We've had this discussion before. I'm going to reply to this message, and most likely not reply to ther next one you give. I have already read the first paragraph and remembered making a perfectly logical counter point.
That counter point was that it is "her" beliefs, so "she" suffers the concequences of "her" beliefs. If she doesn't want the concequences, then she doesn't need ot follow her beliefs. It is still a choice, it's a choice because it is a legal possibility. Just because she doesn't believe in it doesn't mean she doesn't have the choice, it just means she's not taking the option. WHat about men? Surely not all men would believe in financial abortion, so we should allow them to have financial abortion, and there will be males that don't believe in it, so don't do it. Same thing. If women are not allowing themselves to have an abortion when they are legally allowed to, then that's "their" problem. They still have the choice, regardless if they'll want to choose, where as males don't even get that option.
SO why don't we let men have financial abortion? Then they will have the choice just as much as women do, and there will be ones that don't agree to it, so don't do it ,just like women.
It's not hard for me to understand, it's the fact that it's not a logical reason to say why males shouldn't be allowed financial abortion. Simply because some women don't "choose" to have an abortion because of their beliefs doesn't mean males should be crippled from being able to make the same choice.
Yes, it is a choice. SImply because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, it means you're against one of the options in the choice, but that doesn't mean they can't choose that choice. I choose to be a meat eater because it is in my belief that humans are supposed to, does that mean I don't have the choice to become a vegetarian? Ofcourse not. You are once again acting like I don't understand this at all, when you are not understanding that just because you are against something, doesn't mean you aren't given the choice. "They" choose not to choose one of the options in the choice, that's "their" problem, not everyone elses.
Like I keep saying if "she" believes it's wrong, that's her choice, not everyone elses. I hate sushi...Ok? The option is still there for me to choose the sushi. Simply because I don't like sushi doesn't mean sushi still isn't on the menu for me, it just means that I am choosing not to choose the sushi, and it doesn't mean I'm going to stop the person eating at the same table from ordering sushi, why? Because it is "my" individual belief that sushi doesn't taste good, not everyone elses at the table.
Once again, you're saying simply because some don't "choose" the option of an abortion, that means nobody else should be allowed.
Once again, I mention this to you. "If she is against abortion, then she can put the child up for adoption". So either way, she still has the choise to not have to take the responsibility of parenthood.
Don't even try to imply I'm the stupid one in this case. I have made countless points on this matter with you that you fail to counter.
It's a "choice" if you don't like the options on the choice, then "you" have to deal with the concequences of "your" beliefs.
So your logic here is that men shouldn't be allowed financial abortion because of a percentage of female "beliefs". "Oh how logical. Hey, you can't do that because I don't agree with it".
I get it fine and well, you're just too arrogant and short minded to realize that if an individual is against something because of "their" beliefs, then "they" have to deal with the concequences of "their" beliefs, not everyone else.
I know your 'beliefs' well enough, I and everyone else has heard them over and over, and no one agrees with you. If your idea had even an iota of merit, it would be at least in SERIOUS legal process, or be law already. News flash, it's NOT. Not now, won't EVER be. You don't believe me, then go ask a lawmaker or a lawyer, see how hard they laugh at you. But you won't because you have to believe that you're right....and you're NOT. But you don't want to hear it, and you an't see past the end of your own nose to even truthfully investigate the matter legally and the repercussions of what such a law would create. You just decide to get your "facts" from some crackpot website that "agrees" with you....that site is a joke. It's comparable to a neo-Nazi or KKK site. NO ONE takes those sites or views seriously. There's NOTHING wrong with having a mission or a view, but you can't get your information from such a biased source, or one single source. Always do more research, and ALWAYS consider the source. You're being duped. Talk to real professionals, in the real world.
One major flaw in your "wonderful" idea is...YOU will be paying for other men's kids....kids YOU did not father from a woman you didn't even get to fuck, because there will be more unsupported kids using up social services that are paid for by WORKING people's taxes. So by allowing even ONE man to not support his kid, you FORCE ALL men to carry his burden that he decided to dump on YOU. Do you understand that?? You say you're all about "fair" but this is the MOST unfair thing you can propose to all working people....and ALL men. PLEASE, address that. I don't care if you address anything else in the entire post, just address THAT, OK? Please. Tell me how it's fair??
