Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, George.Follow

#27 Nov 19 2013 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Even the Bible weighs in on this, such that if someone hits a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, he owes her husband money. (Presumably hitting a non-pregnant woman entails no punishment as long as she's not seriously injured.)

Not that I think we ought to be deciding civil law based on biblical law or anything. Smiley: rolleyes

Anyway, I agree with idiggory.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#28 Nov 19 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
So what we need then is for Ol' George to pay himself some money then to compensate himself for the loss.

Sounds prudent. Smiley: glasses
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#29 Nov 19 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
So what we need then is for Ol' George to pay himself some money then to compensate himself for the loss.

Sounds prudent. Smiley: glasses


'Cept it was his girlfriend, not his wife, so I suppose he has to pay his sheckles to the lady in question's father.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#30 Nov 19 2013 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
Catwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So what we need then is for Ol' George to pay himself some money then to compensate himself for the loss.

Sounds prudent. Smiley: glasses


'Cept it was his girlfriend, not his wife, so I suppose he has to pay his sheckles to the lady in question's father.
How about we just sew a giant red "A" into her clothing and shun her for the next 40 years? Clearly this was all her fault.


Edited, Nov 19th 2013 10:51am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Nov 19 2013 at 3:52 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idiggory wrote:
I don't see why there'd be a discrepancy.


You see it, you just don't want to accept it. We have contradictions in our laws. Accepting this wouldn't be a justified argument against abortion, it's just reality.

Idiggory wrote:
The argument for legal abortion has little to do with the fetus. It's about the woman having the freedom to control her own body. Forced abortions and prohibited abortions are offensive for the exact same reason - they're taking away her right to choose what happens with her own body.


It has much to do with the fetus. If it were all about women having the freedom to control her own body, then abortions would be legal during anytime of the pregnancy. Society has compromised a solution where women are given the freedom to choose for x amount of weeks of her pregnancy and after that, the fetus is protected under the law.

Idiggory wrote:
In the context of domestic abuse, I'm assuming the rhetoric has to do with the chance abuse could cause a miscarriage, the potentially increased psychological pain of a to-be mother protecting her child, etc. I don't think the logic was "well, two people got hurt, not one."


False.
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws.


Idiggory wrote:
Pick a post, any post.

Specifically provide an example. I'm sure my "Congratulations!" posts are not examples.

Aethien wrote:
You don't


You have a weird way of acknowledging your own ignorance.
#32 Nov 19 2013 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Aethien wrote:
You don't
You have a weird way of acknowledging your own ignorance.
You must be really proud of that comeback since I've seen you use it at least three times now.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#33 Nov 19 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
So what happens now? He will get an official felony because white girl's word means three times that of a black teenager in a hoodie and lose his weapon access?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#34 Nov 19 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
You see it, you just don't want to accept it. We have contradictions in our laws. Accepting this wouldn't be a justified argument against abortion, it's just reality.


No, there isn't.

See, having studied basic logic, I understand that conclusions have to follow from a path of logically connecting premises that prove the conclusion.

That also means I understand that, just because the conclusion is the same, doesn't mean that the path to it is. And it doesn't mean that your argument is correct, just because it arrives at the same conclusion.

For instance:

1. Abortion kills babies.
2. Bananas.
Therefore, Abortion is a right.

and

1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Abortion is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, abortion is a right.

See?

Quote:
It has much to do with the fetus. If it were all about women having the freedom to control her own body, then abortions would be legal during anytime of the pregnancy. Society has compromised a solution where women are given the freedom to choose for x amount of weeks of her pregnancy and after that, the fetus is protected under the law.


No, society has not "compromised" a solution. You have one group dead-set on eliminating abortion, and the other group dead-set on keeping it as a possibility.

The "compromise" here is that Roe vs. Wade set a specific standard that one side cannot legislate past, regardless if they want to.

Said case affirmed that abortion was a constitutional right of women as a direct result of their right to control their own bodies.

It doesn't matter one way or the other if you think the fetus is a life. Women have, in our society, the right to liberty. Even if the fetus is alive, they still have the right to liberty. It's a shame that the fetus can't survive without the woman, but that's not the woman's problem.

If society cares that much, then it should be investing in artificial womb research that would enable fetuses to be transferred into a new environment to grow, rather than be aborted. I've never heard of a pro-life organization interested in that sort of research.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#35 Nov 19 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
I know you're making a separate point, but still:

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Abortion is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, abortion is a right.


