Many of us, including me, have posted ad-hom attacks on pro-lifers and they get through, but one “bitch” from a pro-lifer gets her banned.

I think the difference is that that comment was a blatantly misogynist insult as opposed to a garden-variety one.

I suppose I will have to explain my joke:

Someone said that couples who practice NFP have a very low divorce rate, presumably as an attempt to convince us that NFP is the way to go.
But correlation does not equal causation.
I replied sarcastically by saying that *atheists* have a low divorce. You know, so you should become an atheist to save your marriage. It was not earnest advice. I was mocking the logical fallacy re: NFP.

No, it couldn’t be that society condones this behaviour, which allows otherwise very decent people to think this way. Clearly, I’m either a liar or a bad person – it would never, ever be that your pro-abortion position is a great thing for young, single men who like to screw.

Theo, theo….in my many years of dating before I was married never once was I suggested by my partner to have an abortion if I became pregnant. None of my friends have ever encountered such a stance – and believe me I would know for the audacity of such a question would boot them faster from bed than piss on the sheets.

So yes, I think you are full of it or your taste in men is seriously lacking and frankly, from all of the purile shite you post, I’ll wager it’s a sprinkling of both.

So don’t blame your dating problems on your generation, perhaps you should look a bit inward as to why you’ve been asked on more than one occasion to ditch the condoms and have an abortion if something goes wrong. It could be the men you choose – and wouldn’t it be ironic if they were your comrades in your RTL movement. GUFFAW

Honestly, I did not come here to change anyone’s mind (that would be quite naive), but I did hope to have a fruitful discussion. Instead, I had a bunch of very angry and often hypocritical people spew hatred, bigotry, and demagoguery.

Sadly, no one feels even remotely bothered by their stereotyping, false accusations, misattributions, yet they want to boot anyone with a hostile opinion who says anything uncivil. Even worse, if anyone responds at all, it will likely include a snide or sarcastic comment.

So that I’m not accused of running away (not sure how given the flow of the conversation that’s possible, but you never know), if someone has a specific question that, in their mind, I avoided (i don’t think there are any, but maybe I missed it) then let me know and I’ll respond to it.

Even if it is plainly not reciprocated, all the best.

I do mean it and wish someone could explain to me how I can show on a thread that I have no ill-will toward anyone without sounding sarcastic or insincere.

Also, dude, what I said about atheists and marriage was meant to be funny. Do I really need to explain my point?

Noted. So if I try to be funny by saying atheists and agnostics don’t even know the first thing about any religion, they can’t even get married and when they do they usually end up in divorce or disfunctional families. Become *insert some religion* today! that seems ok to you?

Apparently your guiding principle here is that it is fine to say some absurd and unfounded statement when it doesn’t bother you.

Also, if you’re just being funny why produce a study? Basically you got called on it and resorted to the lame tactic of saying “oh, just a joke.” sad.

And, there are plenty of lawyers who frequent this blog. That you think you’re the smartest one commenting right now is a real hoot. You admit that you don’t know anything about conscience clauses, and weren’t aware of the fact that none of the anti-choice groups support comprehensive sex-ed or birth control, and yet you’re so confident speaking about this stuff.

Please show me where I said anything of the sort. You’re just attacking my character via a strawman. Invent the fact I ever claimed to know everything or be the smartest person, and then knock it down by showing some other things I don’t think I ever said. When did I discuss conscience clauses, or sex-ed??

Anyway, basically I called you on a study that was bunk for your assertion and your response to my substantive post was 1. i was only kidding 2. your an arrogant and your stupid.

Sarah:
LOL

I want to be inactive at my job, too. My boss wants to force me to act. Do you support my “right” to do nothing at work whilst being compensated by my employer?

Again, not following the conversation. We were dealing with a situation where the company doesn’t want to do something. Not an individual employee at a store.

I spent paragraphs in repeated posts making this point. Please, read what I wrote so I don’t have to respond to nonsense.