Obama deported twice the number yearly as Trump.

This also isn’t about just Obama

Bailing water out of a ship is useless as long as there's a massive gaping, hole allowing water to come in. Deporting people is useless as long as the borders are wide open.

How in hell are the borders wide open?

I guess we should close all the airports then because more illegal immigration happens by people over-staying their visas than border crossings. That doesn't bother Republicans though because this isn't about national security. It's about discriminating against Mexicans and South Americans.

Criminals should be discriminated against. Wherever they're from.

This response is priceless !

That's why Trump's fence is so ridiculous. He's only concerned with the border to the south when illegals are coming in from all different directions.

This what's known in logic as an either or fallacy. We can both address the over stay of visas and seal up our Southern border. One does not necessarily come at the expense of the other. I see every indication you're taking ques from bad, popular, liberal arguments and succumbing to group think, not thinking for yourself. Calling us stupid based on your logic fails is your problem to solve - not ours.

Logic is the sole tool by which the rational relationship of any given set of propositions is measured. It's always on topic.

I guess you just can't help yourself. How do you reason with a "man" who has renounced the use of reason? You don't

Or to quote Thomas Pain

"Trying to reason with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like trying to administer medicine to the dead "

There are hundreds of miles of unrestricted borders at our south border. Literally. Do you deny this? If so, you're completely ignorant of the topic in which you're now discussing. I don't mean that as a pejorative slam. Ignorance is a term that applies to all of us in some way.

He's just a typical low-IQ dumbass.

There are very few making it into the country by literally, crossing the desert.

Are you stupid?

Do you not know how people are gaining access to America?

The numbers of crossings have been declining relatively recently as attention has been brought to the issue. Calling people stupid is not an argument - and in fact demonstrates you don't have one. Parroting bad progressive arguments also does little nothing to demonstrate you're thinking for yourself. What it demonstrates is group think. Whether they're gaining more access through the border or over stays of visas is really quite irrelevant - because liberals have not demonstrated evidence of caring about either. What else did you have?

You don't know how people are getting into the country. Consequently, you have not changed your thinking to keep up with the new modern illegal. It's not your fault. You're believing the orange man and his, "brown man bad" ideology.

If you lack an argument - Just say so. All of these theatrics are not necessary. Your parroting of common liberal narratives does not equal my lack of information on the matter, they equal you being informed by liberal echo-chambers to confirm your own bias. .

Talks about Trump thinking 'brown man bad' while calling Trump orange. I found that amusing.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings

NPR Admits a Liberal Bias ://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

Versus 1,954 miles on the southern border. Over twice as long.

I would respond that you don't appear to have an intellectual capacity which rises much above that of a chimpanzee, but that's usually the case with "progressives" parroting other bad "progressive arguments"

To compare the border of a civil society of law and order - like Canada - with that of the of the Southern border of a culture where the drug cartels have more power than the government -like Mexico - would not be reflective of a very deep level of thinking.

Your "arguments" have gone from bad to worse. I mean, how much more egg can you bear to wear on your face? It's your choice, but I would think you'd have more self respect and dignity than to continue to subjugate yourself to this type of humiliation.

Most people are overstaying their visa's dumbass. Very few are actually crossing the border by walking through the desert.

Maybe you should go back to school before trying to have a conversation about something you know so little about.

Which is a completely irrelevant Red Herring. Democrats would have to demonstrate a willingness to care about either. They have not. Once again, calling people names only demonstrates the weakness or non existence of an argument.

Maybe you should spend more time thinking about how to argue your position and then you wouldn't have to commit ad hominem logic fails to compensate for the lack of one.

"Calling people names"?

"I would respond that you don't appear to have an intellectual capacity which rises much above that of a chimpanzee, but that's usually the case with "progressives" parroting other bad "progressive arguments"

With comments like that the door is open to call a dipshit a dipshit.

You don't know me yet lump everyone who believes differently than you the same. That's the sign of a dipshit.

