HOME | DD
Vynnx — Pro-Life?
Published: 2008-04-21 09:34:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 4350; Favourites: 39; Downloads: 296
Redirect to original
Description
I think the deviation speaks for itself.Related content
Comments: 135
While I disaprove of abortion, I believe it's wrong to interfere with someone else's life on that level.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is the second most bad copy strawman of the pro-life stance I've seen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Second!? Damn, I never get to place first!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The first was the theory that pro-life was a conspiracy by the upper class to keep the lower class poor by supporting large numbers of children...
And strawman means you create a fake version of your opponents point of view, show off the illogic of that fake side, and therefore convince people of the illogic of the opposing side since you make it seem like the fake side is your real oppositions side, and thus gather support.
It is not something to be proud of.
You're in my prayers Vynnx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sorry to butt in here, but the fact remains that most Conservatives ARE Pro-Life while at the same time Pro-War. How do you reconcile the difference between those two beliefs?
I find it unbelievably ironic that Conservatives care so much about an unborn fetus, but complain about Socialism and "spreading the wealth" when it comes to helping homeless families or hungry children.
Many Conservatives also typically support teaching Creationism over science in schools in direct opposition to the Constitutional guarantee (although the last administration had NO qualms about totally disregarding the Constitution) against a state sponsored religion and isn't "spreading the wealth" among those less fortunate something that Jesus himself advocated?
With the "flip-flopping" of Arlen Specter and moronic icon "Joe the Plumber" it's become increasingly evident that claiming to be Republican is less of a political choice and more of a personality disorder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually... after many many internal debates with myself, I've realized that if I am to consider people who may or may not have anything to contribute to society at some point in the future and yet at this time are merely mooching off society -people- then I realized that I could find no difference between homeless and unborn. Either both were human life or neither were, and I chose life.
Pro-War? WHICH WAR? Never mind, you likely mean -any- war as long as it's government supported.
And I fail even more so to understand where exists this lost tribe of christians, or lost tribe of conservatives whom I've failed to locate except on on hearsay to their existence from witness account via the internet that believe evolution somehow contradicts the existence of God or the validity of the bible.
There was once a boy in another nation who was starving, his family mostly or all gone, the christian missionaries had built a school, where he could get free food, if he attended class, he had no interest in getting an education, but was hungry, but the teachers made sure he did learn and with that education he built a life for himself.
The money spent on soup kitchens should be redirected to CLASSES to teach these people job skills or use that money to PAY them after giving them jobs so they begrudgingly develop a work ethic. (Not everyone whose homeless is a victim of being laid off.)
"Republican is less of a political choice and more of a personality disorder."
That is pure Ad hominem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YOU HAVE INTERNAL DEBATES . . . WITH YOURSELF?
Do you ever win?
I'm very aware that neo-cons consider helping out needy people as "mooching," which is nothing like bailing out Wall Street bankers who got a no-strings-attached handout from Dubya, is it?
Which war? Well, the one that leaps to mind immediately is the one Bush started in Iraq which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor did it have anything to do with deposing a ruthless dictator, AND it's killed over 100,000 Iraqi citizens as well as over 4,000 American soldiers. So much for "making the world a safer place."
As far as this statement goes:
"The money spent on soup kitchens should be redirected to CLASSES to teach these people job skills or use that money to PAY them after giving them jobs so they begrudgingly develop a work ethic."
This is loaded diction if I ever heard it. How do YOU know they would "begrudgingly" develop a work ethic?
Don't you see this as slightly counterproductive when they are starving or have no home to return to after classes? This is somewhat similar to something I witnessed as a young boy here in New Mexico. I had several friends who were Apache and Navajo who lived on the rez and were given washing machines and dryers by the government. Upon returning to the reservation, the agent was surprised to find that the Indians were storing canned goods in these appliances. I'm sure he thought, "stupid Indians, they don't even know what these things are," until he stopped long enough to ask why they weren't using the appliances for their intended purpose. It turns out there was no running water in the majority of the homes at the time and most also didn't have electricity. Now who was the stupid one?
