Poll of the Day > Do you support texas's new fetal heartbeat abortion law ?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Wanded 09/13/21 6:04:37 AM #102:	Zangulus posted... It's almost like the entire topic still exists and you could, in your infinite ability, go back and read it again... Getting you to actually understand is a whole other issue though. no, you go back and extract whatever your point is that i didn't address from your scroll of ad homs and lies for me, i can't find it. it's almost like instead of writing all these useless posts all day long you can just get straight to the point. who did you vote for in 2020 @adjl that is not what i've said, you're assuming killing in self defense is murder which it is not, murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, an abortion is premeditated as it is pre-planned and scheduled willingly, the child is a human being since conception, the child is alive, the process of abortion means killing it, hence it fulfills all the requirements to be murder, if someone attacks me and i kill him in self defense that is not premeditated, i didn't get up that morning planning to kill someone today, intent also matters as my intent was to protect my own life, not take another, if i shoot the attacker and he dies, him dying wasn't my primary goal. the main 3 things here are premeditated, intent and human being (which is why killing animals isn't murder). this is murder for example because although not premeditated, his intent was to kill and not defend himself as he was clearly in no danger during the shooting https://youtu.be/VU7ol1_pw6U?t=23 --- I stand with Israel. #FightAntisemitism <cite>Wanded posted [p:958004424] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Zangulus posted... </cite> <quote>It's almost like the entire topic still exists and you could, in your infinite ability, go back and read it again... Getting you to actually understand is a whole other issue though.</quote>no, you go back and extract whatever your point is that i didn't address from your scroll of ad homs and lies for me, i can't find it. it's almost like instead of writing all these useless posts all day long you can just get straight to the point. who did you vote for in 2020 @adjl that is not what i've said, you're assuming killing in self defense is murder which it is not, murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, an abortion is premeditated as it is pre-planned and scheduled willingly, the child is a human being since conception, the child is alive, the process of abortion means killing it, hence it fulfills all the requirements to be murder, if someone attacks me and i kill him in self defense that is not premeditated, i didn't get up that morning planning to kill someone today, intent also matters as my intent was to protect my own life, not take another, if i shoot the attacker and he dies, him dying wasn't my primary goal. the main 3 things here are premeditated, intent and human being (which is why killing animals isn't murder). this is murder for example because although not premeditated, his intent was to kill and not defend himself as he was clearly in no danger during the shooting https://youtu.be/VU7ol1_pw6U?t=23 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/13/21 6:45:59 AM #103:	Jen0125 posted... Is this topic a bunch of men arguing over women's reproductive rights again? Posts like these are only valid if they're arguing from a pro-life stance. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:958004843] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote>Is this topic a bunch of men arguing over women's reproductive rights again? </quote> Posts like these are only valid if they're arguing from a pro-life stance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 09/13/21 9:13:02 AM #104:	Wanded posted... you're assuming killing in self defense is murder which it is not adjl posted... noting that "murder" is distinguished from other killings only by being illegal, and in a debate about what the law should be, the current state of the law is meaningless To clarify, the only thing setting murder apart from any other instance of killing a human is it being unlawful. Premeditation is not required (except for first-degree murder, since that's how it's defined). In a discussion about when it should/shouldn't be lawful to kill a human, however, setting certain instances apart because they're currently illegal doesn't mean anything ("It should be illegal because it is illegal"). To that end, the term "murder" should either be avoided entirely in this discussion or treated as being freely interchangeable with "killing a human," regardless of how justifiable that killing is. Wanded posted... if someone attacks me and i kill him in self defense that is not premeditated, i didn't get up that morning planning to kill someone today, intent also matters as my intent was to protect my own life, not take another, if i shoot the attacker and he dies, him dying wasn't my primary goal. That's not even how self defense laws work. To successfully claim self defense, you need to demonstrate that you reasonably believed you were in sufficient danger that the only way to protect yourself was to use lethal force. You have to justify killing the person, not simply demonstrate that you didn't plan to kill them (and, in fact, if you're in a situation where you need to kill somebody to protect yourself, you should plan to kill them). It's not a case of saying "I didn't mean to kill them," it's a matter of demonstrating that killing them was the lesser of two evils. That, in turn, means you're identifying a situation in which killing somebody isn't as bad as the alternative, and in turn, that means you're considering just how bad it is to kill somebody (so you can compare it). So keep going. Assess how bad it is to kill somebody and why it's so bad, and explain your opinions on the matter to me. Revelation34 