Science > Abortion > The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
16 Mar 2007 05:36:11 PM |
| Object: |
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
.... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction; and its emotional collateral points to life as a couple.
However, the "sexual revolution" is based on a number of assumptions
that are incompatible with them. Sex, it assumes, is a human need
which must not be suppressed or denied. The important thing is not who
to have it with, or for what purpose, but to have it....
....A woman who places her sense of self-worth in her sexual
fulfillment cannot but regard any restriction in the danger-free,
responsibility-free condition of sex as a direct threat, not just to
her living standards, but to her self-worth....
....Abortion is the place where this appalling pack of lies meets
reality....
Read the whole thing.
Speaking for myself, I was not an anti-abortionist until after I read
the decision of Roe v. Wade. It was in fact the very first legal
decision we read: it was passed out during orientation in Law School.
It was also the poorest bit of legal reasoning of all the cases I read
in all three years of Law School: it quotes no authority, no
precedent, gives no guidelines to distinguish the case under
considerations from parallel cases.
It was not until I saw a picture of my firstborn in the womb that I
became committed emotionally to antiabortion. The doctor advised us to
abort Orville. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to kill
my son, whom I am honor bound to love and protect, washed the scales
from my eyes.
I was also raised to believe in the axioms of the sexual revolution.
It was merely part of the atmosphere of the age: everyone from Robert
Heinlein to Ayn Rand told me that sex was recreation, not
reproduction. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to
fornicate, to cheat on my wife before I even had a wife, when honor
demands self-control, began to offend my cold Vulcan heart. Why were
all of them cheering for the lack of self-command? Why, suddenly, was
self-discipline, trustworthiness, purity, honor, and goodness to be
mocked? Why was virginity shameful and harlotry admirable? Would
Epictetus or Seneca or Cicero or Marcus Aurelius have said, "Well, if
your emotion is stronger than your reason, indulge! Wallow like a
swine in heat with a sow! You need no live like an honest man.
Surrender your brain to your loins, and act without regard to
consequences."
It also began to offend my ferocious poet's heart. Where was the
romance, the glamour, the allure? The Sexual Revolution made sex
boring, robbed it of meaning, robbed life of its adventure. Why are so
many romance novels set in the years long before this revolution?
Because the mystique was still alive.
As far as the sexual revolt goes, count me as loyal to the ancient
regime.
.
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 05:11:05 AM |
|
|
Who do you want to be replied?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-B65728.19015719032007@individual.net...
In article <etn0fq$6hj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now that you have
who are you replying to?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 09:01:31 PM |
|
|
Why do you ask?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-B65728.19015719032007@individual.net...
In article <etn0fq$6hj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now that you have
who are you replying to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 09:04:44 PM |
|
|
In article <etnf8m$po7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why do you ask?
who are you asking?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 09:11:59 PM |
|
|
Why do you ask?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-6692D3.22044419032007@individual.net...
In article <etnf8m$po7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why do you ask?
who are you asking?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 09:52:26 PM |
|
|
In article <etnfs8$r05$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Kadaitcha Mans Mother" <KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why do you ask?
who are you asking?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 11:12:06 PM |
|
|
Why do you ask?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-FF8444.22522619032007@individual.net...
In article <etnfs8$r05$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Kadaitcha Mans Mother" <KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why do you ask?
who are you asking?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 05:05:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:05:45 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:e91tv2l3kk07v7enqm3c6av9mfgpip541m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:07:06 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tevrv2hj6l07cle6ft1p666pmfsb50iqu9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:49:04 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:juqrv2ttag1fs1sugf0u249t9d6ovb8a61@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:09:44 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
many would be embarrassed to associate with me and you are no exception.
Not embarrassed, just unwilling. No one likes a goody-two-shoes.
You are now even embarrassed to use the word embarrassed?
Where do you get that? I used it.
used that to describe yourself?
No, but that's not what you said, so you're being dishonest.
Read carefully! I said that many would be embarrassed to associate with me. That is a verb on the
noun you! And the usage was in that sense!
