What makes you the MOST depressed????

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

Gazman wrote: Nothing,lifes too short,

deal with it,get over it,move on

then build a joint,and everythings alright again

Well, yes, until you go reefer crazy and shoot your entire family & everyone else you know then drop said joint which sets fire to the house and burns baby burns.

And that is where optimism will get you.

You've just reminded me I need to change the batteries in our smoke alarms ASAP. I got so many balls to juggle with my lot,I just plain forgot to rim the bitch!

I once escaped a naughty as fuck fire,funny story in a way aswell,but this is no time for anactodes,I should know better after it.

When the batteries on ours go,they make such an annoying, constant bleep that you have to take the battery out of the cunt,or shoot yourself in the mouth.....But I have nee replaced em,see.. My fire training and saftey days,which we do at work,says a room goes up blazing in 3 mins tops,which is good knowledge..Fair dooze,but why do these meetings always have boring cunts overusing words like 'cascade' and 'ballpark?' Literally.

Boatraceface wrote: why do these meetings always have boring cunts overusing words like 'cascade' and 'ballpark?' Literally.

Awe-some!

Boatraceface wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

Gazman wrote: Nothing,lifes too short,

deal with it,get over it,move on

then build a joint,and everythings alright again

Well, yes, until you go reefer crazy and shoot your entire family & everyone else you know then drop said joint which sets fire to the house and burns baby burns.

And that is where optimism will get you.

You've just reminded me I need to change the batteries in our smoke alarms ASAP. I got so many balls to juggle with my lot,I just plain forgot to rim the bitch!

I once escaped a naughty as fuck fire,funny story in a way aswell,but this is no time for anactodes,I should know better after it.

When the batteries on ours go,they make such an annoying, constant bleep that you have to take the battery out of the cunt,or shoot yourself in the mouth.....But I have nee replaced em,see.. My fire training and saftey days,which we do at work,says a room goes up blazing in 3 mins tops,which is good knowledge..Fair dooze,but why do these meetings always have boring cunts overusing words like 'cascade' and 'ballpark?' Literally.

I mind years ago the house next door to my mums went on fire, we were in our kips,next thing i know,the local bastard copper (and believe me,he was a bastard)was shaking me giving it "Gary,get up,get up",i can always mind opening my eyes,looking at him and saying.. "it wasnt me!"I thought i was getting the jail, The chunt burst out laughing and said,"the house next doors on fire ya wee prick,get up"

True story that

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote:

arek wrote: I voted "baby murder", 2 votes so far, but is it really right vote, hmmmmm. Actually I am fookin depressed when I see those F00KIN bastards, driving the cars with sirens, blocking the streets in my town, yes - I mean government. They buy gasoline using my money . ergh...

Yes, 'baby murder'. It's a phrase that's been used round here by at least one person who I'll give the benefit of the doubt to by not mentioning that his online name is Tex.

I very much doubt anyone bothered to complain about that, mind, though elsewhere on this delightfully ideologically confused website someone has kicked up a minor stink because I used the phrase "rancid spunk" to describe the aimless rancid spunk that is the New Order reissues.

Community. You gotta love it.

I don't recall if I've ever used the phrase "baby murder" here. But, since you've opened the door counselor, how else would you describe what happens to an unborn baby during an abortion?

Tex, without wishing to devalue the life of a fetus, there's no such thing as an "unborn baby." There are babies, which exist only outside the womb, i.e., they have been born, and there are fetuses, which exist only inside the womb, i.e., they haven't been born. Your entire argument appears to be premised upon a non-existent, nonsensical entity-- the "unborn baby"-- that was created solely for rhetorical purposes. Had you instead said "fetus murder," you'd be far more accurate in your description of the life being ended.

Potato potaato... baby and a fetus are one and the same, its not like they go in a cocoon and morph from worm to adult form... so you sir are trying to use vocabulary to minimize and change things

EdelBrock wrote: Potato potaato... baby and a fetus are one and the same,

Actually, they're not.

EdelBrock wrote: its not like they go in a cocoon and morph from worm to adult form... so you sir are trying to use vocabulary to minimize and change things

No, but it is like one is in the womb, and one is born from the womb after it has developed within the womb.

