Conspiracy theories

[PhilM]

 

[dholliday]

Yes, surprisingly, some people are good and some are bad. The ancients called it Yin and Yang, or Ma'at. It's that good v evil thing that's been going on for a bit now.
Wherever you are 'politically', it's intent.

Of course some are good and bad, but not all bad are of the Right, and not all good are of the Left.

I thought this was accepted wisdom for decades...I didn't seriously consider otherwise-enlightened folk like yourself would think differently, especially not in such stark black-n-white terms as you posted earlier: "the left generally speaking want to help those persecuted while the right are belligerent weirdos so frightened by difference".


20 years ago, even 10, such a view was laughed at.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

The Guardian is far left?! lol

 

[magicjuan]

Of course some are good and bad, but not all bad are of the Right, and not all good are of the Left.

I thought this was accepted wisdom for decades...I didn't seriously consider otherwise-enlightened folk like yourself would think differently, especially not in such stark black-n-white terms as you posted earlier: "the left generally speaking want to help those persecuted while the right are belligerent weirdos so frightened by difference".


20 years ago, even 10, such a view was laughed at.

And I held out high hopes for you understanding the import of the word 'intent'... hey ho...

 

[dholliday]

And I held out high hopes for you understanding the import of the word 'intent'... hey ho...

We agree on the import of intent, we had this earlier. That's precisely why I took issue with your Left vs Right moral ranking. The Right's intent on feeling iffy about hobby-abortions is because they feel very sad about ending a life just because the mother-to-be doesn't want the child.

Their intent isn't to curtail womens' freedoms, it's to save the child. Ergo, morally they have quite the standing, for the child's life is only just beginning. The Left, however, will rank the mother-to-be's selfishness over the child's right to life. The intent, from the perspective of the Left, is to let women decide for themselves.

Using this example, it appears the Right have the edge morally.

Hence, I couldn't get on board with your statement earlier.

 

[catcherintherye]

i didn't number my points, so not sure what you're referring to here.


Another nonsense post.

firstly, where does "dozens" come from when I mentioned "single-digits"? Secondly, how do you get "nothing to worry about, those victims don't count" from anything I wrote?

You're inventing an argument I didn't make, so that your own argument can look good against it.

Very immature debating from you.




WOW!

This is firstly not the truth, as confirmed by thousands of police reports and investigations.

Secondly, you basically are saying you don't believe the thousands of women who claimed assault.

This is what women have been saying for generations is the problem...men not believing them.

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here...are you saying you believe these thousands of victims were assaulted by Western-looking men?


Bonkers.



Answer the question...do you support women aborting as a form of post-conception contraception? i.e. if a 7-month pregnancy is no longer desired by the mother-to-be, the woman has full rights to abort legally and without question?

Answer that, if you can.



I've no idea what you're referring to. You notice when I invoke some event or reference, I'll hyperlink it.

And if that abhorrent-sounding thing you say actually happened, that doesn't change my belief that human life is sacred. Why would you invoke such a thing as a means to counter my argument?

Strawman fallacy.




I said I support the woman's right to choose within the first trimester.

Such a case as you describe would presumably be identified well within that time-frame. Plus there's other factors to consider: under-age, and rape. Such unusual cases deserve a by-case analysis.

I don't support abortion beyond the first trimester as a choice, when the pregnancy is otherwise relatively normal (adult female, no health complications or rape issues). This is the most common form of pregnancy.

Did you know over 200,000 abortions are carried out every year in UK? Not many of those will be raped 12-year olds. Why would you invoke such a rare thing?

Strawman fallacy.




They were wildly celebrating the chance to kill their unborn child, should they get pregnant by accident and not feel ready.

Like I said, it's a intensely sombre subject....or should be. Whooping and hollering about the chance to do such a thing felt wildly distasteful.


Seen as you're so keen on bodily autonomy, what's your view on being able to decide to not take the Covid-vaccine?



How does it put their lives in danger? What children are you referring to? Be specific.

No US State bans abortions if the woman's life is in danger. This won't change.

SCOTUS themselves haven't changed any abortion-law. Do you understand Roe vs Wade?

