Lurker > Unbreakable

YUHH posted...

HOLD UP

IT JUST HIT ME

milk can be made from soy and a man is just an older boy

this means that milkman = soyboy and he's been hiding in plain sight this entire time

Yep, he's admitted to being a sub-150lb manlet. Most "soyboys" would probably hand him his ass
---

But Wait... there's more

Maybe if you spent less time whining about SJWs, posting about your cuckold fetish, and making it obvious you're a virgin you'd have gotten somewhere.

Oh, and did you remember to take your meds?
---

But Wait... there's more

Learning posted...

Actually yeah. We know 462 is Evotech and StarLightGlimmR, NYb97 is most likely him too. So basically this dude's been spending half the topic talking to himself while claiming other people are mental and need meds. More ironic than a hammer

That does sound a lot like AlexG the ponysexual, yeah
---

But Wait... there's more

Bio1590 posted...

Says the user who wants to do horrible things to sexualized cartoon ponies.

---

But Wait... there's more

---

But Wait... there's more

jborgan posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Unbreakable posted...

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Landlords have to go through a process to remove tenants, you can't just kick them out with all their stuff on the side of the road, that's illegal.

So you want women to shove an eviction notice up there?

Put it up for adoption once it's born. By the time the baby acually starts to become an inconvenience to the mother it's already well along regardless.

Pregnancy and Birth aren't exactly great things to put a rape victim through. Maybe you should stop wanting to punish women for the actions of men.

Honestly, the entire pro-abortion brigade should be put on a high-risk watchlist, if they can justify this with innocent babies, who knows who else they might try to justify the same thing towards.

lmao. Told you, you're not going to get a reasonable discussion out of him.

That's fucking ridiculous
---

But Wait... there's more

DarkTransient posted...

Saying "you're not allowed to kill someone you don't want to be alive" is not a punishment. Once again, pro-abortionists have to resort to emotionally-charged language and dismissing their victims as "non-human" because there literally isn't a single shred of real-world reasoning to support their position.

It's pre-life. You're resorting to emotionally charged language by labeling it life.
---

But Wait... there's more

Blue_Dream87 posted...

At this point I think anything with "toxic" in it's name triggers certain subsets that can't think critically. Legit concepts like this and toxic masculinity/femininity seem to fly over too many heads

What about Milkmans toxic involuntary celibacy?
---

But Wait... there's more

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Unbreakable posted...

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Landlords have to go through a process to remove tenants, you can't just kick them out with all their stuff on the side of the road, that's illegal.

So you want women to shove an eviction notice up there?

Put it up for adoption once it's born. By the time the baby acually starts to become an inconvenience to the mother it's already well along regardless.

Not true in the slightest. Some women get morning sickness and pain quite fast
---

But Wait... there's more

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Unbreakable posted...

I say no. A fetus is pre-life, unable to survive outside its host body and merely a potential human.

Independence isn't a requirement for personhood.

Surviving outside a body is a good deal less than "independence". Otherwise you could say every child born is independent

You don't count age from growing in the body, you count age from birth. Pre-birth is pre-life
---

But Wait... there's more

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Landlords have to go through a process to remove tenants, you can't just kick them out with all their stuff on the side of the road, that's illegal.

So you want women to shove an eviction notice up there?
---

But Wait... there's more

The question at the core of this is "does a fetus deserve personhood?"

I say no. A fetus is pre-life, unable to survive outside its host body and merely a potential human.

I personally believe first trimester should be allowed, third illegal and second should be the one up for debate.
---

But Wait... there's more

Darmik posted...

DarkTransient posted...

If you think something that's undeniably alive and undeniably human isn't "human life", you don't need convincing, you need an evaluation.

I'd like to see you look at a bunch of ovulation gunk, a miscarriage and some other random entrails and tell us which ones are human and which ones aren't.

Reminds me of that picture that got sent around social media of a blown up tumor in a cute shape and people saying "how could you want to kill this"
---

But Wait... there's more

DarkTransient posted...

Unbreakable posted...

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Darmik posted...

Yes. And it's not 'is one' as soon as the sperm enters the egg.

There's still a long way to go until it develops into life.

Are you saying you've discovered the definition of life that has alludd scientists for centuries???

When does your work get published?

See, that's the whole debate. You believe it's life, pro choice people believe it's a bundle of cells. That's the fundamental argument and one which will never actually be reconciled.

Nothing you say will convince me that abortion is killing human life. Nothing I say will convince you its not.

If you think something that's undeniably alive and undeniably human isn't "human life", you don't need convincing, you need an evaluation.

It's pre-life

Not alive if it literally can't survive outside the host
---

But Wait... there's more

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Darmik posted...

Yes. And it's not 'is one' as soon as the sperm enters the egg.

There's still a long way to go until it develops into life.

Are you saying you've discovered the definition of life that has alludd scientists for centuries???

When does your work get published?

See, that's the whole debate. You believe it's life, pro choice people believe it's a bundle of cells. That's the fundamental argument and one which will never actually be reconciled.

Nothing you say will convince me that abortion is killing human life. Nothing I say will convince you its not.
---

But Wait... there's more

The retroactive part is bullshit. I don't think even the most hardcore anti abortion lawmakers are that zealous.
---

But Wait... there's more

DarkTransient posted...

Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did?

It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant.

"Person B" isn't actually a person. Incapable of thought or feeling of any kind
---

But Wait... there's more

Zikten posted...

Darmik posted...

Zikten posted...

Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too

A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person.