There are LOADS of people crossing into America illegally from Canada. It's the new route people from foreign lands are taking but if you weren't such a dipshit, you would know that already!

"With comments like that the door is open to call a dipshit a dipshit."

This is what's known in logic as a tu quoque fallacy. Also, The door would be open if my critique didn't accompany an argued position, but since it does - you're out of luck.

"You don't know me yet lump everyone who believes differently than you the same. That's the sign of a dipshit."

This is a common liberal rejoinder.I don't have to know you the same way a detective doesn't have to know a criminal to draw inferences from their behavior and words. As a matter of fact, If I knew you, it would be more likely the case that my analysis wouldn't be very objective, but rather subjective. So much for that.

"There are LOADS of people crossing into America illegally from Canada."

Which is nothing but a Red Herring fallacy and does nothing to argue against the necessity of the wall or drugs coming in through our Southern border. Again, Democrats aren't interested in doing anything about any of it, so pointing to another area you perceive as more problematic is just a Red herring fallacy - as I've already said.

"It's the new route people from foreign lands are taking but if you weren't such a dipshit, you would know that already! "

Which is nothing but an empty claim and continued extension of a Red Herring fallacy. Your constant use of insults because you feel threatened by me and are too emotionally invested in conversation will always cause your reasoning abilities to surfer. That's we're your at.

Wrong

No, not wrong.

They didn't call him the deporter in chief for nothing.

Yeah, because being turned away at the border was included in the stats.

Potatoes potatoe This isn’t just about Obama anyway.

There isn't a single person on the left who is into open borders and for illegal aliens

Reality doesn’t agree with you

You didn't watch the democrat debates, huh?

No, they know about this stuff. They just want to act like the meme isn’t true, when it very much is.

furreal???

You don't have to make those who don't agree with you 100%, the epitome of the devil by suggesting they want the ruination of our country. No one wants open borders!

We can disagree on dreamers, that's fine.

In my mind, if we've spent thousands of dollars in educating a child to adulthood about the American way of life, to send them back to a homeland that is completely foreign to them, that is very short sighted. All they will do is use the education we paid for, to compete against us. That's makes no sense.

There has to be a point where, the damage is done and we need to realize we've made an investment in an individual and use them to help promote America's future.

I have no problem with Trump deporting illegals. Every President has done the same and for the same reason. It makes no difference if they are Dems or Repubs. They have all deported illegals. I do have a problem with the half hazard way he's gone about it.

“In my mind, if we've spent thousands of dollars in educating a child to adulthood about the American way of life, to send them back to a homeland that is completely foreign to them, that is very short sighted. All they will do is use the education we paid for, to compete against us. That's makes no sense“

In other words make their own countries better like their parents should have done. I would see that as a plus.

And the rest of what you wrote is crock that I have debunked until I am blue in the face.

There would be no Apple computer if everyone were as short sighted as you. Steve Jobs was a first gen Syrian refugee. 25% of all entrepreneurs in the U.S. are immigrants.

Alexander Graham Bell and AT&T, businesses like Big Lots, Capital One, Colgate, Ebay, Kraft Foods, Kohl's, Google, Panda Express, Pfizer, Tesla and Yahoo, would not exist.

Nice going, you just wiped out major American advances.

Yeah, I don't think we need more people like you, over them.

Good thing I am not against immigrants then, just the illegal ones.

Dumbass

It's a waste of time speaking to anyone who calls themselves, "DemoncratsMustGo. Shouldl have known better.

To be so partisan and so ignorant, how do you make it through the day without running into walls and cutting limbs off on sharp objects?

It's well documented that second generation immigrants out perform natural born citizens whether they were illegal or not. Again, I'm not for illegals crossing the border. But I'm also not for giving them a free American education, then kicking them out so they can use it to compete against us. That's just stupid.

