Re: Oh...MY...GOD...ROID RAGE!!

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL said:

Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the same and
consistent all the way through. I do not believe in abortion unless
there
are extraordinary circumstances. I do not believe in the death penalty
under any circumstances. (In turn, I believe in life in prison without
the
opportunity of parole.) I do believe in euthanasia but it is something
that
should be at the desire and will of the person involved.

Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.

What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
acquired that sanctity?

Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not meant to eat
the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

WooferBearATL said:

DZ said:

WooferBearATL said:

Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
desire and will of the person involved.

Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.

What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
acquired that sanctity?

Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
at your statements by a means of reasoning?

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL said:

DZ said:

WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
> desire and will of the person involved.
>
> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.

What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
acquired that sanctity?

Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No!

I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled animals. They
are tasty!

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:49:02 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL said:

"DZ" wrote:
> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>
>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>
> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
> acquired that sanctity?

Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No!

I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled animals. They
are tasty!

Have you killed them?

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:49:02 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>>
>>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>>
>> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
>> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
>> acquired that sanctity?
>
> Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
> meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No!

I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled animals.
They
are tasty!

Have you killed them?

Yup! Gone right out there and Shot Bambi!

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:17:11 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:49:02 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>>>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>>>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>>>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>>>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>>>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>>>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>>>
>>>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>>>
>>> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
>>> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
>>> acquired that sanctity?
>>
>> Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
>> meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!
>
> Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
> at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No!

I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled animals.
They
are tasty!

Have you killed them?

Yup! Gone right out there and Shot Bambi!

So killing a killer shouldn't be any more of a problem for you. Hell,
I'd have an easier time killing a killer than I would any of the game
that I've killed. Most of the game I've killed have never killed. Not
their species nor a "lesser" species. But, in nearly every human
society, if not every human society, it has been wrong to kill a
fellow human except in terms of punishment for a like crime or when
defending oneself against fear of imminent murder itself. So, I would
say you are really hypocritical with your views on capital punishment.

WooferBearATL said:

DZ said:

WooferBearATL said:

DZ wrote:
> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>
>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>
> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
> acquired that sanctity?

Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No! I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled
animals. They are tasty!

They're tasty but that's irrelevant to the question of sanctity,
unless you're saying you'd kill babies if they were tasty.

John Hanson said:

So killing a killer shouldn't be any more of a problem for you. Hell,
I'd have an easier time killing a killer than I would any of the game
that I've killed. Most of the game I've killed have never killed. Not
their species nor a "lesser" species. But, in nearly every human
society, if not every human society, it has been wrong to kill a
fellow human except in terms of punishment for a like crime or when
defending oneself against fear of imminent murder itself. So, I would
say you are really hypocritical with your views on capital punishment.

Kill, killer, kill, kill, killer, I counted 9 if you include murder. I
bet he was splattering drool (amongst other 'fluids'😉 and foaming at
the mouth by the time he finished typing that.

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:17:11 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:49:02 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>>>>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>>>>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>>>>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>>>>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>>>>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>>>>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>>>>
>>>> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
>>>> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
>>>> acquired that sanctity?
>>>
>>> Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
>>> meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!
>>
>> Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
>> at your statements by a means of reasoning?
>
>No!
>
>I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled animals.
>They
>are tasty!
>
Have you killed them?

Yup! Gone right out there and Shot Bambi!

So killing a killer shouldn't be any more of a problem for you. Hell,
I'd have an easier time killing a killer than I would any of the game
that I've killed. Most of the game I've killed have never killed. Not
their species nor a "lesser" species. But, in nearly every human
society, if not every human society, it has been wrong to kill a
fellow human except in terms of punishment for a like crime or when
defending oneself against fear of imminent murder itself. So, I would
say you are really hypocritical with your views on capital punishment.

This is not the Silence of the Lambs. I do not like a little human liver
with Chianti. But give me a nice Venison Stew Any Day!

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL said:

DZ said:

WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>>
>>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>>
>> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
>> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
>> acquired that sanctity?
>
> Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
> meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!

Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No! I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled
animals. They are tasty!

They're tasty but that's irrelevant to the question of sanctity,
unless you're saying you'd kill babies if they were tasty.

Ahhh, visions of Mike Myers doing Fat [censored] in the Austin Powers movies.
Baby, Baby Back Rips. <G>

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

They're tasty but that's irrelevant to the question of sanctity,
unless you're saying you'd kill babies if they were tasty.