posted... Posts like these are only valid if they're arguing from a pro-life stance. It's still accurate, it's just a whole lot less deplorable for somebody with no uterus to say "just let women decide what to do with their uteruses" than for somebody with no uterus to say "I want to dictate what women do with their uteruses." --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958006968] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>you're assuming killing in self defense is murder which it is not</quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>noting that "murder" is distinguished from other killings only by being illegal, and in a debate about what the law should be, the current state of the law is meaningless</quote> To clarify, the only thing setting murder apart from any other instance of killing a human is it being unlawful. Premeditation is not required (except for first-degree murder, since that's how it's defined). In a discussion about when it should/shouldn't be lawful to kill a human, however, setting certain instances apart because they're currently illegal doesn't mean anything ("It should be illegal because it is illegal"). To that end, the term "murder" should either be avoided entirely in this discussion or treated as being freely interchangeable with "killing a human," regardless of how justifiable that killing is. Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>if someone attacks me and i kill him in self defense that is not premeditated, i didn't get up that morning planning to kill someone today, intent also matters as my intent was to protect my own life, not take another, if i shoot the attacker and he dies, him dying wasn't my primary goal.</quote> That's not even how self defense laws work. To successfully claim self defense, you need to demonstrate that you reasonably believed you were in sufficient danger that the only way to protect yourself was to use lethal force. You have to justify killing the person, not simply demonstrate that you didn't plan to kill them (and, in fact, if you're in a situation where you need to kill somebody to protect yourself, you should plan to kill them). It's not a case of saying "I didn't mean to kill them," it's a matter of demonstrating that killing them was the lesser of two evils. That, in turn, means you're identifying a situation in which killing somebody isn't as bad as the alternative, and in turn, that means you're considering just how bad it is to kill somebody (so you can compare it). So keep going. Assess how bad it is to kill somebody and why it's so bad, and explain your opinions on the matter to me. Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Posts like these are only valid if they're arguing from a pro-life stance.</quote> It's still accurate, it's just a whole lot less deplorable for somebody with no uterus to say "just let women decide what to do with their uteruses" than for somebody with no uterus to say "I want to dictate what women do with their uteruses." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#105	Post #105 was unavailable or deleted.
Conner4REAL 09/13/21 2:00:11 PM #106:	deputizing private citizens to do something states are prohibited From doing by the constitution to get around judicial review is not something that the United States as a country would want as a precedent. free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to vote all of it out the window if that precedent is set. unfortunately the initial challenge to the court lacked proper standing but it is beyond extremely unlikely that the law will stand as it on its face is using citizens as agents of the government to do what the government cant. just like a police department cant hire a private detective to break into a private citizens home to get around an illegal search the government meant cant authorize a new right of action solely to get around the constitution. --- "I pet my dog I don't eat it" ~ Lemone <cite>Conner4REAL posted [p:958014434] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>deputizing private citizens to do something states are prohibited From doing by the constitution to get around judicial review is not something that the United States as a country would want as a precedent. free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to vote all of it out the window if that precedent is set. unfortunately the initial challenge to the court lacked proper standing but it is beyond extremely unlikely that the law will stand as it on its face is using citizens as agents of the government to do what the government cant. just like a police department cant hire a private detective to break into a private citizens home to get around an illegal search the government meant cant authorize a new right of action solely to get around the constitution. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/19/21 9:00:10 PM #107:	adjl posted... o clarify, the only thing setting murder apart from any other instance of killing a human is it being unlawful. Premeditation is not required (except for first-degree murder, since that's how it's defined). In a discussion about when it should/shouldn't be lawful to kill a human, however, setting certain instances apart because they're currently illegal doesn't mean anything ("It should be illegal because it is illegal"). To that end, the term "murder" should either be avoided entirely in this discussion or treated as being freely interchangeable with "killing a human," regardless of how justifiable that killing is. no, murder is different from killing, i explained the difference. why are you talking legality? you are making the claim that it is murder in texas because that is the law in texas, i agree. @Zangulus but what's your point? except ad hom adjl posted... That's not even how self defense laws work. To successfully claim self defense, you need to demonstrate that you reasonably believed you were in sufficient danger that the