First Republican Debate Set

Drenched with as much of it as I can convey.

 

I have $10. Loan me $20 for lunch. I also need $10 to take the train to go harass global warming scientists. Don't worry, none of the $20 will be going towards harassment, all lunch.

 

That's a matter of perception. My whole bolding thing was because that was how Tar Volon came across to me. "No one in their right mind..."

 

yeah i did think that was overstated or overly dramatic, fwiw, especially when trying to maintain a level discourse

 

i thought it was hobby lobby attempting to pick and choose, in their case

 

Lunch? Better analogy:

I have $10. Loan me $20 for getting some medicine for these sick people. I also need $10 to help these ugly people no one wants to look at too. Don't worry, none of your $20 has to help these ugly people, since their existence upsets you.

 

It was, and people are now trying to manipulate the government into picking and choosing. It is already set up to where federal funds can't be used for abortions. You guys are arguing that no entity that performs abortions should ever receive federal funds. Given how hospital systems work, you're wanting to cut off access to abortions for most women. Which is barbaric and ignorant in mind, and I urge you to research what happens in countries that do this.

 

Ok same logic works. It's dumb to argue I'm not funding ugly people.

 

I know you're smarter than this. It's not that hard.

You said the "no one in their right minds" section was horseshit. That means one of two things: (1) you believe someone in their right minds would be cool with a clinic that kills 10% of children, or (2) your objection is to the characterization of them as children and not the explanation of how people would react to killing children.

Which is exactly what I said earlier, and what you're trying to deny. If there is a third option, by all means enlighten me. But I'm pretty sure you're taking one of the two.

 

[Penis]. What have you got agaisnt ugly people?

 

If you say so. You started with 10 and spent 10 on the ugly people. The alternative is for neither the sick or ugly people to get help. Seems to work out well to me.

 

"If you think it's a child, you'd have to be out of your mind to be moved by the 'well, we do lots of other things other than kill children' argument"

This is what I said. It is a strong statement, surely, but is it really overly dramatic or hostile? It seems to me to be obviously correct.

 

Ah, now I'm being stupid. The second Ad hominem.

(3) Someone in their right minds may see that the clinic is not killing any children and disagree with you, and know that the entire statement was an invention meant to appeal to emotion rather than an appeal of substance. Someone could also simultaneously object to flippantly minimizing child killing by invoking that imagery every time family planning comes up.

 

That's option (2). Like, that is dead-on exactly option (2).

I'm really not sure why you're objecting to me presenting (1) and (2) as the options when you're taking option (2).

 

What does it matter if you want to call it a child or a clump of cells. It is legal at this time.

 

I've always considered my good looks a bit of a curse

 

If it's a child, it's morally reprehensible. If it's nothing more than a clump of cells, it's not morally reprehensible.

That matters.

 

Because it's legal and should be available as a medical procedure to all, including the poor, if we are going to keep it legal. If we are going to provide medical services assistance to impoverished people, why eliminate any legal options for them?

 

here you go again with this. it was legal to segregate blacks into separate schools at one time. obviously, it was legal, so it was right.

 

Let me get this straight. You are arguing planned parenthood is incapable of offering their other services if they don't offer abortions?