1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Swinging their fists such that they hit someone else in the head is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, punching someone in the head is a right.

See?


Quote:
No, society has not "compromised" a solution. You have one group dead-set on eliminating abortion, and the other group dead-set on keeping it as a possibility.

The "compromise" here is that Roe vs. Wade set a specific standard that one side cannot legislate past, regardless if they want to.


Actually, Roe v. Wade set two specific standards on each side that neither side can legislate past. It's incredibly wrong to say that the ruling only limits the degree to which states may restrict abortion. The ruling also limits the degree to which states may allow abortion and does effectively establish that a fetus gains rights gradually as the pregnancy continues.

Quote:
Said case affirmed that abortion was a constitutional right of women as a direct result of their right to control their own bodies.


Er... Technically correct, but not as absolute as most people assume. All constitutional rights can be infringed when they impact with another constitutional right. Like the right to life.

Quote:
It doesn't matter one way or the other if you think the fetus is a life. Women have, in our society, the right to liberty. Even if the fetus is alive, they still have the right to liberty. It's a shame that the fetus can't survive without the woman, but that's not the woman's problem.


Again, that's not really correct. There's a reason why late term abortions of a viable fetus is a crime. If you were correct, it would be legal to have or perform an abortion right up to the moment of birth. It's not, at least partly because of the Roe v. Wade decision. While conservatives oppose the ruling because it effectively legislated from the bench, the same set of guidelines that say that you cant restrict abortion in the first period of pregnancy also say that you can't allow it once the fetus reaches a certain stage of viable development (typically somewhere around 5-6 months). Roe v. Wade also allows for changes in medical technology, such that as our ability to keep a fetus alive outside the womb increases, the legal standards in terms of abortion must change as well.

The ruling ties abortion to the development and external viability of the fetus. So it's completely wrong to say that the fetus's condition as a living organism is irrelevant. It's arguably the single most relevant element involved.

Quote:
If society cares that much, then it should be investing in artificial womb research that would enable fetuses to be transferred into a new environment to grow, rather than be aborted. I've never heard of a pro-life organization interested in that sort of research.


So like arguing that left over IVF fetuses should be made available to surrogates (so not artificial, but wombs other than their biological mother) so as to give them a chance to live rather than being harvested for stem cells. Or perhaps encouraging women to give children up for adoption rather than aborting in the absence of a magical artificial womb?

You do bring up an interesting point though, but I suspect you're not looking in the more interesting direction. What do you think the pro-choice folks would argue if such a thing were available? I just don't believe that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around a woman's right to control her own body. I think that's the argument used most, because it works. But I honestly think that for many pro-choice folks, it's about the right to abort the child. Period. It's about the right of a woman to divest herself of the responsibility of raising a child in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. I suspect that if artificial wombs existed, the same vocal pro-choice folks will argue that the state has no right to force her to allow her property (in this case the fetus) to be transferred from her and to the artificial womb.


Why do you think the points about raising a child come up in such discussions? If it were only about the woman's right to control her own body, then the cost/burden of raising a child should never enter into the discussion. Yet, it pretty much always does. It's the social argument for abortion as an institution. We can argue whether we like or dislike that, but it is a fact that abortion is supported by many because they believe it allows a means for a woman to avoid a condition (single motherhood) which will significantly decrease her likely socio-economic outcomes. If the woman would still be responsible for the child, even if the entire pregnancy could occur outside her body, those same people would still argue she had a right to terminate the pregnancy.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Edited, Nov 19th 2013 7:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Nov 19 2013 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Aethien wrote:
You must be really proud of that comeback since I've seen you use it at least three times now.


Nope. I'm just replying as appropriate. Instead of trying to make sense of stuff you make up, I'll just respond with the fact that you look silly.

Idiggory wrote:
No, there isn't.

See, having studied basic logic, I understand that conclusions have to follow from a path of logically connecting premises that prove the conclusion.

That also means I understand that, just because the conclusion is the same, doesn't mean that the path to it is. And it doesn't mean that your argument is correct, just because it arrives at the same conclusion.

For instance:

1. Abortion kills babies.
2. Bananas.
Therefore, Abortion is a right.

and

1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Abortion is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, abortion is a right.

See?