only way to protect yourself was to use lethal force. You have to justify killing the person, not simply demonstrate that you didn't plan to kill them (and, in fact, if you're in a situation where you need to kill somebody to protect yourself, you should plan to kill them). It's not a case of saying "I didn't mean to kill them," it's a matter of demonstrating that killing them was the lesser of two evils. That, in turn, means you're identifying a situation in which killing somebody isn't as bad as the alternative, and in turn, that means you're considering just how bad it is to kill somebody (so you can compare it). So keep going. Assess how bad it is to kill somebody and why it's so bad, and explain your opinions on the matter to me. no, murder is different from killing, as it is a very specific killing which holds the qualities i specified above. why are you talking legality? aren't you currently arguing against the law? you just made the point that it is murder in texas because texas deems it murder why would i explain how self defense works? it's pretty obvious, abortion isn't self defense @Zangulus but what's your point, other than ad hom --- I stand with Israel. #FightAntisemitism <cite>Wanded posted [p:958216679] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>o clarify, the only thing setting murder apart from any other instance of killing a human is it being unlawful. Premeditation is not required (except for first-degree murder, since that's how it's defined). In a discussion about when it should/shouldn't be lawful to kill a human, however, setting certain instances apart because they're currently illegal doesn't mean anything ("It should be illegal because it is illegal"). To that end, the term "murder" should either be avoided entirely in this discussion or treated as being freely interchangeable with "killing a human," regardless of how justifiable that killing is.</quote>no, murder is different from killing, i explained the difference. why are you talking legality? you are making the claim that it is murder in texas because that is the law in texas, i agree. @Zangulus but what's your point? except ad hom adjl posted... </cite> <quote>That's not even how self defense laws work. To successfully claim self defense, you need to demonstrate that you reasonably believed you were in sufficient danger that the only way to protect yourself was to use lethal force. You have to justify killing the person, not simply demonstrate that you didn't plan to kill them (and, in fact, if you're in a situation where you need to kill somebody to protect yourself, you should plan to kill them). It's not a case of saying "I didn't mean to kill them," it's a matter of demonstrating that killing them was the lesser of two evils. That, in turn, means you're identifying a situation in which killing somebody isn't as bad as the alternative, and in turn, that means you're considering just how bad it is to kill somebody (so you can compare it). So keep going. Assess how bad it is to kill somebody and why it's so bad, and explain your opinions on the matter to me.</quote>no, murder is different from killing, as it is a very specific killing which holds the qualities i specified above. why are you talking legality? aren't you currently arguing against the law? you just made the point that it is murder in texas because texas deems it murder why would i explain how self defense works? it's pretty obvious, abortion isn't self defense @Zangulus but what's your point, other than ad hom </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 09/19/21 10:10:43 PM #108:	Wanded posted... no, murder is different from killing, i explained the difference. why are you talking legality? Because the difference between murder and any other form of killing is its legality. By definition, murder is an unlawful killing, and lawful killings are not murder. In discussing what should be legal/illegal, bringing murder into the discussion is basically saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal," which is a semantically null argument and should therefore be avoided. Wanded posted... why would i explain how self defense works? it's pretty obvious, abortion isn't self defense Depends how you want to frame it. How likely does one's death have to be before they can justify killing in self-defense? Is killing to prevent theft justifiable as self-defense (note that, regardless of your personal opinion, Texas' Stand Your Ground law says yes)? If so, is there a minimum amount of wealth that must be lost for that justification? You seem to be very aggressively resisting any efforts to encourage you to think about this at all. Why is that? Are you afraid that actually putting thought into the matter might change your mind? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958218462] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>no, murder is different from killing, i explained the difference. why are you talking legality?</quote> Because the difference between murder and any other form of killing is its legality. By definition, murder is an unlawful killing, and lawful killings are not murder. In discussing what should be legal/illegal, bringing murder into the discussion is basically saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal," which is a semantically null argument and should therefore be avoided. Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>why would i explain how self defense works? it's pretty obvious, abortion isn't self defense</quote> Depends how you want to frame it. How likely does one's death have to be before they can justify killing in self-defense? Is killing to prevent theft justifiable as self-defense (note that, regardless of your personal opinion, Texas' Stand Your Ground law says yes)? If so, is there a minimum amount of wealth that must be lost for that justification? You seem to be very aggressively resisting any efforts to encourage you to think about this at all. Why is that? Are you afraid that actually putting thought into the matter might change your mind? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/20/21 10:18:39 AM #109:	Abortion can't be murder anyway. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:958229057] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Abortion can't be murder anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/25/21 1:32:08 AM #110:	adjl posted... Because the difference between murder and any other form of killing is its legality. By definition, murder is an unlawful killing, and lawful killings are not murder. In discussing what should be legal/illegal, bringing murder into the discussion is basically saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal," which is a semantically null argument and should therefore be avoided. Depends how you want to frame it. How likely does one's death have to be before they can justify killing in self-defense? Is killing to prevent theft justifiable as self-defense (note that, regardless of your personal opinion, Texas' Stand Your Ground law says yes)? If so, is there a minimum amount of wealth that must be lost for that justification? You seem to be very aggressively resisting any efforts to encourage you to think about this at all. Why is that? Are you afraid that actually putting thought into the matter might change your mind? murder had a definition for 3000 years before the legal system of the US or dictionaries existed, which is what i described, it is murder in its non legal sense. but sure, the nazis didn't murder jews and black people because they killed them legally with the laws they made, the nazis didn't murder anyone, you have fun being on that side, i'll stay on the other side of this claim thank you very much. --- I stand with Israel. #FightAntisemitism <cite>Wanded posted [p:958392747] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote> adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Because the difference between murder and any other form of killing is its legality. By definition, murder is an unlawful killing, and lawful killings are not murder. In discussing what should be legal/illegal, bringing murder into the discussion is basically saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal," which is a semantically null argument and should therefore be avoided. Depends how you want to frame it. How likely does one's death have to be before they can justify killing in self-defense? Is killing to prevent theft justifiable as self-defense (note that, regardless of your personal opinion, Texas' Stand Your Ground law says yes)? If so, is there a minimum amount of wealth that must be lost for that justification? You seem to be very aggressively resisting any efforts to encourage you to think about this at all. Why is that? Are you afraid that actually putting thought into the matter might change your mind?</quote>murder had a definition for 3000 years before the legal system of the US or dictionaries existed, which is what i described, it is murder in its non legal sense. but sure, the nazis didn't murder jews and black people because they killed them legally with the laws they made, the nazis didn't murder anyone, you have fun being on that side, i'll stay on the other side of this claim thank you very much. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/25/21 8:39:41 AM #111:	Wanded posted... *murder had a definition for 3000 years before the legal system of the US or dictionaries* existed,** which is what i described, it is murder in its non legal sense. but sure, the nazis didn't murder jews and black people because they killed them legally with the laws they made, the nazis didn't murder anyone, you have fun being on that side, i'll stay on the other side of this claim thank you very much. Where? Also the italicized is an oxymoron. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:958397358] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote> murder had a definition for 3000 years before the legal system of the US or dictionaries existed, which is what i described, it is murder in its non legal sense. but sure, the nazis didn't murder jews and black people because they killed them legally with the laws they made, the nazis didn't murder anyone, you have fun being on that side, i'll stay on the other side of this claim thank you very much. </quote> Where? Also the italicized is an oxymoron.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 09/25/21 8:48:38 AM #112:	Wanded posted... murder had a definition for 3000 years before the legal system of the US or dictionaries existed, which is what i described, it is murder in its non legal sense. but sure, the nazis didn't murder jews and black people because they killed them legally with the laws they made, the nazis didn't murder anyone, you have fun being on that side, i'll stay on the other side of this claim thank you very much. An interesting approach. How are we defining "murder," then? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958397480] in Do you sup... [t:79644753]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>murder had a definition for 3000 years before the legal system of the US or dictionaries existed, which is what i described, it is murder in its non legal sense. but sure, the nazis didn't murder jews and black people because they killed them legally with the laws they made, the nazis didn't murder anyone, you have fun being on that side, i'll stay on the other side of this claim thank you very much.</quote> An interesting approach. How are we defining "murder," then? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#113	Post #113 was unavailable or deleted.
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Poll of the Day > Do you support texas's new fetal heartbeat abortion law ? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Do you support texas's new fetal heartbeat abortion law ?