Pretty basic, really.

Tex, and you, are the ones ignoring basic biology (no surprise there, that conservatives discard science when it doesn't fit their ideology) and using rhetoric in its place.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Potato potaato... baby and a fetus are one and the same,

Actually, they're not.

EdelBrock wrote: its not like they go in a cocoon and morph from worm to adult form... so you sir are trying to use vocabulary to minimize and change things

No, but it is like one is in the womb, and one is born from the womb after it has developed within the womb.

Pretty basic, really.

Tex, and you, are the ones ignoring basic biology (no surprise there, that conservatives discard science when it doesn't fit their ideology) and using rhetoric in its place.

So 10 seconds before the baby passes the beef flaps, its something entirely different than 10 seconds later? No science involved there that its the same thing, just one gets to lunch off of mommy and the other doesn't as much

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Potato potaato... baby and a fetus are one and the same,

Actually, they're not.

EdelBrock wrote: its not like they go in a cocoon and morph from worm to adult form... so you sir are trying to use vocabulary to minimize and change things

No, but it is like one is in the womb, and one is born from the womb after it has developed within the womb.

Pretty basic, really.

Tex, and you, are the ones ignoring basic biology (no surprise there, that conservatives discard science when it doesn't fit their ideology) and using rhetoric in its place.

So 10 seconds before the baby passes the beef flaps, its something entirely different than 10 seconds later?

Nice use of a strawman. The rhetoric just never ends, does it?

I suppose it would depend on when that 10 seconds occurs. Wouldn't you? I.e., if that 10 seconds occurs in the first trimester, would you call what you so eloquently referred to as "passing the beef flaps" a baby? What about in the second trimester? The third?

Obviously (to anybody who doesn't live in Jesusland), the closer to 40 weeks the fetus is, the more developed it is, and thus, the more likely it is to survive.

And just as obviously (again, to anybody who doesn't live in Jesusland), the closer to conception the fetus is, the less developed it is, and thus, the less likely it is to survive.

If it's born, and survives, it's a baby. If it isn't born, it's a miscarried fetus, perhaps nothing more than a spot of protoplasm, or maybe something more developed, but not a baby. A baby, after all, is a human being at a certain stage of development, and if it hasn't yet reached that stage of development, it isn't a baby, any more than it is a toddler, or a teenager, or an adult.

EdelBrock wrote: No science involved there that its the same thing, just one gets to lunch off of mommy and the other doesn't as much

Yes, there's no science involved in biology.

Just another day in Jesusland.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Just another day in Jesusland.

When did California become part of Jesusland?

1840-something?

But true, technically, California isn't part of the bible belt. And Edelbrock isn't a bible-thumper. But the elevation of ideology above science does come straight from the bible belt.

Another true fact: TACOS RULE!

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: And Edelbrock isn't a bible-thumper. But the elevation of ideology above science does come straight from the bible belt.

I think you're wring to state this is geographic terms. it could only come from a complete and utter idiot. So thats that box ticked.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

So 10 seconds before the baby passes the beef flaps, its something entirely different than 10 seconds later?

Nice use of a strawman. The rhetoric just never ends, does it?

I suppose it would depend on when that 10 seconds occurs. Wouldn't you? I.e., if that 10 seconds occurs in the first trimester, would you call what you so eloquently referred to as "passing the beef flaps" a baby? What about in the second trimester? The third?

Obviously (to anybody who doesn't live in Jesusland), the closer to 40 weeks the fetus is, the more developed it is, and thus, the more likely it is to survive.

And just as obviously (again, to anybody who doesn't live in Jesusland), the closer to conception the fetus is, the less developed it is, and thus, the less likely it is to survive.

If it's born, and survives, it's a baby. If it isn't born, it's a miscarried fetus, perhaps nothing more than a spot of protoplasm, or maybe something more developed, but not a baby. A baby, after all, is a human being at a certain stage of development, and if it hasn't yet reached that stage of development, it isn't a baby, any more than it is a toddler, or a teenager, or an adult.