Helping people attain an education and making them more adaptable in the job market is only PART of what we should be doing. However, giving them job skills only makes them more qualified to stand in an unemployment line, it doesn't take care of their immediate concerns (feeding and providing shelter for their family). If I found you and your family sitting in a hot car in mid-summer alongside a remote highway having run out of gas, would you thank me for stopping to give your car a tune-up? I didn't think so.
I can't comprehend how anyone can justify tax breaks for the richest 1% of Americans when there are homeless families in the most technologically advanced country in the world, especially if those richest 1% claim to be Christians.
Oh, and tossing about rhetorical terms doesn't impress me, I have an M.A. in English and can tell when I've read a humorous or satirical statement, something which most neo-cons are apparently ill-equipped to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All people internally debate. It is a gift granted us by the duel hemispheres of the brain.
"neo-cons" Interesting term. Reminds me of the American nick name given to communist Vietnam during the war. You know using such slang terms only degrades yourself and creates the image of you having an 'us and them' mentality.
"which is nothing like bailing out Wall Street bankers who got a no-strings-attached handout from Dubya, is it?"
I do not recall doing anything like that.
"which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11,"
I never thought or believed it had anything to do with 9/11 either.
"nor did it have anything to do with deposing a ruthless dictator,"
May not have been Bush's reason but it was mine.
"tossing about "
Lovely choice of words. Instantly create an image of foolishness and recklessness and not even really understand the word or term that the person is using. Nicely done.
"This is loaded diction if I ever heard it."
Granted. Perhaps it is a bit of a generalization.
"How do YOU know they would "begrudgingly" develop a work ethic?"
Heh. 'They' is rather ambiguous term. I shall instead say, the homeless and unemployed I've had personal experience with would 'begrudgingly' develop a work ethic.
"I can't comprehend how anyone can justify tax breaks for the richest 1%"
I do not recall giving anyone a tax break or tax increase myself.
"of Americans when there are homeless families in the most technologically advanced country in the world,"
I would get into a discussion about the opposing theories of the buyers and the providers but I've learned those become circular debates. And I have no desire to engage in such a debate.
"especially if those richest 1% claim to be Christians."
Are your christian yourself currently?
"If I found you and your family sitting in a hot car in mid-summer alongside a remote highway having run out of gas, would you thank me for stopping to give your car a tune-up? I didn't think so. "
??????
"Give a man a fish, and he'll starve tomorrow. Teach that man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his days."
Communism fail, in my opinion, because no one could lose their job, and hard work and poor work were often treated as the same.
The point is, I've come to see homeless and unborn as the same, if I am to value one, I have to value the other.
And the entire idea behind this image is, in my opinion, absurd.
I am certainly not pro-lile because I believe we need more soldier. Nor does anything I know. Thus, this image is contradictory to reality according to my own life experience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"All people internally debate. It is a gift granted us by the duel hemispheres of the brain. "
That may be so, but not all people are left hemisphere dominant are you appear to be. You must be a real hoot at parties.
""neo-cons" Interesting term. Reminds me of the American nick name given to communist Vietnam during the war. You know using such slang terms only degrades yourself and creates the image of you having an 'us and them' mentality."
The term isn't mine and I'll frankly be very surprised if you admit to NOT knowing what neoconservatism is or that neocon is an abbreviation for that term. As for the "us versus them" mentality how do you explain your disenchantment with the needy who "mooch" off you and who would "begrudgingly" develop a work ethnic that pleases you?
""which is nothing like bailing out Wall Street bankers who got a no-strings-attached handout from Dubya, is it?"
"I do not recall doing anything like that."
Of course you personally didn't do it but, if you voted Republican in 2004 you're partially responsible as it was George W. Bush who GAVE Wall Street 700 billion dollars to spend as they wanted. Do you remember THIS or are you suffering from selective memory loss?
Bush signs Wall Street bailout
But markets distracted by other woes plunge
Congress on Friday gave Wall Street the financial lifeline it was seeking and President Bush immediately signed it into law, as the House reversed course and approved a $700 billion bailout package in the wake of markets roiled by the failure of storied investment firms and major banks.
