Bohemond

All I essentially said was "not zero". That's about as far from absolute as you can get. Hilarious fanfic. There's more evidence that LOTR was real.

Wrong

Not sure if it's funny or sad you've been brainwashed to believe that. Probably both. An example of one of those "lies" is from WAPO: "FACT CHECK: At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high."

This forum probably should be renamed something like CNNcommunity or OMBcommunity

Yeah, I'll grant that was better. Off the top of my head I'd say Trumbo First Blood would probably be my favourite. Generally the left just doesn't know how to handle them: their feigned moral outrage just adds to the humour.

That meme is hilarious. So predictable seeing so many humourless leftist morons taking it literally and fact checking it. zOMG DidNt YoU KnOw ThAnOs iZ BaDdIE?!

Frankly, I'm surprised he's bothering to waste his time trying to reason with all the brainwashed Orange Man Bad robots in this thread. 😂

Not so, unless we perceive different peaks. PvMP was phenomenal late SoA and at the 65 cap. It steadily went downhill from there.

The Trump Derangment Syndrome is quite evident in this thread. It's really most amusing to see the cognitive dissonance of so many sufferers of TDS, here and elsewhere. I especially like the one where they blame his election on millions of hillbilly racists ... who also voted for Obama, oh hmm oops. This is even extra special when same people who deride the dimwit racists complain about the elites looking down on regular people.

You said more than that: This was your false assumption based on nothing but your simple minded biases. Given how emotionally you've expressed yourself in this thread, I suspect you never really do that, out loud or otherwise.

So in other words, your bias led you into making a false assumption. A simple google search when I last posted found this: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/06/us/politics/ap-us-ap-explains-kentucky-governor.html

I don't see your point. Why "of course"?

I haven't really drawn one - but I don't have to. Society does, however (as I mentioned) - and it does so through the creation of laws that help shape what sort of society we want to be. These laws of course grow from a multitude of opinions and are enacted by elected representatives, so yes in some cases an opinion can - and should - be enforced upon others. Someone has the opinion that private property should be protected, laws are created, and this opinion is then imposed on me such that I cannot legally take all your stuff. Personally, I understand that (1) new unique human DNA is created at conception, and (2) a live human baby exits the birth canal during successful childbirth. No one reasonably argues against these two facts. This means everyone agrees that human life starts at either (1) or (2) or ... somewhere in between. Since we're not sure, my thought is, why not err on the side of caution? (1) is the only point that's not entirely arbitrary - but it's also the end of the continuum where "bundle of cells" is actually somewhat accurate. The best argument I've heard is the onset of brainwaves - which has been shown as early as 45 days. Perhaps future research will find it is even earlier than that.

Now you're just projecting. My entire stance is based on logic using my own understanding of biology through formal study (particularly embryology) and weighing the opinions of people on both sides. The pro abortion side twists itselfs into pretezels trying to maintain constant contradictions. Anyway, you've got the wrong gentials so are not allowed an opinion...right? Men who were voted in by women. It's also funny how no one on the left objects to the all male supreme court ruling on Roe vs Wade. Men, it seems, are allowed an opinion only if it's the correct one. Same goes for women who are against abortion. Yet this is the same language used to justify abortion at any stage for any reason - yes, there are those who will claim that late term abortions even minutes from birth are "the woman's choice". Unless we (as a society) want to allow and support infanticide, a line has to be drawn somewhere - and the problem is the line ends up being completely arbitrary (e.g. the magically life creating birth canal) or based on criteria (e.g. brain activity measured by EEG) that isn't fully understood and subject to change through scientific advances. It's not sa simple an issue as the newspeak "woman's choice reproductive health" tries to make it out to be.

Actually, you need to be more careful with your choice of words - you mention your opinion being foisted, which does not change opinion into something else and certainly not "dictate the decisions" ... in the context of your previous post, it basically means sharing an opinion that is not welcome. And there's really nothing subjective about abortion - it's an objectively horrific process, which is made all the clearer by the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by those who support it. More than anything (more even than tertiary study of anatomy & physiology ) I have found myself against abortion due to the universally weak and contradictory arguments of those in favour of it.