Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

Then the legal context needs to be destroyed and rebuilt to fit reality.

You are completely wrong and you do not understand what you are talking about.

"Murder" is just a word. There is no *need* for it to apply to every unjustified taking of a human life, therefore there is no *need* to "destroy" -- or even change -- anything.

My pointing out the fact that "murder" doesn't include abortion does not, in any way, imply that abortion is justified. Murder is just one *type* of unjustified homicide.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

Why not just admit you have no idea what you are talking about, instead of spouting unintelligible nonsense?

What I was saying is that you were speaking in a legal context. Therefore, the words you use have specific technical meanings. And it is a *fact* that "murder" does not apply to "abortion" in the legal context. And this has not one damned thing to do with morality. This doesn't mean abortion is not wrong, or is justified, it only means that, in this context, it is not murder. It's a fact. Your denial of it only makes you look retarded.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

The Court said that to protect a woman's private decisions between her and her doctor, we must allow abortion


which *by definition* is the murder of the unborn.


And I don't mean by that, that abortion is not the unjustified killing of a human. I mean that "murder" is a legal term of art, and not a moral description. Whether or not it applies to a specific taking of a human life is a technical matter, not a moral one. That is why we have multiple terms for the taking of human life: "manslaughter," "murder," "act of war," and so on. Whether or not abortion is murder is strictly a legal matter.

This is a fact.

If you had said the Court said that to protect a woman's private decisions between her and her doctor, we must allow the unjustified and immoral killing of a human life, I'd have agreed with you. But you used, in a strictly legal context, a legal term of art that simply made your claim incorrect.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

Because abortion is murder, the Supreme Court supports murder.

You're not this dense. Come on, now.

You wrote that "Roe V. Wade said" that "to protect the privacy of a woman we must allow murder." It didn't. You are wrong.

You can say the effect of the decision is that, but that is not what the decision or the Court ever said.

Comment Re:I resemble that remark (Score 1) 81

Nor anybody else who knows there are higher powers than the US Government


Look, I get it. You think abortion is wrong. So do I. But you said something simply false: that Roe v. Wade said we must allow murder to protect a woman's right to privacy. It did not say that. It said that abortion is not murder. You can disagree that abortion is not murder, but that is what it actually said.

Comment Re:Complete fraud (Score 1) 30

:-) AHA! Thank you! You just proved you are full of it.

I "proved" I am "full of it" by not providing evidence for *your* argument.

You really think anyone actually believes you're serious?

As we all know, nothing needs to be said. It is well understood who specifically benefits from 'local' governance.

Right. Everyone.

And we don't have to mention who you prefer to dominate. History has already told us. That is also well understood.

Right. Everyone.

Your refusal to answer is all the answer we could possibly ask for. The code was broken a long time ago.

Liberty isn't a code. It just *is*. Socialists like you want to violate it at every turn.

Comment Re:Sex change (Score 1) 5

Regardless of whether or not they think they are of a different gender, the fact is that most people associate gender pronouns with physical sex. To them -- us -- the proper pronoun to use is one of physiological fact. Bradley Manning is a he. There is no Chelsea Manning, and if there were, he would be a he. These are the actual facts, to me.

Now, if you choose to recognize gender above sex, and accept that everyone gets to dictate to the rest of us what their gender is, then fine, to you, "she" is correct and "he" is incorrect. However, how does it make sense that Manning can decide for himself his own gender, but I cannot decide for myself that my use of pronouns is based on physiological sex?

It's just another example of how the left is not pro-choice at all, they are only pro-choices-they-agree-with.

Comment Re:Complete fraud (Score 1) 30

The only one lying is you, and only to yourself.

You are sooooo right. When each person has more of a say, they are less free. You make perfect sense.

To me you are simply mistaken and misguided.

You're a liar. You don't believe that at all. We are all well aware you are just trolling at this point.

History has confirmed many times over what I said.

One example, please. Thanks! (Psst. I already know you won't give one, because you don't have one.)

But go ahead. Give an example of where people were not more free as power became more local.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.