What has changed is this: abortion is not a constitutional right, therefore it's not within the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to decide over the States. Some Red States, like Texas, will move to ban all 'hobby' abortions. If an adult woman gets pregnant, is otherwise in good health (and not via rape etc), she won't be legally allowed to abort in Texas. She can abort in other States. If she cannot make it to other States, she will have to bring the baby to term (and give it up for adoption).

The only way she'd risk her life (outside of the norm) is if she decided to break the law and abort the baby herself, or via the Black Market.

If the majority of Texans feel this is unfair, they will move to make Texas a Blue State by democratical vote. If however the majority find this law fair, then those that do not must consider moving elsewhere.

That's life. That's not risking life. Contraception before conception will become much more important.



Where did I do that?

You was conflating Oktoberfest sexual-assaults as on par with the Köln assaults...but the difference between 5-10 victims, and 1200 victims, is so vast anyone with any sense of fairness wouldn't move to compare them.

When I pointed out this difference, you then claim I'm belittling those 5 or 10 victims (all the while you're missing the fact that you've belittled 1200 victims).

That logic in your head is quite something.



...and it just gets worse. Feel like I'm debating with a child.

Ok let's try again.

1) Saying things like "nonsense post" just normally indicates you are losing the debate.

Why have you mentioned how many women were raped, other than to minimise their experience? Do those victims not matter to you? It comes across like you dont care.

2) I'll repeat, refugees did not rape those women. That has been disproven. So you are lying about womens experience to score points. Why do you think that is acceptable?

It was German men, who rapes those women. As I at the start, men rape women. And men like you want to deflect from that fact.

Why do you think you, a man, know better than feminist organisations who specialise in this stuff?

Oh and what is a "western looking man"? What do they look like?

3) I have answered your question. I support womens right to bodily autonomy in line with the law asit was introduced in this country. I do so unconditionally.

4) You're not aware of the abuse of babies by the Catholic Church in Ireland. The people who woild bleat on about "unborn children" while covering for peadophiles, and flushing babies down toilets.

You're ignorant of this (and other things) but hopefully you'll learn a bit from what I'm saying. Go and read about it mate, it's no secret. Although, because they're white, you probably think their crimes against children are fine.

A bit like how you defended Kopites behaviour in France.

5) There is a 12 year old example in America now, being denied a right to abortion. Yet you you such grossly offensive terms as "strawman" to show how little care, or regard you have for these victims. This is not a straw man, it's a real example, and you're casual disregard is absolutely disgusting, and shows you up to be a huge danger.

In terms of aside from that, I disagree with your position, why do you think women have to explain their decisions, over their bodies, to misogynistic men like you? Men who when presented with evidence of children being raped, describe it as "strawman"?

6) "wildly celebrating their chance to kill an unborn child". What a truly disgusting, misogynistic, hateful comment from you that is.

You cant grasp a world where women might be happy that they have control over their own bodies.

It's a feotus. Women have no guilt over this, and men like you have no right to make them feel guilty.

The real issue, are the religions, who harbour peadophiles, killing babies. And utter dangers like you, denying that happens.

For once, rather than attacking women and girls, why dont you call out the peadophile protectors?

You're an utter disgrace to humanity with statements like that.

7) Of course it puts children's lives in danger! Theres an example of a 12 year old, who was raped by her dad, who cant get an abortion. Her life is in danger through carrying the feotus.

But nonce apologists like you, would probably just guilt trip her by using phrases like "killing the unborn child". As above, start standing up to peadophiles for once.

The fact you end it with the phrase "that's life" when talking about a peadophile raping a child, as if its perfectly normal and acceptable, makes me think there is something seriously seriously wrong with you. Like worryingly wrong with you to be honest.

8) How do you know how many victims there were? And why does it matter? 1 victim is too many. That's what someone who genuinely cares about rape thinks. 1 is too many. You seem au fait with som rapes.

"That's life" as you so callously put it earlier.

9) You're debating with someone who is aware of the facts. We have obviously touched a nerve and caused some anger talking about peadophile Epstein.

You seem to go very defensive when talking about that nonce, and who supported him.


Anyway, you come across as a complete weird bloke, who has major issues around consent, and childrens rights. You're little imaginary racist idea, doesnt get Kopites off the hook for what happened in Paris, when they probably annoyed the locals and got their cummopence. And it doesnt make you sound any better here.

