CreateDebate


Pirateelfdog's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Pirateelfdog's arguments, looking across every debate.

I feel fine when my kids are in dressing rooms with other kids of the same sex. I use my brain when it comes to such matters.

When you say you 'use your brain' do you mean that you're going on your instinctual reactions or that you have a logical explanation for why it's okay to send your sons and daughters to use bathrooms with people who are potentially attracted to them but only if those people are the same gender.

And no, I'm not saying you should fear gay people as being criminals, not any more than you should fear straight people. Which is why all this concern over bathroom usage is silly.

How do you feel about your daughter changing in locker rooms with gay women? Or your son going to the bathroom in the same place as gay men?

Curious, and a bit of a tangent—why is that 'attention' argument necessarily a bad thing? If you feel uncomfortable with how you exist in society and feel that aren't getting enough attention from the people in your life to help deal with those issues, why does that mean that those people deserve spite?

Wait, you think it's obvious that an 'all powerful and omnipotent being' doesn't need a creator, but you think literally everything you see has no way to exist without one. Why is the most complex thing imaginable excluded from your rule?

What on earth makes this an American debate site?

pirateelfdog(2655) Clarified
1 point

As I have already explained, we know enough to conclude the state of an organism's Nervous System is inextricably bound to ones consciousness/sentience or lack thereof

Can you explain a little more? How do 'we' know this?

2) Subjectivity (or lack thereof) is the relevant factor

Debating is often about trying to convince others of why your subjective viewpoint is the right one. And on a potentially life and death issue like this one where you're arguing that it's okay to abort a fetus at 8 or 12 weeks but not at 20, backing up that subjectivity with some arguments is kinda necessary.

Okay, tell me two things:

1) How are you defining consciousness?

2) Why is something having consciousness linked with it being moral/should be legal to destroy that’s something?

Note, there is no "hard line" for when possible conciousness of the fetus begins, which is why I am coming down on the side of cautIon (early on)

But why come down early on post conception? I don't see why this logic can't be extended earlier in the process. When a man mastrubates, those sperm aren't seeking an egg, and thus potential life ends. When a woman has her period, she's failed to get pregnant and thus a potential life has ended.

I've made it clear the distinction between the GOP and the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party supports all abortions, and the GOP does not. The Democrat Party has forced tax payers to pay for abortions through medicaid, etc.

Oh, there's no doubt that the Democratic party supports legal access to abortion and the Republican party does not.

And yet, you constantly specify 'late term' in all of your rhetoric, which is why I bring it up. If that's not what you're actually arguing or it's inconsistent with how you feel about what abortions are and when life begins, then, to use your favorite word, you're being deceptive.

Well, at the early stages, it is just a clump of particles that doesn't resemble life. In the later stages though, it is already developing, and therefore, could be classified as life.

The process of 'life developing' arguably begins long before conception.

. Note, the argument for early term abortions being acceptable is more along the lines that a new conscious life form has yet to enter the world rather then it feels no pain

Wait, says who? How do you know that a 'new conscious life form' enters the world at some point in the first 8-12 weeks? And why is consciousness what makes something alive? Why is a 12 week old fetus conscious and alive and a 4 week old baby or a sperm or egg aren't? This way of arguing for abortions really doesn't make a lot of sense for me.

It's a human life no matter which stage, but i am saying those who only support 1st trimester abortions are a tiny bit less inhumane than the No Restriction Democrat party. They care about the pain and viability.

You see, when you say here that it's just a 'tiny bit less inhumane,' that doesn't quite match up with you saying that you use this example to show the extremism of the democratic party.

It really seems like you're arguing that a late term abortion is notably worse and more extreme than an early term abortion. Which implies that a baby further along in development has a different level of importance and 'alive'ness.

People who support early term abortions have a little more humanity then the Democrat Party because they want to make sure the baby never feels pain, or could survive on it's own after 20 weeks.

Following that logic, that seems horribly inhumane to me. Is it okay to kill someone if you give them anesthetic first so they can't feel pain? Or if they're on life support?

How come? What is it that makes an early term abortion okay that goes away after a few months?

Who cares what exists out in this messed up world.

The people who live in this messed up world care about what's in it! Which is why we have a school system! To teach people what exists out in this messed up world!

Also you say you're not here to judge, but I said that 'gay people, people who identify as trans, and sex exist.' Do you honestly think that's what's making the world messed up?

Kids need to learn the basics

Can you define what those basics are?

I guarantee you most Liberals do not want their kids learning about Christianity. Where would it stop? Muslims, buddhists, Jewish. How much time in the day do you think a teacher has to teach our kids the basics?

Do you have any idea how much time kids spend in school? And how long it takes to teach these things? And wait, in an ideal world, you do want students to be taught Christianity in schools? I thought we're only supposed to teach the basics.

And just so you know, I really think students should learn about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity in school.

What we teach our children as scientific facts can not be changed on the whims of activist political correct groups who want to feel better about themselves.

For example: gay people exist. Sex exists. People who identify as trans exist.

How is that not okay to be present in our schools?

Controversial issues have no place in our public schools

Sorry, but that's total nonsense. You're saying we can't even mention controversial issues in schools?

Would you like to go back to having Christianity taught in schools?

I don't think you should teach the Christian bible as fact, but I have no problem with my children knowing that Christianity exists.

They must shut down and censor such speech when it goes against their political correct humanistic dogma.

Is your argument honestly: "I don't want this content to be taught in schools, therefor when you teach it in schools, I'm being censored"?

Let me ask you this: are you okay with the fact that it’s illegal to have whites only and blacks only bathrooms and amenities? If so, why do you think those situations are different from the anti-discrimination laws the Supreme Court is now considering?

They NEVER show any Gay animals but rather animals who would mount anything when aroused.

What would constitute a 'gay' animal? Also, I'm still confused. What exactly are you trying to prove by this line of questioning? Helping me understand that will help me to answer your questions.

I don't live in the past or what some State supported in the past. If you want to attack Christians, live in the here and now and explain what they are doing today.

Ah yes, the long ago past of 15 years ago. There's no reason why anyone would think that any of the policies from 15 years ago could suggest anything about the way people think today.

I looked into the reasonings of people who support killing other innocent human unborn babies, as much as you looked into those who supported Slavery.

So no then.

I'm sorry, if you're unwilling to even consider why someone might have supported slavery beyond your own assumptions, that's a huge problem. You can't just say "something is wrong, and I don't need to show why."

Yes, I have looked into the reasons of those who supported slavery. And I've also read the Roe v Wade decision. Since it's so repugnant to you, I suggest you read it too.

Roe V Wade never meant it to go as far as the Democrat Party has taken it with No Restriction abortions for any reason up to birth.

I'm still confused by this line of argument. Don't you say life begins at conception, so therefor late term aboritons and early term abortions have the same effect? I know you've said that you're trying to illustrate how 'far gone' the left is in your mind, but you do seem to think that it is far worse to have a late term abortion than an early term one. Is the fetus 'more' human later on?

Do you care about the reasoning of slave traders and why they did what they did, and why politicians kept it legal? Do you think their reasoning could ever convince you that slavery is ok?

Yes, I do care, a lot. And I don't think the reasoning could convince me, but if you are too afraid to even consider what that reasoning is, that's enormously problematic.

Hang on, do you honestly think that mothers who choose to abort Downs Syndrome children do so just because they're 'diverse' from other kids and they're repulsed by them?

Raising a special needs child can cost upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. The fiscal and emotional toll that it takes on a family and child is beyond enormous.

I know that this doesn't excuse for you what you see as murder, but when you say it's happening just because they "fear people being different," you are, to use one of your favorite words, horribly deceptive.

One thing I'd like to reiterate, because I think you skipped over it, but up until 2003, gay sex was still illegal in 14 states in America, and for hundreds of years before that, this 'Christian nation' was totally okay with that. That was less than 15 years ago. Again, even if you don't think it's the case, do you see why gay people might feel like Christians are totally down to "deny them their freedom to have partners" and the like?

.

And we've done this before, and I'm sure you'll breeze over all of this, but you mentioned national geographic so:

2004 National Geographic Article about homosexuality in animals.

2009 Review on homosexuality in animals

Articles not enough for you? Here's a documentary with some footage.

And if you want a compilation of some of these reports with more information so you can go evaluate it for yourself, here you go.

.

I'm also genuinely curious, have you read any of the case of Roe v. Wade? Do you know why the decisions that were made were made? What flaws do you find in the majority opinion? I know that you disagree with the claim that this should ever be okay, but did you ever look in to the legal arguments that made it legal?

They instantly spew out absolute lies of how Christians are homophobic and supposedly hate Gays, and want them to end up in Hell, and judge them for their sin, and want to deny them their freedom to have partners, etc. etc.

Up until 2003, gay sex was still illegal in 14 states in America, and for hundreds of years before that, this 'Christian nation' was totally okay with that. That was less than 15 years ago. Do you see why gay people might be skeptical that those sentiments just disappeared?

THEY LIE AND DISTORT THE FACTS by repeating the same lies of how there are Gay animals in nature. Complete lie. There are no Gay animals in nature but they have spewed the lie so many times, people actually swallow it as fact.

1) What evidence would you need to prove to you that there are gay animals in nature? What do you need to see, and I can do some research and see if it exists.

2) What would that prove, either way?

When Christians and Conservatives speak out against No Restriction abortions, Liberals know that they have no leg to stand on when debating this issue, so what do they do? LIE AND DISTORT THE TRUTH AS ALWAYS!

Amazingly, regardless of what you think democratic legislators and voters want, to say that they truly support access to late term abortions for any reason is deceptive.

No one is trying to legally require you to believe that homosexuality is 'normal' or 'natural.' Unfortunately, your argument that this is the case is not currently convincing enough for lawmakers to make it illegal for gay people to exist in the public world.

Morally, we can have a conversation about why you think gay people should just pretend to not exist and who they are hurting when they do exist in the public world, but you're not making any of those arguments. You're just saying that it's unnatural and abnormal and therefor is the same thing as raping animals and corpses.


1 of 120 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]