And I said that many would more likely just be unwilling to associate
with you. How does that equate to my being embarrassed to use the
word embarrassed? Nothing I said has the slightest bearing on how I
feel about using the word embarrassed in relation to myself, or at all
- which is what you originally said, just that I was embarrassed to
use it, not that I was embarrassed to use it to describe myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 09:07:50 PM |
|
|
Communications go beyond what you say sometimes to what you not say. It is what you did not say
that relates to you being embarrassed to use embarrassed. If you cannot get the gist of the sense
and context in which that was used then too bad.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:h42uv2li3k14ds76mkktkf6qlmhfmo28t3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:05:45 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:e91tv2l3kk07v7enqm3c6av9mfgpip541m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:07:06 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tevrv2hj6l07cle6ft1p666pmfsb50iqu9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:49:04 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:juqrv2ttag1fs1sugf0u249t9d6ovb8a61@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:09:44 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
many would be embarrassed to associate with me and you are no exception.
Not embarrassed, just unwilling. No one likes a goody-two-shoes.
You are now even embarrassed to use the word embarrassed?
Where do you get that? I used it.
used that to describe yourself?
No, but that's not what you said, so you're being dishonest.
Read carefully! I said that many would be embarrassed to associate with me. That is a verb on
the
noun you! And the usage was in that sense!
And I said that many would more likely just be unwilling to associate
with you. How does that equate to my being embarrassed to use the
word embarrassed? Nothing I said has the slightest bearing on how I
feel about using the word embarrassed in relation to myself, or at all
- which is what you originally said, just that I was embarrassed to
use it, not that I was embarrassed to use it to describe myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 09:52:53 PM |
|
|
In article <etnfkd$qoa$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Communications go beyond what you say
who are you replying to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 11:12:29 PM |
|
|
What are you asking?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-A6ED67.22525319032007@individual.net...
In article <etnfkd$qoa$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Communications go beyond what you say
who are you replying to?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
20 Mar 2007 07:44:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:07:50 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:h42uv2li3k14ds76mkktkf6qlmhfmo28t3@4ax.com...
And I said that many would more likely just be unwilling to associate
with you. How does that equate to my being embarrassed to use the
word embarrassed? Nothing I said has the slightest bearing on how I
feel about using the word embarrassed in relation to myself, or at all
- which is what you originally said, just that I was embarrassed to
use it, not that I was embarrassed to use it to describe myself.
Communications go beyond what you say sometimes to what you not say. It is what you did not say
that relates to you being embarrassed to use embarrassed.
There's a difference between communications and you're reading things
into a post that aren't there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
20 Mar 2007 08:50:25 AM |
|
|
There is no way that you could prove that you were not embarrassed!
So what is the difference that made you unwillingly then embarrassed, if you insists?
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:bolvv2tp5bb6fvuo6ds6aojim036q2l0nv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:07:50 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:h42uv2li3k14ds76mkktkf6qlmhfmo28t3@4ax.com...
And I said that many would more likely just be unwilling to associate
with you. How does that equate to my being embarrassed to use the
word embarrassed? Nothing I said has the slightest bearing on how I
feel about using the word embarrassed in relation to myself, or at all
- which is what you originally said, just that I was embarrassed to
use it, not that I was embarrassed to use it to describe myself.
Communications go beyond what you say sometimes to what you not say. It is what you did not say
that relates to you being embarrassed to use embarrassed.
There's a difference between communications and you're reading things
into a post that aren't there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
20 Mar 2007 08:13:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:50:25 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:bolvv2tp5bb6fvuo6ds6aojim036q2l0nv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:07:50 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:h42uv2li3k14ds76mkktkf6qlmhfmo28t3@4ax.com...
And I said that many would more likely just be unwilling to associate
with you. How does that equate to my being embarrassed to use the
word embarrassed? Nothing I said has the slightest bearing on how I
feel about using the word embarrassed in relation to myself, or at all
- which is what you originally said, just that I was embarrassed to
use it, not that I was embarrassed to use it to describe myself.
Communications go beyond what you say sometimes to what you not say. It is what you did not say
that relates to you being embarrassed to use embarrassed.
There's a difference between communications and you're reading things
into a post that aren't there.
There is no way that you could prove that you were not embarrassed!
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
So what is the difference that made you unwillingly then embarrassed, if you insists?
You're assuming your conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 05:15:23 AM |
|
|
Why should I prove my assertion when I did not expect you to believe.
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility. Else you are discredited. You assume conclusion is
assumed.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 06:18:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:23 +0800, "Kadaitcha Mans Mother"
<KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<euldak$jm8$1@registered.motzarella.org> wrote:
Why should I prove my assertion when I did not expect you to believe.
