Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on November 30, 2016, 01:02:23 PM

Title: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 30, 2016, 01:02:23 PM
Because this sounds exactly like some of the claims I hear from pro-abortion friends on this board.

Quote
The same people who will lecture you about science eight days a week inexplicably embrace pre-modern superstitious notions of “ensoulment” and work up some fine angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin material about “personhood,” the legal construction one uses when one is trying one’s best not to notice that what happens in an abortion is killing and that what is killed is a distinct and individual human being.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442562/texas-fetal-burial-rule-abortion-remains-cremation-greg-abbott

I've had this conversation a number of times, with those who say a child is not a person at a certain stage of development, because we don't know if it's been "ensouled." I've never understood the view that a soul is something that comes along later, instead of just being there from conception. And since we can't prove anyone has a soul at any time, I don't know how children are the only ones we can kill, if they can't produce a soul card. (Come to think of it, they say that about gingers, too, but of course we all agree with that.)
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: MechAg94 on November 30, 2016, 03:42:09 PM
I hadn't heard about this new rule in Texas.  Sounds like a good rule.  I thought all medical waste was supposed to be incinerated. 

He mentioned the Feast of the Holy Innocents at the end.  I have never heard of that in my entire life.  Must be Catholic or something. 
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: RevDisk on November 30, 2016, 03:44:53 PM

If given the choice between discussing this subject and being shot in the head, I'd be very sorely tempted to choose to shake hands with Harambe.
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: MillCreek on November 30, 2016, 04:02:41 PM
If given the choice between discussing this subject and being shot in the head, I'd be very sorely tempted to choose to shake hands with Harambe.


Would you prefer that we bury, cremate or put you in a red biohazard bag?
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: makattak on November 30, 2016, 04:06:29 PM
If given the choice between discussing this subject and being shot in the head, I'd be very sorely tempted to choose to shake hands with Harambe.


...He says as he posts in the topic, anyway.
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: cordex on November 30, 2016, 04:15:40 PM
...He says as he posts in the topic, anyway.
Well, the choice was apparently between eating the gun and posting, so I'm kind of glad he made that call.
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: 230RN on November 30, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
I have two ten-foot poles which have convenient sockets to mate the two to form a twenty foot pole.

Terry said, "posting in this topic anyhow."  :facepalm:

Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 30, 2016, 04:16:14 PM
...He says as he posts in the topic, anyway.

At what point did his post become an actual comment? Did what he said count as a comment on the topic, or is it merely a potential comment?
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: RevDisk on November 30, 2016, 04:31:59 PM
Would you prefer that we bury, cremate or put you in a red biohazard bag?

Biohazard bag, obviously. Medical waste incineration is an excellent means of disposing of so many things.

Load the casket with sandbags plus a single innocuous object or cryptic message, to really confuse people.


At what point did his post become an actual comment? Did what he said count as a comment on the topic, or is it merely a potential comment?

Metacomment, of course. A comment about comments.
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: Unisaw on November 30, 2016, 04:32:40 PM
At what point did his post become an actual comment? Did what he said count as a comment on the topic, or is it merely a potential comment?

It's just a cluster of words...
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 30, 2016, 05:19:19 PM
Fight for your right to irony: Beastie Boy finds ‘cruelty-free’ vegan way to support Planned Parenthood  (http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/11/30/fight-for-your-right-to-irony-beastie-boy-finds-cruelty-free-vegan-way-to-support-planned-parenthood/)

Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: Fly320s on November 30, 2016, 05:23:40 PM
At what point did his post become an actual comment? Did what he said count as a comment on the topic, or is it merely a potential comment?

It became a comment at conception.  Conception is defined as the moment the comment is published to the board.
Title: Re: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: roo_ster on November 30, 2016, 07:17:20 PM
It became a comment at conception.  Conception is defined as the moment the comment is published to the board.
Indeed.  Pregnant with meaning.

As for the op, logics got nothing to do with it.  The obese still want their fritos, the smokers still want their tobaccy, and the hedonists still want their thrillies.  And all want them consequence free.  But only the hedonists have the backing of the cult marxists so they get the most support and sympathy from the usual cult marx quarters.
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: MechAg94 on November 30, 2016, 10:43:39 PM
Would you prefer that we bury, cremate or put you in a red biohazard bag?
No, he wants his body cut up and sold.
Title: Re: Who's been talking to National Review?
Post by: bedlamite on December 01, 2016, 12:38:57 AM
Biohazard bag, obviously. Medical waste incineration is an excellent means of disposing of so many things.

Load the casket with sandbags plus a single innocuous object or cryptic message, to really confuse people.


Metacomment, of course. A comment about comments.

*and*


works better.