EdelBrock wrote: No science involved there that its the same thing, just one gets to lunch off of mommy and the other doesn't as much

Yes, there's no science involved in biology.

Just another day in Jesusland.

My point on the science is that the development of a baby is not an exact science in vocabulary, where exactly something turns to something else is a fuzzy line. I t still feeds on her jugs for a wee bit longer... If it has to do with the ability of a baby able to survive on its own and not its mother then when is that? 15? Hell there are some that are still in thier 40s that rely on mommy and could not survive on thier own (some even in thier 20s)

EdelBrock wrote:

My point on the science is that the development of a baby is not an exact science in vocabulary, where exactly something turns to something else is a fuzzy line. I t still feeds on her jugs for a wee bit longer... If it has to do with the ability of a baby able to survive on its own and not its mother then when is that? 15? Hell there are some that are still in thier 40s that rely on mommy and could not survive on thier own (some even in thier 20s)

Christ, you can mangle a sentence.

But the fact remains, the moment when a fetus becomes a baby is exact-- the moment a viable fetus "passes the beef flaps," it's a baby. Before that moment, it's a fetus.

By the way, my almost-but-not-quite- 3-year-old Godson has now informed us that he's not a baby any more, he's a big boy now.

His favorite pastime is still suckling...

Just like the big boys.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

My point on the science is that the development of a baby is not an exact science in vocabulary, where exactly something turns to something else is a fuzzy line. I t still feeds on her jugs for a wee bit longer... If it has to do with the ability of a baby able to survive on its own and not its mother then when is that? 15? Hell there are some that are still in thier 40s that rely on mommy and could not survive on thier own (some even in thier 20s)

Christ, you can mangle a sentence.

But the fact remains, the moment when a fetus becomes a baby is exact-- the moment a viable fetus "passes the beef flaps," it's a baby. Before that moment, it's a fetus.

By the way, my almost-but-not-quite- 3-year-old Godson has now informed us that he's not a baby any more, he's a big boy now.

His favorite pastime is still suckling...

Just like the big boys.

on the fetus... the vocabulary isn't completely in acceptance thus the arguements that are always happening...

on your Godson, well he's making leaps and bounds, they grow up so fast... maybe one day Liam can take suite

EdelBrock wrote:

on the fetus... the vocabulary isn't completely in acceptance thus the arguements that are always happening...

It's completely in acceptance by people who base their word choices on biological fact. It's not completely in acceptance by people who base their word choice on rhetoric.

The fact that people use a computer to spout religious, anti-scientific bollox.

Just remember, it was invented by a chutney ferret!

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

on the fetus... the vocabulary isn't completely in acceptance thus the arguements that are always happening...

It's completely in acceptance by people who base their word choices on biological fact. It's not completely in acceptance by people who base their word choice on rhetoric.

ummmmm.... no not really...

Show me a definative definition from a reliable, unbiased source, because simply it isn't there. Some say life begins at conception, some at around the third week when the heart begines to beat, others around the second month when it can begins to feel, and yet others when it leaves the woman's womb... science is at war with it almost as much as the population, except many doctors are worried about legal reprucussions....

Plus when it comes to law and media, even they can confuse the two:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/02/unborn_baby_was_healthy_doctor.html

Doctor? wrote: The fact that people use a computer to spout religious, anti-scientific bollox.

Just remember, it was invented by a chutney ferret!

Gore was gay!!! :D

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

on the fetus... the vocabulary isn't completely in acceptance thus the arguements that are always happening...

It's completely in acceptance by people who base their word choices on biological fact. It's not completely in acceptance by people who base their word choice on rhetoric.

ummmmm.... no not really...

Show me a definative definition from a reliable, unbiased source, because simply it isn't there. Some say life begins at conception, some at around the third week when the heart begines to beat, others around the second month when it can begins to feel, and yet others when it leaves the woman's womb... science is at war with it almost as much as the population, except many doctors are worried about legal reprucussions....

Plus when it comes to law and media, even they can confuse the two:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/02/unborn_baby_was_healthy_doctor.html

You're confusing the question of when life begins with the question of whether a fetus is a baby.

