(03-14-2017 02:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:49 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:45 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:43 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:40 PM)fsquid Wrote:  right, those aborted babies starting in 1973 wouldn't be violent crime people until they were 16 or 18 so you wouldn't see the effect until 1991 or so. Your chart seems to support that.

So you're in favor of abortion as a crime deterrent? Sick, man.

Children who are unwanted or are born to people who cannot support them are more likely to become criminals. So I'm in favor of a mother having a vehicle to not bring those into the world.

How about a condom? A 3-pack of Magnums is cheaper than a pack of Newports. Furthermore, you could buy about 50 3-packs of Magnums for the cost of a single abortion.

yea well once fertilization happens, those Magnums won't do anything.

There's still a way to prevent all that.

(03-14-2017 02:24 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:08 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:40 PM)fsquid Wrote:  right, those aborted babies starting in 1973 wouldn't be violent crime people until they were 16 or 18 so you wouldn't see the effect until 1991 or so. Your chart seems to support that.

Either way you're pushing correlation is causation which is at best, too simplistic.

of course it is, but I still see it as a vehicle to not let future criminals into this world. Sorry if it goes against your values but I value the safety of my family over that.

I'll flag myself in advance...



Look if we want to say "well this one action makes my family safer so forget about your values" then we are treading dangerous grounds. Schizophrenia is a big indicator of future violent acts and can be detected in very young children.

By killing these children we can make your family safer.

I just wanted to give you something to think about, I recognize the logical weakness of my argument. Ill take my five yards and replay of down now....

Your response would be valid if I said we should force abortions on them. I simply am ok with a vehicle for mothers who choose not to have the baby because they can't afford or want them. I'm fine with that because more than likely they will do harm to our great country.

(03-14-2017 04:01 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:24 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:08 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:40 PM)fsquid Wrote:  right, those aborted babies starting in 1973 wouldn't be violent crime people until they were 16 or 18 so you wouldn't see the effect until 1991 or so. Your chart seems to support that.

Either way you're pushing correlation is causation which is at best, too simplistic.

of course it is, but I still see it as a vehicle to not let future criminals into this world. Sorry if it goes against your values but I value the safety of my family over that.

I'll flag myself in advance...



Look if we want to say "well this one action makes my family safer so forget about your values" then we are treading dangerous grounds. Schizophrenia is a big indicator of future violent acts and can be detected in very young children.

By killing these children we can make your family safer.

I just wanted to give you something to think about, I recognize the logical weakness of my argument. Ill take my five yards and replay of down now....

Your response would be valid if I said we should force abortions on them. I simply am ok with a vehicle for mothers who choose not to have the baby because they can't afford or want them. I'm fine with that because more than likely they will do harm to our great country.

Why not kill him when he is 2 or 3? You will get the results you are seeking.

(03-14-2017 04:10 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:01 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:24 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:08 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Either way you're pushing correlation is causation which is at best, too simplistic.

of course it is, but I still see it as a vehicle to not let future criminals into this world. Sorry if it goes against your values but I value the safety of my family over that.

I'll flag myself in advance...



Look if we want to say "well this one action makes my family safer so forget about your values" then we are treading dangerous grounds. Schizophrenia is a big indicator of future violent acts and can be detected in very young children.

By killing these children we can make your family safer.

I just wanted to give you something to think about, I recognize the logical weakness of my argument. Ill take my five yards and replay of down now....

Your response would be valid if I said we should force abortions on them. I simply am ok with a vehicle for mothers who choose not to have the baby because they can't afford or want them. I'm fine with that because more than likely they will do harm to our great country.

Why not kill him when he is 2 or 3? You will get the results you are seeking.

that's a forced killing.

(03-14-2017 05:26 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:10 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:01 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:24 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  of course it is, but I still see it as a vehicle to not let future criminals into this world. Sorry if it goes against your values but I value the safety of my family over that.

I'll flag myself in advance...



Look if we want to say "well this one action makes my family safer so forget about your values" then we are treading dangerous grounds. Schizophrenia is a big indicator of future violent acts and can be detected in very young children.

By killing these children we can make your family safer.

I just wanted to give you something to think about, I recognize the logical weakness of my argument. Ill take my five yards and replay of down now....

Your response would be valid if I said we should force abortions on them. I simply am ok with a vehicle for mothers who choose not to have the baby because they can't afford or want them. I'm fine with that because more than likely they will do harm to our great country.

Why not kill him when he is 2 or 3? You will get the results you are seeking.

that's a forced killing.

not while sleeping in his bed.

You equate a 3 year old with a fetus. I do not. That is also a difference in opinion.

(03-14-2017 05:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  You equate a 3 year old with a fetus. I do not. That is also a difference in opinion.

All I have is an opinion. Not much else on this subject. Anyway, the fetus you blow off is a soon to be 3 year old.

(03-14-2017 05:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  You equate a 3 year old with a fetus. I do not. That is also a difference in opinion.

Did you refer to your unborn child as a "fetus"?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

A non-binery is just another group, like the trannys, in need of mental help.

(03-14-2017 02:53 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:59 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is a person that does not conform to binary gender roles. She apparently doesn't identify as cisgender, not because she is Trans, but because she is 'non-binary'. This is a different from being Trans. They argue that being non-binary excludes them from being cisgender.

That's more a pile of strange words than a response.

The fight over the AHCA is much more simple than tommie's post.

A man who thinks she's a woman is more apt to have a (what we call in the fire department) cocaine baby than a real flesh and blood one. That still doesn't make it a baby.

Wow, these lgbtqrstu's sure are screwed up in the head.

Not surprised that anti-Trans or anti-Gay attitudes and bias run rampant in fire departments.

(03-14-2017 06:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:53 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:59 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is a person that does not conform to binary gender roles. She apparently doesn't identify as cisgender, not because she is Trans, but because she is 'non-binary'. This is a different from being Trans. They argue that being non-binary excludes them from being cisgender.

That's more a pile of strange words than a response.

The fight over the AHCA is much more simple than tommie's post.

A man who thinks she's a woman is more apt to have a (what we call in the fire department) cocaine baby than a real flesh and blood one. That still doesn't make it a baby.

Wow, these lgbtqrstu's sure are screwed up in the head.

Not surprised that anti-Trans or anti-Gay attitudes and bias run rampant in fire departments.

Well, be surprised because first responders will treat you queer ones the same as the normal ones. You won't get any different treatment pro or con against someone that has gender confusion. I have yet to see them respond to a male transexual thinking he's having a baby.

Outside of work he can think whatever he/she wants.