[link]
________________
"Heh. 'They' is rather ambiguous term. I shall instead say, the homeless and unemployed I've had personal experience with would 'begrudgingly' develop a work ethic."
Why is it that when conservatives are cornered they always resort to semantics? I knew we were talking about needy people, YOU knew I was talking about needy people, most people who read this knew we were talking about needy people, how is it then that "they" is an ambiguous term? You're generalizing again if you believe that all homeless or unemployed people are alike based on the ones you've personally met.
""I can't comprehend how anyone can justify tax breaks for the richest 1%"
"I do not recall giving anyone a tax break or tax increase myself."
Now you're just splitting hairs. You're not going to claim responsibility for the actions of a political figure you likely supported simply because you didn't personally carrying them out. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I wonder if that's ever been used in defense of a murderer in court?
Lawyer: My client didn't in fact kill the victim, your honor. It was in fact that bullet which flew from the gun that my client pointed at the victim during the robbery that killed him, therefore he's will admit guilt in the robbery, but not the death of the victim.
"I would get into a discussion about the opposing theories of the buyers and the providers but I've learned those become circular debates. And I have no desire to engage in such a debate."
You mean it's similar to the debates regarding the Bush's stated reasons for the war in Iraq, the wiretapping of innocent American citizens, the outing of a CIA spy, or the fact that God or Jesus exists? Why are we having this conversation again?
""especially if those richest 1% claim to be Christians."
"Are your christian yourself currently?"
For the record, no I'm not, but that really doesn't have anything to do with my assertion which was that many of the richest 1% CLAIM to be Christian. I have many Christian friends who don't ask the question, "Who would Jesus bomb," or "Who would Jesus torture?"
""If I found you and your family sitting in a hot car in mid-summer alongside a remote highway having run out of gas, would you thank me for stopping to give your car a tune-up? I didn't think so. "
??????
Look, this isn't rocket science, but it IS a perfect example of your assertion that what starving, homeless families need is classes so they can "begrudgingly" develop a work ethic you'd approve of. If you and your family are stranded on a remote highway in a car without gasoline, it's should be clear that what you REALLY need is some gasoline and NOT an engine tune-up. Do I have to explain further?
""Give a man a fish, and he'll starve tomorrow. Teach that man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his days."
Okay, so you're going to resort to old adages that honestly have no bearing on the modern world. Certainly there is some wisdom in that saying, but we'll have to update it just a bit. Knowing how to fish and having money to buy the equipment to fish is two different things. Okay, let's say we provide him with a fishing pole, line and bait. Now, put our newly equipped fisherman on a lake with a thousand other fishermen. The lake only has 250 fish. How does that solve the problem of his starving family?
"Communism fail, in my opinion, because no one could lose their job, and hard work and poor work were often treated as the same."
You mean much like the Wall Street bankers who put the U.S. economy in such dire straits? Their dishonest practices ran their business into the ground and they were rewarded with a 700 billion dollar payoff.
"The point is, I've come to see homeless and unborn as the same, if I am to value one, I have to value the other."
So, in your estimation, it's easier not to value either?
And the entire idea behind this image is, in my opinion, absurd.
I am certainly not pro-lile because I believe we need more soldier. Nor does anything I know. Thus, this image is contradictory to reality according to my own life experience.
Perhaps it's more because you lack the genes to see the humor or satire in a verbal statement or a visual work of art. It was clear to me what Vynnx's message was, conservatives care more about fetuses and military-age people than they do those already born. You made it abundantly clear that you have no empathy for the hungry or the homeless so without intending to do so, you made his point all the more valid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"That may be so, but not all people are left hemisphere dominant are you appear to be. You must be a real hoot at parties."
That is a personal attack with no baring on this discussion.
""neo-cons" Interesting term. Reminds me of the American nick name given to communist Vietnam during the war. You know using such slang terms only degrades yourself and creates the image of you having an 'us and them' mentality."
"The term isn't mine"
And yet you use it.
