↩ @'Pau' It’s just that I didn’t gather evidence as I didn’t predict that I would use it to prove on my application.
You don’t need to collect evidence - we have access to this information.
↩ @'Pau' I would have to ask for a benefit of the doubt that I indeed played in the server weeks ago.
This is a lie
↩ @'Pau' I didn’t think about going back to reclaim my position just yet.
The point he made was that you made this reinstatement just 12 minutes after you joined for the first time.
What do you mean you didn’t think about going back to reclaim your position? It only took you 12 minutes from joining to post this, which means you started working on it sooner!
I object, you come across as power-hungry (and that’s coming from me)
↩ @' 5 ' records show this reinstatement was submitted at about the same time as your first time joining in however long it has been. and i mean within minutes or seconds of each other. was this a lie?
How can you tell this? I might be confused here but do you mean that his post was on hold for however long and it was actually submitted a while ago?
Object we dont need any more hub mods
@"enchy"#174 you can't use a very clearly biased source in what is meant to be an objective discussion about statistics and facts. If you keep citing facts, make sure they are unbiased and actually accurate. Refer to the sources I mentioned, they are unbiased and have a clear track of how they obtained their results. They do not push any opinion, but rather just give information.
From what Ryan provided, you can clearly see how your source is biased and propaganda at best (considering they don't even mention how they get their data)-
Abort73.com is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, Inc. (LMI), a non-profit 501©3 Christian education corporation. Abort73.com is an online resource designed to creatively and comprehensively educate people about the injustice of abortion, and provide them with simple tools to help pass that education along to others.
At least admit that the source you based most of your “economic factor” arguments on is complete horseshit
↩ enchy the sources are so different because your source is literal fucking propaganda
↩ RedEastWood refer to this reply
No, I think his point was that murdering a foetus is similar to a slave owner killing a slave. I might have misunderstood so enchy should clear things up. The way it was worded certainly suggests what I thought.
This source is literally biased. It is not even a source, its just propaganda. Look at the title of the pages on the website - “Bringing an end to abortion”, “Case against abortion”.
Sources are meant to be unbiased, with a clear track of how they obtained data. The sources I listed are far better than this piece of propaganda you have mentioned. If this website is where you base all of your statistics from, then I’m sorry to say that your argument is a product of propaganda.
I’m going to go ahead and provide some of my own sources
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/…ve-perspectives
Sample Size - 1209 Abortionists
74% Claimed that having a baby would interfere with their jobs, education, or ability to care for another dependant
73% Claimed that they could not afford a baby at the current time
48% Claimed that they did not want to be/bring the baby up with, a single mother.
This source is limited by its creation date, which was in 2005. With the rise of teen pregnancies and a growing relaxation of care regarding sexual intercourse, this source may not be accurate in the current day.
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29
Sample Size - 954 Abortionists
40% (Predominant Reason) - Economic Factors/Financial Reasons
36% - Timing
31% - Partner related issues (Single mother etc.)
64% of women claimed that the reasons for getting an abortion crossed over multiple themes, and there is not just one reason.
This source is from 2013, its recent publishing gives it greater credibility over the previous source. Both sources mention economic factors to be a notable reason for getting an abortion. Also, way over 20%.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2135792
75% of women claimed that a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities
66.6% of women claimed that they could not afford a baby (economic factors)
This source is from 1987! It just shows you how little has changed, and that ECONOMIC FACTORS ARE ONE OF THE MORE DOMINANT REASONS FOR GETTING AN ABORTION. Although this source certainly isn’t relevant to current day, I included it to show a trend.
These sources illustrate the role economic factors play in getting an abortion. Enchy claims that it is “20%”. I call bullshit. Every source I have seen mentions economic factors as dominant, or in the upper two reasons.
Are you suggesting that a pregnant woman getting an abortion is equivalent to a slave owner killing a slave, or a dictator killing a protestor? You make semi-decent points at times, but you always provide these insane comparisons.
↩ enchy to prevent suffering, we should kill all poor people. by letting poor people live, we are creating suffering for them. suffering doesnt matter when talking about abortion because life is so much more important than suffering. whatever troubles the baby or mother may face, the value of their lives is more important than their suffering. if not, then we should all just kill ourselves because it will prevent suffering. for “actual life,” the only consistent way to define life is beginning at conception. any other definition doesnt work.
You aren’t arguing against a point here, you’re diverting attention from the point. The comparison to poor people is illogical, their suffering is not the result of force but rather the result of unfortunate circumstance. Poor people did not have a choice on whether they were born, however until recently their parents did. I am certain that because of abortion’s legality, there are fewer poor people who suffer every day. By giving women a choice with abortion, we can end suffering before it begins. STOP STRAW-MANNING US WITH THIS ARGUMENT, in your example of poor people the suffering has occurred AFTER BIRTH (WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT TO PRE-BIRTH). I hate using caps to make points, but it actually hurts that I had to explain that.
This sentence is the most brilliant example of embedded propaganda I have seen in a while. By calling them “babies” or “children” you are trying to elicit an emotional response here - although they are NOT BABIES, NOR CHILDREN. They are FOETUSES.
Citation.
Unwanted children ruin lives. Murdering a child who cannot feel anything does not ruin lives, because the life in question has no experiences of the real world and cannot feel pain. This applies to first trimester abortions. I am not interested in discussing second/third trimester abortions, because then we have to talk about when a “life” begins.
Is anyone tryna 1v1 chess on lichess I just made my account today
↩ @'wxtermelon' it’s just deep because this is a literal 18 year old who has just finished his a levels and is probably going to uni doing this shit. Like grow up lmao
↩ @'_97' inferior
Why is matscalle inferior? Or did I misunderstand your quote?
I am neutral. You often say you’ll host events, then cancel them. You are far too inactive for me to believe that you will actually join the server and host an event. You have a tendency to get involved in events where you perhaps shouldn’t (although this was a while ago).
On the other hand, you plan events well and on the off-chance you do actually go through with an event it is very well received. Some of the best events playercount-wise have been hosted by you, and that should not be overlooked or called a fluke as its happened a few times.
Put together, these two views give me enough evidence to vote neutral.
Hinduism