People, men AND women, need to be responsible for their actions. Period. I get what you're saying, but you have no point, it doesn't make sense morally, socially or legally. Not ONE bit.
No one agrees with me? Speak for yourself, not others. There are plenty that agree with me, and I'll name three of the more known ones. NeuroNeptunian, CoverYourEars, and Lulz. Don't say nobody agrees with me just to make yourself feel like everyone is agreeing with you, and not agreeing with me, because there are plenty that agree with me, and plenty that dissagree with you all together.
I knew it, I knew I would regret replying to you. You've said this all before in a debate with me that took three days, that I won (other users words, not mine).
Remember this marvelous line that you kept trying to avoid?
"We are already paying for other peoples kids, child support comes out of the taxpayers pockets".
I then followed up with the idea - So we don't give the money we use for child support to pay for kids that aren't ours, and give it to everybody to be able to have financial abortion, that means the "taxpayers" benefit from paying their taxes, not a parent and their kid that the taxpayers have no connection to. This way instead of paying for the kids that aren't ours from taxes, the taxpayers money is given to the kids thats parents claimed financial abortion.
Exchanging childsupport for financial abortion taxes, which the taxpayers would be happier doing, since "they" actually benefit from "their" taxes.
I have adressed that before plenty of times, it was you that avoided my answer when I gave it, and ignored it when I repeated it constantly.
So by not getting the taxpayers money spent on child support, the taxpayers money goes to helping financial abortion, that way the taxpayers actually benefit from getting their taxes spent on child support, to children that aren't theirs.
Not replying to you at all after this. I could of been reasonable in discussing this more with you, but you've done exactly what I knew you would do, you are repeating everying "exactly" the way you did back then. I proved you wrong on the matter then, most of the time you just kept repeating yourself because you "refused" to even acknowledge my taxpayers point, and I am not going on a three day debate with you again that could of been finnished in twenty minutes if you actually acknoweledged the points I made instead of intentionally ignoring it.
Even in your next reply, you will say a little bit about the actual taxpayers point I made here, and back in the older debate, then max the whole comment box out on a completely different matter.
No one agrees with you?? OK, well apparently ALL of society agrees with me, so that's hardly no one. Like I said, talk to a lawyer. But you won't....You're too much of a pussy.
No, my logic is, it's NOT an option for many women. You're acting like just because it's 'legal' that it's an option. Well, it's NOT. Lots of things are legal, but they're not required. People can own guns, but they choose not to. Should I have the right to force them to get one? Or should my neighbor have the right to force me to get rid of MY guns? Of course not.
You're saying 'abortion is always an option'. I'm saying, no, it's NOT, if the woman doesn't believe in it. It's simply not even a choice for her. No one forced the man to have sex with her and get her pregnant. Perhaps they should've been more careful and discussed their personal beliefs before getting into this situation. You want to protect stupid people?? Fuck that. Stupid gets what stupid deserves.
If it isn't a choice, then why is it that people that didn't believe in abortion have later had abortions? That in itself proves that it is a choice, and it is always an option if they just decide to have it against their beliefs.
Your sushi example, for example. I wouldn't usually order sushi, but if it was the case of eating sushi or starving to death, I would eat the sushi regardless of me believing it is terrible, just like a woman might dissagree with abortion, but when they fall pregnant when they aren't ready for a child, it is either face the responsibility when they aren't ready, or go against their belief and have an abortion, and many have done the latter.
Yes, you're saying it's not an option, but you're wrong, plain and simple. The option is "always" there, just because she doesn't believe in taking that option doesn't mean the option isn't there. The fact that if she just automaticly decided to go against her beliefs to get an abortion, the option has always been there for her to do it.
Oh, and the child that then has to be raised by people unable to be real parents just gets fucked in the process, isn't that great, aslong as those stupid get taught a lesson, right?