"and I'll frankly be very surprised if you admit to NOT knowing what neoconservatism is or that neocon is an abbreviation for that term."
I had never heard of that label before now.
The 'neo-con' label's verbal similarity to 'neo-nazi' is not very likely a random chance by the labeler IMHO, even if it was subconscious one. And I do not even know what neoconservatism's policies, and I doubt to the unbiasness to the information you'd give on the subject.
"As for the "us versus them" mentality how do you explain your disenchantment with the needy who "mooch" off you and who would "begrudgingly" develop a work ethnic that pleases you?"
At what point did I say I myself was not a parasite on the larger whole of society?
I voted republican on the pure stance of unborn human beings not being declared as non-people. It's an alliance of convenience and nothing more.
"Heh. 'They' is rather ambiguous term. I shall instead say, the homeless and unemployed I've had personal experience with would 'begrudgingly' develop a work ethic."
"Why is it that when conservatives are cornered they always resort to semantics?"
Cornered? I thought we were seeking truth here through our combined knowledge and perceptions.
"I knew we were talking about needy people, YOU knew I was talking about needy people, most people who read this knew we were talking about needy people, how is it then that "they" is an ambiguous term? You're generalizing again if you believe that all homeless or unemployed people are alike based on the ones you've personally met."
Indeed. That is why I corrected myself for my error.
""I can't comprehend how anyone can justify tax breaks for the richest 1%"
"I do not recall giving anyone a tax break or tax increase myself."
"Now you're just splitting hairs. You're not going to claim responsibility for the actions of a political figure you likely supported simply because you didn't personally carrying them out. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I wonder if that's ever been used in defense of a murderer in court? "
"Lawyer: My client didn't in fact kill the victim, your honor. It was in fact that bullet which flew from the gun that my client pointed at the victim during the robbery that killed him, therefore he's will admit guilt in the robbery, but not the death of the victim."
Your analogy is flawed. A bullet has no free will. Nor does a gun. And a gun and bullet have a very precisely set of normal reactions when used. Humans (all generalizations aside) do not.
I'd make a historic reference and point out what happens when your argument is taken to it's logical extreme, but I'd rather not be hit over the head for drawing in the historical figure all debates on the internet seem to end up drawing to.
BTW: As long as we're on this subject. How high do you think you need to climb up in the republican party to be part of their inner circle that is out to conquer the world? Just curious.
""especially if those richest 1% claim to be Christians."
"Are your christian yourself currently?"
"For the record, no I'm not, but that really doesn't have anything to do with my assertion which was that many of the richest 1% CLAIM to be Christian. I have many Christian friends who don't ask the question, "Who would Jesus bomb," or "Who would Jesus torture?" "
I have never called a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist at being 'bad at their religion' when I myself was not a part of it. It is neither good form nor good taste to dictate to someone else how to define or be -their- religion status. It is one thing if, indeed as you said, someone claims to be a part of a faith but does nothing in accordance with that faith, but it is another for another person outside of that faith to dictate what those accordances ARE or how they should be interpreted.
Oh and I put a donation in the alms jar at my church every sunday, have since I had money. So does every member of my family.
""If I found you and your family sitting in a hot car in mid-summer alongside a remote highway having run out of gas, would you thank me for stopping to give your car a tune-up? I didn't think so. "
??????
"Look, this isn't rocket science, but it IS a perfect example of your assertion that what starving, homeless families need is classes so they can "begrudgingly" develop a work ethic you'd approve of. If you and your family are stranded on a remote highway in a car without gasoline, it's should be clear that what you REALLY need is some gasoline and NOT an engine tune-up. Do I have to explain further? "
No. And I see again the flaw in your analogy. There's no point in giving someone gas if they're just going to drive around in circles until they run out of gas again. Get them a road map and get them on the right street FIRST, THEN give them back the steering wheel!
""Give a man a fish, and he'll starve tomorrow. Teach that man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his days."
