RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (350) < ... 333 334 335 336 337 [338] 339 340 341 342 343 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,20:30   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 23 2018,20:25)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 24 2018,01:34)
This insanity speaks for itself.  
Quote

kairosfocus May 23, 2018 at 4:07 pm
AK, doubling down. The above clearly shows that the term you have insisted on by way of using the smear against a man who actually won 300+:0 debates on the merits in order to try to skewer and dismiss what you clearly have been unable to address on the merits was slanderous and accusatory from its beginning. That you have insisted on continuing to use a tainted uncivil term speaks volumes and not in your favour. Secondly, we were not born yesterday; we all know the context for the reference to extraordinary claims, i.e. intent to play Sagan’s version of Cliffordian evidentialism; thus, selective hyperskepticism. So, when you try a transparent attempt to suggest otherwise and impose it by rhetorical fiat, all it shows is doubling down yet again. As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare speaks for itself as to just how destructive it is. You have also made a fairly wide range of further assertions that are ill founded, and you have now simply tried to dismiss due correction. That pattern speaks and not in your favour. The correctives clearly stand and it is further evident that you have no cogent responses on substance, just a grab-bag of radical secularist talking points. You have made yourself into an example of what is going wrong. Zip, zip, zip, curlicue by curlicue, the roots of the branch on which our civilisation sits are being sawed off. If that continues unabated, CRAACK-crash. And with nukes etc in play. KF

Jesus how does he do that and maintain his spot on ranters corner shouting at passersby? Is there an internet equivalent to Benzodiazepine? They're going to have to call the zoo soon to get one of the keepers to go over and shoot a full strength tranquilizer dart into his ass.

Don’t worry. He becomes more lucid.
Quote
AK, you obviously don’t intend to address the first problem with your question: it is self-referential and infinitely regressive, therefore absurd on its face. This is essentially the problem already addressed by BA as clipped in the OP above. oops, you already dismissed that with a drive-by slander that amounts to a declared policy of unresponsiveness to inconvenient evidence and reasoning. That sets up the context in which you have repeatedly failed to deal with what IS feasible. Namely, recognising that infinite regress of warrant and/or grand question-begging are both absurd so we must all build worldviews on finitely remote first plausibles which define our various faith-points. We may then compare difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power across live options. On which, one may hold a particular view responsibly. Once you see that this is something I have actually taught, it may then dawn on you that your question is not just absurd as outlined but it is also reflective of your refusal to actually seriously engage the real people here rather than to set up and knock over prejudice and slander-laden, stereotypical strawman caricatures. When you show a substantial responsiveness, then there can be a basis for some progress. KF

Or, maybe not.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4631
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,20:31   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2018,03:53)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 23 2018,20:08)
Quote (Lethean @ May 23 2018,17:46)
Pretty sure at this point it's become a contest between Phillip and Gordon to see who can most violently drown whatever point they were trying to make in the deepest bathtub full of words, thereby achieving the most "intellectual depth".

Good grief.   ???

But don’t call it a Gish gallop. That would be slanderous.

Yeah, I mean, Duane Gish won over 300 consecutive debates! According to (checks notes)...Duane Gish.

If that's not rock-solid scientific credentials, I just don't know what is!

Won 300 gallops and lost to the great bookmaker in the sky.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 4631
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,20:38   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 24 2018,04:30)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 23 2018,20:25)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 24 2018,01:34)
This insanity speaks for itself.    
Quote

kairosfocus May 23, 2018 at 4:07 pm
AK, doubling down. The above clearly shows that the term you have insisted on by way of using the smear against a man who actually won 300+:0 debates on the merits in order to try to skewer and dismiss what you clearly have been unable to address on the merits was slanderous and accusatory from its beginning. That you have insisted on continuing to use a tainted uncivil term speaks volumes and not in your favour. Secondly, we were not born yesterday; we all know the context for the reference to extraordinary claims, i.e. intent to play Sagan’s version of Cliffordian evidentialism; thus, selective hyperskepticism. So, when you try a transparent attempt to suggest otherwise and impose it by rhetorical fiat, all it shows is doubling down yet again. As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare speaks for itself as to just how destructive it is. You have also made a fairly wide range of further assertions that are ill founded, and you have now simply tried to dismiss due correction. That pattern speaks and not in your favour. The correctives clearly stand and it is further evident that you have no cogent responses on substance, just a grab-bag of radical secularist talking points. You have made yourself into an example of what is going wrong. Zip, zip, zip, curlicue by curlicue, the roots of the branch on which our civilisation sits are being sawed off. If that continues unabated, CRAACK-crash. And with nukes etc in play. KF

Jesus how does he do that and maintain his spot on ranters corner shouting at passersby? Is there an internet equivalent to Benzodiazepine? They're going to have to call the zoo soon to get one of the keepers to go over and shoot a full strength tranquilizer dart into his ass.