Let me finnish with this quote I said last comment to you:
"Even in your next reply, you will say a little bit about the actual taxpayers point I made here, and back in the older debate, then max the whole comment box out on a completely different matter." You done that exactly...Now see why I find it just pointless to debate with you? You constantly try to imply I'm stupid, yet you can't handle that I countered your points, so you choose to avoid it. (You'll probably say "You've not countered anything", then not answer when I tell you what things I have countered you on).
By now it is aware that I am able to counter all of the points you fling at me.
The sushi, the "It's not a choice", and the taxpayers part.
Didn't I tell you that you would avoid the answer to the question "you" asked me to answer...Again, like last time?
OK if you're so right, then why is society and the law exactly opposed to everything you are talking about?? Yeah, THAT makes sense!!
You're on a website used by mostly underage people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, don't work, don't own a home, don't pay taxes, any of that.
If this is the GREAT idea you believe it to be then why aren't laws in progress for it?? In fact, it's exactly the opposite. All laws regarding this matter agree with ME and the majority of society.
You can think you're right all you want, but you fail to see the proof right in front of your face, the FACT that society as a whole, not just ME, completely disagrees with you.
I challenge you. Talk to a respected lawyer. Talk to your mayor, social services dept, anyone in government. Tell them this idea. Then come back and tell me you're "right".
You've won nothing, especially considering society says you're wrong. If you "won" then your idea would be law, or at least in progress of becoming law, and guess what?? It's NOT, and never will be. So, exactly WHAT have you won?? I missed it.I don't give 2 shits about what a few users on this site think. Talk to someone in law or government, someone who has a stake in the world. They'll laugh you right out into the street. But you won't accept the challenge,. because you'll lose and you can't handle losing, nor admit you lost. You sir, are a fool. Prove you're not by showing me any credible evidence. I'll be waiting.
The abortion issue aside, coercion and duress is illegal itself. There's NO way this could ever even be considered legal. For example, putting a gun to someone's head and making them sign a contract, or do whatever, is illegal. This is no different. You are making a threat, or coercing someone into doing something by threatening them. You're also fucking society over, which most people wouldn't approve of.
Why can a man be sued by a robber if the robber has hurt himself physically die to the condition of the victims house? Why can a man be charged for theft if he doesn't return a robber's shoes in which they took off in order to not make noise while stealing from the man? But hey, your logic here is that if it's the law, it has to make sense. Sheep like logic.
Oh, mostly by them? How could you possibly know that? You can't. Either way, what does it matter? Was that a reply to the part in which I said people agree with me? Because the people that I notice that understands my point of view tend to be adults that have their own home, their own job, and pay their taxes.
Why doesn't the law agree to robbers having to pay their own medical bills when they are severely hurt due to the condition of their victims house? Secondly, don't say the majority of society, you are not the majority, you can not speak for the majority, you can't answer or acknowledge questions or answers you asked for, so you have no say in what the majority think.
It isn't a "fact", it is your "opinion". If the whole of society dissagreed with me, then where did I get the idea from? Oh, that's right, "other people". God you're so unbarably moronic that it is becoming a burden having you on this site. But, just to show you how illogical you are, and how you have no right to say what the majority thinks, I'll give you a link to the poll I made about financial abortion...And, oh my, shocker, the majority believe it should be allowed.
http://isitnormal.com/poll/do-you-think-financial-abortion-should-be-allowed-112275/
Some great "facts" you have there. Speak for yourself, not the majority, because I know quite a lot of users on here that wouldn't want you speaking on their behalf at all.
Like I said before, you're repeating this. You sent me to that lawyer site, I asked, and the imput wasn't approved. Once again, you don't grasp the point. A lot of laws are stupid. Did you know that in Wales, in a certain area, it isn't illegal to for a welsh man to kill someone (certain country of origin, I can't remember which) with a bow and arrow if you stand on a specific castle spot, and the victim is standing in a specific area? It isn't against the law because it was never revoked as a law, they must of forgot or don't expect anyone to do it. Point being, it isn't against the law to this day. So don't challenge me, you are not a challenge, not even an itch.