Honestly, when you know as little as you do, it's best to shut up, and go and listen to women for once, rather than repeating misogynistic fantasies. Politely, who on earth are you, a man who said "that's life" about the rape of children, to make any moral point about a woman aborting an unwanted feotus?

Nobody is ever going to care what the likes of you think. And nor should they.

Give me 1 refugee, over 1 million of the likes of you, any day.

 

[catcherintherye]

We agree on the import of intent, we had this earlier. That's precisely why I took issue with your Left vs Right moral ranking. The Right's intent on feeling iffy about hobby-abortions is because they feel very sad about ending a life just because the mother-to-be doesn't want the child.

Their intent isn't to curtail womens' freedoms, it's to save the child. Ergo, morally they have quite the standing, for the child's life is only just beginning. The Left, however, will rank the mother-to-be's selfishness over the child's right to life. The intent, from the perspective of the Left, is to let women decide for themselves.

Using this example, it appears the Right have the edge morally.

Hence, I couldn't get on board with your statement earlier.

Of course the intent is to control women. Tbe fact you think them having bodily autonomy is akin to selfishness is telling.

Ans as for "right to life", you're not even aware of the Catholic church murdering babies in Ireland and denied it even happened.

You're a hypocrite who hates women and defends peadophiles lad.

 

[Tommy.]

Ok let's try again.

1) Saying things like "nonsense post" just normally indicates you are losing the debate.

Why have you mentioned how many women were raped, other than to minimise their experience? Do those victims not matter to you? It comes across like you dont care.

2) I'll repeat, refugees did not rape those women. That has been disproven. So you are lying about womens experience to score points. Why do you think that is acceptable?

It was German men, who rapes those women. As I at the start, men rape women. And men like you want to deflect from that fact.

Why do you think you, a man, know better than feminist organisations who specialise in this stuff?

Oh and what is a "western looking man"? What do they look like?

3) I have answered your question. I support womens right to bodily autonomy in line with the law asit was introduced in this country. I do so unconditionally.

4) You're not aware of the abuse of babies by the Catholic Church in Ireland. The people who woild bleat on about "unborn children" while covering for peadophiles, and flushing babies down toilets.

You're ignorant of this (and other things) but hopefully you'll learn a bit from what I'm saying. Go and read about it mate, it's no secret. Although, because they're white, you probably think their crimes against children are fine.

A bit like how you defended Kopites behaviour in France.

5) There is a 12 year old example in America now, being denied a right to abortion. Yet you you such grossly offensive terms as "strawman" to show how little care, or regard you have for these victims. This is not a straw man, it's a real example, and you're casual disregard is absolutely disgusting, and shows you up to be a huge danger.

In terms of aside from that, I disagree with your position, why do you think women have to explain their decisions, over their bodies, to misogynistic men like you? Men who when presented with evidence of children being raped, describe it as "strawman"?

6) "wildly celebrating their chance to kill an unborn child". What a truly disgusting, misogynistic, hateful comment from you that is.

You cant grasp a world where women might be happy that they have control over their own bodies.

It's a feotus. Women have no guilt over this, and men like you have no right to make them feel guilty.

The real issue, are the religions, who harbour peadophiles, killing babies. And utter dangers like you, denying that happens.

For once, rather than attacking women and girls, why dont you call out the peadophile protectors?

You're an utter disgrace to humanity with statements like that.

7) Of course it puts children's lives in danger! Theres an example of a 12 year old, who was raped by her dad, who cant get an abortion. Her life is in danger through carrying the feotus.

But nonce apologists like you, would probably just guilt trip her by using phrases like "killing the unborn child". As above, start standing up to peadophiles for once.

The fact you end it with the phrase "that's life" when talking about a peadophile raping a child, as if its perfectly normal and acceptable, makes me think there is something seriously seriously wrong with you. Like worryingly wrong with you to be honest.

8) How do you know how many victims there were? And why does it matter? 1 victim is too many. That's what someone who genuinely cares about rape thinks. 1 is too many. You seem au fait with som rapes.

"That's life" as you so callously put it earlier.

9) You're debating with someone who is aware of the facts. We have obviously touched a nerve and caused some anger talking about peadophile Epstein.

You seem to go very defensive when talking about that nonce, and who supported him.