Don’t worry. He becomes more lucid.  
Quote
AK, you obviously don’t intend to address the first problem with your question: it is self-referential and infinitely regressive, therefore absurd on its face. This is essentially the problem already addressed by BA as clipped in the OP above. oops, you already dismissed that with a drive-by slander that amounts to a declared policy of unresponsiveness to inconvenient evidence and reasoning. That sets up the context in which you have repeatedly failed to deal with what IS feasible. Namely, recognising that infinite regress of warrant and/or grand question-begging are both absurd so we must all build worldviews on finitely remote first plausibles which define our various faith-points. We may then compare difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power across live options. On which, one may hold a particular view responsibly. Once you see that this is something I have actually taught, it may then dawn on you that your question is not just absurd as outlined but it is also reflective of your refusal to actually seriously engage the real people here rather than to set up and knock over prejudice and slander-laden, stereotypical strawman caricatures. When you show a substantial responsiveness, then there can be a basis for some progress. KF

Or, maybe not.

He seems to be trapped in a projection room full of mirrors.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,20:41   

Quote
As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare


he's like a british alex jones.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,20:52   

Quote
When you show a substantial responsiveness, then there can be a basis for some progress. KF


KF and Progress don't belong in the same sentence. He was a ranting creationist numbnut 20 years ago, 10 years ago, now, and if he's still around in 10 years, he'll be one then too. And biology will continue on, blithely unaware of his jibber-jabber.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,21:10   

Quote
28
Allan KeithMay 23, 2018 at 7:07 pm
KairosFocus,
Quote

AK, you obviously don’t intend to address the first problem with your question:

Are you referring to the question that I had no problem answering?

There is a serious paranoia vibe going on here. What is so hard with the question? All I have asked is whether everything should be open to scrutiny. If you prefer the inverse, are there things that should never be open to scrutiny?

The answer to either is simple. My answer to both is yes and no, respectively. What is so earth shatteringly difficult with answering? Are you expecting a loaded question when I have stated that there isn’t one?

You can either answer with a simple response, or do what you have done so far.
linky

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:02   

Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2018,21:10)
Quote
28
Allan KeithMay 23, 2018 at 7:07 pm
KairosFocus,
Quote

AK, you obviously don’t intend to address the first problem with your question:

Are you referring to the question that I had no problem answering?

There is a serious paranoia vibe going on here. What is so hard with the question? All I have asked is whether everything should be open to scrutiny. If you prefer the inverse, are there things that should never be open to scrutiny?

The answer to either is simple. My answer to both is yes and no, respectively. What is so earth shatteringly difficult with answering? Are you expecting a loaded question when I have stated that there isn’t one?

You can either answer with a simple response, or do what you have done so far.
linky

And mullings’ response:
Quote
Let me put it this way, “everything should be open to scrutiny” refers to itself and cannot pass its own test, imposes an infinite regress and ends in absurdity. It SEEMS to be reasonable but collapses on closer scrutiny, much like the notorious verification principle did sixty years past. Likewise, evolutionary materialism is similarly self-falsifying. No serious answer can be given. Say, yes and that too is subject to scrutiny leading on to the regress. Say a simplistic no and you fall into a rhetorical trap much like in saying no to have you stopped beating your wife yet. In short, the posed implicit dilemma fails and embeds an absurdity.

I guess a simple yes or no is not possible from this tinfoil hat wearing paranoid. I read the question and do not see where the trap is. But Mullings sees any question from someone who disagrees with him as a possible trap. What a sad individual.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1657
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:03   

Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2018,20:41)
Quote
As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare


he's like a british alex jones.

I wonder if Gordo also enjoys a big bowl of chili.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:09   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 23 2018,22:03)
Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2018,20:41)
Quote
As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare


he's like a british alex jones.

I wonder if Gordo also enjoys a big bowl of chili.

I seriously doubt that Gordo is capable of enjoying anything. Sad, when you think about it.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5068
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:18   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 23 2018,21:02)
I guess a simple yes or no is not possible from this tinfoil hat wearing paranoid. I read the question and do not see where the trap is. But Mullings sees any question from someone who disagrees with him as a possible trap. What a sad individual.

He seems to confuse "scrutiny" with "automatic rejection thereof".

  
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:18   

Quote
31
Allan KeithMay 23, 2018 at 8:38 pm
KairosFocus,
Quote

Let me put it this way, “everything should be open to scrutiny” refers to itself and cannot pass its own test, imposes an infinite regress and ends in absurdity.

See, was that so hard? Your view is that some things should never be open to scrutiny. Fine. I accept that. I disagree, but I accept your view.