The contradiction isn't because the end result is the same. It's a contradiction because abortion is legal when the fetus isn't considered to be alive. The definition of life was determined to be at a certain part DURING the pregancy, which is why late term abortions are illegal. So, if a pregnant woman is killed or injured, resulting in the death of a fetus that isn't considered alive, then the killer shouldn't be charged with killing something that was never alive in the first place. Now, s/he should be charged with some other crime, like destruction of personal property, but not murder.

Idiggory wrote:
No, society has not "compromised" a solution. You have one group dead-set on eliminating abortion, and the other group dead-set on keeping it as a possibility.

The "compromise" here is that Roe vs. Wade set a specific standard that one side cannot legislate past, regardless if they want to.

Said case affirmed that abortion was a constitutional right of women as a direct result of their right to control their own bodies.

It doesn't matter one way or the other if you think the fetus is a life. Women have, in our society, the right to liberty. Even if the fetus is alive, they still have the right to liberty. It's a shame that the fetus can't survive without the woman, but that's not the woman's problem.

If society cares that much, then it should be investing in artificial womb research that would enable fetuses to be transferred into a new environment to grow, rather than be aborted. I've never heard of a pro-life organization interested in that sort of research.


Cool story bro, but you didn't address my point. If this were all about the women's choice and little to do with the fetus, then women would be able to have late term abortions with absolutely no restrictions.
#37 Nov 19 2013 at 9:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The contradiction isn't because the end result is the same. It's a contradiction because abortion is legal when the fetus isn't considered to be alive. The definition of life was determined to be at a certain part DURING the pregancy, which is why late term abortions are illegal. So, if a pregnant woman is killed or injured, resulting in the death of a fetus that isn't considered alive, then the killer shouldn't be charged with killing something that was never alive in the first place. Now, s/he should be charged with some other crime, like destruction of personal property, but not murder.


Iddigory probably wont make this exact argument, but that's because you (and a whole lot of people) have bought into the idea that abortion is based on whether the fetus is "alive". We hear this debate all the time. The pro-life folks talk about "life begins at conception", which prompts some pro-choice folks to (incorrectly) respond with the claim that the fetus isn't alive, or isn't human, or isn't "something" that allows for abortion to be perfectly morally ok. I think that's a completely BS argument though. Of course a fetus is alive. By every freaking definition of the word and it's a dumb argument to try to make precisely because it end with idiots trying to argue the whole "fetus==cancer cells" bit that is frankly just intellectually dishonest. Not to mention manages to miss the fact that cancer cells are also alive.


IMO the correct pro-choice argument is that a fetus is alive the whole time, but develops human rights as the process of gestation occurs. Thus, in the early stages of development its right to live is superseded by the right of the woman to control her body. As the fetus develops though, its rights gradually assert themselves and become more important (since "life" is a more important right than "control of my body" when everything else is equal). Clearly, at the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb, it should have a full "right to life", right? I mean, I would hope that all of us would agree that if a doctor could perform a c-section instead of an abortion and the fetus would survive that doctor should be morally bound to do so. The trick is figuring out where precisely that point is (or should be), but it's dishonest to proceed with an argument based on the woman's right to control her body that fails to acknowledge at all the rights of the fetus to live.


It's only honest if, as I mentioned above, the real argument is a right for a woman to not have to bear the burden of raising a child. And that's an entirely different argument for completely different reasons and brings with it a whole slew of additional problems anyway. The same late term abortion issue also still exists since there's no reason the woman couldn't have a c-section and give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. And frankly, it's one of the more troubling aspects of this issue that we do see people advocating for the "right" of a woman to abort in that situation even when it makes absolutely no sense under any reasonable argument anyone could make. It's almost like for some, it's ceased to even be about the social aspect and has simply become some bizarre belief in an absolute right to perform the **** medical procedure itself. And that's freaking insane and should be rejected by everyone on all sides.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Nov 19 2013 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
You do bring up an interesting point though, but I suspect you're not looking in the more interesting direction. What do you think the pro-choice folks would argue if such a thing were available? I just don't believe that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around a woman's right to control her own body. I think that's the argument used most, because it works. But I honestly think that for many pro-choice folks, it's about the right to abort the child. Period. It's about the right of a woman to divest herself of the responsibility of raising a child in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. I suspect that if artificial wombs existed, the same vocal pro-choice folks will argue that the state has no right to force her to allow her property (in this case the fetus) to be transferred from her and to the artificial womb.


