Syco21

Dutch, I believe, brought up the parasite issue. He was the first to refer to anyone as a parasite. My subsequent responses were aimed solely at pointing out how offensive it is and how it doesn't make any real logical sense. As I was doing, but it's still completely offensive. I don't think I made it very clear, so here goes: I don't think people living off of welfare are parasites or bad people, not as a whole. They are just people that are having very rough moments in their life and need some support to survive. They aren't parasites and they aren't bad people. But if we're going to start discussing the strict definition of the word, then it can be applied to them as well. @Nintii: Thanks!

Google'd, that's the attack on the embassy that killed some people, right? I didn't know where it happened or that people were referring it to the "Bengzhai incident." All I know is that someone, somewhere attacked some American embassy and killed some American people things. Also, I think some people may have been playing some cartoon or something. I hope this has adequately summed up my understanding of this incident. :biggrin:

@BlackBaron2 & GinnyFizz: Great! Take offense! I think it's offensive to refer to unborn children as parasites. I find the complete disregard for them appalling. But fact of the matter is, those groups of people do fit under the definition of parasite. My entire argument has been that just because someone can be considered a parasite, doesn't mean they should have no rights. Whether you contribute more than you take, you are still human and you still have those basic human rights. Just like an unborn child. Personally, I feel people ought to take responsibility for their actions. Now as I have stated earlier, I am fine with early term abortions. It is the late term abortions I feel should be outlawed with a very few exceptions. If you have sex, but don't use condoms, don't use the pill, don't use the morning after pill and wait 4-5 months to have an abortion, well that's your own damn fault. I can't remember if the debate about government footing the bill for female contraceptives was in this thread or another. But I'm going to address it here. Should the government buy me condoms? Should they pay for the snip? No, they shouldn't. So why the hell should they cover female contraceptives? If a woman wants to go out and have sex, let her buy her own contraceptives. Same as men. Now, I fully support things like unemployment, universal healthcare, food stamps and housing assistance etc. But I don't think the government should be paying for abortions because a woman decided she doesn't want to be pregnant. If it is medically necessary or if it was a rape, then sure. By all means, they should pay for it.

Overly publicized incident I've never heard of. Fox News ain't alone in making s*** up, or have the lot of you already forgotten how the media drug George Zimmerman through the mud, making s*** up, editing audio recordings and photos to make him look bad?

You have not explained anything, you have only found new ways of repeating your original statement. I have asked repeated now, what difference does it make whether the parasite is feeding from within or remotely. I have repeatedly explained that someone like my grandmother is 100% dependent upon the care of another person, not unlike an unborn child within the womb. The only difference being that one is physically separated and the other is not. So you state that an unborn child is fully dependent upon it's mother for sustenance, and that this is, in your opinion, a harmful relationship. So you say women ought to have the right to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy. You use the physical aspect of pregnancy(the baby living within the womb) to justify that idea. So again, why does physical separation matter when all other factors remain the same?

I'm still waiting for a logically sound reason for the difference between an unborn child and the other examples I have given. All you keep saying is that an unborn child is inside it's mother as though this were some sort of crime. Once again, whether the parasite is feeding on, in or remotely is irrelevant. The affect remains the same: feeding off it's host in order to survive.

Right, and the sick, the poor, the disabled etc etc are all depriving sustenance from their host society. So why is one parasite given rights and protections and the other isn't? They're both parasites, they both deprive sustenance from their host and one even moreso than the other(hint, it's not the fetus). Yet, you're ignoring the basic definition of parasite. Again, this is an arbitrary distinction lacking a logically sound reasoning. Whether the parasite is living inside, on or feeding remotely does not change the fact the parasite is still feeding off the host. But hey, let's use another example. When my grandmother was dying of cancer, she was a massive burden on me. I had to take off of work, which deprived me of money, which deprived me of groceries, I had to take her to the hospital, which deprived me of gas. I had pay for doctors and nurses, which was money that would have been spent on gas, groceries and bills. Would I have been justified in killing her without her consent? She was not an independent person. She was a DEPENDENT, reliant on me and my family for survival. There was no significant difference between her situation and that of an unborn child.

