No personal attack, only the obvious fact that you do not have what it takes to interpret a simple chart. That has been pointed out not only by me but others too, and that you still are unable to see that is not only pathetic but sad.
How do yo come up with this drivel. I could care less how you post, but when you ARE shown that you ARE wrong in the least you should admit it and recognize reality. You made an honest admission that your religion influences your position on this. That IS worth of a "rep" because unlike you many do not admit it. Clearly and unfortunately but you are the only one who can change that. You are deluding yourself again. I clearly praised you in pose 138 for the admission about religion.
It IS a public DEBATE board. I really don't give a rat's arse what you do. You post something stupid, false or misleading I'll comment on it in context and I do the same if it is something honest, relevant or interesting. But I do not. I do not know you have no clue where you are, who you are or any other personal aspects about you. I do have an issue with what you post. It ranges from the uninformed to misleading to outright stupid to sour grapes. The only exception was your admission of being influenced by your religion and I took that on face value and appreciated it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. Post something relevant and rational and see how THAT works.
That is not why I did it. I recognized something for what it was and all things considered it was the right thing to do. That is what we all are. Seriously, how could I and why would I wish to? Nor do I wish to, there is absolutely no purpose for it. Now you are deluding yourself again. Tell you what, why don;t you refute or at least attempt to, one of my posts? What better way of beating me at my own game? There is not superior or inferior, only rational, irrational, factual, misleading, intelligent or stupid. It is up to you to decide what you post.
Not at all. She is entirely correct, you are just not capable of interpreting a simple chart. Since this has been already explained to you the question is why do you continue with the fallacy and thus your own lie?
GRANNY started this thread with deceptive comment but you won't acknowlege that, will you? do YOU believe that ONLY white Protestants oppose abortion?
see Smileyfaces post...SHE at least has the courage to admit that a graph can be interpretted in different ways. the ONLY person here that is being outright deceptive is Granny. now cry some more cause I won't post what you want me to post...
as Smileyface admits, statistics can be interpreted in different ways, if you were all the things you long for ME to be, YOU would admit it too but you won't...so you just keep on whining about me.
and what part of ANY of this inane drivel is about the topic? what exactly am I supposed to address "Prom"?? you never post anything of substance TO address or refute. ALL you ever do is sit there and criticize everyone on the other side as "stupid"...that ISN'T an argument. That isn't something someone can 'refute'. That's your opinion, one you hold for anyone that doesn't walk in lockstep with your mindset. So basically, to you, a public debate forum consists of some people trying to have a conversation and YOU sitting over there hollering "YOU STUPID" every two minutes like Forrest Gump. Not exactly showing your amazing debating skills there, ol boy. so let's just go on, I'll continue trying to have conversations and just accept that you will lurch in periodically, holler "You STUPID" and then stagger out again...we'll all stop, watch the minstrel show and then continue when you go away.
I think there is only so far that science can take you when it comes to deciding this kind of thing..and like it or not, religion still plays a big role in people's mindsets.
actually it can not, not in any way that is meaningful or relevant to the topic. That certain number of people prefer SOME restrictions is meaningless as no on can definitely say what. That a majority of people overall and broke done into groups support the current status, except for the evangelical protestants IS the point made in the OP and it IS correct. No, that would be still you. As usual you are deluding yourself. As I said, I don't give a rat's arse what you post, but find amusing that you there are some people who even in light of overwhelming evidence stick their fingers in their ears and shout fallacies. Carry on, you are convincing everyone how well you understand the topic, can interpret information and how honest you are in what you post.
yep, here you are, lurching in to yell "You stupid" again...*sigh*.. well, it keeps you off the streets...
Ah, so you CAN make posts and express your opinion and leave it at that. At least this is something that one can respond to. You are right science can only go so far and even at best offer only basis for philosophical, moral / ethical concepts. Religion is also a factor as you have admitted yourself and no one can argue against it on a personal level. However when a certain religious belief is the main reason on which public policy or law is decided, in the least is unconstitutional in the US. Religious belief and all it consists off, should be a personal choice not a state mandate.
What I believe is not relevant. The point she made states that white Christian protestants oppose abortion. As a group when you consider the numbers one would say that as a group they do. You are trying to make this about my opinion and it is not. My group is not even listed. Yes a a group you will find more white Christian Protestants oppose abortion than any other grouping. Do you dispute that?
no I don't at all...what I dispute is the comment that ONLY white Christian Protestants oppose abortions...which is what Granny said. do you dispute the idea that no other group opposes abortion at all? she used the term ONLY which IMO was an attempt to smear rather than to 'inform'. *cue "Prom"*
And she was and remains correct. Not as a majority. She was factual, can you refute anything she said?
The comment she made is a generalization. Those are made a great deal around here. I must have read 100 of those in some of the gay threads along as o what gays think and how they act. Those are all generalizations and since we are not writing dissertations or a doctorate thesis they are forgiven. Just as the use of Wiki as a link is forgiven. So I think you are way off the mark on your complaint. Of course there are others who oppose abortion. The truth is though that the group she mentioned trends very high. You can get in a snit over the semantics but the truth is that white Christian Protestants is very against abortion as a group which is more to the point that a word. Do you not agree?
so if I said "ONLY children from Black families without fathers grow up to be dropouts and idle adults" that would just be a generalization and you wouldn't see it as being offensive... after all...I have a CHART! http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working papers/wp-mclanahan2.htm silly to be arguing this...I understand that Granny is a fixture around here and some of you like her and all that, but the truth is, she was caught being nasty and got called on it...let it go.
I don't know Grannie at all. You just made a generalization by including me in the you as that word was directed at me. So what you are saying is that it is acceptable for you to make generalizations and no one else. So every time I see one of your posts I should read through and point out your generalizations and making a point of putting that on display? You know exactly what I have been saying that semantics in this type of forum gets threads looked at and read. If the title of the thread is some white Christian Protestants are against abortion how many people even bother to look. That is a no brainer. She utilized the same type of literary device as Whaler (whom you defended) tried to use in relating the pole statistics. Somewhat deceptive but neither harmful. You decided to attack grannie but defend Whaler. Is that honest on your part or is it just being nasty as you said grannie was? Hmmm So far in your posts I find that you would far rather play word games where you seem to make many mistakes then debate the topic. You derail the thread to do this.
I didn't say anything at all about the RACIAL make-up of groups opposing abortion. I should have said clearly that ONLY Evangelical Protestants as a MAJORITY oppose legal abortion. Clearly plenty of WHITE CHRISTIANS and other races as well, and other religious groups, support abortion choice. ONLY Evangelical Protestants (as a majority) oppose legal abortion. http://rcrc.org/ The Mission of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice brings the moral power of religious communities to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy. The Coalition seeks to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations.
I can agree with you about the titles of threads, but in the body of the opening post, it isn't necessary. and Whaler was only responding to what Granny said, not coming up with a stat all on his own, that's why I defended him, because I honestly believe that Granny was flamebaiting (for lack of a better word) Christians.