I am facepalming. "Society", no "you" say society says it's wrong. A lot of society agrees that it should be allowed. Simply because you "think" (which is unbarable to actually have to read your opinions) the majority of society agrees with you doesn't mean they do. For example, the people on this site (far more than just a few, I may add) don't think you have any good points what so ever, and they're part of society.
I won't except the challenge? It isn't a challenge, it's a waste of time. You show how moronic you are by thinking a lawyer or a judge would spend three hours of their personal time, with no pay, or nothing to get out of the topic to just accept three hours of a debate for no reason? You honestly think that? Welldone, moron. They'll laugh at the three hours of your time without pay part before I even mention financial abortion. I don't expect you to understand that, because, well, you're Wigspliz.
I've won nothing, I've just countered each point you throw at me, then you hide behind saying the whole of society agrees with you when you can't say that because my poll shows that on this site alone, more than half agree with me. I lost nothing, you have yet to counter any of my opinions, and I countered your sushi point, your taxpayers point, etc. I'm a fool, but yet I proved all the points you threw. You ask me for credible evidence, I have none because this situation doesn't deman actual evidence. This isn't about if people have it, it's about "should" people have it, and my poll shows that the majority agree with financial abortion. The only evidence needed in this is that of public opinion on financial abortion, I done so with the link to my poll that shows that more than half agree that we should be allowed financial abortion.
Gun to the head is the same as the male equivilent to abortion...From your genius mind. -Facepalm-
There's no difference at all. -rolls eyes-
Yes, fucking over society...You mean by making the taxpayers have to pay? Oh, if only I offered a solution, oh wait, you're too much of a moron to accept points that prove you wrong.
You are just plainly moronic, really. Everything you have said is easily countered. I'm going to actually show this to some other users, see their input.
You suck intelligence out of the discussions you're in. "Hey, the queen of Britain or the president of the United states are the only ones able to change the laws, so how about you get them on the phone for three hours and talk to them about it".
I'm done with you, and I barely even started.
I'm not reading or replying to you.
I'll tell you what, I'm going to go out tonight and have unprotected sex with a stranger that has NO interest in what becomes of our sexual encounter. If I get pregnant, so what?? He won't have to pay, and neither will I. We will just both push the kid on society. If I decide to keep it, I'll just go on welfare and food stamps and YOU can pay for it. Sound good?? OK.
Dumb fuck.
Roll eyes....face palm....you're a retard. You're so stupid you can't even see it....if your "idea" were so great, wouldn't it be law by now??
According to you, MEN rule society and are so much greater than females, so if that's so then why isn't your pea brained idea a reality?? If that was so, then it should've been law centuries ago. But...oh my...it isn't. So....wait...YOU think YOU make a point?? YOU think YOU are right?? History and LIFE and society and LAW prove YOU WRONG, pal. Your opinion doesn't mean SHIT.
You think you have a point when you "think" 2 people on a teen website agree with you?? Hello? They talk shit behind your back, idiot. I've got PM's from more than one member saying what an idiot you are....
Talk to REAL people who rule society...who gives a fuck what a 15 yr old who doesn't know or have shit in this world thinks?? You think you're right because you can get some clueless 14-16 yr old to agree with you???WOW.....GREAT achievement there bud. Try a lawyer, a congressman, a social worker. Yah, thought so. Idiot.
"accept" the challenge...and NO you haven't. So, when are you going to?? Of course you'd EXCEPT the challenge, you moron.,...that means you's NOT participate. Accept means do it, except means not do it.
Or when are you going to concede that the laws and society as a whole thinks I am right and YOU are wrong?? Idiot.
I don't disagree that a lot of laws are stupid. But MOST are not. It's illegal to eat an ice cream cone on the streets of my town while on horseback. So fucking what?? That's not the point. A normal person can discern pointless and important, apparently you can't. There's more laws on the books than anyone could possibly read in a lifetime. Some matter, some don't. The ones that matter are the ones that affect society as a whole the most. HELLO???
Am I a bad person for being pro-choice?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
We've had this discussion before. I'm going to reply to this message, and most likely not reply to ther next one you give. I have already read the first paragraph and remembered making a perfectly logical counter point.
