Ron Paul/FP.com Flashback Pop Quiz

[Damocles]

To use your phrase, those that declare an embryo to be a human being, are being disingenous.


There's not a snowballs chance in hell, any sane person is going to risk life and limb, to rush into a burning fertility clincic to save a petri dish of blastocyts.

Now, if actual human children were in there, depending on the circumstance, many of us might risk life and limb to save them.

Would they make a special point to save a pregnant woman?

 

[Damocles]

I don't think highly enough of him for him to have the power to bruise me, or even for him to have the power to aggravate an existing bruise.

Yeah, but IMO it was what he was trying to do. I think he thrives on conflict and his posting style is often meant to create it.

 

[Damocles]

Do you think the world would be a better place if women were in charge? And is that belief sexist?

Where did he say that?

 

[Litmus]

Where did he say that?

I'm asking.

 

[Litmus]

I think the world needs the perspectives of all people regardless of gender, race, or faith.

But should there be concerted effort to put more men out of leadership position and bring more women in?

 

[blackascoal]

Im not sure world leadership is the perfect calling for women. They get freaked out by conflict, will do anything to preserve peace, even if it means selling out their own people; that's why the push is on to put them into leadership, so they WILL sell us all out to the new stud lion in the pride.

This is why people think you're crazy.

Is that what Margret Thatcher did .. sell out her own people?

The knock of Hillary is that she wouldn't recognize peace if she tripped over it.

Do you have real world examples of this bullshit or is it just the "voices" that keep telling you this.

 

[blackascoal]

But should there be concerted effort to put more men out of leadership position and bring more women in?

Bringing more people to the table lessens the influence of men naturally .. and I believe that would be good news to the planet.

 

[Cypress]

Im not sure world leadership is the perfect calling for women. They get freaked out by conflict, will do anything to preserve peace, even if it means selling out their own people; that's why the push is on to put them into leadership, so they WILL sell us all out to the new stud lion in the pride.

I'm not even going to engage you on this. What's the point? You're crazy, and there are rational posters here I can engage.

 

[Litmus]

This is why people think you're crazy.

Is that what Margret Thatcher did .. sell out her own people?

The knock of Hillary is that she wouldn't recognize peace if she tripped over it.

Do you have real world examples of this bullshit or is it just the "voices" that keep telling you this.

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=jaa.012.0013a

Conflict and Conflict Inhibition in Women: Theoretical Considerations and Clinical Applications

Alexandra G. Kaplan, Ph.D. and Lorraine Yasinski


Clinical and experimental research, along with everyday observation, illustrates significant differences in the way women and men express aggression (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). Until recently, however, psychoanalysts and psychologists have dealt primarily with the reasons for this sex-linked discrepancy. The question has been, “Why do women express aggression less than men?” By contrast, the question, “What does it mean for women that they express aggression less than men?” has seldom been addressed. The absence of attention to women and their relative lack of aggressive expression is all the more striking when one considers the general agreement among professionals that aggression and its derivatives — mastery, achievement and creativity — are necessary for the full and healthy development of males (Kagan, 1964). Not only have similar healthy needs not been ascribed to women, but in fact the opposite position is held: The absence

 

[blackascoal]

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=jaa.012.0013a

Conflict and Conflict Inhibition in Women: Theoretical Considerations and Clinical Applications

Alexandra G. Kaplan, Ph.D. and Lorraine Yasinski


Clinical and experimental research, along with everyday observation, illustrates significant differences in the way women and men express aggression (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). Until recently, however, psychoanalysts and psychologists have dealt primarily with the reasons for this sex-linked discrepancy. The question has been, “Why do women express aggression less than men?” By contrast, the question, “What does it mean for women that they express aggression less than men?” has seldom been addressed. The absence of attention to women and their relative lack of aggressive expression is all the more striking when one considers the general agreement among professionals that aggression and its derivatives — mastery, achievement and creativity — are necessary for the full and healthy development of males (Kagan, 1964). Not only have similar healthy needs not been ascribed to women, but in fact the opposite position is held: The absence

Why don't women have dicks seems to sum up your argument.

You should actually do serious study of agressiveness vs intellectualism .. which would you rather have?

 

[uscitizen]

AHZ on the woman hating thing again. Just cause your wife divorced you over that horse thing does not mean .....

 

[Damocles]

This thread has been thoroughly hijacked.

 

[uscitizen]

ahhhyup.
Of course it was much ado over nothing from the start.

 

[Damocles]

AHZ on the woman hating thing again. Just cause your wife divorced you over that horse thing does not mean .....

Horsist! You just say that because... wait.

 

[uscitizen]

Horsist! You just say that because... wait.

Just a bit of disingenuisness there.

 

[Cancel7]

Just a bit of disingenuisness there.

LOL. I love when you dig him with that disingenuous stuff.

 

[uscitizen]

LOL. I love when you dig him with that disingenuous stuff.

Well it is his trademark word

 

[Damocles]

Well it is his trademark word

I like it. So sue me.

 

[uscitizen]

I like it. So sue me.

Have to talk with alex about that....

 

[Adam Weinberg]

What would make you believe that she doesn't excersise discernment and doesn't validate what others say .. including you. She disagrees with your position, thus she must also not be discerning?

That is not what I said. I said that her response does not address the points I've offered against your assertions related to Ron Paul and his views about faith.

You have gone to say that Ron Paul believes in using the government to promote his faith, and that is a complete, and I feel dishonest, misreading of the original quote and the further materials you have offered.

I don't do Christmas, I celebrate Kwanzaa. Is that an "attack" on Christmas? Am I suggesting a bias against christianity?

No. I celebrate Chanukah, and that's my right. But we are private citizens and not members of the State. And neither is it wrong for someone else practicing their Christianity, or praising the values of Christianity for providing a positive influence on a free society.

Liberty and freedom implies the right to decide for yourself if you want to be a christian or participate in christian rituals. N(o)t have it forced on you by the state.

I think Ron Paul would agree with you. And liberty and freedom also means being able to speak and think freely and maintain a free society where people may do that as they wish.

I, like a great many others, chose not to participate in Christian Coalition/right-wing hate group ideas of "God", nor do we believe that morals and spirtuality come from the church only.

That's fine. I only said that these influences come from private society, not from "The Church Only".

You are in no position to admonish Darla or anyone else about not believing what someone tells you without investigation for yourself.

I am in such a position because I am able to appreciate the philosophical context of these statements is one of liberty and non-interference in people's affairs, as opposed to the State favoring one belief system over another. That's why I, even as a non-Christian, am able to look at these remarks and say: Yes, I agree.

It seems that if you disagreed with his original statement that you presented as some kind of evidence against him, that your only implied argument is that you believe our morals should come from a public source rather than a private source. I'm required to take such a bad policy seriously when it's proposed and oppose it.