
Political Wire wrote:
The New York Post reports that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is facing a new ethical inquiry from the Federal Election Commission, just days after the House voted to punish him with censure for 11 ethical violations.
Ironically, the probe concerns whether Rangel misused funds from his political action committee to pay legal fees to deal with the very charges for which he was censured on Thursday.
Ironically, the probe concerns whether Rangel misused funds from his political action committee to pay legal fees to deal with the very charges for which he was censured on Thursday.
Heh.
A right f'ucking Carnac The Magician you are.
Recent Visitors: 356
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (356)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The definition of chutzpah...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC