[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Varqanir, if you don’t mind me asking, what do you do for a living?[/quote]
Whoa, there is a non sequitur I wasn’t anticipating.
I am a professional writer, and a sales manager for a corporate security company. I have also been an advertising copywriter, a personal trainer, a soldier and a teacher. If you don’t mind me asking, why do you ask?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Varqanir, if you don’t mind me asking, what do you do for a living?[/quote]
Whoa, there is a non sequitur I wasn’t anticipating.
I am a professional writer, and a sales manager for a corporate security company. I have also been an advertising copywriter, a personal trainer, a soldier and a teacher. If you don’t mind me asking, why do you ask?[/quote]
I was actually wondering if you wrote. Just something I wondered, reading your word-makings. I won’t ask you whether or not you’d mind me asking why you asked me why I asked.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Varqanir, if you don’t mind me asking, what do you do for a living?[/quote]
Whoa, there is a non sequitur I wasn’t anticipating.
I am a professional writer, and a sales manager for a corporate security company. I have also been an advertising copywriter, a personal trainer, a soldier and a teacher. If you don’t mind me asking, why do you ask?[/quote]
I was actually wondering if you wrote. Just something I wondered, reading your word-makings. I won’t ask you whether or not you’d mind me asking why you asked me why I asked.[/quote]
Ha! I’ve actually written quite a bit for this site. I edited some of Thibaudeau, Dan John, Dave Tate’s and other writers’ articles, interviewed Dr Ziegenfuss and Chris Lockwood, and wrote a few variety pieces on the old Random Acts section (“Nation of Sin”, “Ass in a Singapore Sling” and “Lost in Tiger Country” are all mine.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Varqanir, if you don’t mind me asking, what do you do for a living?[/quote]
Whoa, there is a non sequitur I wasn’t anticipating.
I am a professional writer, and a sales manager for a corporate security company. I have also been an advertising copywriter, a personal trainer, a soldier and a teacher. If you don’t mind me asking, why do you ask?[/quote]
I was actually wondering if you wrote. Just something I wondered, reading your word-makings. I won’t ask you whether or not you’d mind me asking why you asked me why I asked.[/quote]
Ha! I’ve actually written quite a bit for this site. I edited some of Thibaudeau, Dan John, Dave Tate’s and other writers’ articles, interviewed Dr Ziegenfuss and Chris Lockwood, and wrote a few variety pieces on the old Random Acts section (“Nation of Sin”, “Ass in a Singapore Sling” and “Lost in Tiger Country” are all mine.[/quote]
You need to hook up with Wendler. He needs a ghost writer/editor like nobody’s business.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Animals don’t commit murder. Killing does not equal murder. Murder is a legal term. It is the unlawful killing of another person. If you want to get picky however and stick with the animal analogy then one could easily say that a lion killing another lion is lawful as it falls under the “law of the jungle.” [/quote]
Yes, however, if we are just animal than murder means nothing to us either.
Everthing I wrote is in resposen to AngryChicken saying we are “just animals.” If we are just animals, then the “law of the jungle,” should also apply to humans.
Yes murder =/= killing
[/quote]
I agree with Angry Chicken wea re the most sophisticated Animal , at least some times [/quote]
So you are okay with me taking my neigbor’s property? [/quote]
No but our local governments are confiscating property all the time in the name of the war on drugs and our federal Gov. is allowing private enterprise to confiscate property in the name of energy .
What is the difference ?
[/quote]
Your statemnet is a bit vague, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
Well, the powers-that-be on this site know how to get in touch with me, and I am ready and willing to do any editing or rewriting that needs doing. I don’t know who edits Jim’s articles, but if Biotest ever requires my services, I will be happy to provide them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, the powers-that-be on this site know how to get in touch with me, and I am ready and willing to do any editing or rewriting that needs doing. I don’t know who edits Jim’s articles, but if Biotest ever requires my services, I will be happy to provide them.
[/quote]
I was just teasing a bit. I have the 5-3-1 e-book and there are lots of good ideas in it, but the editing and flow was abysmal.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Karado, smh_23, Varqanir and angry chicken ALL want to allow innocent people to die for doing nothing other than existing.
[/quote]
Seeing as how I have never typed a single word in support of abortion on this board, I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.
My concern is first and foremost with the truth, and the truth expressed in the study you cited is actually a big hot load of bullshit. Do you agree? Or would you like to address the substance of my rebuttal, rather than calling me a baby killer?[/quote]
The trend or regression line for the past 20 years shows a slow decrease in the amount of PP closing down. Maybe because it is a supply and demand, or funding issues? I believe it is a combination of the two. If unwanted pregnancies are going down then PP’s revenue from abortions will drop meaning not a lot of profit to do the other things. Several State governments are starting to curb funding to organizations that do abortions so PP’s government cheese is going down. Not a lot of money to keep open the clinics. It is not one thing but a lot of things that are attributed to the closing of PP’s.
I agree with you smh teen pregnancies are not the sole causation, but one of many causations.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
lol on the graph fail.
The peak closing of clinics correlates very well with the teen pregnancy drops. You illustrated kneedraggers point to the T.[/quote]
What?
From 1990 to 1996, the number of PP clinics in the United States rose from about 880 to 936. Concurrently, the teen pregnancy rate fell from 120 to 100 (per thousand).
Again, the number of PP clinics rose and fell and rose and fell and this is not reflected in the teen pregnancy rate even slightly.
The study cited in the OP is about as shoddy as this kind of thing can get.[/quote]
Your graph shows the trend of planned parenthood shutting down clinics. As the number of clinics drop, correlationally, aside from a minor bump around 2005, the numbers of teen pregnancies also dropped. Within an acceptable deviation, you are validating the correlation that shows the drop in teen pregnancies. The number of clinics fell overall. What would be curious is the number of clinics that perform abortions, not all planned parenthood clinic kill babies. So it would be more interesting to see the number of planned parenthood abortion clinics number vs. the teen pregnancy rates.
I would not expect a 1:1 correlation, but the drop in planned parenthood clinics correlates with the drop in teen pregnancy rates with an acceptable level of deviation, just by observation. I would expect number of clinics to be on the rise when teen pregnancy rates are rising or peaking which they do.
Both charts show a downward trend.
I don’t think that pp has that much control over what people do, but they do provide enablement. Removing enablers should help people to think twice about their actions.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Animals don’t commit murder. Killing does not equal murder. Murder is a legal term. It is the unlawful killing of another person. If you want to get picky however and stick with the animal analogy then one could easily say that a lion killing another lion is lawful as it falls under the “law of the jungle.” [/quote]
Yes, however, if we are just animal than murder means nothing to us either.
Everthing I wrote is in resposen to AngryChicken saying we are “just animals.” If we are just animals, then the “law of the jungle,” should also apply to humans.
Yes murder =/= killing
[/quote]
I agree with Angry Chicken wea re the most sophisticated Animal , at least some times [/quote]
So you are okay with me taking my neigbor’s property? [/quote]
No but our local governments are confiscating property all the time in the name of the war on drugs and our federal Gov. is allowing private enterprise to confiscate property in the name of energy .
What is the difference ?
[/quote]
Your statemnet is a bit vague, but two wrongs don’t make a right.[/quote]
besides the OP’s intent there are many examples of the Gov. taking private property and worse
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the animal kingdom animals murder each other all the time as well. So should murder be legal?
For example, a male lion will kill another male lion taking his “property”. If the dead lion had cubs he will also murder them.
So, I guess since we are just animals, I can walk into my next door neighbor’s house and murder him and his family, correct? After all, we are just animals.
[/quote]
As the other male lion would you at least try to stop him from killing you? Laws against murder are just another line of defense.[/quote]
Yes, I would defend myself.
How are words on a piece of paper another line of defense?
Me, “Oh God stop stabbing me, murder is agains the law!”
Murderer, “Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that, sorry…”
[/quote]
If there was another group of lions around the lion being considered for attack, do you think the attacker would reconsider his options? Sure he could probably make the kill if he acted fast but whats the point if his life would end shortly after?[/quote]
I’m not understanding your point as it relates to what I wrote to Angry? Angry, said we are just animals. Animals murder each other and take their property all the time. So we too should be able to murder each other and take each other’s properties as well if we are the same, correct?
To answer your question, yes, I think fight or flight applies to the animal kingdom. [/quote]
I don’t think he said they “should be able to murder”, just that they do murder, the same as humans and nothing will change that fact.[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans not special snowflakes, they are animals. And, as in the animal kingdom, there is no guarantee nor “right” to life. [/quote]
This:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Says otehrwise.
Also if you use the above (Liberty) as you argument against abortion. That is, by taking away a woman right to an abortion. How can you ignore all three when it comes to an unborn baby? Isn’t that inconsistent at best?
If we are “just animals,” than the “law of the jungle,” should apply and Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness mean nothing.[/quote]
And why don’t all three of those apply to animals?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, the powers-that-be on this site know how to get in touch with me, and I am ready and willing to do any editing or rewriting that needs doing. I don’t know who edits Jim’s articles, but if Biotest ever requires my services, I will be happy to provide them.
[/quote]
I was just teasing a bit. I have the 5-3-1 e-book and there are lots of good ideas in it, but the editing and flow was abysmal. [/quote]
Not to toot my own horn too much, but go read Thibaudeau’s “How to Design a Damn Good Program”. That’s one I am particularly proud of. Christian complimented me on it himself.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think he said they “should be able to murder”, just that they do murder, the same as humans and nothing will change that fact.