And like I said they can take that education to make their own countries better. They can’t compete with us without making their own countries better, something their parents wouldn’t do. Most of the countries south of the border are still third world shitholes. They have a long way to go before they can truly compete with the US. Countries like Ireland and Italy did it. Time for Mexico, El Salvador, and the rest of the countries south of the border to do the same. We can’t keep taking in everybody.

And I am far from partisan. In fact I have already explained that the only reason I am still a registered Republicans is due to lack of other choices.

What's wrong with sending educated people back to their countries? Don't you want those countries to benefit from their people or are you cool with brain drain?

You like paying for free education for foreigners of foreign lands. That's a very liberal philosophy you have there.

No, it’s time for the countries to the south to be improved. We can no longer have everyone from south of the border in this country.

No, but like you said we have already educated these people. I guess you don’t read much of what you write.

I'm saying, KEEP THEM HERE!

I'm more a conservative than you are!

MauiOnion Just go back to your toys, little boy. Adults are talking here.

No dumbass, I mean anyone older than 2.

You're stupid... and old XD

You’re such a dumbass

Nothing half-hazard about it. Something the former ICE director bluntly schooled your dumbass AOC over:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

This is patently false as well as an irrational statement.

Lies. All he did was count border apprehensions as "deportations" while ignoring the criminals already across. Then the globalist media fed you bullshit, and you swallowed it like a dumbass.

Non-citizens with criminal history were Obama's top enforcement target. That has LONG been documented and can't be denied. Especially from the very source you found your graph from. Migration policy dot org.

His focus was on returning everyone who crossed, early, in order to deter future people and to keep them at bay before becoming established in our country. Sound Familar? Yeah, just what Trump is trying to do but bumbling about and clogging the courts to the point he can't operate as efficiently.

Further proof that people on the left don't want illegals crossing anymore than anyone else does.

The reason Obama's numbers dropped during his second term is because no matter what he did or tried to prove to the Republicans who controlled both houses, they would not listen and would not do anything for the dreamers or any immigration reform. He basically said, "f**k you" and allowed more voluntary deportations for non-violent's who basically, didn't leave.

They are all criminals, dipshit. Your chart says interior removals dropped dramatically until 2016 while border actions were counted, meaning criminals were ignored and allowed to infest the USA. But thanks for regurgitating the exact lies you swallowed like a dumbass.

Gawd you are an ignorant f**k aren't you?

Obama was Prez in 2009, the year with the LARGEST interior removals of any year! TWICE that of Trump.

Honestly, how the f**k do you make it through the day without walking out in front of a car or something?

Wow! 2009! Isn't that the year you got AIDS up your butthole instead of learning how to read a chart!

This is what's known in logic as a false cause fallacy.The slowdown of Trump deportations is in no small part because of the Obama administration, which, in its first term, allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to expand a Bush-era program known as Secure Communities.

That program used a little-known information-sharing requirement to collect fingerprints of people booked into local jails across the country and identify illegal immigrants for deportation. It secured record removals, but the backlash against it also created many of the obstacles that Donald Trump has encountered in enacting his agenda, most experts say.

Secure Communities was responsible for Obama earning the title of “deporter in chief,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer and director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. But, he added: “Secure Communities became the breeding ground for the resistance Trump now faces, and it led to activism in the form of enactment of state laws by blue states like California.

What does your textbook from last semester say about that one?

I'm not debating him - I'm debating you. If you want to call it that. That's a Red Herring.

If I am committing a logical fallacy - a bright guy like you should find it a small task to list specifically which fallacy I'm committing.

"I would say that personhood is the abstract quality that says that a human has the full worth and value and rights of a member of society"

You can say that all you want. How do you plan on arguing and grounding the term “ worth “ objectively in your world view? If you can't ground it objectively, it's nothing more than a subjective opinion or arbitrary preference.

“I don't know that it is an objective standard “

Ok. Then you have no argument. You're offering nothing more than an arbitrary preference or opinion.

“ Who said it has to be? "

The rules and laws of logic do. Specifically, the law of non-contradiction. If worth is subjective, another individual could make a statement completely contradicting it and both statements would be just as valid as the other.

