|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:45 am
lymelady Hmm. I've wanted to go to a con for awhile, just to see what it's like. People say it's fun! Don't do sugar. Sugar is bad. It gives you hangovers. Andy, goshdarn you, now I'm thinking about Iraq and wondering why the hell no one cared when Clinton insisted the inspectors go in everywhere but when Bush did it, all hell broke loose. Anyone watch southpark? I saw this episode where Cartman's mother goes to Unplanned Parenthood to get an abortion and he's like, how long ago was conception, and she's like, "8 years," and he's like, that's illegal, so she says, "Well I think they should keep their laws off my body!" The best thing about sugar hangovers, though, is that when you go to bed and wake up, as long as you've had dinner, it goes away or at least fades a lot. Poor wine-drinkers don't have that luck. gonk
And yes I've seen it! That was really good, but the whale thing with Peta was better... rofl
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Willzyx
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 12:16 pm
Ohhhh whee I'm having so much fun being an a*****e in the pro-choice guild. Although I shouldn't be saying this here, I really don't care.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 12:23 pm
divineseraph I.Am ...But there has to be something beyond the stars, or there has to be a barrier of some sort, because otherwise it would be possible for a starship of some sort to travel out there, and for it to be able to travel out there, there must be spacetime material there! Not to mention that, given the universe is expanding, even the stars themselves keep pushing out! So, unless some sort of normal material is being drained out of our/other dimensions to create new spacetime every time the universe expands, there must already be spacetime material there! well, not neccesairly. though it is true, matter cannot be created or destroyed by normal means ( i believe that is, more or less, word for word what the theory of conservation of matter/energy), the force that created the universe is hardly "normal means". and there isn't a barrier- it could very well be the loop system that you talked about- you keep going, and eventually you end up where you started. but, like a racetrack, it can still be measured. and the fact that it can be measured means that there is an end, and with every end there must be nothing- it is what makes an end an end, otherwise it would simply be an interruption. I never said anything about a loop, and I was arguing against the only format in which our argument was arguable; That the universe is not in any specific shape, and just keeps getting bigger. Obviously, if there is a circumstance like the universe being on the surface of some 4 dimensional ball, then there would be no argument; After the stars would be... The other stars. There'd be no end. As for "the Force that created the universe," as I said before, Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is often the correct one. There's no reason to bring religion into it. When I argue science like this, I pretend that God doesn't exist for the sake of it because He is... Too complicated. If I am to use God in science, it's too easy to call out, "Divine intervention!" "God threw that lightning, God makes the plants grow, God makes the rain come!" Sure, God is responsible for all of that. But He uses scientific proxies to cause all that to happen; The lightning strikes because of an inbalance in negatively and positively charged atoms in the clouds and the earth or more clouds. Plants grow because they gain the nutrients they need and go through a process called photosynthesis. The rain comes because there is so much water vapor in the clouds that it reaches the dew point, or something like that. But the point is, even though God is responsible for everything, there is also always a scientific and rational explanation for it. So saying, "God just creates matter and energy as He goes along," doesn't work for me.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 12:50 pm
Master Kaiser Ohhhh whee I'm having so much fun being an a*****e in the pro-choice guild. Although I shouldn't be saying this here, I really don't care. Some of us really have no idea what it is you are talking about neutral PM?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 3:01 pm
Check the pro-choice guild.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:05 pm
Master Kaiser Check the pro-choice guild. That is a lot of hatred... I can only imagine what would happen if flaming didn't get people banned on this site. o.o;
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:18 pm
Can I please call them antis? Please? Pretty please?
Actually, though, I don't want to be allowed to call them antis, because it just creates... Troubles. But still. I really want to call them anti right now. sweatdrop Because if we are anti-choice, they are anti-life. That is to say, we are as much anti-life as we are anti-choice. In fact, they are -more- anti-life, because they support the killing, because no matter how you slice it they are supporting the snuffing out of lives. We support making abortion illegal, we aren't trying to force people to not have abortions. They still have that choice. They'll just be punished for it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:31 pm
You know, I've always had to look at it this way when I'm called a 'woman opressor.' Who has more at stake if their side is wrong? If we're wrong, then we've been tryin to opress woman since before RvW. And we have...what...like 200 murders on our hands? Even though we already do it would have more of an effect if we're wrong.
If they're wrong, then they have the blood of well over 40 million innocent children, and the blood of thousands of women on their hands.
So, who has more to lose in this controversy?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:35 pm
In news that makes me happier, some of them are sporting banners that are obviously mocking, badly I may add, my "Pro-Life Gaians: Because life has value" banner. ^_^ Which, in turn, is satire of their "Pro-Choice Gaians: We care. We abort." banner. It makes me want to satire the satire of my satire of their banner. We could just go back and forth forever! In fact, I've already got a script: Quote: 'Pro-Choice': We support your choice as long as it's to abort. Especially if you are black , or some other race that needs weeding out. Or if the fetus is going to be deformed , because people with down syndrome don't deserve to live. Or if you are just trying to recreate the Aryan race avoid stretch lines. Damn, that's not exactly a flattering reason to get an abortion either, is it? -PLG: Seek the Truth For reference, the banner I'm reffering to is:  Because, you know, we totally support the abortion of any non-white babies.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:53 pm
Yeah. When I saw that, I was going, "Huh? Is that macking fun of us?" Hmmm, I suppose they're not above poorly thought out propaganda.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:59 pm
I wonder if she even realises the falacy of that signature? I honostly can't imagine how many times I've seen some one use the harliquine fetus, and then some one say "yes, even that life matters."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 8:35 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle I wonder if she even realises the falacy of that signature? I honostly can't imagine how many times I've seen some one use the harliquine fetus, and then some one say "yes, even that life matters." Yeah. That's something that really annoys me. I mean, we have far more room to claim that they are racist, and are supporting only healthy white babies. The founder of PP was a Eugenist, who whole-heartedly supported black people and any other race she disliked getting abortions for the express purpose of weeding them out. Whereas on out side, they claim that we are only supporting healthy white children, because we support adoption as an alternative. ...Hold on, I don't quite see the connection there. Because we want all babies to live... We only support the white ones. Yeah. That's totally the way of it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 8:54 pm
I.Am Pyrotechnic Oracle I wonder if she even realises the falacy of that signature? I honostly can't imagine how many times I've seen some one use the harliquine fetus, and then some one say "yes, even that life matters." Yeah. That's something that really annoys me. I mean, we have far more room to claim that they are racist, and are supporting only healthy white babies. The founder of PP was a Eugenist, who whole-heartedly supported black people and any other race she disliked getting abortions for the express purpose of weeding them out. Whereas on out side, they claim that we are only supporting healthy white children, because we support adoption as an alternative. ...Hold on, I don't quite see the connection there. Because we want all babies to live... We only support the white ones. Yeah. That's totally the way of it. I made the banner you wrote those lines for, just to see what it would look like, but I'm not sure if I should post it here or they'll go crazy like they did with the "Our women are hotter than yours" sig you made.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 9:40 pm
I think some of them are confused, they seem to mix up zygote and fetuses.
Zyoget- cells, nothing but cells at the moment
Fetus-cells, muscles,organs,ect...a little bit more then just a blob of cells.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:38 am
Wow I actually got this place back on track. No really she was always just snippy at me and I decided to give her a punch in the face.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|