Irrelevant. If an assertion is made and not supported it is apparent
the asserter is making unsupported statements, statements which would
then be open to suspicion as to their validity. Since it is not
possible to determine which statements would be valid and which would
be invalid the only possible conclusion would be to view all of the
statements from that person as not creditable.
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility.
Requesting support for an assertion is not 'talking against' anything.
And is not a claim to be supported.
Else you are discredited. You assume conclusion is
assumed.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 07:43:59 AM |
|
|
If an assertion is not provided with the supporting documents or evidence
then the status of the assertion is undetermined and not false or true.
However the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.
But when you claimed that further statements from the person
who did not provide proofs for earlier statements is not credible
you automatically inferred that the earlier statements were false
when in reality that is not the case.
Agreed that requesting support for assertion is not against any thing.
Likewise the denial to any such request is also not against any truth.
You are therefore required to show cause on why you consider a
assertion as false when it is in your view is non-supported.
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message news:migs031ebrkljo43f0c0ml7hc64s0ucffu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:23 +0800, "Kadaitcha Mans Mother"
<KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<euldak$jm8$1@registered.motzarella.org> wrote:
Why should I prove my assertion when I did not expect you to believe.
Irrelevant. If an assertion is made and not supported it is apparent
the asserter is making unsupported statements, statements which would
then be open to suspicion as to their validity. Since it is not
possible to determine which statements would be valid and which would
be invalid the only possible conclusion would be to view all of the
statements from that person as not creditable.
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility.
Requesting support for an assertion is not 'talking against' anything.
And is not a claim to be supported.
Else you are discredited. You assume conclusion is
assumed.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 10:12:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:43:59 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<eulmep$up6$1@registered.motzarella.org> wrote:
If an assertion is not provided with the supporting documents or evidence
then the status of the assertion is undetermined and not false or true.
But when challenged an evasion rather than providing the requested
support would be a strong indication that support cannot be provided.
Otherwise it would be presented just to make the challenger shut up.
And to validate any future assertions made.
However the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.
But when you claimed that further statements from the person
who did not provide proofs for earlier statements is not credible
you automatically inferred that the earlier statements were false
when in reality that is not the case.
How do you know? If the person cannot or will not support some of
their assertions how is someone to know which assertions are valid and
which are questionable?
Agreed that requesting support for assertion is not against any thing.
Likewise the denial to any such request is also not against any truth.
Of course, but the basic point is whether or not the poster can be
believed in any of his statements. If he makes statements he cannot
or will not support there is no reason to believe these are true but
many reasons to suspect their validity, based upon the reasonable
expectation that the statements would be supported if they could be
supported.
If the poster had claimed he was abducted by aliens he would be
expected to prove such abduction, and his failure to do so would not
establish the validity of that claim. In fact, such a failure would
probably result in all of his claims being viewed with suspicion.
You are therefore required to show cause on why you consider a
assertion as false when it is in your view is non-supported.
It is not unsupported just in my view. It is clearly unsupported in
that the requested proof has not been provided, or even attempted.
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message news:migs031ebrkljo43f0c0ml7hc64s0ucffu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:23 +0800, "Kadaitcha Mans Mother"
<KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<euldak$jm8$1@registered.motzarella.org> wrote:
Why should I prove my assertion when I did not expect you to believe.
Irrelevant. If an assertion is made and not supported it is apparent
the asserter is making unsupported statements, statements which would
then be open to suspicion as to their validity. Since it is not
possible to determine which statements would be valid and which would
be invalid the only possible conclusion would be to view all of the
statements from that person as not creditable.
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility.
Requesting support for an assertion is not 'talking against' anything.
And is not a claim to be supported.
Else you are discredited. You assume conclusion is
assumed.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 06:12:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:43:59 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
If an assertion is not provided with the supporting documents or evidence
then the status of the assertion is undetermined and not false or true.
However the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.
But when you claimed that further statements from the person
who did not provide proofs for earlier statements is not credible
you automatically inferred that the earlier statements were false
when in reality that is not the case.
Agreed that requesting support for assertion is not against any thing.
Likewise the denial to any such request is also not against any truth.
You are therefore required to show cause on why you consider a
assertion as false when it is in your view is non-supported.
Watching someone who doesn't understand the first thing about formal
logic trying to explain it to people who do is like watching a train
smash into a car. As long as it's not your car, it's fascinating to
watch. Painful, but fascinating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 10:56:57 AM |
|
|
A simple assertion on your part to agree that you have no proofs?