"Okay, so you're going to resort to old adages that honestly have no bearing on the modern world. Certainly there is some wisdom in that saying, but we'll have to update it just a bit. Knowing how to fish and having money to buy the equipment to fish is two different things. Okay, let's say we provide him with a fishing pole, line and bait. Now, put our newly equipped fisherman on a lake with a thousand other fishermen. The lake only has 250 fish. How does that solve the problem of his starving family? "
Nothing if he doesn't have a clue how to fish.
And forgive me for bringing another factor into this debate... how many of those other fisher men are actually members of the nation the lake is on, and how many are just from a neighboring country that come over to fish, then take the fish from the lake back to their family still in their own country, while the fisher men who are already members of the nation the fishing hole is in are squeezed out as you said?
"Communism fail, in my opinion, because no one could lose their job, and hard work and poor work were often treated as the same."
"You mean much like the Wall Street bankers who put the U.S. economy in such dire straits? Their dishonest practices ran their business into the ground and they were rewarded with a 700 billion dollar payoff. "
Interesting. I sadly don't have any information on that subject to debate. So I can't provide any input on that subject for you.
But a question does come to my mind I've thought up for a while. I do not believe democrats are the new communist party, and I do not believe republicans are a industrial-nazi party. On that note, I therefore would acknowledge the good the opposing political party does. What good can you admit your opposing political party does?
"The point is, I've come to see homeless and unborn as the same, if I am to value one, I have to value the other."
"So, in your estimation, it's easier not to value either?"
Just the opposite.
And the entire idea behind this image is, in my opinion, absurd.
I am certainly not pro-lile because I believe we need more soldier. Nor does anything I know. Thus, this image is contradictory to reality according to my own life experience.
"Perhaps it's more because you lack the genes to see the humor or satire in a verbal statement or a visual work of art."
Heh. Genes? It's prejudice to decide someone is a particular way because of their DNA.
Satire is, by it's very definitions an attack. And if this humor, then I am not laughing.
"It was clear to me what Vynnx's message was, conservatives care more about fetuses and military-age people than they do those already born."
No. It was clear that his opinion.
"You made it abundantly clear that you have no empathy for the hungry or the homeless so without intending to do so, you made his point all the more valid."
If I had no empathy, then I wouldn't have given a 20 to a homeless woman once... and then found her downing booze in the exact same spot the next day.
And I wouldn't care about them GETTING job skills.
If I had the logic you believed I did. I'd want them rounded up at gun point and shipped off across the ocean in die in battle as super disposable grunts since it would make them more useful than they are currently being. But I do not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"That may be so, but not all people are left hemisphere dominant as you appear to be. You must be a real hoot at parties."
"That is a personal attack with no baring on this discussion."
It's not a personal attack at all, just an observation. Some people who are left hemisphere dominant are just too analytical to be fun. You just seem to be one of them.
"neo-cons" Interesting term. Reminds me of the American nick name given to communist Vietnam during the war. You know using such slang terms only degrades yourself and creates the image of you having an 'us and them' mentality."
"The term isn't mine"
"And yet you use it."
Did you personally invent the terms Ad hominem or Strawman? Why do you feel you have the right to use terms you didn't coin, while chastising me for doing the same thing?
"and I'll frankly be very surprised if you admit to NOT knowing what neoconservatism is or that neocon is an abbreviation for that term."
"I had never heard of that label before now."
Don't read much these past eight years, I guess? I said I would be frankly surprised and I am - how can anyone who fancies themselves a critical thinker NOT have run into the term as it applies especially to the Bush administration or the conservatives who support him?
"The 'neo-con' label's verbal similarity to 'neo-nazi' is not very likely a random chance by the labeler IMHO, even if it was subconscious one. And I do not even know what neoconservatism's policies, and I doubt to the unbiasness to the information you'd give on the subject.
Now you're invoking Godwin's Law. A big mistake in a serious debate. For your information Neo simply means "new." You're the one who brought Nazis into the equation. As for "unbiased" sources, care to show me a credible source that equates neoconservatism with neo-Nazis or will you just admit to pulling that one out of your ass?
"As for the "us versus them" mentality how do you explain your disenchantment with the needy who "mooch" off you and who would "begrudgingly" develop a work ethnic that pleases you?"