Why do you think the points about raising a child come up in such discussions? If it were only about the woman's right to control her own body, then the cost/burden of raising a child should never enter into the discussion. Yet, it pretty much always does. It's the social argument for abortion as an institution. We can argue whether we like or dislike that, but it is a fact that abortion is supported by many because they believe it allows a means for a woman to avoid a condition (single motherhood) which will significantly decrease her likely socio-economic outcomes. If the woman would still be responsible for the child, even if the entire pregnancy could occur outside her body, those same people would still argue she had a right to terminate the pregnancy.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.


The reason women choose to abort a child is because they either cannot afford or do not want the responsibility of raising a child. I don't understand why it makes sense to you to let the fetus incubate somewhere else, but the end result is still the same.

Personally, I think it'd be awesome if every unwanted pregnancy could be transferred to an artificial womb for a woman who wants a child but cannot have one. Problem solved. But your line of reasoning is a bit twisted. Of course the pro-choice people would argue against forcing the woman to raise a child incubated in an artificial womb. Because the whole reason for abortion is because the woman doesn't want a child, not because she doesn't want to be pregnant. The "right to control your own body" part comes in when pro-life people want to force her to carry an unwanted child to term.

TLDR: Your point was not interesting, it was moronic.
#39 Nov 19 2013 at 10:34 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:

1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Swinging their fists such that they hit someone else in the head is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, punching someone in the head is a right.


The "You are never free unless you can do literally anything you want" line of reasoning has never been interesting, nor has it ever been anything but absurd.

We live in a society that has established that all people have a set of rights. You do not have the right to infringe upon those rights, even if that occasionally creates limitations in the scope of your own rights. I don't have the right to punch you in the face, because you have not done anything to forfeit your protections against that.

A fetus, even if it is a person, only has right to control its own body. It's a shame that it can't live without a host, but that doesn't mean hosts are obligated to house it.

How many homeless people die to exposure a year? Yet we don't require people to house them in their homes. How many people die from not getting a kidney in time in the US? Kidney donations are always voluntary. Blood transfusions? Even if it's guaranteed to save a life, and is the only possible way that life will be saved, I'm not obligated to offer mine.

Someone's right to life does not trump my basic rights. And it sure as **** doesn't trump my right to control my own body.

If fetuses are people, it's a shame they can't live without a host. But that's not the host's problem. The fetus would still only have a right to its own body, as incapable of sustaining itself as it is.

If a woman doesn't want to be its host, then she is perfectly within her rights to abort. Because the fetus' right to life does not supersede her own right to control her body.

My liver could contain the cure to a pancreatic cancer. You still wouldn't have the right to even biopsy it without my permission.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#40 Nov 19 2013 at 10:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
. Of course a fetus is alive.


Well, yeah. If it's worth having the discussion - if you think aborting a dead fetus is wrong (as some people do), you're just ******* insane.

Fungi is alive. Doesn't mean I think it's a person or deserves rights.


Slightly on topic, my absolute favorite pro-life rhetoric is "It's funny how everyone who is pro-choice has been born."

I love just responding with, "Yeah, it's almost like being born is a necessary prerequisite for having an opinion."

Then you just watch them get confused. Smiley: nod
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Nov 19 2013 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Slightly on topic, my absolute favorite pro-life rhetoric is "It's funny how everyone who is pro-choice has been born."

I love just responding with, "Yeah, it's almost like being born is a necessary prerequisite for having an opinion."

Then you just watch them get confused. Smiley: nod


My personal favorite is, "How would you feel if your mother aborted you?!"
#42 Nov 20 2013 at 3:05 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The contradiction isn't because the end result is the same. It's a contradiction because abortion is legal when the fetus isn't considered to be alive. The definition of life was determined to be at a certain part DURING the pregancy, which is why late term abortions are illegal. So, if a pregnant woman is killed or injured, resulting in the death of a fetus that isn't considered alive, then the killer shouldn't be charged with killing something that was never alive in the first place. Now, s/he should be charged with some other crime, like destruction of personal property, but not murder.


Iddigory probably wont make this exact argument, but that's because you (and a whole lot of people) have bought into the idea that abortion is based on whether the fetus is "alive". We hear this debate all the time. The pro-life folks talk about "life begins at conception", which prompts some pro-choice folks to (incorrectly) respond with the claim that the fetus isn't alive, or isn't human, or isn't "something" that allows for abortion to be perfectly morally ok. I think that's a completely BS argument though. Of course a fetus is alive. By every freaking definition of the word and it's a dumb argument to try to make precisely because it end with idiots trying to argue the whole "fetus==cancer cells" bit that is frankly just intellectually dishonest. Not to mention manages to miss the fact that cancer cells are also alive.


IMO the correct pro-choice argument is that a fetus is alive the whole time, but develops human rights as the process of gestation occurs. Thus, in the early stages of development its right to live is superseded by the right of the woman to control her body. As the fetus develops though, its rights gradually assert themselves and become more important (since "life" is a more important right than "control of my body" when everything else is equal). Clearly, at the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb, it should have a full "right to life", right? I mean, I would hope that all of us would agree that if a doctor could perform a c-section instead of an abortion and the fetus would survive that doctor should be morally bound to do so. The trick is figuring out where precisely that point is (or should be), but it's dishonest to proceed with an argument based on the woman's right to control her body that fails to acknowledge at all the rights of the fetus to live.


It's only honest if, as I mentioned above, the real argument is a right for a woman to not have to bear the burden of raising a child. And that's an entirely different argument for completely different reasons and brings with it a whole slew of additional problems anyway. The same late term abortion issue also still exists since there's no reason the woman couldn't have a c-section and give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. And frankly, it's one of the more troubling aspects of this issue that we do see people advocating for the "right" of a woman to abort in that situation even when it makes absolutely no sense under any reasonable argument anyone could make. It's almost like for some, it's ceased to even be about the social aspect and has simply become some bizarre belief in an absolute right to perform the **** medical procedure itself. And that's freaking insane and should be rejected by everyone on all sides.


I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with, but I'm in agreement with mostly of post 35. I don't care if you think the fetus is alive or mass of cells. At one point in the pregnancy, everyone is in agreement that it is a child. Prior to that, whether or not if it's legally considered alive depends on the whether or not if it were an abortion. That is the contradiction that I pointed out and that's my point. Nothing more, nothing less.
#43 Nov 20 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Aethien wrote:
You must be really proud of that comeback since I've seen you use it at least three times now.
Nope. I'm just replying as appropriate. Instead of trying to make sense of stuff you make up, I'll just respond with the fact that you look silly.
Ohh, that's what you're trying to do? Try being clear and concise next time you do that, maybe even say what you mean instead of some unrelated attempt at looking clever.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#44 Nov 20 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Belkira wrote:
My personal favorite is, "How would you feel if your mother aborted you?!"
"She hasn't stopped trying!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Nov 20 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
My personal favorite is, "How would you feel if your mother aborted you?!"

I'd be in pieces over it Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Nov 20 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Turns out girlfriend isn't actually pregnant and ol' Georgy Boy lied to the 911 operator about that.

I haven't listened to the call or even read a transcript, but something something "you know how moody pregnant women are" and something something "I'd never hit a pregnant lady." He was trying to make himself out to be the victim, as usual.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#47Almalieque, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 3:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You have a weird way of acknowledging your own ignorance.
#48 Nov 20 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Aethien wrote:
You must be really proud of that comeback since I've seen you use it at least three times now.
Nope. I'm just replying as appropriate. Instead of trying to make sense of stuff you make up, I'll just respond with the fact that you look silly.
Ohh, that's what you're trying to do? Try being clear and concise next time you do that, maybe even say what you mean instead of some unrelated attempt at looking clever.

You have a weird way of acknowledging your own ignorance.

Is this really you're new thing?

Because I suspect you think it makes you look smart.

It really, really doesn't.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#49Almalieque, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 3:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I admire the exaggeration of thought put forward on a simple statement. There is absolutely nothing in that sentence intended to come off smart, wise, clever, intelligent, etc. So for posters to even think that and/or become the slightest bit of confused, is telling.
#50 Nov 20 2013 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
It's the new post #214 or whatever number it was.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#51 Nov 20 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's the new post #214 or whatever number it was.


That depends on how you look at it. For you in particular, they are conceptually similar, but in general they are not. I'm not sure why posters think I should continue to reiterate entire posts because they chose not to read it. If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (35)