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:3jqt03ha9doj0lbrpte9g6u96ijnon8ak3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:43:59 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
If an assertion is not provided with the supporting documents or evidence
then the status of the assertion is undetermined and not false or true.
However the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.
But when you claimed that further statements from the person
who did not provide proofs for earlier statements is not credible
you automatically inferred that the earlier statements were false
when in reality that is not the case.
Agreed that requesting support for assertion is not against any thing.
Likewise the denial to any such request is also not against any truth.
You are therefore required to show cause on why you consider a
assertion as false when it is in your view is non-supported.
Watching someone who doesn't understand the first thing about formal
logic trying to explain it to people who do is like watching a train
smash into a car. As long as it's not your car, it's fascinating to
watch. Painful, but fascinating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 01:31:12 PM |
|
|
In article <euokp0$jo4$2@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
A simple assertion on your part
whose part? who are you responding to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 04:17:45 PM |
|
|
Does who need to be responded to?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-87031C.14311201042007@individual.net...
whose part? who are you responding to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 06:52:19 PM |
|
|
In article <eup7ih$plm$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Kadaitcha Mans Mother" <KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does who need to be responded to?
who are you asking?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
31 Mar 2007 06:03:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:23 +0800, "Kadaitcha Mans Mother"
<KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
Why should I prove my assertion
Why shouldn't you? Either you believe what you said or you're
knowingly lying. Which is it?
when I did not expect you to believe.
Then why did you make the assertion?
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility.
"I don't accept your assertion" doesn't need proof, but existentially
positive assertions (such as yours) do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 11:00:13 AM |
|
|
Just because I did not provide YOU with a proof
does not automatically mean that what i said was
false.
As i said before i do not believe. either it is there or not.
When did I ever said that assetions don't need proofs?
Its only your claim.
"I don't accept your assertion" doesn't need proof, but existentially
positive assertions (such as yours) do.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:23qt03h2127ktupdrp4dj80qk3134ui05s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:23 +0800, "Kadaitcha Mans Mother"
<KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
Why should I prove my assertion
Why shouldn't you? Either you believe what you said or you're
knowingly lying. Which is it?
when I did not expect you to believe.
Then why did you make the assertion?
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility.
"I don't accept your assertion" doesn't need proof, but existentially
positive assertions (such as yours) do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 01:30:34 PM |
|
|
In article <euokv4$k7a$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just because I did not provide YOU
who are you responding to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Mans Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 04:17:24 PM |
|
|
Does who need to be responded to?
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-385703.14303401042007@individual.net...
who are you responding to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 06:53:00 PM |
|
|
In article <eup7hq$pl4$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Kadaitcha Mans Mother" <KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does who need to be responded to?
who are you asking?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 03:28:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 00:00:13 +0800, "Mettas Mother"
<mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<euokv4$k7a$1@registered.motzarella.org> wrote:
Just because I did not provide YOU with a proof
does not automatically mean that what i said was
false.
It certainly does not say it is true.
As i said before i do not believe. either it is there or not.
When did I ever said that assetions don't need proofs?
Its only your claim.
Fine. Do assertions need proof?
"I don't accept your assertion" doesn't need proof, but existentially
positive assertions (such as yours) do.
Exactly what assertion is made?
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:23qt03h2127ktupdrp4dj80qk3134ui05s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:23 +0800, "Kadaitcha Mans Mother"
<KadaichaMans_Mother@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0l1103lg5cnrnfgaqji3pnogck2ee4uoqk@4ax.com...
I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it - and
you can't.
You're assuming your conclusion.
Why should I prove my assertion
Why shouldn't you? Either you believe what you said or you're
knowingly lying. Which is it?
when I did not expect you to believe.
Then why did you make the assertion?
Since you talking against the assertion then you had prove your claim
to gain credibility.
"I don't accept your assertion" doesn't need proof, but existentially
positive assertions (such as yours) do.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 04:16:21 PM |
|
|
Yes, assertions without proofs are undetermined to
those who could not look further. To those who
cannot figure out then proofs are needed for them
to determine the status of the assertions.
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message news:7a5013dj1asfcu6hs0mcfu24quh2vt59lu@4ax.com...
It certainly does not say it is true.
Fine. Do assertions need proof?
Exactly what assertion is made?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
01 Apr 2007 06:56:23 PM |
|
|
In article <eup7fr$pjb$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, assertions without proofs
who are you responding to?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