"At what point did I say I myself was not a parasite on the larger whole of society?"
You insinuated it just then when you referred to the needy as "parasites."
Lawyer: My client didn't in fact kill the victim, your honor. It was in fact that bullet which flew from the gun that my client pointed at the victim during the robbery that killed him, therefore he's will admit guilt in the robbery, but not the death of the victim."
"Your analogy is flawed. A bullet has no free will. Nor does a gun. And a gun and bullet have a very precisely set of normal reactions when used. Humans (all generalizations aside) do not. "
I'm assuming you used free will when you voted Republican, yet you deny supporting Bush when his policies proved disastrous. If you voted for Bush, you either A. were stupid enough to believe his rhetoric about "bringing integrity back to the White House, or B. supported his policies (especially if you voted for him in 2004).
"BTW: As long as we're on this subject. How high do you think you need to climb up in the republican party to be part of their inner circle that is out to conquer the world? Just curious."
If I can be held responsible by Conservatives for electing a President who got an Oval Office blow job, then you can feasibly be held responsible for electing a President who undertook an illegal war killing hundreds of thousands of people or who suspended individual rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. So the answer to your question is, high enough to vote for Bush.
"Are your christian yourself currently?"
"For the record, no I'm not, but that really doesn't have anything to do with my assertion which was that many of the richest 1% CLAIM to be Christian. I have many Christian friends who don't ask the question, "Who would Jesus bomb," or "Who would Jesus torture?"
"I have never called a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist at being 'bad at their religion' when I myself was not a part of it. It is neither good form nor good taste to dictate to someone else how to define or be -their- religion status. It is one thing if, indeed as you said, someone claims to be a part of a faith but does nothing in accordance with that faith, but it is another for another person outside of that faith to dictate what those accordances ARE or how they should be interpreted."
So, you're saying I can't complain unless I'm part of the team, right? Well, did it ever occur to you that I was once a Christian, but didn't like the hypocrisy prevalent in many Christian churches? I just wasn't comfortable being so judgmental.
You're just going to have to admit that when it comes to abortion and gay rights no one hears from the Hindus, the Jews, the Muslims or the Buddhists - it's the Christians who make all the noise and that's IN SPITE of being told that they should "judge not, lest they be judged."
I don't have to be a hypocrite to identify a hypocrite. Again, I ask you how do you reconcile your belief that God urges you to love all men equally, while supporting the invasion of another country resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths or the torture of another human being?
"Oh and I put a donation in the alms jar at my church every sunday, have since I had money. So does every member of my family."
Well that certainly clears your conscience, doesn't it? How do you know what percentage of that goes to supporting your church and how much of it goes to actually helping the needy "parasites?"
"No. And I see again the flaw in your analogy. There's no point in giving someone gas if they're just going to drive around in circles until they run out of gas again. Get them a road map and get them on the right street FIRST, THEN give them back the steering wheel! "
Heh, you can see the "flaw" in my analogy, but fail to see the mistake in your own logic. If, as in my analogy, I were to find you and your family stranded on a remote highway with no gasoline, should I automatically surmise that you're stupid enough to drive in circles after I fill your tank? Why would you believe that anyone else would do the same?
"Knowing how to fish and having money to buy the equipment to fish is two different things. Okay, let's say we provide him with a fishing pole, line and bait. Now, put our newly equipped fisherman on a lake with a thousand other fishermen. The lake only has 250 fish. How does that solve the problem of his starving family?"
"Nothing if he doesn't have a clue how to fish."
And IF he has a clue how to fish, how can he do so without line, a hook and bait? You're clearly dodging my question.
"And forgive me for bringing another factor into this debate... how many of those other fisher men are actually members of the nation the lake is on, and how many are just from a neighboring country that come over to fish, then take the fish from the lake back to their family still in their own country, while the fisher men who are already members of the nation the fishing hole is in are squeezed out as you said?"
