Slashdot Mirror

I have not, personally, checked any of these links out, but here y'go, folks. Visit at your own risk, and all like that: The ACMA blacklist March 19 2009 * http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 * http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm Aug 6 2008 * http://tgpme.com/ * http://newthumbs.net/ * http://bbs12.mail15.su/ * http://cybermovs.narod.ru/ * http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/e8a2eb7b73335439 * http://hrdpdfl8.paginas.sapo.pt/2/main.html * http://imgsrc.ru/main/search_re.php?str=&tag=&butt=ya&where=ya&nopass=on&cat=24&page=5 * http://lolitacj.freepimphost.com/ * http://mclt-sites.net/latvian/main/?sid=1189 * http://myusenet.net/files/0/alt.binaries.pictures.wals/0/index96.htm * http://ourworldkids.info/ * http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=girl+12+year+old+fuck+with+boy+13+year+old+in * http://tinygev.com/ * http://trueincest.com/ * http://www.crazydumper.com/go-young_russian_guy_drug_her_and_then_fuck_her-639842.html * http://fulltiltpoker.com/ * http://www.kackarhatila.com/custom/config/new/index.html * http://nasty-virgins.org/ * http://pretty-pretty.info/ * http://realcruelfamily.com/ * http://www.sexologic.com/hosted/media/...now-watch-while-we-fuck-your-girlfriend!,111.php * http://vi5search.com/ * http://www.wetdump.com/hosted/1036/slipped-some-pillz-in-her-drink-and-fucked-her-while-unconscious.html * http://top.angels-list.com/index.html?97 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://ganja.vipzax.com/ * http://shave.vipzax.com/ July 30 2008 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://sweets.maximimage.com/?ft=brightgirls.net * http://littlevirginstgp.com/ * http://cutiesveta.com/ * http://youngwetmodels.com/ * http://preteenmasha.com/ * http://forbi-dreams2.info/ July 28 2008 *

come on no one has put up the list yet ?

slashdot can spare the cash surely ....

here goes

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008

sorry do not know what i was thinking I should pasted the banned page link.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm

I really like the way you approached the Taiwan-China question, and I think it was a good exercise for us to go through.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my attempt to describe in abstract terms the approach that you liked.

1. You observed that "the way things are" is different from "the way things should be" (in this case, the way God wants them to be)
2. You're belief about "the way things should be" was motivated by non-scientific criteia (e.g. "I believe that Taiwan is the Taiwanese people"). Now this point is fascinating becase it's exactly what I've been trying to say wih personhood: it depends on existential definitions. An existential definition bascially means that the meaning comes from what we want it to mean. You're saying that if the Taiwanese people want Taiwan to be a state then - existentialy - it should be a state. Do you see what happened? You've associated your "the way things should be" with existentialism.
3. The critical final piece is that once you've established the discrepency between "the way things are" (objective realty) and "the way things should be" (existential definition) you then believe we have an implicit duty to work from the former to the latter.

Now I ask where science came into this. First of all, science is necessary to describe the objective reality. Without understanding that, we can not see a discrepency (e.g. you can't solve the equation x-y with only a value for x) But science can not directly help with either of two things.
1. the analysis of "what should be" - since it doesn't exist and can't be tested and
2. the criteria for establishing your existential definition.

What science led you to say that if the Taiwanese people want to be Taiwan they should be? Surely according to the Chinese people Taiwan IS China, so there are no Taiwanes people to have an opinion about Taiwan. Why pick one over the other?

In any case, this is exactly what I want to do with abortion. First of all, we should look at the objective reality. In this case the objective reality is that there have been something like 25-30 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. The most common occurs from 8-12 weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development#Fet al_Period - see "The fetal period" See also: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/tinyfeet.jpg (that's around 8-weeks, it's a famous picture) and also http://www.alexanderandturner.com/assets/images/cy 13c.jpg

So currently most abortions take place by using a vacuum to rip apart an 8-12 week old fetus that has arms, legs, a beating heart, it's own blood system, etc. But it's also legal to have abortions during the full 9-moth term (hence the last picture). Consider partial-birth abortion. Here's a scientific drawing of the process: http://www.truthnet.org/abortion/Partial-Birth_Abo rtion1.jpg and here (warning you do NOT have to click if you don't want to) are pictures of the results: http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.h tm Clinton vetoed 2 bans on this procedure, and the current state bans have mostly been overturned.

Partial-birth abortion isn't even that late term. They use saline poisoning for late-term abortions. That's possibly an even more hideous procedure than partial-birth abortions.

And to get a final understanding of the objecive reality you have to realize that thanks to th Supreme Court any law that bans or limits abortion without an exceptin for "health of the mother" is unconstitutional. Health has been defined as "all factors relating to the well-being of the mother" which turns the exception into a loop-hole t

Though Planned Parenthood identifies itself as a "pro-choice" organization, statistics from its latest annual report show a decided tilt toward the abortion "option." Prenatal care clients (16,065) were outnumbered by abortion clients by a more than 10 to 1 margin. That over four times as many (67,052) prenatal patients had to be referred out as received prenatal care shows how ill prepared or unmotivated PPFA clinics are to offer women this option. Put another way, 80% of abortion patients receive their services on site, while 80% of prenatal patients have to be referred elsewhere.

The case is even worse with regard to adoption. Despite the mention of "adoption counseling" as one of the health services offered by affiliates, no in-house adoption services are listed in the "service summary." The service summary does mention "adoption referrals to other agencies," but these total only a paltry 4,892 for the whole year. Put in perspective, abortions outnumbered adoption referrals by a 34-1 margin at Planned Parenthood clinics in 1998.

Given the inordinate emphasis Planned Parenthood gives to abortion over prenatal care and adoption, it should be clearer than ever that Planned Parenthood's plans typically don't involve parenthood.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures1.htm

HYPOCRASY.

Interesting: Given the fact that evolutionists are also usually the same people who seem to have no moral problem whatsoever in vacuum sucking up an unborn human, consider this:

- when it comes to explaining the universe they 'assume' graduallity, evolution

but

- when it comes to convenience (after of course having been fucked/having fucked unprotected, just for pleasure), they do *NOT* want to see graduality/evolution of life. No - the human only comes into existance 'when born'

Conclusion: they're willing to believe anything as long as it does not involve God, and - when necessary - they will sacrifice righteousness.

Over 40 million abortions have occurred in the United States since it was legalized in a Supreme Court decision. I have a link to that here if you doubt the number.

I agree, we ought to educate about sex. Portray it for what it really is, and its importance, instead of what you see on TV. Some people will argue what you see on TV doesn't influence you, but I can't help but think how sex is portrayed there affects the attitudes of our youth about it.

Bashing religion doesn't solve anything, though. And nobody is justifying blowing up abortion clinics or murdering the doctors who perform abortions.

No, not really. Why try to save the lives of 683 criminals when you can try to save 40 million unborn children?

And before you mention the fact that it's even slightly possible that perhaps one of those put to death via capital punishment is innocent, let me remind you you're comparing them to 40 million unborn children. Aren't the children innocent?