[/quote]
So if people do it anyway, it should be allowed?
People steal all the time, stealing is wrong and against the law. Should stealing be lawful because people do it anyway?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the animal kingdom animals murder each other all the time as well. So should murder be legal?
For example, a male lion will kill another male lion taking his “property”. If the dead lion had cubs he will also murder them.
So, I guess since we are just animals, I can walk into my next door neighbor’s house and murder him and his family, correct? After all, we are just animals.
[/quote]
As the other male lion would you at least try to stop him from killing you? Laws against murder are just another line of defense.[/quote]
Yes, I would defend myself.
How are words on a piece of paper another line of defense?
Me, “Oh God stop stabbing me, murder is agains the law!”
Murderer, “Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that, sorry…”
[/quote]
If there was another group of lions around the lion being considered for attack, do you think the attacker would reconsider his options? Sure he could probably make the kill if he acted fast but whats the point if his life would end shortly after?[/quote]
I’m not understanding your point as it relates to what I wrote to Angry? Angry, said we are just animals. Animals murder each other and take their property all the time. So we too should be able to murder each other and take each other’s properties as well if we are the same, correct?
To answer your question, yes, I think fight or flight applies to the animal kingdom. [/quote]
I don’t think he said they “should be able to murder”, just that they do murder, the same as humans and nothing will change that fact.[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans not special snowflakes, they are animals. And, as in the animal kingdom, there is no guarantee nor “right” to life. [/quote]
This:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Says otehrwise.
Also if you use the above (Liberty) as you argument against abortion. That is, by taking away a woman right to an abortion. How can you ignore all three when it comes to an unborn baby? Isn’t that inconsistent at best?
If we are “just animals,” than the “law of the jungle,” should apply and Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness mean nothing.[/quote]
And why don’t all three of those apply to animals?[/quote]
I don’t know, because they’re animals?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Animals don’t commit murder. Killing does not equal murder. Murder is a legal term. It is the unlawful killing of another person. If you want to get picky however and stick with the animal analogy then one could easily say that a lion killing another lion is lawful as it falls under the “law of the jungle.” [/quote]
Yes, however, if we are just animal than murder means nothing to us either.
Everthing I wrote is in resposen to AngryChicken saying we are “just animals.” If we are just animals, then the “law of the jungle,” should also apply to humans.
Yes murder =/= killing
[/quote]
I agree with Angry Chicken wea re the most sophisticated Animal , at least some times [/quote]
So you are okay with me taking my neigbor’s property? [/quote]
No but our local governments are confiscating property all the time in the name of the war on drugs and our federal Gov. is allowing private enterprise to confiscate property in the name of energy .
What is the difference ?
[/quote]
Your statemnet is a bit vague, but two wrongs don’t make a right.[/quote]
besides the OP’s intent there are many examples of the Gov. taking private property and worse
[/quote]
You don’t need to convince me. In many ways I agree with you. Not all, but many ways.
What I don’t get, and this is way off topic, but how can you be against the gov taking money, but be for an artifical increase in the minimum wage?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Karado, smh_23, Varqanir and angry chicken ALL want to allow innocent people to die for doing nothing other than existing.
[/quote]
Seeing as how I have never typed a single word in support of abortion on this board, I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.
My concern is first and foremost with the truth, and the truth expressed in the study you cited is actually a big hot load of bullshit. Do you agree? Or would you like to address the substance of my rebuttal, rather than calling me a baby killer?[/quote]
The trend or regression line for the past 20 years shows a slow decrease in the amount of PP closing down. Maybe because it is a supply and demand, or funding issues? I believe it is a combination of the two. If unwanted pregnancies are going down then PP’s revenue from abortions will drop meaning not a lot of profit to do the other things. Several State governments are starting to curb funding to organizations that do abortions so PP’s government cheese is going down. Not a lot of money to keep open the clinics. It is not one thing but a lot of things that are attributed to the closing of PP’s.
I agree with you smh teen pregnancies are not the sole causation, but one of many causations.
[/quote]
It’s also possible that closing all of them made the numbers slightly worse than the national average, they handle contraception not just abortions. If you take away abortions its hard to make a case against PP aside from funding.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Karado, smh_23, Varqanir and angry chicken ALL want to allow innocent people to die for doing nothing other than existing.
[/quote]
Seeing as how I have never typed a single word in support of abortion on this board, I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.