It's already been explained to you. Actually you're not. You're adding a caveat. The most strictest sense of the word would be an entity that feeds off of another living entity in order to survive. This is what all three definitions share, it is the origin of the word. Again, I am NOT talking about euthanasia. You're just wasting time typing about it. So basically, you're assigning unborn children the label of parasite without any justification, no logical reasoning based on science to back up your opinion. Essentially it's "unborn children are parasites because I say so, but other parasites are not parasites because I say so" So I go back to the very beginning. What magic takes place at birth that makes an unborn child suddenly a living, breathing human? The fact that a child inside the womb is living within another person is irrelevant. The poor, people that require life support for any duration and others all benefit by depriving other people of sustenance. Be it money, food, organs etc. When a person gets a heart transplant, they are preventing another person that also needs that heart from receiving it. Prisoners, the sick, the mentally ill and welfare recipients are provided housing, food, healthcare and clothing by depriving other people of money. Some of these people are provided for at the detriment of others. Take for example Social Security in the US. SS takes out a large portion of my income, money that I can't afford to lose. Social Security benefactors are benefiting to my detriment. So again, what magic differentiates the unborn from the other parasites of society?

I'm not talking about euthanasia. K? 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc. The other definitions you have neglected. The poor, the sick and prisoners are also parasites by definition. So again, why not make it legal to kill them when it's most convenient?

One can not consider how much good a president has done without taking into account the damage. Obama has done a lot of damage. All presidents have done good. They've just done different types of good. Obama is no better a president than Bush was, Bush was no better a president than Clinton, Clinton no better than Bush, Bush no better than... Well this is sounding really familiar. Pretty sure I posted this same line earlier.

You completely missed the point, AVDutch. Ginnyfizz was much closer and absolutely right that is was relevant for me to bring it up in the context I did. My point is, just because some considers something to be one way, does not make it so. Then I gave a list of things that, in times past, were considered acceptable, right and/or even morally required. Things that today are viewed as heinous. What makes an unborn child a parasite? Because it relies on it's mother for survival? I guess that also makes the poor parasites as well, they rely on the government and help from others for survival. Anyone requiring a heart transplant would be a parasite because they rely on heart and lung machines for survival. Anyone in a coma is a parasite because they rely on life support to survive. A SCUBA diver currently in a dive is a parasite because they rely on their equipment for survival. Submariners are parasites because they rely on their subs for survival. Astronauts are parasites because they rely on their suits. Etc etc etc. Why not just kill them all when it's convenient?

Perhaps you have already forgotten, but I have been pretty vocal about being anti-Republican. My points about Obama were calling into question the alleged good he has done. Pointing out that some of the quoted issues either didn't help the American public, were started by previous administrations, harmed the American public, were replaced by equally bad or even worse policies and/or a mixture of the above. Bush was a terrible president, so was Clinton, so is Obama and so would be Mitt Romney.