“But if it's subjective, it could change." Yes that's true. That doesn't mean it's not subjective.”

It doesn't change. And to suggest it's subjective is logically fallacious. I've already argued why that's the case above.

“My standard includes a number of factors which I have not fully determined yet “

If you have not determined them yet – then you have no argument or grounding for the term worth.

“One standard for fetuses is the ability to feel pain “

An individual on an operating table feels no pain. Should a doctor randomly be able to take his life If the doctor, his family, and society all agree upon it? Also, there are lepers and people with diseases who feel no pain as adults. Should they be snuffed out?

“Another standard is its ability to survive without being attached to another human 24/7.”

Children are all dependent on other human-beings. Should we murder them?

When you omit God from the picture, your world view is reduced to absurdity and irrationality. You have consistently demonstrated that here.

"Children are all dependent on other human-beings. Should we murder them?"

You tell me. Trump is doing it right now. These are children that have a birth certificate which shows them to be legally alive. They can breathe, laugh, cry, walk, crawl, be seen, touched, held, interacted with. Trump treats them like bargaining chips. Trump's followers couldn't care less. These children are starved, abused, victimized, exploited, r*ped, murdered. But you don't care about them because they're poor, brown, foreign... You only care about children until they're born.

This is nothing but a series of empty claims without citations or arguments to back them up. You need to feed on sources other than liberal echo-chambers. The evidence that you do this is not just strong, but very strong. There is every bit of evidence that you're simply parroting garbage from liberal sources - not thinking for yourself. I myself do not even watch Fox News, but on occasion when I do, I do not just belt out or readily embrace everything they say. There is every bit of evidence you're doing exactly that with liberal sources.

Science has overwhelmingly decided that life begins at conception. Denial in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence is just that - Denial. Also, I can't help but notice that whenever MauiOnion is getting it handed to him imagefllip - or the opposite - you're getting it handed to you - one or the other shows up defend the other. That's really sweet. Now either you're the same person or you're lovers. Which is it?

Babies are alive. How does them being babies hold any relevance to their self worth?

Two points in response. First. Define what you mean by personhood. Second. By what line of argumentation or according to what objective standard are you determining them as being without self-worth or of lower self-worth if they do not possess what you just claimed? "personhood"

I will always defend a woman's right to decide for herself. But I don't hear you crying about the children that have died in ICE custody. You only care about embryos that aren't fully formed and can't even survive outside the womb on their own yet but actual children walking around you don't give AF about. What's wrong with you?

The places where children are primarily suffering is in - among many others - Ghettos like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore which are crime-riddled cesspools that have been run by Democrats for decades. Democrat policies have consistently produced poverty and hunger - they have not alleviated it.

2/3 of our federal budget is currently consumed by social programs going broke which Democrats started. Where is the positive results of this in blue states like CA - where 1/3. of the welfare of the nation comes from that state?

A woman murdering her baby so she can be sexually irresponsible is not a "choice" The fact that you think it is demonstrates your utter depravity and moral bankruptcy.

i'd blame the auto industry for detroit, mate

I wouldn't. I'd blame Democrats and the UAW.

aight. you do know the auto industry's role in turning detroit into a poor place, right?

I'm not in complete disagreement with you. The auto industry did devastate Detroit. However, I would largely lay the blame for that ultimately at the feet of Democrats and the UAW they support. I wouldn't go so far as say these are the sole factors, but they were two of the primary and ultimate factors.

Out of the 433,000 victims of rape EACH YEAR, 90% are women. Do you have the right to tell all of these women how to deal with their rape?

Rape and incest account for 1% of all abortions had - Pregnancies where the child is unwanted or inconvenient - About 95%. Do I have the moral right? Not only do I have the moral right, but the responsibility. Only a piece of garbage would support the murder of defenseless babies. That holds true REGARDLESS of how they're conceived. Maybe rape wouldn't be such a big problem if Blue states - Specifically - Southern California weren't churning out 80% of the world's porn!