That counter point was that it is "her" beliefs, so "she" suffers the concequences of "her" beliefs. If she doesn't want the concequences, then she doesn't need ot follow her beliefs. It is still a choice, it's a choice because it is a legal possibility. Just because she doesn't believe in it doesn't mean she doesn't have the choice, it just means she's not taking the option. WHat about men? Surely not all men would believe in financial abortion, so we should allow them to have financial abortion, and there will be males that don't believe in it, so don't do it. Same thing. If women are not allowing themselves to have an abortion when they are legally allowed to, then that's "their" problem. They still have the choice, regardless if they'll want to choose, where as males don't even get that option.
SO why don't we let men have financial abortion? Then they will have the choice just as much as women do, and there will be ones that don't agree to it, so don't do it ,just like women.
It's not hard for me to understand, it's the fact that it's not a logical reason to say why males shouldn't be allowed financial abortion. Simply because some women don't "choose" to have an abortion because of their beliefs doesn't mean males should be crippled from being able to make the same choice.
Yes, it is a choice. SImply because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, it means you're against one of the options in the choice, but that doesn't mean they can't choose that choice. I choose to be a meat eater because it is in my belief that humans are supposed to, does that mean I don't have the choice to become a vegetarian? Ofcourse not. You are once again acting like I don't understand this at all, when you are not understanding that just because you are against something, doesn't mean you aren't given the choice. "They" choose not to choose one of the options in the choice, that's "their" problem, not everyone elses.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Like I keep saying if "she" believes it's wrong, that's her choice, not everyone elses. I hate sushi...Ok? The option is still there for me to choose the sushi. Simply because I don't like sushi doesn't mean sushi still isn't on the menu for me, it just means that I am choosing not to choose the sushi, and it doesn't mean I'm going to stop the person eating at the same table from ordering sushi, why? Because it is "my" individual belief that sushi doesn't taste good, not everyone elses at the table.
Once again, you're saying simply because some don't "choose" the option of an abortion, that means nobody else should be allowed.
Once again, I mention this to you. "If she is against abortion, then she can put the child up for adoption". So either way, she still has the choise to not have to take the responsibility of parenthood.
Don't even try to imply I'm the stupid one in this case. I have made countless points on this matter with you that you fail to counter.
It's a "choice" if you don't like the options on the choice, then "you" have to deal with the concequences of "your" beliefs.
So your logic here is that men shouldn't be allowed financial abortion because of a percentage of female "beliefs". "Oh how logical. Hey, you can't do that because I don't agree with it".
I get it fine and well, you're just too arrogant and short minded to realize that if an individual is against something because of "their" beliefs, then "they" have to deal with the concequences of "their" beliefs, not everyone else.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I know your 'beliefs' well enough, I and everyone else has heard them over and over, and no one agrees with you. If your idea had even an iota of merit, it would be at least in SERIOUS legal process, or be law already. News flash, it's NOT. Not now, won't EVER be. You don't believe me, then go ask a lawmaker or a lawyer, see how hard they laugh at you. But you won't because you have to believe that you're right....and you're NOT. But you don't want to hear it, and you an't see past the end of your own nose to even truthfully investigate the matter legally and the repercussions of what such a law would create. You just decide to get your "facts" from some crackpot website that "agrees" with you....that site is a joke. It's comparable to a neo-Nazi or KKK site. NO ONE takes those sites or views seriously. There's NOTHING wrong with having a mission or a view, but you can't get your information from such a biased source, or one single source. Always do more research, and ALWAYS consider the source. You're being duped. Talk to real professionals, in the real world.
One major flaw in your "wonderful" idea is...YOU will be paying for other men's kids....kids YOU did not father from a woman you didn't even get to fuck, because there will be more unsupported kids using up social services that are paid for by WORKING people's taxes. So by allowing even ONE man to not support his kid, you FORCE ALL men to carry his burden that he decided to dump on YOU. Do you understand that?? You say you're all about "fair" but this is the MOST unfair thing you can propose to all working people....and ALL men. PLEASE, address that. I don't care if you address anything else in the entire post, just address THAT, OK? Please. Tell me how it's fair??