Pardon me, but your Lou Dobbs is showing. You're showing your zenophobic side which I've come to believe is a BIG part of the conservative makeup. You guys just never realize when you're being fed a big red herring, do you? Don't you have the intellect to question how illegal immigration became such an issue at the same time during the last administration when the economy took a nosedive?
It's apparent that you don't read much, or at least nothing with any grounding in reality:
"Authorities say that fewer illegal immigrants are crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that arrests along the U.S.-Mexico border in the last five months are down 24 percent from the same period last year.
At the current rate, the level of apprehension this year could be the lowest since 1975.
A big reason is the frightful U.S. economy."
[link]
_____________
"Communism fail, in my opinion, because no one could lose their job, and hard work and poor work were often treated as the same."
"You mean much like the Wall Street bankers who put the U.S. economy in such dire straits? Their dishonest practices ran their business into the ground and they were rewarded with a 700 billion dollar payoff."
"Interesting. I sadly don't have any information on that subject to debate. So I can't provide any input on that subject for you."
So, you're admitting that your lack of knowledge of many of the fiascos the Republicans are responsible for is a liability?
"But a question does come to my mind I've thought up for a while. I do not believe democrats are the new communist party, and I do not believe republicans are a industrial-nazi party. On that note, I therefore would acknowledge the good the opposing political party does. What good can you admit your opposing political party does? "
Well, for starters, my "opposing" political party is making amends to the reputation of America as a country that values freedom and justice for all, a reputation, I might add, that the Bush administration has tarnished so severely. Obama is rescinding the endorsement to torture human beings, he's vowed to close the various secret prisons along with the notorious Guantanamo Bay, he's ensuring the American public that he will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (something which Bush and Cheney blatantly ignored) and he's opened diplomatic relations with countries who saw us a adversaries because of they way the Bush administration treated them. Have you read about any of THOSE things?
"The point is, I've come to see homeless and unborn as the same, if I am to value one, I have to value the other."
"So, in your estimation, it's easier not to value either?"
"Just the opposite. "
Then you consider the unborn parasites as well? They don't work and they "mooch" off their parents.
"And the entire idea behind this image is, in my opinion, absurd.
I am certainly not pro-lile because I believe we need more soldier. Nor does anything I know. Thus, this image is contradictory to reality according to my own life experience."
Then you consider the only value in art is that which reflects reality as you see it?
"It was clear to me what Vynnx's message was, conservatives care more about fetuses and military-age people than they do those already born."
"No. It was clear that his opinion."
And personal opinion has no place in art, especially if it differs from your own opinion?
"If I had no empathy, then I wouldn't have given a 20 to a homeless woman once... and then found her downing booze in the exact same spot the next day."
So in your mind all homeless people are the same? Great logic! Here are a few links for you to ponder. They're all the same subject from various sources so you can bitch and moan about them being biased, but you'll have to prove WHY you think they're biased.
[link]
[link]
[link]
These don't sound like parasites to me, but hard working people down on their luck.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The only thing you have shown me the folly of, is trying to debate with someone who considers my point of view to be a mental disease.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And the only thing you've shown me is the ability to run away from a debate you've clearly lost.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. I could keep fighting. But instead of devoting more and more time to this and let it consume my life, I've chosen to kick the dust from my shoes and MOVE ON.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh as in [link] It might help you to see a different viewpoint in life. You're definitely stuck in a political/mental rut.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Incorrect.
If I were to continue this debate, it would have to be as a full blown project. And I have enough projects to deal with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Same with me, so lets just agree to disagree. You might take just a second longer to look at those links I posted at the end of my last comment. They prove that the face of homelessness has changed drastically - a great many homeless people ARE currently working.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I see. But I have a question. What did ou think of the color balance in this piece? Do you think the composition or lighting could be improved?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is a stark message as it should be.
My only regret is that you seem to miss the actual point of your oppositions point of view and substituted an antagonist's point of view in it's place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you are saying that right wing conservatives are actually pro-choice?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. Your belief that conservatives, see pro-life as a means of mass producing soldiers! Your point of view on conservatives is the same as the propaganda the WWII films made by the american used to dehumanize the germans and japanese! That their children were just an assembly line of soldiers or sought to be so.
