The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.
Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
The people grant the power to the State to exist in the first place. Governments are instituted among men, men aren't instituted among or by governments. People existed prior to governments, and people created governments, not the other way around.Tyrannical wrote:The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.
All just power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony - Monty Python.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Coito ergo sum wrote:The people grant the power to the State to exist in the first place. Governments are instituted among men, men aren't instituted among or by governments. People existed prior to governments, and people created governments, not the other way around.Tyrannical wrote:The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.
All just power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony - Monty Python.

You can argue that woman are personally better off, but how is society as a whole (including women) benefit from this? The growing demographic crisis caused indirectly by women's rights threatens the very fabric that keeps a society together. Interesting that women's rights can be considered good if the end game is societal collapse.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- Seabass
- Posts: 7339
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
- About me: Pluviophile
- Location: Covidiocracy
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Lol. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just out to irritate people? Or did you invent a time machine and travel two centuries forward in time?Tyrannical wrote:What has women's rights really accomplishedhadespussercats wrote:Send 'em out on an ice floe. If we still have ice floes.Tyrannical wrote:Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.hadespussercats wrote:I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.![]()
Inability of a single worker to provide for their family due to labor competition.
Ballooning welfare costs
Destruction of the family unit through divorce and out of wedlock births
Single mother "children" do markedly worse academical and are more anti-social and are thus less able to support a modern society
Demographic childbirth crisis that will doom millions of elderly
Judge the tree by the fruit it bears, giving women the right to vote is the source of much of society's ills.
So who is worse for society: women or blacks?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Society is made up of individuals, and most of those individuals are women. Society is not something different than women.Tyrannical wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:The people grant the power to the State to exist in the first place. Governments are instituted among men, men aren't instituted among or by governments. People existed prior to governments, and people created governments, not the other way around.Tyrannical wrote:The only right granted and enforced by birth is the eventuality of death. All other rights are granted by and enforced by the State.An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.
All just power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony - Monty Python.How you mentioned men.
You can argue that woman are personally better off, but how is society as a whole (including women) benefit from this? The growing demographic crisis caused indirectly by women's rights threatens the very fabric that keeps a society together. Interesting that women's rights can be considered good if the end game is societal collapse.
I challenge your premise that the end game is societal collapse.
- Thumpalumpacus
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
- About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Coito ergo sum wrote:Negative. You display your willingness to infer connections that don't exist.
Coito ergo sum wrote:Wherein you display a willingness to invent anything that satisfies your preconceived notions.
Coito ergo sum wrote:Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. That depends on whether the politician has prepared their words. They sometimes speak off the cuff, and sometimes they don't.
Likewise, Thump. I find your "understanding" to be essentially a lack thereof. You have a conclusion you want to reach, and you decide to "interpret" words to fit that conclusion.
Of course words have connotations and denotations. If you'd follow them, and if you had any desire to even try to know what they were, you'd know you can't logically reach the conclusions you do. What it amounts to is that you ignore the connotations and denotations and simply invent your own meanings and infer your own imagined intents. You're free to do so, of course. But please don't pretend it is some sort of keen insight. It's unbecoming.
And, if you bothered to read the words actually used by people, instead of just inventing things, you'd know that I never suggested or implied that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. In fact, I specifically and expressly stated that there were such attempts. So, what the hell are you even talking about? This is a prime example of what you did in the case of Romney's words - instead of reading and understanding the words actually written, you go off on your own tangent.
Actually, what I just did was prove that you were talking out of your ass. But, sure, hand wave it away. That's your only option at this point.
*yawn*My lack of insight? That's rich.
Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.
Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.
Let me know when you want to have an intelligent discussion. Your refusal to see any point but your own marks you as unworthy of my attention. Go play with Seth, now.
Last edited by Thumpalumpacus on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Keep on babbling. It is what you're good at.
- Thumpalumpacus
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
- About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Oh dear, that hurts my feelings.
Oh, wait, it doesn't. Try again?
Oh, wait, it doesn't. Try again?

these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Blacks obviously. Society can function perfectly well without them.Seabass wrote:
Lol. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just out to irritate people? Or did you invent a time machine and travel two centuries forward in time?
So who is worse for society: women or blacks?
Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Why do you say that?Tyrannical wrote:Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41178
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Are you mad? you mean you want white trash for household help, gardeners and janitors?Tyrannical wrote:Blacks obviously. Society can function perfectly well without them.Seabass wrote:
Lol. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just out to irritate people? Or did you invent a time machine and travel two centuries forward in time?
So who is worse for society: women or blacks?
Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.
Worse than that, you want to destroy the country's athletic potential?
Are you some kind of traitor?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Because the Reconstruction amendments would never have passed after the Civil War, and it required 3/4 of the States to adopt it.Warren Dew wrote:Why do you say that?Tyrannical wrote:Though ironically, if women had the right to vote in the 1860s slavery would never have been outlawed in the US.