People, men AND women, need to be responsible for their actions. Period. I get what you're saying, but you have no point, it doesn't make sense morally, socially or legally. Not ONE bit.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No one agrees with me? Speak for yourself, not others. There are plenty that agree with me, and I'll name three of the more known ones. NeuroNeptunian, CoverYourEars, and Lulz. Don't say nobody agrees with me just to make yourself feel like everyone is agreeing with you, and not agreeing with me, because there are plenty that agree with me, and plenty that dissagree with you all together.
I knew it, I knew I would regret replying to you. You've said this all before in a debate with me that took three days, that I won (other users words, not mine).
Remember this marvelous line that you kept trying to avoid?
"We are already paying for other peoples kids, child support comes out of the taxpayers pockets".
I then followed up with the idea - So we don't give the money we use for child support to pay for kids that aren't ours, and give it to everybody to be able to have financial abortion, that means the "taxpayers" benefit from paying their taxes, not a parent and their kid that the taxpayers have no connection to. This way instead of paying for the kids that aren't ours from taxes, the taxpayers money is given to the kids thats parents claimed financial abortion.
Exchanging childsupport for financial abortion taxes, which the taxpayers would be happier doing, since "they" actually benefit from "their" taxes.
I have adressed that before plenty of times, it was you that avoided my answer when I gave it, and ignored it when I repeated it constantly.
So by not getting the taxpayers money spent on child support, the taxpayers money goes to helping financial abortion, that way the taxpayers actually benefit from getting their taxes spent on child support, to children that aren't theirs.
Not replying to you at all after this. I could of been reasonable in discussing this more with you, but you've done exactly what I knew you would do, you are repeating everying "exactly" the way you did back then. I proved you wrong on the matter then, most of the time you just kept repeating yourself because you "refused" to even acknowledge my taxpayers point, and I am not going on a three day debate with you again that could of been finnished in twenty minutes if you actually acknoweledged the points I made instead of intentionally ignoring it.
Even in your next reply, you will say a little bit about the actual taxpayers point I made here, and back in the older debate, then max the whole comment box out on a completely different matter.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No one agrees with you?? OK, well apparently ALL of society agrees with me, so that's hardly no one. Like I said, talk to a lawyer. But you won't....You're too much of a pussy.
No, my logic is, it's NOT an option for many women. You're acting like just because it's 'legal' that it's an option. Well, it's NOT. Lots of things are legal, but they're not required. People can own guns, but they choose not to. Should I have the right to force them to get one? Or should my neighbor have the right to force me to get rid of MY guns? Of course not.
You're saying 'abortion is always an option'. I'm saying, no, it's NOT, if the woman doesn't believe in it. It's simply not even a choice for her. No one forced the man to have sex with her and get her pregnant. Perhaps they should've been more careful and discussed their personal beliefs before getting into this situation. You want to protect stupid people?? Fuck that. Stupid gets what stupid deserves.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If it isn't a choice, then why is it that people that didn't believe in abortion have later had abortions? That in itself proves that it is a choice, and it is always an option if they just decide to have it against their beliefs.
Your sushi example, for example. I wouldn't usually order sushi, but if it was the case of eating sushi or starving to death, I would eat the sushi regardless of me believing it is terrible, just like a woman might dissagree with abortion, but when they fall pregnant when they aren't ready for a child, it is either face the responsibility when they aren't ready, or go against their belief and have an abortion, and many have done the latter.
Yes, you're saying it's not an option, but you're wrong, plain and simple. The option is "always" there, just because she doesn't believe in taking that option doesn't mean the option isn't there. The fact that if she just automaticly decided to go against her beliefs to get an abortion, the option has always been there for her to do it.
Oh, and the child that then has to be raised by people unable to be real parents just gets fucked in the process, isn't that great, aslong as those stupid get taught a lesson, right?