My concern is first and foremost with the truth, and the truth expressed in the study you cited is actually a big hot load of bullshit. Do you agree? Or would you like to address the substance of my rebuttal, rather than calling me a baby killer?[/quote]
The trend or regression line for the past 20 years shows a slow decrease in the amount of PP closing down. Maybe because it is a supply and demand, or funding issues? I believe it is a combination of the two. If unwanted pregnancies are going down then PP’s revenue from abortions will drop meaning not a lot of profit to do the other things. Several State governments are starting to curb funding to organizations that do abortions so PP’s government cheese is going down. Not a lot of money to keep open the clinics. It is not one thing but a lot of things that are attributed to the closing of PP’s.
I agree with you smh teen pregnancies are not the sole causation, but one of many causations.
[/quote]
It’s also possible that closing all of them made the numbers slightly worse than the national average, they handle contraception not just abortions. If you take away abortions its hard to make a case against PP aside from funding.[/quote]
The number of clinics dropped as do the number of teen pregnancies, that’s all the charts show. Both show a drop.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the animal kingdom animals murder each other all the time as well. So should murder be legal?
For example, a male lion will kill another male lion taking his “property”. If the dead lion had cubs he will also murder them.
So, I guess since we are just animals, I can walk into my next door neighbor’s house and murder him and his family, correct? After all, we are just animals.
[/quote]
As the other male lion would you at least try to stop him from killing you? Laws against murder are just another line of defense.[/quote]
Yes, I would defend myself.
How are words on a piece of paper another line of defense?
Me, “Oh God stop stabbing me, murder is agains the law!”
Murderer, “Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that, sorry…”
[/quote]
If there was another group of lions around the lion being considered for attack, do you think the attacker would reconsider his options? Sure he could probably make the kill if he acted fast but whats the point if his life would end shortly after?[/quote]
I’m not understanding your point as it relates to what I wrote to Angry? Angry, said we are just animals. Animals murder each other and take their property all the time. So we too should be able to murder each other and take each other’s properties as well if we are the same, correct?
To answer your question, yes, I think fight or flight applies to the animal kingdom. [/quote]
I don’t think he said they “should be able to murder”, just that they do murder, the same as humans and nothing will change that fact.[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans not special snowflakes, they are animals. And, as in the animal kingdom, there is no guarantee nor “right” to life. [/quote]
This:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Says otehrwise.
Also if you use the above (Liberty) as you argument against abortion. That is, by taking away a woman right to an abortion. How can you ignore all three when it comes to an unborn baby? Isn’t that inconsistent at best?
If we are “just animals,” than the “law of the jungle,” should apply and Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness mean nothing.[/quote]
And why don’t all three of those apply to animals?[/quote]
I don’t know, because they’re animals?[/quote]
Well that doesn’t seem fair, I suppose drawing the line somewhere does make it more convenient though.
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the animal kingdom animals murder each other all the time as well. So should murder be legal?
For example, a male lion will kill another male lion taking his “property”. If the dead lion had cubs he will also murder them.
So, I guess since we are just animals, I can walk into my next door neighbor’s house and murder him and his family, correct? After all, we are just animals.
[/quote]
As the other male lion would you at least try to stop him from killing you? Laws against murder are just another line of defense.[/quote]
Yes, I would defend myself.
How are words on a piece of paper another line of defense?
Me, “Oh God stop stabbing me, murder is agains the law!”
Murderer, “Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that, sorry…”
[/quote]
If there was another group of lions around the lion being considered for attack, do you think the attacker would reconsider his options? Sure he could probably make the kill if he acted fast but whats the point if his life would end shortly after?[/quote]
I’m not understanding your point as it relates to what I wrote to Angry? Angry, said we are just animals. Animals murder each other and take their property all the time. So we too should be able to murder each other and take each other’s properties as well if we are the same, correct?
To answer your question, yes, I think fight or flight applies to the animal kingdom. [/quote]
I don’t think he said they “should be able to murder”, just that they do murder, the same as humans and nothing will change that fact.[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans not special snowflakes, they are animals. And, as in the animal kingdom, there is no guarantee nor “right” to life. [/quote]
This:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Says otehrwise.
Also if you use the above (Liberty) as you argument against abortion. That is, by taking away a woman right to an abortion. How can you ignore all three when it comes to an unborn baby? Isn’t that inconsistent at best?
If we are “just animals,” than the “law of the jungle,” should apply and Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness mean nothing.[/quote]
And why don’t all three of those apply to animals?[/quote]
I don’t know, because they’re animals?[/quote]
Whereas we are what? Vegetables or minerals?
All social animals operate within their own rules of behavior. An individual who transgresses the rules of interaction will either be an outcast, shunned by the tribe, or else killed. A lion may have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only because he is ready to enforce it through his own personal prowess against anyone who would presume to deprive him of it.
He can’t appeal to a lion legislature to enact laws to protect his rights, or a lion Supreme Court to interpret the lion constitution in a manner favorable to his situation. In the animal kingdom, the strong do what they will, and the weak endure what they must. This is no different from human society, only we like to tell ourselves that it is not so.