Not really, because you are trying to use the word 'fetus' as unliving and the word 'baby' as living because they don't have the same emotion behind them.... vocab and definitions are important here, and that is what is being discussed, as I stated before the vocabulary is not a complete science...

EdelBrock wrote: Not really, because you are trying to use the word 'fetus' as unliving

No, I'm not. In fact, I prefaced my original post on the subject with this disclaimer:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: without wishing to devalue the life of a fetus

And that pretty much destroys your premise here. The confusion is in your mind, not in my choice of words.

EdelBrock wrote: and the word 'baby' as living because they don't have the same emotion behind them....

And now you've proved my point-- that Tex has substituted the word "baby" for "fetus" as a rhetorical technique, because, as you say, the word "fetus doesn't "have the same emotion."

EdelBrock wrote: vocab and definitions are important here, and that is what is being discussed, as I stated before the vocabulary is not a complete science...

Vocabulary isn't a science at all. It's a store of words at one's disposal.

The fact that you acknowledge that "vocab and definitions are important here" once again underscores my argument: Tex is substituting the word "baby" for "fetus" as a rhetorical technique, rather than as an expression of biological reality.

Comrade, make a choice then... is the fetus living? If so then abortion would be in the law books murder... vocab is very much a part of science, that you don't think so shows how distant you are from the scientific community... i'll give an example:

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/NACSN/05_1547.pdf

The Europeans have thier own as well. Granted this is for Geology, but it is designed specifically to make sure everyone is on the same page for definition in terms... I'm no medical expert, but if geologists have this, I have no doubt that medical professions have a similar thing as well...

EdelBrock wrote: Comrade, make a choice then... is the fetus living?

I've been pretty clear is saying that it is living. So why the confusion?

EdelBrock wrote: If so then abortion would be in the law books murder...

I think you mean "a living human being," don't you? And that is where the law struggles-- with the definition of a human being.

EdelBrock wrote: vocab is very much a part of science, that you don't think so shows how distant you are from the scientific community...

I haven't said science doesn't have a vocabulary. I said vocabulary isn't a science.

EdelBrock wrote: i'll give an example:

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/NACSN/05_1547.pdf

The Europeans have thier own as well. Granted this is for Geology, but it is designed specifically to make sure everyone is on the same page for definition in terms... I'm no medical expert, but if geologists have this, I have no doubt that medical professions have a similar thing as well...

Yes, medical science does have a vocabulary. And I very much doubt that "fetus" and "baby" are inter-changeable terms in medical science.

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote: The fact that people use a computer to spout religious, anti-scientific bollox.

Just remember, it was invented by a chutney ferret!

Gore was gay!!! :D

Alan Turing ????

Old Lead Foot wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote: The fact that people use a computer to spout religious, anti-scientific bollox.

Just remember, it was invented by a chutney ferret!

Gore was gay!!! :D

Alan Turing ????

two points!

Hmmmm. Drummer>septic impressive.

:D

(the yanks like to claim Von Neuman invented it BTW....but then he was German anyway.....just like the guy who put Armstrong on the moon with a modified terrorist weapon)

This thread makes me depressed, and it's all my fault.....

I'm sorry everybody.

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: This thread makes me depressed, and it's all my fault.....

I'm sorry everybody.

apologies accepted :)

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: This thread makes me depressed, and it's all my fault.....

I'm sorry everybody.

Deal with it,get over it, move on

build a ...

a fuck,you know the rest

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: This thread makes me depressed, and it's all my fault.....

I'm sorry everybody.

Can I change my vote? I originally said the reissues make me depressed, but I now see the error of my ways. The fact that I have never had the joy of your man batter spunked all over my face brings me to tears!

I'm crying as I type this.

This, Jeff, is the great sorrow of the human race. There are devout Buddhists in Tibet who would be completely at peace with the universe were it not for this void at the very core of their being.

"Why?" they cry (internally, and on a spiritual level, natch). "Why won't Fradders spunk on my chops???!".

Only a precious few people know this special, intimate joy. And they are the sacred ones. Amen.