I'm sure KF is totally going to accept AK's characterization of his views.  :p  :p  :p

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2833
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:21   

He thinks the trap is that, if everything is open to scrutiny, then the idea that everything is open to scrutiny is open to scrutiny.

So if he says yes or no AK will say "AHA! GOT YOU!"

False prophet? Nah... false intellectual, maybe.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2018,22:23   

Quote
As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law,


I almost never read KF, is he talking about gay marriage here?

If so I'm going to laugh my nuts off because fundie wackos enraged about that particular sailed ship brings me Freude at their Schaden.

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2271
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,02:34   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 23 2018,17:34)
This insanity speaks for itself.  
Quote

kairosfocus May 23, 2018 at 4:07 pm
AK, doubling down. The above clearly shows that the term you have insisted on by way of using the smear against a man who actually won 300+:0 debates on the merits in order to try to skewer and dismiss what you clearly have been unable to address on the merits was slanderous and accusatory from its beginning. That you have insisted on continuing to use a tainted uncivil term speaks volumes and not in your favour. Secondly, we were not born yesterday; we all know the context for the reference to extraordinary claims, i.e. intent to play Sagan’s version of Cliffordian evidentialism; thus, selective hyperskepticism. So, when you try a transparent attempt to suggest otherwise and impose it by rhetorical fiat, all it shows is doubling down yet again. As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare speaks for itself as to just how destructive it is. You have also made a fairly wide range of further assertions that are ill founded, and you have now simply tried to dismiss due correction. That pattern speaks and not in your favour. The correctives clearly stand and it is further evident that you have no cogent responses on substance, just a grab-bag of radical secularist talking points. You have made yourself into an example of what is going wrong. Zip, zip, zip, curlicue by curlicue, the roots of the branch on which our civilisation sits are being sawed off. If that continues unabated, CRAACK-crash. And with nukes etc in play. KF

Not so much 'speaks' as 'babbles'.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e..



Posts: 4631
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,07:10   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 24 2018,10:34)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 23 2018,17:34)
This insanity speaks for itself.  
Quote

kairosfocus May 23, 2018 at 4:07 pm
AK, doubling down. The above clearly shows that the term you have insisted on by way of using the smear against a man who actually won 300+:0 debates on the merits in order to try to skewer and dismiss what you clearly have been unable to address on the merits was slanderous and accusatory from its beginning. That you have insisted on continuing to use a tainted uncivil term speaks volumes and not in your favour. Secondly, we were not born yesterday; we all know the context for the reference to extraordinary claims, i.e. intent to play Sagan’s version of Cliffordian evidentialism; thus, selective hyperskepticism. So, when you try a transparent attempt to suggest otherwise and impose it by rhetorical fiat, all it shows is doubling down yet again. As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare speaks for itself as to just how destructive it is. You have also made a fairly wide range of further assertions that are ill founded, and you have now simply tried to dismiss due correction. That pattern speaks and not in your favour. The correctives clearly stand and it is further evident that you have no cogent responses on substance, just a grab-bag of radical secularist talking points. You have made yourself into an example of what is going wrong. Zip, zip, zip, curlicue by curlicue, the roots of the branch on which our civilisation sits are being sawed off. If that continues unabated, CRAACK-crash. And with nukes etc in play. KF

Not so much 'speaks' as 'babbles'.

And towers thereof. Each of the desperate hangers on to ID has their own self projected virtual avatar as a god and thus self worshipped idol. Since theirs is more ongoing than outgoing it should be classified as idle worship of their screen's reflection.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 5068
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,08:08   

Re "Each of the desperate hangers on to ID has their own self projected virtual avatar as a god and thus self worshiped idol."

And idol hands are the devil's workshop.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4631
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,09:02   

Quote (Henry J @ May 24 2018,16:08)
Re "Each of the desperate hangers on to ID has their own self projected virtual avatar as a god and thus self worshiped idol."

And idol hands are the devil's workshop.

Their idle is my idyll.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
JohnW



Posts: 3054
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,11:58   

Quote
If women die during botched illegal abortions that is their choice. They should have thought about it before having unprotected sex.

Killing the unborn is not a solution and has harmed society. It has made us into barbarians. And yes liberals tend to ignore that fact but ignorance is their virtue.

linky - my emphasis.

ET, who is not Joe, and not a barbarian.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,12:06   

Quote (JohnW @ May 24 2018,11:58)
Quote
If women die during botched illegal abortions that is their choice. They should have thought about it before having unprotected sex.

Killing the unborn is not a solution and has harmed society. It has made us into barbarians. And yes liberals tend to ignore that fact but ignorance is their virtue.

linky - my emphasis.

ET, who is not Joe, and not a barbarian.

