I don't really know what to say... I guess this means that when the preacher of this church dies, people will cheer and list all the reasons that they think he deserved to die before spitting on his corpse and saying good riddance?
Could you put a spoiler on these pics and say they're not MadMax safe? That's so freaking depressing.
Recently returned from burying my wife's almost 94 YO grandmother who was two parts saint and one part sailor-- quite a woman! I'm tired and emotionally exhausted and don't care to re-enter this discussion until it pops up again, however I must generally register a concern about what rhad thinks I was agreeing to. I have agreed that there are some very few circumstances where a choice about abortion is legitimate in every way but those circumstances are very few and limited and thus I would never align myself with the pro-Choice camp. That's what I said. If rhad thinks that that is "agreeing," then don't do business with him! Nor did I b**** for 10 pages about an apology. I succinctly explained my problem with it and the criticism rained down upon me, so I dealt with it. I try not to run away from the critics, so rather than hammer me for droning on, give me some credit for dealing with the criticism. If I didn't, I'd be accused of running away. Can't have it both ways... If you don't know that there are apologies and there are apologies, then you haven't lived long enough.
^So you just popped in one last time to say you're right about everything and everybody else is wrong but you don't want to talk about it anymore. Got it.
No. In the first place I was responding specifically to rhad's post. I popped into say that rhad took extreme liberty with his interpretation of my very, very limited "pro-Choice" position (by somehow interpreting that I had concurred with the general pro-Choice position; nothing could be further from the truth). Secondly I took exception of his characterization of my response to the criticisms I received for the way I dismissed his apology. I thought and still think it was just a toss-off apology and I think a serious insult on a public board deserves a more heart-felt apology. I don't see it forthcoming and that's fine. My point was really for others not for rhad. He has a temper, you know! I also think that my interpretation of the messages is perfectly understandable. As a writer yourself, Batman, you know too that sometimes it's the writing that is not up to par instead of the reader... I really said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the central issues of life and death as it regards abortion in the post above. You are way too smart to be attacking me personally like this.
You said that nothing was more offensive or lacking conscience than being anti-abortion and pro-choice. In other words you said that I was offensive and lacked conscience. And I'm attacking you personally? I think you owe me an apology. And you've set the bar high so you better make it a good one.
I believe if you go back into the thread far enough, that "quote" was framed in the language that someone else used. I was just reflecting it back but changing the content... Why did you change the subject?
rhad- I don't think you should have apologized in the first place. What you said was accurate. Giddy's entire argument is predicated on the demonization of the other side, particularly distressed women and the doctors who care for them.
I didn't change the subject; that quote from you is the only reason I'm in this thread. I took it personally, I told you why, you ignored my reasoning, your relative died, you took a break, you came back, declared victory, took one last shot at rhad and said you were leaving. You are intractable on this issue and you're a drag to talk to about it. I tried a calm, reasoned approach this time, but it didn't help. You know how these things are going to end up before you start them. They're not conversations; they're lectures. I agree with LScola. Rhad's problem wasn't that his apology wasn't to your standards; it was that he wasted time apologizing to you at all.
This is so disingenuous as to be laughable. You and I already went around about this. You accused this once and I explained the mis-understanding and yet you bring it up again.... I thought you were talking about medical emergencies ("some circumstances in which abortion is justified") and that's not what you meant. This is just manipulative of you...
Just pathetic. As much as you and I disagree on things, you usually fight fair, but you did wig-out once already in this thread... I made a "generalized statement" which was just a reversal of someone else's message against my pro-Life position and you take it as a personal insult? You choose that spot to enter the fray? You are picking your spots, aren't you? I didn't ignore your reasons; I simply disagree with your reasoning. Why is it a drag unless I end up agreeing with you? Why do you only see me as the intractable one? Have you (or any of the cast of characters in this particular debate) budged on this issue in these many years? In fact, I have "budged." I'm uncomfortable but willing to consider a pro-Choice position for victims of rape if doing so would reduce the overall number of abortions. For doing this, I then get criticized for not being consistently pro-Life. Oh, and I'm also not supposed to support the Death Penalty either. Again, I didn't declare any kind of victory. My remarks were a direct response to rhad's latest post; again I explained this sufficiently and it is only too plainly obvious: I quote rhad's post and respond to it in a limited way which you completely mis-characterize and take out of context... and here you go doing it again! I pointed out that I said absolutely nothing about the issue in general, so I have to wonder how you construe a claim of victory on my part. You still haven't addressed this and that is why I called you on changing the topic. My indication of leaving was an unwillingness to go back in and dig to counter rhad's major diatribe against me from a few pages ago... which I had indicated to him I would try to do. I only responded to a piece or two of it at the time.
No giddyup, it's the truth. When faced with the fact that making abortion illegal will do little, if anything, to curb abortion (the primary motivation of roe vs wade) you suddenly go very quiet. When it's made abundantly clear that the good christian in you should focus on compassion, instead of hostility and judgement, you make an absolutely absurd claim that this kind of christian ministry does not challenge people enough. Epic fail - and I mean truly epic. What could be more challenging than selfless compassion, the whole "turning the other cheek" thing? Lord knows in this thread you've certainly demonstrated an utter inability to comprehend the idea, nevermind act upon it. When pushed on the issue, you demonized the women involved and claimed it's their own "poor thinkin" and ergo their own problem. Moral high ground indeed. As for your psychosis about the apology - I completely and totally don't care. Don't be offended giddyup, I'm sure my lack of sympathy to your plight is perfectly in league with your righteous animosity to those women struggling with the decision discussed within this thread.
Yes, as a result of one of these threads, Max helped me to crystallize my beliefs regarding abortion and moved me from the complete pro-choice fringe where I was to a more moderate position in which I would be OK with various limitations on abortion. This change in my opinion was despite your rhetoric on this subject. When you work to find common ground with people on divisive issues, you can change minds. When you demonize the other side, not so much.
Batman and LSD (aside: Best. Username. Acronym. Ever.) No, I stand by that apology. In general, I feel that one should avoid insulting the poster directly instead of the post. While the sentiment may have been accurate, it would have been far more constructive of me to focus on the argument - as is evidenced by the 1-2 pages wasted while giddy rambled away about it in a shameful attempt to divert the thread away from his hypocritical and callous reasoning.