I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it

It's not hatred. You really think people who get abortions do it out of malice?
---

But Wait... there's more

DarkTransient posted...

Unbreakable posted...

jborgan posted...

YUHH posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions.

I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?

Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?

DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?

Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.

Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell.

Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?

I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it.

That's just it though. It's not agreed on whether fetuses are actually people. There is no right or wrong answer legally or scientifically. I doubt anyone getting an abortion actually believes they are killing a human life.
---

But Wait... there's more

jborgan posted...

YUHH posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions.

I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?

Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?

DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?

Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.

Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell.

Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?
---

But Wait... there's more

jumi posted...

Unbreakable posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

DarkTransient posted...

The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection.

Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal

"I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.

If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out

Or kill them if you're in a "stand your ground" state

Killing someone who invades your home isn't "stand your ground." It's castle doctrine.

True. I got that wrong. Replace that in my statement then and it still fits
---

But Wait... there's more

DarkTransient posted...

Unbreakable posted...

Unbreakable posted...

Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?

No one "pro-life" has answered this yet

I literally answered that before you even asked it.

DarkTransient posted...

And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place.

Didn't see that, sorry

@SageHarpuiaHX
---

But Wait... there's more

Unbreakable posted...

Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?

No one "pro-life" has answered this yet
---

But Wait... there's more

Darklit_Minuet posted...

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

DarkTransient posted...

The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection.

Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal

"I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.

If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out

Or kill them if you're in a "stand your ground" state
---

But Wait... there's more

voldothegr8 posted...

Lmao
---

But Wait... there's more

Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?
---

But Wait... there's more

@fenderbender321
---

But Wait... there's more

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Not if they lose the house they won't

They can (and probably will) ram it through even in lame duck status
---

But Wait... there's more

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

I bet she swiped right on a 10/10 chad in a MAGA hat.

Sounds like something that doesn't actually exist
---

But Wait... there's more

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

This is supposed to be #95, not 85. Also itd be nice if Fake Vegy would stop shitting up these topics

Lmao, he's right @DragonGirlYuki you were 10 off
---

But Wait... there's more

LimboTraveller posted...

can anyone tell the fullstory of p2e?

That's literally what got the last topic locked.

Also it would have been funny if I made the topic. Muff put me on ignore, so if would keep his whiny butt away
---

But Wait... there's more

I would have preferred Roman numerals, but I'll allow it
---

But Wait... there's more

Hairistotle posted...

you are notorious for posting things that have little traction and attributing them to "liberals" so forgive my doubt

Milkman posts about his fetish an awful lot
---

But Wait... there's more

FrisbeeDude posted...

soylentgreen posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

soylentgreen posted...

if its a simple think like putting down a nickname and not your government name thats not UNFAIR

And what makes you think that they are putting down a nickname?

i'm giving an example

point is fill out your forms correctly and consistently

"Its totally ok to deny someone the right to vote of they did something like misspell their name or enter an incorrect zip code. Trust me, I'm a liberal"

lmao fuck outta here

That's lifeamovie/HypnoCoosh
---

But Wait... there's more

I guess we can add the ignore system to the "things Muffinz doesn't understand" list. I can see his posts, it's just his little safe space where he won't see mine.
---

But Wait... there's more

Muffinz0rz posted...

I'm just crying.

---

But Wait... there's more

Donald Trump is probably working on this problem that affects him in a most grievous way
---

But Wait... there's more

SaithSayer posted...

It's pointless to say who would've been better. To know that, you'd need to go back in time and change the results and see how the other would've handled things up to this point. You can only assume.

Kasich would have definitely been better than Trump or Hillary. A dried up donkey turd would have been better than Trump or Hillary. That's objective fact.
---

But Wait... there's more

Why should churches be tax exempt? It's kind of outdated.
---

But Wait... there's more

Caution999 posted...

Impersonating a known user has always been a severe violation

Donald_Art posted...

Trump colluded with SBAllen to have his voice censored

@Doom_Art
---

But Wait... there's more

King_Hellebuyck posted...

soylentgreen posted...

and just like that they turn and hide

more liberals need to stand up to the alt-left

Dude whats going wrong in your life that you dedicate so much time to trolling on CE?

Lack of attention from the opposite sex will do that to a man
---

But Wait... there's more

RiderofHogs posted...

Unbreakable posted...

RiderofHogs posted...

Unbreakable posted...

SaithSayer posted...

Other countries can chill on wanting to destroy us. We're doing a fine job of it ourselves.

Thanks Trump voters!

Your welcome corrupt democrats.

I'm not a Democrat

Well, then you get a free pass as long as you didn't vote for Hillary.

Voted Gary Johnson in a blue state. Registered Republican though, voted for Kasich in the primary. Would have been far, far better than the idiot currently in charge.
---

But Wait... there's more

RiderofHogs posted...

Unbreakable posted...

SaithSayer posted...

Other countries can chill on wanting to destroy us. We're doing a fine job of it ourselves.

Thanks Trump voters!

Your welcome corrupt democrats.

I'm not a Democrat
---

But Wait... there's more

SaithSayer posted...

Other countries can chill on wanting to destroy us. We're doing a fine job of it ourselves.

Thanks Trump voters!
---

But Wait... there's more

King_Hellebuyck posted...

eston posted...

I just don't understand where he gets off calling her horseface when he literally cheated on his wife with this woman

And he paid her for it, too. Wasnt just like a whatever, Ill fuck if shes down.

People like TC who can't get laid to save their lives love that stuff
---

But Wait... there's more

Election Fraud: It's OK If You Are Republican
---

But Wait... there's more