Barry from the same thread:
Quote
My God man! What you wrote is right up there for everyone to see. What possible purpose is served by telling lies that are so easily demonstrated as such? Watching thoroughly evil lying liars such as Allan pile lie upon lie is astonishing.

Don't beat around the bush Barry. Tell us what you really think.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,14:25   

LackofFocus:
Quote
BA, the problem with the nose-rubbing theory of puppy training is it assumes the puppy can and will associate the behaviour to be avoided with strong enough unpleasant consequences and the alternative with pleasant ones. (Reminds me of trying to keep an overly friendly toy dog out of my lap over the weekend past! Down, L, down! Down L, down! Down L, down! [Hang dog look and a hopeful expression. Repeat. Obviously, but I just want to be petted.) KF

Mullings needs a puppy.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5068
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,17:09   

Well dog gone.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,18:03   

So if you're keeping score at home, standing by and watching women die from lack of health care provision is cool, but Allan Keith is the evilest of men.

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1079
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,20:34   

Quote (stevestory @ May 25 2018,11:03)
So if you're keeping score at home, standing by and watching women die from lack of health care provision is cool, but Allan Keith is the evilest of men.

And there's a lesson from Barry: euphemism bad, hyperbole good!

Gah - bad link, comment 96 on the Trollish errors 2 thread.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,22:12   

Quote (Ptaylor @ May 24 2018,21:34)
Gah - bad link, comment 96 on the Trollish errors 2 thread.

Quote
96
Barry ArringtonMay 24, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Allan King
Quote

What gives you the right or moral authority to prevent others from opting for a different exit?

Let me fix that for you: “What gives you the right or moral authority to prevent others PATIENTS from opting for a different exit HAVING THEIR DOCTORS KILL THEM?”

Uh, I would say the whole “thou shalt not murder” principle. I know A/Mats like you are fuzzy on that. Witness tens of millions who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao. But there ya go.

BTW, the fact that you seem compelled to use euphemisms should set off red flags. I doubt that it will.


yeah, Death with Dignity is just like Stalin and Mao. Barry is Verr Smart Man!!!11

(JohnW put the link above in a tinyurl)

Edited by stevestory on May 24 2018,23:13

   
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,22:14   

Quote


BTW, the fact that you seem compelled to use euphemisms


Like saying "Intelligent Design" when you mean "MAH BIBLE!!11"

   
KevinB



Posts: 383
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,08:18   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 24 2018,14:25)
LackofFocus:  
Quote
BA, the problem with the nose-rubbing theory of puppy training is it assumes the puppy can and will associate the behaviour to be avoided with strong enough unpleasant consequences and the alternative with pleasant ones. (Reminds me of trying to keep an overly friendly toy dog out of my lap over the weekend past! Down, L, down! Down L, down! Down L, down! [Hang dog look and a hopeful expression. Repeat. Obviously, but I just want to be petted.) KF

Mullings needs a puppy.

That might not be kind.

Given "Mr Leathers", he might find himself emulating the young Charles Darwin, and that might lead to embarassment and accusations that he is a closet evolutionist.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,13:33   

In the Correcting Trollish errors, 2 about hyperskepticism, Allan Keith has drawn them into discussions about same sex marriage and abortion. Can objective vs subjective morality be far behind?

  
k.e..



Posts: 4631
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,18:04   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 25 2018,21:33)
In the Correcting Trollish errors, 2 about hyperskepticism, Allan Keith has drawn them into discussions about same sex marriage and abortion. Can objective vs subjective morality be far behind?

Sisyphean déjà vu all over again. I'd like to see them prove their god isn't a lesbian....without using the Bible.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1748
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,19:13   

Quote
KairosFocus,

AK, evidently, it is not registering with you. We have enabled the systematic, institutionalised killing of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb since the 1970’s.


Quote
Allan Keith

Yet the abortion rates are lower than they were at the time of Roe v Wade.

Abortion numbers in the US before it was made legal were as high as 1.2 million per year. Higher than today’s rates. These numbers come from the same source that you frequently use for your abortion numbers. The same source that says that the rates of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies and abortions have declined dramatically over the last couple decades. The same source that says the decline is due to comprehensive sex education and access to birth control. The same source that says that comprehensive sex education and access to birth control have not increased the frequency of risky sexual activity. The same source that says that abortion rates in countries where it is legal are no higher than those in countries where it is illegal.

So, where is this ever increasing holocaust that you keep warning us about? Your own source says that abortion rates are significantly reduced by a combination of sex education and access to birth control, and that the legal status of abortion makes no difference.


Don’t you just hate it when your own source doesn’t support your opinions?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5068
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,19:44   

And if that's in absolute numbers, then as a percentage of population it would have dropped even more?

  
  10498 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (350) < ... 333 334 335 336 337 [338] 339 340 341 342 343 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]