As you can see DZ, all right to life types either avoid the question or
simply fall apart when pressed hard enough once their logic is
challenged.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WooferBearATL said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Nope, you're going to find that my idea's and opinions are the
>>>> same and consistent all the way through. I do not believe in
>>>> abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not
>>>> believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. (In turn, I
>>>> believe in life in prison without the opportunity of parole.) I
>>>> do believe in euthanasia but it is something that should be at the
>>>> desire and will of the person involved.
>>>>
>>>> Plain and simple - I believe in the sanctity of life.
>>>
>>> What about animals raised for food? Was there a definite point in
>>> evolution, say 10am on December 22, 40,000 years ago, when primates
>>> acquired that sanctity?
>>
>> Protein is needed for muscle building. Besides, if we were not
>> meant to eat the animals they would not have been made so tasty!
>
> Am I correct in thinking that, in other words, you're unable to arrive
> at your statements by a means of reasoning?

No! I have tasted many fried, roasted, stewed, baked and grilled
animals. They are tasty!

They're tasty but that's irrelevant to the question of sanctity,
unless you're saying you'd kill babies if they were tasty.

Ahhh, visions of Mike Myers doing Fat [censored] in the Austin Powers movies.
Baby, Baby Back Rips. <G>

I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
"extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
of homosexuality.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
"extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
of homosexuality.

Rape & Incest or Physical Harm to the Mother. It's pretty well established
Bubba.

In article <[email hidden]>,

WooferBearATL said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
"extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
of homosexuality.

Rape & Incest or Physical Harm to the Mother. It's pretty well established
Bubba.

Established by whom?

How is "Incest" defined? In some states it's legal for first cousins
to marry, not in others. Does your morality depend on which state
somebody is in?

Any pregnancy causes "Physical Harm". Many times, a woman is happy to
put up with it because she wants the result. Weightlifting causes
physical harm to my muscles, but I put up with it because I want the
end result.

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

"Seth Breidbart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

WooferBearATL said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
"extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
of homosexuality.

Rape & Incest or Physical Harm to the Mother. It's pretty well
established
Bubba.

Established by whom?

How is "Incest" defined? In some states it's legal for first cousins
to marry, not in others. Does your morality depend on which state
somebody is in?

Incest is usually defined by direct relationships. ie - grandfather,
father, brother

I don't think I ever removed a child from a home that was molested by an
uncle. Lots of Fathers, Many Brothers, a lot of Mothers, never any Sisters
and never any Uncles/Aunts.

Quoted message said:

Any pregnancy causes "Physical Harm". Many times, a woman is happy to
put up with it because she wants the result. Weightlifting causes
physical harm to my muscles, but I put up with it because I want the
end result.

I think that we can agree in harm that jeapordizes the life of the mother.

I can play with symantics as long as anyone. <G>

Quoted message said:

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:31:03 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"Seth Breidbart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

WooferBearATL said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
> big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
> moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
> "extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
> from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
> of homosexuality.

Rape & Incest or Physical Harm to the Mother. It's pretty well
established
Bubba.

Established by whom?

How is "Incest" defined? In some states it's legal for first cousins
to marry, not in others. Does your morality depend on which state
somebody is in?

Incest is usually defined by direct relationships. ie - grandfather,
father, brother

Wouldn't a grandfather be indirect? I have two cousins who's mother
is my mother's sister and who's father is my father's brother.
Genetically, they are closer to me than either of my grandfathers. In
some states, we'd be allowed to marry.

WooferBearATL said:

DZ wrote

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
"extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
of homosexuality.

Rape & Incest or Physical Harm to the Mother. It's pretty well established
Bubba.

It's pretty well established among homophobic fundamentalists - they
refer to the same book that you do. With some wackos who'd like to
blow up hospitals mixed in. OTOH, millions of women who choose
abortion (quarter of those say they simply want to postpone
childbearing) obviously don't think any such thing is well
established.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL said:

DZ wrote

Quoted message said:

WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote:

I'm all for wallowing in BS, but it wasn't me who started with pompous
big words like "consistency" and "ideas". I don't think you have any
moral ground to decide for a woman if her circumstances are
"extraordinary" to justify an abortion. Your opinion is no different
from the opinion of those who refer to Bible to justify their hatred
of homosexuality.

Rape & Incest or Physical Harm to the Mother. It's pretty well
established
Bubba.

It's pretty well established among homophobic fundamentalists - they
refer to the same book that you do. With some wackos who'd like to
blow up hospitals mixed in. OTOH, millions of women who choose
abortion (quarter of those say they simply want to postpone
childbearing) obviously don't think any such thing is well
established.

What book is it that I'm referring to? The DSM IV does not directly address
this issue. I think that if I were quoting a book, that would be the only
one that I'd be citing.

WooferBearATL said:

Does your morality depend on which state

Quoted message said:

somebody is in?

No, but yours does...