"No one is treating the 1% like they don't exist"

technically, if you're calling to ban it because of the small numbers of rape, you are ignoring their cases completely.

"I didn't say porn is solely responsible for ra pe, but it does contribute to the deterioration of society which facilitates it."

you do know that while internet use is increasing, rape is decreasing, right?

"Studies have been conducted that people - especially young adults - attempt to carry out when they see on the screen."

eyy way to put casual porn consumers with the occasional rapist. it's like when jimmy kimmel made harvey weinstein's rape case an issue with men rather than an issue with hollywood. sexual assault is on the decline.

"What you're characterizing as " sexual freedom " those of us with objective standards call debauchery."

aight, mr. objective standards. and?

“technically, if you're calling to ban it because of the small numbers of **pe, you are ignoring their cases completely.”

Which is nothing but an empty claim and strawman. I'm only ignoring it in regards to it being an argument for abortion – not in regards to their plight being a horrific one. Trying to justify one horrific act by using another is an appeal to emotion fallacy – not an argument for a position. Two separate topics you're conflating. Do you not understand that distinction?

“you do know that while internet use is increasing, **pe is decreasing, right?”

Two points in response to this. First: Correlation doesn't equal causation. A basic statistics class teaches this to anyone. Second. Porn use has been scientifically proven beyond a doubt to cause damage to the human psyche and causes men to objectify women. This is a verifiable fact. How do you think cultures turn to crap where people - among many other things - consider raping women? They turn to crap by individuals making poor moral choices over the long term. Porn use – which is use high among men – would be among those choices.

“eyy way to put casual porn consumers with the occasional rapist.”

Which no one is doing and another strawman- so your claim is an empty one without merit. However, it's been proven to be a contributing factor – among many others.

“it's like when jimmy kimmel made harvey weinstein's **pe case an issue with men rather than an issue with hollywood. sexual assault is on the decline “

This is what's known in logic as a false analogy fallacy. I would argue that it's neither of these causes. Both are built on fallacies. Both a genetic fallacy and a false cause fallacy.

“aight, mr. objective standards. And?”

And that's what leads you to this false characterization of debauchery. Women murdering babies is never justified. The fact that the act by which a pregnancy occurred may have been a horrific one, makes that no less true.

eyyy let us treat the 1% like they don't exist, mate. gotta love incest and underage mothers.

"Maybe **pe wouldn't be such a big problem if Blue states - Specifically - Southern California weren't churning out 80% of the world's porn!"

oh no... Firstly, those blue states have more sexual freedoms. Secondly, if we said every person who watches porn is a rapist, we'd be inundated, mate.

No one is treating the 1% like they don't exist. You're missing the point. The left often uses ra pe as an argument for the majority of abortions that take place - when they're a minority. However, even if the majority of abortions were **pe and incest - that would still not justify the murder of the unborn.

Your response to the porn in Califonia is a strawman. I didn't say porn is solely responsible for ra pe, but it does contribute to the deterioration of society which facilitates it. Studies have been conducted that people - especially young adults - attempt to carry out when they see on the screen.

Last. What you're characterizing as " sexual freedom " those of us with objective standards call debauchery.

"Which is nothing but an empty claim and strawman."

fallacy fallacy, still what many alabaman governors are doing.

"I'm only ignoring it in regards to it being an argument for abortion – not in regards to their plight being a horrific one"

aight. abortion should be banned because i'm ignoring an argument. cool.

"Trying to justify one horrific act by using another is an appeal to emotion fallacy – not an argument for a position. "

personally, i would discourage abortion. people who go through abortions do go through trauma. what i'm against, however, is the government enacting on it like they did in alabama.

"First: Correlation doesn't equal causation."

never said they were correlated. just a fun fact about rape: chances aren't increasing, they decreasing, and porn is not a contribution to rape.

"Porn use – which is use high among men – would be among those choices."