Anyway, you come across as a complete weird bloke, who has major issues around consent, and childrens rights. You're little imaginary racist idea, doesnt get Kopites off the hook for what happened in Paris, when they probably annoyed the locals and got their cummopence. And it doesnt make you sound any better here.

Honestly, when you know as little as you do, it's best to shut up, and go and listen to women for once, rather than repeating misogynistic fantasies. Politely, who on earth are you, a man who said "that's life" about the rape of children, to make any moral point about a woman aborting an unwanted feotus?

Nobody is ever going to care what the likes of you think. And nor should they.

Give me 1 refugee, over 1 million of the likes of you, any day.

 

[catcherintherye]

I dont think I'm interesting enough to be a blunt object or whatever it is!

 

[Jebus_lives]

It's looks Far-Left nowadays. Put it through the Political Compass Test.



Tho' I agree with your thinking here, considering how they attempted to destroy Corbyn (who I broadly supported, by the way). They went all-in on him supporting anti-semitism, which seemed bonkers to me. To this day I don't fully understand what went on there, why would they be against him so when they appear to support his policies?




about what exactly? The trio of the 2015/6 Migrant Crisis, Brexit & Trump certainly opened my eyes to a lot of bullshit, and generally how narratives are formed and maintained....and how those narratives main objective appears to be to create polarisation among the public.




Are you sure one side is good and the other side is bad?

Seems very simplistic.

From my perspective, this has happened (me being in the middle):

View attachment 172090


you do you.

Does the vaccine temporarily reduce sperm concentration and motility by a greater or lesser extent than the actual virus?

 

[magicjuan]

We agree on the import of intent, we had this earlier. That's precisely why I took issue with your Left vs Right moral ranking. The Right's intent on feeling iffy about hobby-abortions is because they feel very sad about ending a life just because the mother-to-be doesn't want the child.

Their intent isn't to curtail womens' freedoms, it's to save the child. Ergo, morally they have quite the standing, for the child's life is only just beginning. The Left, however, will rank the mother-to-be's selfishness over the child's right to life. The intent, from the perspective of the Left, is to let women decide for themselves.

Using this example, it appears the Right have the edge morally.

Hence, I couldn't get on board with your statement earlier.

Hence why, after that wee diatribe, I believe you to spout utter bollix at every opportunity.
If you actually believe what you have written, then I hope you truly do feel comfort in the pain of others, because it appears, that's what drives you on.
I think we're done

 

[peteblue]

The Guardian is far left?! lol

No mate, just crap…..

 

[LostLegend]

Trying to keep up with this thread.

 

[dholliday]

i'll repeat, refugees did not rape those women. That has been disproven. So you are lying about womens experience to score points. Why do you think that is acceptable?

It was German men, who rapes those women.

Let's just focus on this bit, as I can't be arsed with the rest of your frankly insane utterwrongun of a ramble.

Here are two pieces of reporting that contradict your statement, from Washington Post & Reuters so as not to upset your political-compass-radar:

More than half of identified perps were from that year' mass migrant waves, the others were asylum seekers from of previous years. "There is a connection between the emergence of these attacks and the rapid migration in 2015," Holger Münch, president of the German Federal Crime Police Office, told Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Most of the suspects come from northern Africa - Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia.


I've been providing trusted sources to back up my statements. You provide nothing except your own words, and even within them there is no argument, only blanket - and totally untrue - statements.

It's very strange what you are doing. But i put it down to you being a useful idiot (i.e. a person perceived as propagandising for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals) for the intended mass polarisation that is going on.

 

[Jebus_lives]

We agree on the import of intent, we had this earlier. That's precisely why I took issue with your Left vs Right moral ranking. The Right's intent on feeling iffy about hobby-abortions is because they feel very sad about ending a life just because the mother-to-be doesn't want the child.

Their intent isn't to curtail womens' freedoms, it's to save the child. Ergo, morally they have quite the standing, for the child's life is only just beginning. The Left, however, will rank the mother-to-be's selfishness over the child's right to life. The intent, from the perspective of the Left, is to let women decide for themselves.

Using this example, it appears the Right have the edge morally.

Hence, I couldn't get on board with your statement earlier.

"Tell us a bit about yourself?"

"Well my name's Gemma, I'm 23, and my hobbies are countryside walks and having abortions"