I would have to disagree with you on this. Just look at some of the things Obama has done for the American people... http://3chicspolitic...accomplishments Obama has done more for the people of America than most presidents can say during such very bad economical times. Obama shouldn't be given credit for fulfilling Bush's agreement with the Iraqis, an agreement he wasn't too keen on keeping. Or have you forgotten that Obama's administration wanted to keep troops in Iraq past the Bush/Iraqi agreement to have all U.S. troops withdrawn no later than December 31st 2011? No, they aren't. See above. Are you forgetting SOPA/PIPA/everyotherPA in the last four years? Bush had already started phasing out stop loss, Obama just continued that policy to end stop loss. And it's going to bite us in the ass, just like cancelling the B-2 production bit us in the ass. Now we're scrambling to develop a new bomber fleet, spending billions upon billions to design a new bomber to replace the rapidly aging B-52 fleet and reinforce the B-2 fleet. And instead of releasing the illegally detained prisoners, they're all being sent to other prisons in other countries. Not to mention that he promised to shut it down and four years later it hasn't been. This isn't a victory for anyone other than the Pontius Pilates of America. You mean the bank and wallstreet bailout that was a continuation of Bush policies and just about universally despised by Americans? Yup, the very same one. And instead, we now have indefinite detentions of American citizens on American soil and executions with no judicial oversight of American citizens on foreign soil. Only the most important program we have. The one that strives to protect us from any enemy that may have or obtain powerful missiles. I'm not a big fan of military spending cuts in the first place. But surely, even those that want large scale reductions in military spending can see how the missile defense program is an important one. This says to me that in his first six months, Obama was more concerned about the rest of the world than problems in the homeland. It was a massive PR nightmare for Obama. I really wouldn't list it with his victories. Except when disaster struck Texas. Then it was all "f*** you guys." Only when they actually get paid. :whistling: Increased the number of young Americans getting royally screwed over by private banks while receiving student loans. FTFY Thus making them owe more money and repay over a longer period of time. Isn't Obama the one that wanted to slash existing benefits? :whistling: PR move, benefits Obama more than Americans~ Get government OUT of my cigarettes. Kthnxbye That first Latina voted against American rights. She can go right straight to hell. HA! How does this benefit Americans? It didn't have to be redecorated. Did a damn good job of maintaining the status quo in the process. The road to hell, it is paved with these things. Until I can swing on this swing set, f*** them! :tongue: It's a pretty disingenuous list is what it is. Many of those things are high controversial and at least some of them are just about universally hated. I can go on, but I'd rather not. Aside from those gripes I have listed, I am sure there are more. But it really doesn't stop there. There's an equally long list of things Obama has done that does or would screw over Americans.

Just because someone considers something to be one way, does not make it so. This is especially true when it flies in the face of reality, as you have admitted it does. If that were so, then we'd still have slaves today, Hitler's genocide wouldn't have ever been given another thought, there'd be no native Americans, women and non-white men would have no rights today and the list would go on.

As far as abortion goes, I only support early term abortion. And that support isn't very strong. After that, I only support medically necessary abortions.

Oh hell no, I'd rather have Obama and Romney.

Care to share their differences?

If the recording is an encrypted radio signal, then post-processing from a secondary probably wont decode it. Any words you hear, could simply be the noises playing tricks on your ears. Help me doesn't really sound like someone speaking. The light could have been an airplane of some sort. It would appear stationary or slow moving looking at it from certain directions, then appear to speed up and zip away as it got closer. My guess is possibly some military plane using some encrypted signal possibly one not normally used that has the unfortunately side effect of bleeding onto civilian channels. When you say radio, it could really be anything. Is it like a car radio, a CB radio, a scanner?

It is my belief that the change in political leanings in America is more towards libertarianism than either liberal or conservative. The reason why it would appear that Americans are leaning more heavily towards Republicans is because the Republicans have traditionally been somewhat more Libertarian than Democrats. Many people foolishly believe that they absolutely must vote either Democrat or Republican and that voting third party is just a waste of time. Which would be why Libertarians aren't gaining the support they would otherwise. This would also explain why it would appear that Romney is likely to lose the election. Romney isn't much different than Obama, he has a very similar voting record. But then you add in the various statements he has made, either behind closed doors(47% of Americans are losers or whatever) and the statements he's made in the open(almost all lies) and you end up with a huge chunk of people hating the crap out of him.

