Wrong. He also said he would choose the life of his dog over anyone posting on this forum. That would include people such as you.
Trump on Columbus Day
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
Wrong. He also said he would choose the life of his dog over anyone posting on this forum. That would include people such as you.
I'd choose a human over any animal (discounting the fact that humans are animals).
I don't know why my (and many other pro-choicers) stance on abortion still can't be understood by you. I don't consider a fetus that hasn't been born a human life. It's not alive. The same with a microscopic glob that can't be seen with the human eye when a sperm fertilizes an egg. That, technically to your side, is a human life. Any reasonable person wouldn't consider that as being alive.
This isn't even twisted logic; it is just absent of logic.
I'm assuming that you'd choose to have sex with your wife over his wife. If he agrees that is alright of you to decide, does that mean that he is choosing sex with your wife over his wife? No. It simply means that he is fine with YOU choosing to have sex with your wife over his wife.
Likewise, in your attempt, he hasn't chosen the life of your dog over the life of his mother. He has chosen that it is alright for YOU to choose the life of your dog over the life of his mother. There is a huge difference.
Lets dumb this down again for you:
Pretend Murox has a daughter. You are given the option to save your daughter's life or Murox's daughter's life. You choose your daughter's life. Murox states that he is alright and understands why you'd make that choice. It doesn't mean he would choose your daughter over his daughter.
FIFY
He has effectively agreed that he cares at least as much for the life of my dog as he cares for the life of his mother.
Your attempts at logic haven't gotten any better during your hiatus.
Lets try this again, and I'll try to better explain where you aren't getting it:
Say I have a daughter (god, save me). Say you have a daughter. I am able to save one of their lives. I choose my daughter. Would you be mad at me for choosing to save my daughter over your daughter? You may be extremely sad, hurt, or whatever, but you aren't going to blame me for choosing my own daughter over your daughter whom I don't know. In other words, you understand/are "ok" with me having made that choice. Likewise, if you chose to save your daughter's life over my hypothetical daughter's life, I'd be "ok" with it in the fact that I couldn't expect you to save the life of a person you've never met while thus sacrificing your own daughter.
Understand why your attempt at logic is bogus?
The issue isn't that Murox is choosing something he is familiar with or loves over something he has never met/loved. Just about every person would choose their own loved one over somebody they have never met. The issue is that Murox is valuing the life of an animal over a human.
i gotta say, if my dog and greed were both hanging from a cliff and i had to save one, i'd let poor ole buster go and pull greed up to safety . . . because i'd like for him to be in pain on the way down. i'd pull him to safety, kick him in the nuts, then push him off the damn cliff.
Exactly. And to make it worse, he's valuing the life of MY DOG (animal) over HIS MOTHER (human).
You still don't understand it. He's not valuing your dog over his mother. He is saying that he understands if you do since you have more of a relationship with your dog than you do with his mother. It's the same rationale he uses when selecting his dog over humans he doesn't know.
You simply aren't using logical thinking in your accusation. It is fair to say and criticize Murox for choosing a dog over a human, because that's what he said. It is illogical and false to claim that he is valuing your dog over his mother.
I understand perfectly. Here's the question again:"Would it be ok if I chose the life of my dog over the life of your mother?" One of the 2 will die. He's ok if his mother dies should I choose the life of my dog. We were not discussing my "right" to choose. We were discussing which one dies. Now, you go ahead and continue attempting to put lipstick on rox's pig.
Yeah...only science proves that abortion is murder. So there's that. And who are you to say when someone is a human and when they aren't? That's not determined by your opinion.
Tell me something. When scientists are looking for life on other planets, are they looking for a fully formed human or even a human-like (or even animal-like) creature, or are they looking for a glob of cells? Or, in most cases, aren't they looking for even a single-cell organism as proof of life?
No, "there" isn't "that." We've ben over this. Based on your argument - which isn't supported by all science - you must also believe that the sperm entering the egg in the in-vitro petri dish is "life." In that case, you are against all known forms of in-vitro.
Is that your stance?
And it's definitely not determined by somebody who pulls into a drive-thru six minutes before it closes.
So who should determine it? The woman. Exactly.