Porn use would be the least worrying thing in a culture of raping women.

"How do you think cultures turn to crap where people - among many other things - consider raping women?"

like i said, porn use would be the least worrying aspect because sexual assault is on the decline. if anything, i'd direct the problems toward the rapist, not the casual porn viewer.

"Which no one is doing and another strawman- so your claim is an empty one without merit. However, it's been proven to be a contributing factor – among many others."

eyyy it's definitely implied here. many arguers who are pro banning porn will argue that.

"This is what's known in logic as a false analogy fallacy. I would argue that it's neither of these causes. Both are built on fallacies. Both a genetic fallacy and a false cause fallacy."

since you're studying for the fallacies quiz, what you've been doing is the fallacy fallacy. i admit my comment there was quite the stretch of a juxtaposition, but you've been acting like every word i use invalidates what i have to say.

"Women murdering babies is never justified."

i'm so glad you took the time to give me the lecture me on strawmen just to conclude it with the punchline "women murdering babies".

"The fact that the act by which a pregnancy occurred may have been a horrific one, makes that no less true."

sure, abortion is horrific. doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned.

1 of 2. “fallacy fallacy, still what many alabaman governors are doing.”

Which is nothing but another empty claim. All arguments are a potential fallacy, fallacy. You can be arguing for a position poorly and still have that position be true.

However, you're going to do little to nothing to persuade anyone without a valid, sound argument. Also, in trying to wiggle out of one logic fail, you ended up committing anther. A Red Herring.

“aight. abortion should be banned because i'm ignoring an argument.cool “

This would be a strawman fallacy and blatant immaturity.

“personally, i would discourage abortion. people who go through abortions do go through trauma.”

This statement is beyond ignorant. They, in fact, do experience trauma. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion causes serious psychological problems, depression, and a 3 to 400 % increase in the risk of suicide. I personally know women who have attempted suicide dozens of times as a result of abortions.

“what i'm against, however, is the government enacting on it like they did in alabama.”

Which says more about you than this issue. That you possess not the objective moral framework to know this is wrong or determine that it is the government's job and duty to protect the weak and defenseless – which unborn babies are chief among.

“never said they were correlated. just a fun fact about **pe: “

So you're saying that importing this into the conversation was just random and arbitrary? I'm not buying that. You were attempting to use it as an argument.

“chances aren't increasing, they decreasing”

Which only says they're decreasing, not that they're decreasing for a specific purpose. Going beyond that is an assumption and extrapolation. In the quote just prior to this one you said you didn't import this for the sake of argument or drawing a correlation - then immediately in this quote demonstrate that's exactly why you did it. You can't have it both ways bud. The Emporer has no clothes on.

“and porn is not a contribution to **pe”

Which is nothing but an empty claim and denial. It's one of many contributing factors to the deterioration of society. However, you would need an objective moral standard to know this. Autonomous human reasoning and post-modern, subjective “morality” won't cut it.

“Porn use would be the least worrying thing in a culture of raping women”

Least according to what objective standard?

2 of 2. “like i said, porn use would be the least worrying aspect because sexual assault is on the decline. if anything, i'd direct the problems toward the rapist, not the casual porn viewer.”

Like I said. Least according to what objective standard? Also, we have a begging the question fallacy here. You are omitting porn from consideration based on what line of argumentation or standard if not just assuming it's not pertinent?

“eyyy it's definitely implied here. many arguers who are pro banning porn will argue that.”

It's not implied at all. Your claim is without merit.

“since you're studying for the fallacies quiz, what you've been doing is the fallacy fallacy “

What you've been doing is attempting to excuse constant logic fails by throwing out the fallacy, fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy in which a position is not necessarily false because it includes a fallacy.

This is true. However, Logic is the tool by which the rational relationship of any given set of propositions is evaluated. If you commit repeated logic fails, you are not arguing your case effectively or persuasively and the likelihood of your propositions being true is little to none.