The Marissa Alexander case has a lot of little caveats to look at. It's also a fairly hot topic with many feeling that the courts ruled incorrectly. I've forgotten all the details on the case, I think my final stance was "not enough information." I'd also like to mention that Angela Corey is viewed as a hostile prosecutor and that again many, myself included this time, feel that she should be relieved of her duties and disbarred for her handling of the Zimmerman case. Actually, I believe that, the judge's statement that she could retreat, may be in violation of Florida's SYG law. I could be wrong though. Texas law specifically states that the court can not take into consideration whether the actor could have retreated or not. Not really sure how that case would have played out here in light of that wording. As for the second case, not enough information. It states the attacker was shot in the back. So was he leaving when shot? If so, the law most likely wouldn't permit the use of force or deadly force. Again, in Texas it explicitly states that if the attacker attempts to deescalate the fight, then use of force is no longer justified. As for your request for a case where self defense was cited as justification in the use of deadly force against a verbal threat, I could not find one. But I don't really feel as though I need one anyway. The law is pretty clear, if you have a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury, you are justified in most stand your ground states to use deadly force. Since assault includes in the definition, a reasonable fear of imminent harm, then it's not really hard to see how this can be so. But absent a weapon, there are other factors as well. For example disparity of overwhelming size, sex, overwhelming strength, age, force of numbers, fighting ability, aggressiveness. Tangent rant.

Now since certain posters have a short attention span, I'll go ahead and remind everyone what my argument is: Offering someone financial reward for the killing of a third person is, even when in jest, ill advised. But that does not make it automatically illegal in every situation. CHECKMATE ATHEISTS. :tongue:

Fair point. Failure to report a crime can not be a crime absent active concealment. http://legal-diction....com/misprision My explanation of assault backed by law. http://legal-diction...ary.com/assault Read the rest of the article. My statement regarding self defense by deadly force: http://www.statutes....PE/htm/PE.9.htm Conduct here refers to the use of threats, force and deadly force. I have already established that an assault, by law, creates a reasonable fear of imminent harm. Ginny stated: This is further evidence that she isn't really paying too much attention to my argument. I had already covered this when I referenced negligence. Mens rea http://en.wikipedia....a#United_States Solicitation: http://en.wikipedia....om_other_crimes

I unfortunately have to get ready for work, so don't have time for a full response. However, I'd like to point out an observation I have made. Ginny, you do not seem to be fully reading what I post. Rather instead you merely focus on certain points. Observe: This came directly after I stated this... Further, your response here: Did not even come close to addressing the point you were responding to. Rather, it completely ignored what was said focused on one key phrase: "Sorry, you're still wrong." This is what that paragraph was responding to: Just because some random schmuck may construe your desire to remain silent on an issue that could potentially get you killed if you spoke up, does not mean that you could be convicted as an accomplice. Sorry, you're still wrong. As you can see, I was responding to your statement about someone being offered a contract kill, turning it down, not going to the police and then being prosecuted as an accomplice.

That statement is referring to assault. You don't ever actually have to touch a person to assault them, just make them feel as though you are going to, obviously this is going to apply to death threats as well. In many states, telling someone you are going to kill them can give them legally justification for killing you. So long as they feel the threat is serious and places them in imminent danger. If I am joking with my friends and say something like "just wait, I'm going to kill you while you're sleeping" they're going to know it's a joke and it wont be a crime because no harm was done. But if I said that to a completely random stranger, no matter if I were joking or not, if they felt threatened by it, it would be a crime.

Nope, using the word "potentially" doesn't make you any more correct. Sorry. Just because some random schmuck may construe your desire to remain silent on an issue that could potentially get you killed if you spoke up, does not mean that you could be convicted as an accomplice. Sorry, you're still wrong. This appeal to authority only damages your argument. You do not understand or know various basic tenants of American law, as such you are no authority. Do not take this as an attack, it's simple matter of fact. I am also not an authority on American law. But not being an Authority does not equate you being wrong. All it means is that you should not claim to be an authority. You don't understand what SCOTUS said, the quote you've used to support your argument. Let's look at your SCOTUS quote again. "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action [and] likely to incite or produce such action." To be convicted, the prosecutor must prove that the statement was intended to cause imminent lawless action and it must be likely to do so. My offering to pay you to kill someone does not meet that test. You definitely would not take up my offer and I knew you were highly unlikely to do so. Therefore my speech was clearly not directed at causing imminent lawless action nor was there any likelihood of it happening.