White men were largely deprived of their right to vote for taking part in the rebellion, but if women were allowed to vote I don't think those amendments could have passed. And no I don't support slavery, except as punishment for a crime.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- Thumpalumpacus
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
- About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Oh, hey, I almost forgot this discussion.Coito ergo sum wrote:My lack of insight? That's rich.
Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.
Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.
I'm honest enough to change my mind and admit error. Let's see if you're smart enough to cobble together a convincing argument. I'm not holding my breath, because you clearly have preconceptions you're defending.
It's clear to me that one reason you're so upset about my disagreement with you is that it is an implicit attack on what you see as the normal gender roles. Because of that, you cannot concede my point about Romney's choice of words, without re-examining your opinion of the role of women.
It's really funny that you cannot bear the thought of someone not agreeing with you so much that you would attack the character of someone you don't even know. Your willingness to speak about me out of ignorance is not nearly so hurtful as you would like to imagine, because it says much more about you than it does about me.
You have a nice day now, Fred.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
I'll believe it when you admit that you attributed to me something I didn't write. You said I claimed that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. I've clarified many times that I did not hold that position, and that I in fact held the exact opposite position. You've been told this several times, and you've never admitted your error.Thumpalumpacus wrote:Oh, hey, I almost forgot this discussion.Coito ergo sum wrote:My lack of insight? That's rich.
Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.
Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.
I'm honest enough to change my mind and admit error.
I already did. Evidence is that the only way you've had to attack my argument was by creating a straw man.Thumpalumpacus wrote:[
Let's see if you're smart enough to cobble together a convincing argument. I'm not holding my breath, because you clearly have preconceptions you're defending.
That isn't the case at all. I don't believe in normal gender roles.Thumpalumpacus wrote:[
It's clear to me that one reason you're so upset about my disagreement with you is that it is an implicit attack on what you see as the normal gender roles.
I don't need to concede your point. He didn't say what you said he said. His wife is not an "Advisor." And, nothing he said he discussed with his wife requires having a career or even being a woman for her to render a valuable opinion.Thumpalumpacus wrote:[
Because of that, you cannot concede my point about Romney's choice of words, without re-examining your opinion of the role of women.
I haven't attacked your character. Only your argument.Thumpalumpacus wrote:[
It's really funny that you cannot bear the thought of someone not agreeing with you so much that you would attack the character of someone you don't even know.
And, if you look back, you'll find you threw the first rhetorical punch. If you don't like being responded to, then don't take jabs.
Thanks, I'm not speaking to you out of ignorance. You attributed to me an argument I did not make. That's the main thrust of this. And, you also saw fit to take rhetorical jabs at me, and now you cry about being responded to.Thumpalumpacus wrote:[
Your willingness to speak about me out of ignorance is not nearly so hurtful as you would like to imagine, because it says much more about you than it does about me.
You have a nice day now, Fred.
- Thumpalumpacus
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
- About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
- Contact:
Re: Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life
Because you aren't reading what I wrote. I specifically addressed "reproductive rights" not abortion rights, because that is the term Hadespussercat used. Your subsequent narrowing of that to "abortion rights" is not only self-serving, it's also disingenuous, considering your insistence elsewhere on literalism regarding the language. If you are going to chastise me for deriving connotations rather than denotations, you'd damned well better be practicing perfect literalism yourself.Coito ergo sum wrote:I'll believe it when you admit that you attributed to me something I didn't write. You said I claimed that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. I've clarified many times that I did not hold that position, and that I in fact held the exact opposite position. You've been told this several times, and you've never admitted your error.
I have nothing to apologize for; I've addressed the point in the terms laid down by her. You don't like it? Fine. But don't try to artificially narrow the scope in order to accuse me of something.
Nonsense. Is English your primary language? I've addressed your points, or what pass for such.I already did. Evidence is that the only way you've had to attack my argument was by creating a straw man.
This is dubious, but we'll see.That isn't the case at all. I don't believe in normal gender roles.
Once again, you're ignoring the way that language is used.I don't need to concede your point. He didn't say what you said he said. His wife is not an "Advisor." And, nothing he said he discussed with his wife requires having a career or even being a woman for her to render a valuable opinion.
And, if he's discussing what American women regard as issues, experience balancing a career, parenthood, and workplace discrimination would render her opinion more valuable.
Really?I haven't attacked your character. Only your argument.
Looks like a character attack to me. Either you're so stupid you don't realize that that's what it is, or you're lying. Which is it?Coito ergo sum wrote:Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind [...]
I don't mind responses; I simply prefer them to be intelligent.And, if you look back, you'll find you threw the first rhetorical punch. If you don't like being responded to, then don't take jabs.
As pointed out above, you're both wrong, and dishonest.Thanks, I'm not speaking to you out of ignorance. You attributed to me an argument I did not make. That's the main thrust of this. And, you also saw fit to take rhetorical jabs at me, and now you cry about being responded to.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests