Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Breaking news - R v. W sells couch
Comments
-
I believe kids under an income threshold that don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.MikeDamone said:
Tomato TamahtoPitchfork51 said:
I'm fascist.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not progressive at allMikeDamone said:
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!Pitchfork51 said:
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child supportMikeDamone said:
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.Pitchfork51 said:
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
That'd solve a big problem. -
Like I said. Tomato Tomahto.Pitchfork51 said:
I believe kids under an income threshold that don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.MikeDamone said:
Tomato TamahtoPitchfork51 said:
I'm fascist.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not progressive at allMikeDamone said:
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!Pitchfork51 said:
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child supportMikeDamone said:
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.Pitchfork51 said:
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
That'd solve a big problem.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow? -
They are quite nice. Your point?MikeDamone said:
Like I said. Tomato Tomahto.Pitchfork51 said:
I believe kids under an income threshold tht don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.MikeDamone said:
Tomato TamahtoPitchfork51 said:
I'm fascist.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not progressive at allMikeDamone said:
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!Pitchfork51 said:
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child supportMikeDamone said:
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.Pitchfork51 said:
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
That'd solve a big problem.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow? -
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be. -
That's my point.Pitchfork51 said:
They are quite nice. Your point?MikeDamone said:
Like I said. Tomato Tomahto.Pitchfork51 said:
I believe kids under an income threshold tht don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.MikeDamone said:
Tomato TamahtoPitchfork51 said:
I'm fascist.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.Pitchfork51 said:
I'm not progressive at allMikeDamone said:
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!Pitchfork51 said:
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child supportMikeDamone said:
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.Pitchfork51 said:
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
That'd solve a big problem.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow? -
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be. -
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be. -
The founders were Christians.Sources said:
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be. -
But were they?Sledog said:
The founders were Christians.Sources said:
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
-
Sources said:
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
