brett05

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) It's definitely not bannable and I don't feel threatened. Now, would a Nazi find it morally OK to kill me? Yes. This all boils down to where the morals of individuals and then society come from. Applying blanket Christian morality to the entire United States would be the equivalent of Sharia Law. When I say individuals come up with morals, I should clarify: society tends to decide what is morally correct, some through the Bible and others not. Most in society would say pre-marital sex is fine in today's society. Thanks. I honestly meant no harm to you or anyone else. OK, so if society thinks we don;t need brett05 anymore is that morally right since it is society? Morals must have a standard else they aren't really morals at all and just whims of people. Basically just because 50+ percent of people think pre-marital sex is ok does not mean that it is morally.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 01:23 PM) I'm trying to debate if you just threatened me or not. Tread carefully here. If you feel threatened I am sorry. I was really just trying to show you an example that shows the flaw in your argument on where morality comes from. Please accept my apology. If I need to be banned, I totally understand and will not protest.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:54 AM) Individuals. The GOP playing morality police is the most disgusting pillar upon which they're built. So these individuals decide we no longer need a world with Quinarvy in it, that's be perfectly moral.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:26 AM) Oh yeah, thread closed before I could fix it. Simple fix: National Debt Rose 110% while GWB was in office Rose 114% while BHO was in office https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...debt_histo5.htm At least you almost admitted your fault.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:26 AM) 1) That article talks about men who make a personal choice to be abstinent and the impact that has on their relationships. It does not talk about the societal benefits of only teaching abstinence, nor does it talk about what impact abstinence only policies have on teen pregnancy or abortion - the whole point of this discussion. 2 and 3 run together. It's antiquated because it doesn't work as policy. When access to affordable contraception increases, teen pregnancy and abortions go down. Abstinence only education assumes that sex before marriage is immoral - a belief that comes from the Bible, but not one that reflects reality. People have sex outside of marriage. Without proper protection, STDs and unplanned pregnancies are real risks. People can choose to be abstinent. I don't really care. But when it's policy to push abstinence, it's a bad policy that negatively impacts society as a whole. We have to just disagree then.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:16 AM) When faced with statistics, brett05 placed upon his brow a red cap upon which read the strong words "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". Without avail, he simply replied with a rebuttal that would stop scholars and the knowledgeable dead in their tracks. "I disagree. More lives will be saved. Those 20 million doing it legally aren't going to look for an illegal method in mass to account for the loss of life done by those women having an illegal abortion." Despite clear evidence to the contrary, brett05 had stated words proudly so ignorant and incorrect that the very people with he was arguing threw their hands up. For on this day, brett05 has won the internet, as arguing with him is akin to arguing with a brick wall spray painted with the words "America First". And thus, figurative laptops were closed. Did you get that math issue solved on the increase of the deficit under President Obama fixed yet?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:14 AM) That link, at no point, says that abstinence only education is effective. To the contrary, it discusses the impact of men who adhere to abstinence only pledges on future married life. So, try again. For the record, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that voluntary abstinence is a bad thing. As cited in your link, however, 85% of men have sex before marriage. Thus, abstinence before people are ready to have kids simply isn't happening. If people are going to have sex prior to being ready for kids, access to affordable contraception is the best policy to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Anything else is legislating based on an antiquated version of morality. 1) It speaks of waiting and the benefits there of. It also speaks of the issues that need to be addressed for some. 2) just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it shouldn't be happening. 3) What makes it antiquated? What determines morality?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:55 AM) Just like with "abstinence-only" policies, the end result is worse but it's more about moral posturing than efficacy. It's not worse, you've ended millions of lives by allowing abortions.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) I particularly enjoyed reading their "Earth is flat" papers from back in the day. you are violating the rules....i know it does not apply to you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) I'm legitimately confused at this point. I understand you're against abortion, but are you also against contraceptive education and supplies, and are you in favor of abstinence-only education? I am in favor of sex within the bonds of marriage.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:09 AM) The statistics demonstrated a significant increase in abortions after this funding was removed. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/ I appreciate the information, however it does not address that we shouldn't be funding murders. If a government still allows the abortions, that's on them, right?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) I think brett was referring specifically to the abortion side of that claim. edit: guess not? Correct, we save millions of lives in this world by outlawing abortion.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) You literally just said abstinence only education is effective. Abstinence only, by definition, means no birth control. Abstinence only is a form of birth control. Also the only one that is 100% full proof

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Source? Because I have some really good real world evidence that says the contrary. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ng-success.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/male-a...4b0e66ad4c812f6 Speaks of it, the issues with it as well.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) If you want to decrease abortions, increase access to contraception. Being anti both is a ridiculous policy position. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ccess.html?_r=0 Teaching about birth control is helpful

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:55 AM) Just like with "abstinence-only" policies, the end result is worse but it's more about moral posturing than efficacy. Lots of research done by the religious community says otherwise.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:53 AM) Thousands of women's lives will be lost. But if you're referring to abortions...they're going to increase. That's what happened the last time this policy was put in place. I disagree. More lives will be saved. Those 20 million doing it legally aren't going to look for an illegal method in mass to account for the loss of life done by those women having an illegal abortion. Millions saved.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Mr. Spicer strikes again. This guy is gold, even Trump who loves his Trumptionary isnt willing to go all 1984 on whether he lost: Soooo by your logic, he actually wouldnt have "won" because he really wasnt competing anyway. 1984! 1984! You are definitely blackwhite on this, but the bellyfeel for Trump is real. poor soxbadger

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 08:08 AM) Trump reinstated the global "gag order" forbidding US foreign aid funding going to any NGO's that so much as discuss abortion Trump just reinstated the global gag rule. It won't stop abortion, but it will make it less safe. Thousands of women will die across the world, and millions will lose access to both safe abortion and birth control. Great move, loving this. Saving millions of lives instead of killing them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:00 PM) First of all Trump is wrong. According to this very message board Trump couldnt have "lost" because he didnt try. (insert laughter) you need help in reading your own post. Check the examples from the definition you provided from what was it the Oxford dictionary? (insert sadness for Soxbadger)

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 11:52 AM) Every President blames the prior administration. That's nothing new. No they don't.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 11:21 AM) Trump already will have his excuse ready, It's Obama's fault. President Trump be the first to blame his predecessor.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:49 AM) That seems to be your move. I am capable of fact checking. Unemployment 2008: 6.5% 2016: 4.9% Health Insurance Premiums have dropped since ACA was passed National Debt Rose 55% while GWB was in office Rose 57% while BHO was in office https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...debt_histo5.htm Poverty Rates 2008: 13.5% 2016: 13.5% But this is the difference between me and most Trump votes (present company included). While you depend on Facebook memes to make life decisions, I am capable of doing my own fact-checking like the educated adult I am. the national debt rose nearly 100% under President Obama. Forget it, you are right, I am wrong.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:31 AM) Not even worth it Steve. If someone cant admit that 65 > 62, there really is just no point in discussing anything. The better example of his comparisons would have been: Team A and Team B compete in a game of basketball. Team A wins the game, but team B out rebounds team A 50 to 1. Someone writes an article saying that team A "lost" the rebound battle. And a team A supporter argues "team A didnt lose the rebound battle because they werent competing for rebounds." And for folks like you, they won the rebound numbers so they deserve the W

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Man you believe every meme you've seen on Facebook, huh? Get someone to look it up for you.