USCB Radical feminist porn professor goes nuts

Dr.J20

Dr.J20

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Why do you equate to the value of the life of the woman? Her life is not at stake here. Very few women nurse their children. If she is distressed at the child's presence, adoption is easy. Your justifications would permit the murder of adult children by their mothers.
Click to expand...
for whom is adoption easy? certainly not the child, certainly not the parent; certainly not to the state, and certainly not for the adoptive parents. I was specifically referring to a rape scenario abortion.
I fail to see a clear logical line between my statements (in which were contained no justification for anything beyond abortion in the case of insemination and fertilization via rape) and permitting the murder of adult children by their mothers, which is really just murder by people who have a familial relation (no differnet than fratricide, patricide, or matricide). As such, the horror these crimes induce does not carry over into the legal code--it is not punished more severely by decree, but rather by the discretion of judge and jury.
 
Dr.J20

Dr.J20

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
How do you "study" pornography?
Click to expand...
The same way you study any kind of film. i'm done trying to catch up on all of this. I apologize for the previous posts and don't know how I can let myself get taken in by some of these threads. you guys hate knowledge production and can't understand that it might help us to study things that some sects of the poulation revile.
You have to study pornography if you want to understand why and how some people really like it and others are so vehemently opposed to it. This is also an ironic form of incompetence on your part. Earlier you alleged i was interested in some form of censorship--something about 18 year olds cussing out teachers being assault, (perhaps where you live) but here you don't even recognize that limiting what scholars study is a massive form of censorship. furthermore, schools are legislated differently and only now are we starting to see more formal, criminal charges taking place in the school context. this is wrong and backwards, and actually not how schools function best. but that's just what years of pedagogical research show.
on a forum ostensibly for the cultivation of a plant whose effects on the human psyche are expansive, it is surprising how many mental pipsqueaks troll about these fora.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
greentrip said:
I dont discus matters with lying racist bigots such as yourself so dont waste your time asking
me questions bigot.
Click to expand...
An excellent standard reply to lying racist bigots! My compliments.

One cannot discuss any issue with a propagandist such as Marie of Romania, or Josef Stalin.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
he's not on the side of prohibition and criminalizing women for daring to exercise control over what happens to their own body, a concept you might know as "liberty" or "freedom".
Click to expand...
And Greentrip is not on the side of murdering babies, a concept that you seem to equate with liberty. How odd.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
greentrip said:
It comes down to weather a person considers it a life or not.
Personally i think it starts at a certain date which is up for debate.
I will say that I like MOST Americans support some common sense restrictions not nessasarily a ban.
People like Obama who support 3rd trimester abortions and partial birth abortions
are in a very small minority in America. I consider there position radical and sick.
Click to expand...
Your position matches my own, and the majority of Americans.

I fully support elective abortions without restrictions up to a certain gestation time limit. I would be completely comfortable with 16 weeks of gestation as that limit. The supreme court has decided on 20 weeks, and I can accept that as well.

To those of you who are preaching abortions of crowning babies, I suggest you examine your own moral foundations. To equate killing fully formed and viable babies with victimless crimes is stupid on its face.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
greentrip said:
II will say that I like MOST Americans support some common sense restrictions not nessasarily a ban.
Click to expand...
i fully concur.

i am with you. let's join up with the majority of americans who want background checks, national gun registries, bans on assault rifles, and limited magazine capacities since those are all constitutional things that we can do, make sense, and the majority of americans support.

unfortunately, we can't do anything about abortion before a certain number of weeks, because that is a constitutionally protected thing.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Antidisestablishmentarian said:
Well that's contradictory.

On one hand, we are supposed to follow majority rules regarding climate change(even though the vast majority is undecided, but you run with 97% anyways), but in this case it's: don't follow majority rules...

Consistency-it's a bitch
Click to expand...
there is nothing unconstitutional about trading carbon credits, and nothing stopping us from doing it besides republicans like you who now oppose their very own idea that they came up with.

but this whole abortion thing has had a significant, landmark case that perhaps you've heard of that makes abortion a constitutional right.

the constitution - you hate it.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Pretty sure that's not what Obama supports

Why do you think it should be OK to give the government the power to tell people what to do in one instance (abortion), but not anything else, like drugs (I would hope)? Why is it OK to impose what you believe to be the moral position that not every other equal American might not also believe? Isn't the traditionally conservative position to be limited government?
Click to expand...
Young Bater, I should not have to point out to you that government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the innocent and enforcing property rights. Babies SHOULD be protected by the law. Victimless crimes such as the consumption of politically incorrect substances should should not be subject law and regulation.

Protecting citizens from assault, rape, murder, etc IS limited government. Allowing the wanton murder of children IS NOT limited government.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No. My answer is you did not ask the question properly. The circumstances can and did vary.

In some circumstances obviously blacks were harmed. That would be when somebody with a mindset similar to yours, a believer that some people can rule others, initiated aggression against them or their property.

In other situations, the answer would be no. A person is not harmed when another fails to associate with them. If you ask a girl out and she says no, do you make her go out with you ? Or do you understand that she owns herself and you shouldn't force your way onto her property? yes or no.
Click to expand...
we get it, rob.

you can't actually answer the simplest, most obvious yes or no question ever because if you did, you'd have to admit that the denial of service to blacks in the south before civil rights caused harm.

and that which causes harm can not be a right.

even your racist friends like bignbushy have no problem admitting that the denial of service to blacks in the south before civil rights caused obvious harm.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
When both sides of your mouth get going at once, do you ever drool? If you think people should have control over what is theirs, why do you also advocate against it?
Click to expand...
a store that is "open the the public" is much different than a woman's uterus.

it's called a distinction and in philosophy they are very important.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
0 are acceptable. Abortions were never made legal. The laws banning them were declared "unconstitutional". Those woman are already criminals. We call them "murderers". Abortions aren't done in the privacy of home. It's not their body or life they are sacrificing, it's the child's. Why are liberals so concerned with abortions, drugs, sex, etc? Are you implying you can do anything if you hide it? It seems that way. Someday, perhaps, someone will invite you into their grow room to have a look at their crop. Once there, they will overpower you, tie you up, and begin the process of slowly chopping you into a slurry like material. You will be alive and conscious when this process begins. When they are finished this grisly task, they will vacuum up the mess and incinerate your remains. Since it was done in the privacy of the home, it's all good. This is what you condemn millions to, just so you can have casual sex.
Click to expand...
wow, what a bitter guy you are red.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
And Greentrip is not on the side of murdering babies, a concept that you seem to equate with liberty. How odd.
Click to expand...
you know that there is a difference between murdering a baby and aborting a fetus, right?

if you really had a strong case, you wouldn't have to use dishonest language to try to support it. if your case was strong, honest language alone would be enough to make the case.

you propagandist.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
greentrip said:
I saw the video just like the cops that's why she was charged like she should of been

 On March 3, a USCB Santa Barbara professor attacked a young pro-life activist, stole and destroyed her sign, and encouraged a group of students to violence, trying to incite a mob
Click to expand...
She was charged? With what? Not inciting I bet.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Young Bater, I should not have to point out to you that government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the innocent and enforcing property rights. Babies SHOULD be protected by the law. Victimless crimes such as the consumption of politically incorrect substances should should not be subject law and regulation.

Protecting citizens from assault, rape, murder, etc IS limited government. Allowing the wanton murder of children IS NOT limited government.
Click to expand...
It's not a baby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top