“i admit my comment there was quite the stretch of a juxtaposition, but you've been acting like every word i use invalidates what i have to say. “

Not every word – just those which violate the rules and laws of logic.

"i'm so glad you took the time to give me the lecture me on strawmen just to conclude it with the punchline "women murdering babies".

Murder is the taking of an innocent life without good reason. Snuffing out a baby because it's unwanted for inconvenient – which is why most abortions occur – would not qualify.

“sure, abortion is horrific. doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned.”

Were you going to actually address the point made here? Or just gloss right over it? The point isn't that it's horrific alone, but that it's immoral and wages an attack on the most innocent and defenseless among us – as well as - enables bad behavior by attempting to bail women out of the consequences of their decisions by trading them in for worse ones which occur as a result of abortion.

We don't know for sure how many abortions are resulting from rape because not all rapes are reported. Not that you care, though. Back to my original point, Trump is kidnapping babies and locking them in cages. Kids are dying in the camps. You want to point to abortion as some sort of justification for this, well I say that's a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses and has nothing to do with my original point.

Nice hyperbolic language there.

60 million babies aborted the last 40 years. How many die in Trump's camp?

We in fact do know the general numbers. The statistics on this have been out for many years and varies from year to year. However, the number is really quite irrelevant. Aborting a baby is wrong in ALL cases. That you do not possess an objective moral standard to determine this makes that no less true.

Your Trump drivel is just that - Drilvel. Turn off these liberal echo chambers you get your anti-Trump garbage from and come into reality. You had better get used to Trump. Once he is exonerated in the senate he's going to be your president for another four years - in spite of your hate, rhetoric, and lies about him.

"Which is nothing but another empty claim. All arguments are a potential fallacy, fallacy. You can be arguing for a position poorly and still have that position be true."

aight. i still haven't seen proper evidence that we should exclude rape as an argument for abortion.

"This statement is beyond ignorant. They, in fact, do experience trauma. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion causes serious psychological problems, depression, and a 3 to 400 % increase in the risk of suicide. I personally know women who have attempted suicide dozens of times as a result of abortions."

oh no. the "beyond ignorant" hyperbole. how can i ever recover? i never said no one experiences trauma; i think you misread or misinterpreted my argument there. i also said i /discourage/ abortion. i don't know where you get 400% increase in suicide because that sounds exaggerated.

"So you're saying that importing this into the conversation was just random and arbitrary? I'm not buying that. You were attempting to use it as an argument."

i never brought it at random. rape statistics have been decreasing while internet access and access to porn has been increasing. it's proof that porn and rape aren't directly correlated. you have any proof otherwise?

“what i'm against, however, is the government enacting on it like they did in alabama.”

"Which says more about you than this issue. That you possess not the objective moral framework to know this is wrong or determine that it is the government's job and duty to protect the weak and defenseless – which unborn babies are chief among."

eyyy "objective". lmao. i'm against big government, and if i wasn't, the big government shouldn't be using its extensive power to unborn babies (which, btw, don't help society) when they could be helping people who need a friggin job or need a wheelchair to get around (if we're going by weak and defenseless).

"Which only says they're decreasing, not that they're decreasing for a specific purpose."

never said it was. you're not seeing the middle ground in this, which is that porn on the internet isn't stopping rape, but it's not causing rape either.

1/2

"Which is nothing but an empty claim and denial. It's one of many contributing factors to the deterioration of society. However, you would need an objective moral standard to know this. Autonomous human reasoning and post-modern, subjective “morality” won't cut it."

eyyy who needs arguments when the words "denial" and "objective", as well as a fallacy cheat sheet pave them for you. prove that porn is causing rape.

"Least according to what objective standard?"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2032762
this finding states closer to the end that while rapists react to porn as expected, the rape figures decrease despite the increase in porn's availability in four countries, including the united states.

"Were you going to actually address the point made here? Or just gloss right over it?"

i did address it. i called it horrific. i also said that isn't an excuse for banning it.

2/2