How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

The safest sex has a 3% failure rate.

Whatever they're paying you to shill mindlessly for them, it's not nearly enough.

Sorry but I'm not a Democrat, I don't mindlessly shill for anyone, nor could someone pay me to shill for them.

Reason I'm calling people out on this, is cause I actually have been a victim of this kind of smearfest repeatedly, it is a classic tactic for Neurotypical Liberals, and people here should learn to stop drinking the Kool-aid, and bad behavior by Neurotypicals is not something one should emulate.

It's only a matter of time before someone/a large group acts on the things the WBC says. I guarantee if they attempted to spread their message in other countries, they'd be met with more than just an angry mob. While I am aware of the restrictions being placed on the church, that did not stop them from protesting at conventions (they felt those attending the convention were engaging in idolatry) and various concerts, often behaving in what could easily be construed as a threatening/confrontational manner, standing within a few inches of attendees' faces, yelling about how they are damned to hell because they worship comic heroes or listen to "music that promotes sodomy (said of the German band Rammstein and of the death metal band Rotting Christ)." They were not confined to a small area at these protests.

We will deal with outright wrong doers when the wrong is done. I will not place my First Amendment Rights on YOUR slippery slope.

And do not be proud of Europe, my lad. Europe is Ur Home of fascism. It is where Musollini and Hitler came from. I would not be so proud to admit that the nations of Europe do not give a rat's patootie about free speech and free expression. Shame on you Euro-Trash. Your history is one of death and destruction. Even the so-called enlightened countries of Europe.

ruveyn

He does not really do a good job :/

Claim that it is a democratic conspiracy "smearfest" on Mourdock.

Sorry but democrats didn't force this Mourdock guy to say stupid, offensive, and pro-rape things. If your party platform depends on the likability of this kind of people , that is poor judgment on your part. For once this really is not the democrats' fault. Next time don't get freaks as candidates.

Sure condoms are not foolproof,spermacide helps but some people are allergic,the point Im making is that some women can't use any other method safely.And even of she's on the pill you should use a condom to prevent the spread of S.T.D.s,unless you are in a relationship that has a lot of trust.
I know some women trap men by getting pregnant,a few,I have no respect for any woman that conceives a child to manipulate someone,but the child is a victim also.
But to me a condom just seems like the best choice,I've had my tubes tied but unless I really trusted a man I would insist on a condom.
It would be nice if it was cheaper to get your tubes tied,I think more women would do it.And it would be great if men would get over their fear of vasectomy.A woman can produce one baby a year but a frisky man can sire lots of babies with lots of women in one year,and now with Viagra they are never tired

Of course you don't, and you rarely do - it's something of a minor miracle when you actually address the content of any post.

It really doesn't matter much what people post because you just treat it as an excuse to Gish Gallop as many point-scoring sound bites as you can cram into one post that trashes "the left"/Obama/anything-else-you-don't-like.
That's all you ever do.

Let's see your interpretation of this, quoted from the revealing article Vexcalibur linked - which I'm guessing you'll dismiss as another smear.
You think this idiocy is even half-way rational or coherent?

And please - don't waste your and our time by attempting to trash the source and throwing up the usual shit-storm of lies, half-truths and noisy, irrelevant distractions.
Let's see you justify what these people are saying. Let's see you explain how these people's views on rape/abortion are in any way valid or even sane.

No; the "fact of the matter is" that "liberals" shouldn't need to fight much to defeat Mourdock - or Akin, or Angle, or Rivard, or Henry, or Schlafly etc - because they're all very competently shooting themselves in their own feet, and what should be of concern is that Mitt the Magic Mormon does nothing to reconcile these idiots' views.



(Gish Gallop: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop )

Ok, I disagree a *lot* with Inuyasha, but you are a moderator, Cornflake... Don't you think that you are pushing it a bit far?

Not at all.
I am disagreeing with him and trying to have him address the thread's topic as a whole.

I wish we could all just stop fighting among each other and fight the real enemy... But that will never happen. I feel like I'm stuck on the Titanic, and I'm the only one who knows it's gonna sink, and despite trying to tell everybody about it, nobody f*****g listens because they're all too busy bickering with each other.

No wonder George Washington warned us of the dangers of a 2 party system.

As inflammatory as this whole thing is, I don't see the statement as being inconsistent with basic Judeo-Christian beliefs and personally see a lot of politics on display in the outrage being directed due to this comment. If your belief system involves an omnipotent and infallible figure responsible for everything that ever happens good or bad, then Mourdock's view naturally if uncomfortably flows from that; it's logically consistent, not that logic often enters into these things.

No, you are trying to get me accept a phony narrative, Cornflake. I'm just choosing not to go along with it.

Mourdoch believes life begins at conception as a pro-lifer. If we go with life beginning at conception, then essentially abortion is legalized infanticide.

That's what this boils down to and that's what pro-choice/pro-abortion people don't get or often blatently disregard. When are you a human being Cornflake, when are you an actual person and not simply a collection of cells?

This isn't about women's rights, that argument is a bunch of BS and quite frankly is insulting to women in my opinion cause it paints women as being a bunch of morons that want to have sex and then free "birth control." I don't think women are nothing more than walking vaginas.

The real argument is over whether or not a child is a human being, if the child in the womb is a person, than abortion is nothing more than legalized murder. That's what this boils down to.

If the child is a person, then it boils down to whether or not the child has a right to exist, or are they simply property. While it is the woman's body and rape is a heinous act, the child is not the guilty party; we shouldn't compound the issue by butchering an innocent child to add yet another attrocity on top of the first one.

That said, I do believe that castration or the death penalty would be a fitting punishment for rapists.

This issue would be a lot easier if the child could be transferred into an artificial womb or something, then we wouldn't have the moral conundrum.

Human life starting at conception is a scientific fact. I also brought up the fact that technology will make the abortion debate obsolete, and babies will be gestated in tubes, instead of bodies. I'll just copy and paste my position from the other thread:



http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... evelopment

A fetus is simply an underdeveloped, but developing human. Just like a 2 year old, a 12 year old, and and a 20 year old are underdeveloped but developing humans. But they are still all humans.

The abortion debate will become obsolete through technology, in some way, sooner or later. I know that for sure.

I was thinking about writing a movie about the near future when women no longer carry babies, but they are all gestated in a tube or something. I mean, why would a woman want to go through all the hassle of pregancy/labor if she doesn't have to? Even if they want the baby.

So they can't use "my body" excuse anymore. Any woman who doesn't want the baby will have it pulled out while in very early stages and thrown in the pile. And those babies will all grow up and be the responsibility of the government or willing private citizens.

Even better: all humans are inherently sterile. Sex is purely for fun and no babies ever come from it. If you want a child you just go to the doctor, fill out some forms, have some samples taken, and they tell you to come back in 9 months.

Unfortunately the religious right will be opposed to test tube babies because that will promote promiscuity.

It is also a fact that this is completely irrelevant.

Our laws care not about protecting "human life". There are no laws against killing human skin cells or sperm (although I guess there are religious extremisms that would like this to happen).