Let me finnish with this quote I said last comment to you:
"Even in your next reply, you will say a little bit about the actual taxpayers point I made here, and back in the older debate, then max the whole comment box out on a completely different matter." You done that exactly...Now see why I find it just pointless to debate with you? You constantly try to imply I'm stupid, yet you can't handle that I countered your points, so you choose to avoid it. (You'll probably say "You've not countered anything", then not answer when I tell you what things I have countered you on).
By now it is aware that I am able to counter all of the points you fling at me.
The sushi, the "It's not a choice", and the taxpayers part.
Didn't I tell you that you would avoid the answer to the question "you" asked me to answer...Again, like last time?
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
OK if you're so right, then why is society and the law exactly opposed to everything you are talking about?? Yeah, THAT makes sense!!
You're on a website used by mostly underage people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, don't work, don't own a home, don't pay taxes, any of that.
If this is the GREAT idea you believe it to be then why aren't laws in progress for it?? In fact, it's exactly the opposite. All laws regarding this matter agree with ME and the majority of society.
You can think you're right all you want, but you fail to see the proof right in front of your face, the FACT that society as a whole, not just ME, completely disagrees with you.
I challenge you. Talk to a respected lawyer. Talk to your mayor, social services dept, anyone in government. Tell them this idea. Then come back and tell me you're "right".
You've won nothing, especially considering society says you're wrong. If you "won" then your idea would be law, or at least in progress of becoming law, and guess what?? It's NOT, and never will be. So, exactly WHAT have you won?? I missed it.I don't give 2 shits about what a few users on this site think. Talk to someone in law or government, someone who has a stake in the world. They'll laugh you right out into the street. But you won't accept the challenge,. because you'll lose and you can't handle losing, nor admit you lost. You sir, are a fool. Prove you're not by showing me any credible evidence. I'll be waiting.
The abortion issue aside, coercion and duress is illegal itself. There's NO way this could ever even be considered legal. For example, putting a gun to someone's head and making them sign a contract, or do whatever, is illegal. This is no different. You are making a threat, or coercing someone into doing something by threatening them. You're also fucking society over, which most people wouldn't approve of.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Why can a man be sued by a robber if the robber has hurt himself physically die to the condition of the victims house? Why can a man be charged for theft if he doesn't return a robber's shoes in which they took off in order to not make noise while stealing from the man? But hey, your logic here is that if it's the law, it has to make sense. Sheep like logic.
Oh, mostly by them? How could you possibly know that? You can't. Either way, what does it matter? Was that a reply to the part in which I said people agree with me? Because the people that I notice that understands my point of view tend to be adults that have their own home, their own job, and pay their taxes.
Why doesn't the law agree to robbers having to pay their own medical bills when they are severely hurt due to the condition of their victims house? Secondly, don't say the majority of society, you are not the majority, you can not speak for the majority, you can't answer or acknowledge questions or answers you asked for, so you have no say in what the majority think.
It isn't a "fact", it is your "opinion". If the whole of society dissagreed with me, then where did I get the idea from? Oh, that's right, "other people". God you're so unbarably moronic that it is becoming a burden having you on this site. But, just to show you how illogical you are, and how you have no right to say what the majority thinks, I'll give you a link to the poll I made about financial abortion...And, oh my, shocker, the majority believe it should be allowed.
http://isitnormal.com/poll/do-you-think-financial-abortion-should-be-allowed-112275/
Some great "facts" you have there. Speak for yourself, not the majority, because I know quite a lot of users on here that wouldn't want you speaking on their behalf at all.
Like I said before, you're repeating this. You sent me to that lawyer site, I asked, and the imput wasn't approved. Once again, you don't grasp the point. A lot of laws are stupid. Did you know that in Wales, in a certain area, it isn't illegal to for a welsh man to kill someone (certain country of origin, I can't remember which) with a bow and arrow if you stand on a specific castle spot, and the victim is standing in a specific area? It isn't against the law because it was never revoked as a law, they must of forgot or don't expect anyone to do it. Point being, it isn't against the law to this day. So don't challenge me, you are not a challenge, not even an itch.