There it is. You are against all forms of in-vitro fertilization as we know it. Please go protest outside of numerous fertility clinics . . . just keep your bombs at home unlike your fellow Bible-thumpers.
I tried to pull your two paragraphs together logically, and all I got is washing my hands with anti-bacterial soap is murder.
For clarification purposes, this thread really wasn't about Christopher Columbus, was it?
You can feel free to defend your logic here too. What is generally accepted in the scientific community as 'signs of life' on other planets?
Then, after you dodge that question yet again, tell me how that same science isn't applicable to abortion.
According to Rifle, until the moment the fetus pops out of the vag, it's still not human and a woman has every right to destroy it, stopping the heartbeat and killing the brain of the "lifeless" entity.
The moment at which the fetus could be removed and be kept alive outside of the womb is the moment even the most die hard libs need to stop insisting it isn't murder. With today's advancements in healthcare, a fetus can survive at 22 weeks gestation, which I'm sure Rifle is more than willing to promote the abortion of said fetus.
They will never clearly define what they think is a human because they are defining it based on their unwavering support of killing babies. Then, just a few short months later, they will turn around and act as if they value the life of that baby over the life of an animal simply because he or she is outside the mother's body. Talk about deplorable.
I did. Now, your turn: are you ready to admit that your stance forces you to be against in-vitro?
You're arguing the wrong thing. Looking for life - or more accurately conditions that promote the likelihood of life - on Mars consists of finding basic cells. As you said, the expectation isn't to suddenly find human-like forms there as the first sign of life.
By no reasonable thinking can one argue that the exact moment the plasma membranes of both the sperm and egg fuse constitute a living human. See, killing a blade of living grass isn't illegal. Killing a living ant isn't illegal. Killing a living cell(s) isn't illegal. What is illegal is killing a living human. And something inside of a body that is providing it life - meaning it hasn't been born yet - is not a living human.
Can you imagine if people took impregnated dogs into the vet and had the puppies aborted? The outcry would be massive.
So, you conclusively know when life begins, but you don't know that the term "in vitro" doesn't contain a hyphen? Sounds right.
Gather 'round, everyone. You all are about to get a perfect example of why this moron is nicknamed "Tier Three."
In-vitro, or in vitro, should be hyphenated when not italicized. In other words, if you don't italicize it, you hyphenate it. You did neither. I did one of those, which is correct.
But don't take my word for it:
Here's a simple rule: "If italicizing, then no hyphen. If not italicizing, then hyphenate." Either method avoids confusion in phrases like “in in vitro experiments” The double "in in" is not uncommon in scientific writing. Using both italics and hyphen is overkill and a good example of hypercorrection.Jul 1, 2013
And as you can see, Merriam-Webster italicizes it in all of its uses, as do all of the major dictionaries:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in vitro
Christ, I hope you have a paralegal or legal assistant smarter than the average tier three graduate.
I am truly hoping you wouldn't have said that if you knew I buried my mother yesterday.
Sorry to hear that EG. I understand your “very few acts” thread now. There’s nothing that gives more clarity into what’s important in life than the death of someone close to you.
No EG, almost no one here is serious with the smack talk, but we also aren't aware of something if the information isn't provided, so I can only tell you that I'm sorry you are going through this loss, and I was only messing with you. I would not disrespect someone who lost any family member on here, regardless of how much I've argued with him in the past.
Three things. First, Google has failed you. You quote a blog - a freaking blog - to support your position. Second, I notice Merriam Webster doesn't hyphenate (nor do they italicize for the reason you claim, see below). Third, you know, or should know, being the English expert you claim, that commonly used and adopted Latin terms with a specific meaning are no longer italicized. While that may have been the norm years ago, all primary style guides/rules no longer require it.
But you don't have to believe me:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/about/pac-20384716
http://americanpregnancy.org/infertility/in-vitro-fertilization/
https://otd.harvard.edu/explore-inn...non-invasive-metabolic-imaging-system-for-ivf
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/fertility-treatments/what-ivf
https://www.brighamandwomens.org/medical-resources/in-vitro-fertilization
You should write the Mayo Clinic, the APA, Harvard, and B&W and let them know they're doing it wrong.
