take a fucking hint, damn. youre like a child wandering into a room.

Actually I've been thinking the same thing about you, now fuck off queer..

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

She is what she is and she is here taking all the abuse that can be heaped upon her. I think that she feels that if she is debased and demeaned to some degree (determined by her) she can expiate her own guilt associated with the death of a child.

Short on time but I will get to your last post before days end I hope.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

palerider and I are even ganging up on you! you've manage to make yourself a common enemy.
i guess that this is proof that no matter what you believe to be true, some people are always fucking morons, right pale? even people with differing opinions can see lexi isnt substantive

WOW!! You and Palerider,you two make a nice pair...LOL
A common enemy, I love that, makes my day!!

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

An idiot is an idiot no matter which position they take. I can't remember the last time that lexi had anything even remotely intelligent to say. She did once post a link to a web site put up by a computer repairman (or something like that) named elroy who posted his opinions on abortion and she claimed that good ole elroy represented credible science. I suppose because he seemed so smart to her.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

[quote=PaleRider;379899]An idiot is an idiot no matter which position they take. I can't remember the last time that lexi had anything even remotely intelligent to say. .[/QUOTE

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

Nope. There is reality. No matter how many ways any number of people may percieve a thing, there is the reality of what it actually is.

By definition, a false dichotomy must have more than two options. In this case, however, it isn't even that because the evidence clearly supports one of the choices.

No matter how they thought of them, little boys thighs were, in reality, still little boys thighs.

I ski and I have a few words for snow as well, but my descriptions (hard pack, powder, corn, slush, loose or wet granular, etc.) are just words. The snow is what it is no matter what I, or anyone else calls it.

And darwin isn't science.

Black is a word for a color, (or lack of color) or condition that lacks hue and brightness and does not reflect any of the spectral colors. No matter what word you use to describe it, and how many other people you get to use the word with you, the reality of a color or condition that lacks hue and brightness and does not reflect any of the spectral colors exists and remains the same whatever name you give it. It is what it is no matter what you call it.

You are confusing the word with the reality. If you call black white, the name does not change the reality of a condition or color that lacks hue and brightness and reflects no spectral color. The word is irrelavent to what actually is. The same with unborns. No matter what you care to call them, they are what they are and even if you could get everyone in the whole world to call them by the same name, they would still be what they are just like the condition or color that lacks hue and brightness and reflects no spectral color is still going to exist no matter what you call it.


Of course there is. I expained it above. No matter what you call the condition or color that has no hue and no brightness and does not reflect spectral color, it still exists. You will percieve it the same no matter what it is called because it is what it is. If you call it white, it will remain a condition of no color with no hue and no brightness and it will continue to not reflect spectral color.


No, you proved that you can call a thing by a different name and maybe get other people to join you in calling it a different name, but no matter how many people you get to join you in calling the thing by a different name the thing remains the same no matter what you call it.

Sure we kill them all the time when we are crop dusting but we can not have a meaningful discussion of whether or not it is good to kill them unless we know what bugs are being killed.

For example, you may dust a field with an insecticide that kills all of the bugs in the field and your crop may or may not do ok. If you examine which bugs are killed (bugs being things that are not mammals, birds, reptiles, etc.) you may find that had you examined your field and hashed out what was to be killed before you did it, you might find that you have a healthy population of lady bugs or any number of other beneficial insects that might allow you to use a less potent, less expensive insecticide that also would not kill the beneficial bacteria and nemotodes in the soil which under the same conditions would certainly increase the yield of your crop.

To you, cropdusting may look like indescriminate killing of bugs but that is only your interpretation of reality. The fact is that a great deal of research goes into which bugs are present in any given field, what is being sprayed, and what is being killed and which bugs are beneficial and which are detremental and which insecticide will do the least harm. Meaningful discussions are had to determine what to kill and what not to kill and what sprays are going to do the job. Indiscriminate killing of the bugs in your field may do far more harm to your crop than killing no bugs at all. A rational discussion must take place about what is being killed in order to determine a rational course of action.

Maybe and maybe not. Why not simply conceed it if it would not make the pro choice argument more difficult to make? Why engage in an illusion if an illusion is not necessary?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

The pro choice arguement is what? That women have first and final say concerning their bodies. Remember "Mothers by Choice"? Pro-life's adament claim for guilt after the fact, is a moral suggestion, by them. They dearly wished it had stuck, but it didn't. Us pro choicers will muddle along guilt-free. Yes, we are as rational as you are irrational, Pale.

Good show, both of you.