At least the conservatives I know personally, do not see human life as stock, which is (in my opinion and that of the conservatives I have met and know) the point of the pro-life view.
Since you appear yourself not to be pro-life, it is perhaps not the best to assume that your belief of what someone's else's belief is, is infallible.
It's no different from the christian who thinks all Muslims everywhere want to see all non-Muslims dead and all women's faces hidden behind veils.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do have to admit though that there are some women who should wear a veil at all times. Yikes!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You're clearly going to Hell, Vynnx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No. I do not. Physical beauty is a perception based on preconceptions taught to us by society at large. All women are beautiful on the outside.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humor isn't your strong suit, is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sir, I see your
and I raise you a
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
While you're at it, tell God I need at least a six figure income and a penthouse suite overlooking most of New York City. Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you have no respect for my point of view. And have no respect for this debate other than a means to entertain you. Then you are free to not reply. These jeers do nothing but to degrade the appearance of your maturity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not worried about how I appear to the rest of the world. Those closest to me know me for who I Am and that is all that matters.
p.s. - I'm rather hungry at the moment. Do you think Jesus could do me a favor and whip up some nachos? Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nice sentiment, but that doesn't give you the right to mock other people's beliefs as if they existed for your amusement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't help it if most people's beliefs are amusing. We are all here for one another's amusement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is so true!The only reason those pro lifetards save babies is to kill them later on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How many people that are allowed to be born and become soldiers, die in a war?
And so what if an aborted baby to be actually got a chance to live then later died as a soldier? Did they not at least get to experience life for a while?
Just because a life is taken, doesn't mean it never existed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow man that is heavy.Great work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Okay, I'm just going to say that I actually REALLY like this piece. I'm not going to explain why, because, well, I don't think it needs an explanation.
I appreciate you for standing up for something you believe in. Thank you for giving me hope that there actually ARE intelligent people out there!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for such a wonderful compliment!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for posting something worth viewing. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What a damn shame.
Spite the men and women out there, men and women who signed up, voluntarily, to defend this country, no matter the issue. Spite the men and women who fight to keep this monstrous struggle from worsening. Spite the ones who fight to ensure that you get to read what you like, speak what you like, vote for who you like, and pray to who you would pray to, or not to anyone if you prefer. The standard of comparison is obscene. Many people are divided on the issue. I don't speak to you as some damned conservative, but as an American. The Armed Forces and the Issue of Abortion are entirely separate issues, and people can choose to join the military if they like, or not. Abortion does not factor into this equation at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I see. But what do you think of the choice of coloring in this piece?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Your apathy astounds me, but I can see the obvious color scheme. The soft pink, white and blue tones in the first image compliment the red, white and blues of the dead soldiers marvelously.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Responding to your original point...
Yes this deviation makes a comparison that is inappropriate, but you make an assumption that is inappropriate.
You assume that the abortion leaves no choice for the future child (which is true) but then you also assume that joining the military is completely voluntary (which it usually is, but this is an incomplete assumption).
Joining the military is fine, but what is the end result of our military's actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Civilians in those countries die. Are their deaths voluntary? Hardly.
Also, 3,000 dead in an unstable country like Afghanistan or Iraq has far greater consequences for that country than 3,000 dying in our country.
I'm not saying that 9/11 was not tragic, which it was, but it did not threaten the rest of the country in any way. This is easily evidenced by the approximately 100 people that die per day from automobile accidents in the United States.
Joining the US military is fine, but killing civilians in other countries is unacceptable.
If we kill civilians in other countries, we are not saving lives, and if we are not saving lives, then the deaths of our soldieres is unnecessary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In any event, the relation was obscure, and it weakened the piece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dead soldiers now vs dead civilians later... hmm...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It'll be dead civilians either way. You're only considering our side here...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But it'll be fewer dead civilians if we deal with the problem now as opposed to letting it simmer on the burner.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or we could just try to actually get along. For crying out loud, our world's dying around us...we don't have time for war games.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>