Income Inequality

[Speaker to Animals]

Again, not an argument. Incivility doesn't win a damned thing.

[TheReal_ND]

[Martin Hash]

R U insisting "morals" are a thing? You can masturbate about them all you want, just don't expect me to hold your dick.

p.s. I don't discuss "reparations" either except to say no.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Was it Mencken that defined immorality as the morality of people who are having a better time?

[SilverEagle]

Morals are for churches. You can take your morals & shove them up your ass.

Sanctimonious asshole.

[SilverEagle]

You still refused to respond to my argument. It had nothing to do with "a shortage of kids". If you can't form a rational argument in response (and let's be honest, we all know you probably are incapable), then maybe just walk away?

Incivility doesn't win the debate.

Then what, exactly, does it have to do with? Stopping abortions and birth control would result in an explosion of kids. How is that a benefit?

GCF I think StA thinks that humans only had sex a couple of dozen of times in their lives to make children before birth control was invented. We seriously need to develop a one way time machine to send him back into the past where he thinks he would be happy....only for him to find out that his perception of the past is totally fucked up. Somebody needs to take the Member Berries from StA because he's hurting himself.

[SilverEagle]

Seriously WFT?! It absolutly does not! In your absolute fucking insane example you leave out the child's rights. And in a case like that the child cannot decide therefore a child is off limits until adulthood to make that choice (when spoiler alert....it's not pedophilia because they are now and adult), nobody, not even the parents can make that call. Why in the fuck do I even have to point that out you sick fuck!

I'm going by your definition of true freedom. You lamented that we do not have true freedom. I didn't make any assumptions on that. I specifically asked you to define it. Now true freedom is more than just:

To be able to do what you want when you want as long as you're not harming or infringing on others liberty. Pretty basic idea. Don't over think it.

All of a sudden it's not so basic.

Let's take another example. A guy decides that his true freedom is carrying an AK-47 around with him everywhere he goes. Is he harming anyone? Not if he doesn't use it. Is he infringing on other liberty? That's a bit trickier. My point is that if you want true freedom for people, then you are going to end up with things some people consider freedom that others will take as an invasion of their freedom. True freedom in the definition you supplied is not going to be possible in a civilized society. We all have to give up some small individual freedoms to keep an overall freedom.

Sorry for the derail. If this continues maybe it should be a separate thread.

It's easy to grasp if your IQ is over 75

[PartyOf5]

It's easy to grasp if your IQ is over 75

A sanctimonious asshole once said:

No argument coupled with insult speaks for itself.

and

Incivility doesn't win the debate.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Again, not an argument. Incivility doesn't win a damned thing.

It's your fucking argument!!!

You proposed that birth control and abortions are creating more single mothers and welfare expense. I returned with a very simple question:

So would banning birth control and abortion result in more single mothers and welfare, or less?

Should be a pretty simple question for you to answer.

Stop playing victim and debate your premise, or GTFO.

[Speaker to Animals]

You never actually responded to my argument. I have nothing to to respond to!