I am facepalming. "Society", no "you" say society says it's wrong. A lot of society agrees that it should be allowed. Simply because you "think" (which is unbarable to actually have to read your opinions) the majority of society agrees with you doesn't mean they do. For example, the people on this site (far more than just a few, I may add) don't think you have any good points what so ever, and they're part of society.
I won't except the challenge? It isn't a challenge, it's a waste of time. You show how moronic you are by thinking a lawyer or a judge would spend three hours of their personal time, with no pay, or nothing to get out of the topic to just accept three hours of a debate for no reason? You honestly think that? Welldone, moron. They'll laugh at the three hours of your time without pay part before I even mention financial abortion. I don't expect you to understand that, because, well, you're Wigspliz.
I've won nothing, I've just countered each point you throw at me, then you hide behind saying the whole of society agrees with you when you can't say that because my poll shows that on this site alone, more than half agree with me. I lost nothing, you have yet to counter any of my opinions, and I countered your sushi point, your taxpayers point, etc. I'm a fool, but yet I proved all the points you threw. You ask me for credible evidence, I have none because this situation doesn't deman actual evidence. This isn't about if people have it, it's about "should" people have it, and my poll shows that the majority agree with financial abortion. The only evidence needed in this is that of public opinion on financial abortion, I done so with the link to my poll that shows that more than half agree that we should be allowed financial abortion.
Gun to the head is the same as the male equivilent to abortion...From your genius mind. -Facepalm-
There's no difference at all. -rolls eyes-
Yes, fucking over society...You mean by making the taxpayers have to pay? Oh, if only I offered a solution, oh wait, you're too much of a moron to accept points that prove you wrong.
You are just plainly moronic, really. Everything you have said is easily countered. I'm going to actually show this to some other users, see their input.
You suck intelligence out of the discussions you're in. "Hey, the queen of Britain or the president of the United states are the only ones able to change the laws, so how about you get them on the phone for three hours and talk to them about it".
I'm done with you, and I barely even started.
I'm not reading or replying to you.
You're the walking definition of the word derp.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
nobleserpent
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'll tell you what, I'm going to go out tonight and have unprotected sex with a stranger that has NO interest in what becomes of our sexual encounter. If I get pregnant, so what?? He won't have to pay, and neither will I. We will just both push the kid on society. If I decide to keep it, I'll just go on welfare and food stamps and YOU can pay for it. Sound good?? OK.
Dumb fuck.
Roll eyes....face palm....you're a retard. You're so stupid you can't even see it....if your "idea" were so great, wouldn't it be law by now??
According to you, MEN rule society and are so much greater than females, so if that's so then why isn't your pea brained idea a reality?? If that was so, then it should've been law centuries ago. But...oh my...it isn't. So....wait...YOU think YOU make a point?? YOU think YOU are right?? History and LIFE and society and LAW prove YOU WRONG, pal. Your opinion doesn't mean SHIT.
You think you have a point when you "think" 2 people on a teen website agree with you?? Hello? They talk shit behind your back, idiot. I've got PM's from more than one member saying what an idiot you are....
Talk to REAL people who rule society...who gives a fuck what a 15 yr old who doesn't know or have shit in this world thinks?? You think you're right because you can get some clueless 14-16 yr old to agree with you???WOW.....GREAT achievement there bud. Try a lawyer, a congressman, a social worker. Yah, thought so. Idiot.
"accept" the challenge...and NO you haven't. So, when are you going to?? Of course you'd EXCEPT the challenge, you moron.,...that means you's NOT participate. Accept means do it, except means not do it.
Or when are you going to concede that the laws and society as a whole thinks I am right and YOU are wrong?? Idiot.
LOL you crazy kids
I don't disagree that a lot of laws are stupid. But MOST are not. It's illegal to eat an ice cream cone on the streets of my town while on horseback. So fucking what?? That's not the point. A normal person can discern pointless and important, apparently you can't. There's more laws on the books than anyone could possibly read in a lifetime. Some matter, some don't. The ones that matter are the ones that affect society as a whole the most. HELLO???
You're done with me?? The world is done with you, years ago...you're a MORON. We knew that when you learned to talk. Shame that happened.