Also, to further humiliate you, the Merriam Webster link doesn't support your position on italicization because they italicized "in vitro." They italicize whatever term you are looking up, moron.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyphenated
Hey, look! Merriam Webster italicizes "moron." That means it should be italicized in regular usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron
@Y.A.G Si Ye Nots am I reading you correct in that you're fine with aborting a baby that is perfectly healthy, no matter how far along the pregnancy, as long as it's aborted prior to birth?
Moron, until that "thing" shoots out of a woman's puss, it isn't human. Therefore, it's a woman's choice to have it yanked out of her and thrown into a trash can.
Well, I gathered around as requested! I enjoyed Thundercat spanking that ass yet again!
You are seriously comparing protozoa, amoebas and shit to human beings in an argument about abortion...maybe I could buy this is not a troll/you are not actually this fvcking stupid/batshit crazy if you were some hardcore vegan...but nah.
Someone finally realizes why Republicans never do a thing to stop abortion, except for in places like Kansas or North Dakota (hint, really white).
Let's be honest: if anything, the government should encourage and pay for abortions in certain areas. The cost savings vs welfare, juvie hall, prison, etc is enormous.
No, your attempt has drastically failed you. Your claim that hyphenating it is wrong is false. That is why there are so many discussions on it, most of which conclude that either hyphenating it or italicizing it is proper. They even use quotes from publications supporting the stance:
"It’s not incorrect to hyphenate Latin phrases, but it’s unnecessary."
http://www.languageediting.com/hyphenation-of-latin-phrases/
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/in-vitro-in-vivo-hyphens-in-modifiers.1541663/
Remember, you're the one who claimed that hyphenating it is wrong. Yet there are sources claiming that it isn't wrong to do so and others claiming that it is the correct way.
No longer requiring it doesn't make it wrong to continue to do. This is why you're a tier three graduate. You simply don't have the intellect to understand things intelligent people do.
If you're no longer required to wear a tie to work, as the rule was before, is it wrong to wear a tie to your work? Of course not. If you're no longer required, by some guides, to italicize/hyphenate a phrase, is it wrong to continue doing so? Exactly.
You're the one who claimed it was wrong. That's simply false.
Oh, and those sources you listed . . . there are examples of some of those using "in-vitro," so that blows away that argument as well.
The next time you try correcting somebody far more intelligent than you, you better make sure what you're attempting to correct something that is truly wrong or else you look dumber than even a tier three law grad.
You keep posting like you have been for the last few days, and myself, Herdman, Sisters, & WV-Fan might extend you an invite into our club. Do you happen to know your sheet and cone sizes?
"In vitro" isn't hyphenated. You were wrong (hell, look at the Merriam Webster link you posted). Deal with it.
Tell us again how you must be right because Merriam Webster italicized it.
Not in the links I posted.
By the way, the italics thing, when it even applies, only does so in the context of journals and research papers. So, you're wrong in that respect as well since this forum is neither.
Face it. The only time "in vitro" is hyphenated is when people f*ck up and write it incorrectly, as you did.
Last edited:
The internet, where an assistant football coach at a division 2 or 3 school can tell a practicing, successful attorney that he’s not intelligence, while fabricating a story that he attended a tier 3 law school.
Rifle, the reason you think you’re the smartest guy in the room is because this forum is your life. While some may spend 10-15 minutes a day on here, you’ll stay up to 3am writing a 60,000 word response to someone who questioned your claims of unverifiable success. The 15+ pictures of your different types of jeans was my personal favorite. The fact that you took the time to upload those pics to defend yourself may have been the best moment in this board’s history.
You comb through posts looking for spelling and grammatical errors when people don’t even care to proofread what they wrote. Then when called out for your errors, you just wear people down with more multiple thousand word replies that no one even reads.
How does someone so “successful” have as much time to post here as you do?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
MU PRESS RELEASE Nate Martin Named SBC Men’s Basketball Player of the Week- Latest: Chris McLaughlin
-
MU PRESS RELEASE Nate Martin Named SBC Men’s Basketball Player of the Week
- Latest: Chris McLaughlin
-
-
HERDNATION.COM Update on 4 star visitor from last weekend
- Latest: Chris McLaughlin
-