So you would allow a woman to kill a human being that relies on her?

You mean a potential human in the making ?

Yes I would allow her to abort is this not clear to you yet ?

. Anti-abortion advocates make the jump from these cells being capable of later on forming a person to the conclusion that these cells are the equivalent of a person. I fail to see how that jump in logic is valid.

Let's take away all factors, except for that their's a human and the woman wants to kill it.

What you mean is “ let’s insert your particular view”” and attempt to force the issue

Is that not murder/manslaughter?

No , it’s merely you asserting it is and being wrong again , why is a woman not jailed for this “crime “ if that’s not the case ?

You make statements that are incorrect and assume they’re correct because you say so , why’s that ?

Why?

Her body , her choice

Excluding "her body, her choice",

Why does that upset you ?

because that response is based on nothing other than the response itself.

What a bizarre statement the response explains perfectly the woman’s position in the matters

What about the father?

What about him ?

Doesn't he get a say?

He does but his wishes are secondary to the woman’s , also I bet he only gets a say if he’s anti abortion isn’t that right ?

Or do you believe he also can only make 1 choice ?

What if he doesn't want an abortion?

What if he does ?

It's his son too,

Potential son /daughter actually

and the mother wouldn't be a mother if not for him.

So what ?

When did I say women shouldn't have any rights over their bodies?

Well you wish to deny the woman a right to abort so that’s a denial of her bodily rights ,are you now denying this ?

I’ve yet to “ get angry “ I’m amused actually , so tell me is this projection on your part ?

You get angry

And that makes you immoral,

Incorrect , I’m perfectly will to allow a woman to carry a child to pregnancy or abort making me a paragon of fairness and morality

saying women can kill their children

It’s children now , no longer a “ fetus “ or even a “baby “ your appeal to emotion is “ touching “ but Victorian melodrama does not work with me

without input from the father.

Again what if the father wants to abort is that “ input “ equally valid ?

Nothing, other than the law considering with abortion you're still killing a potential human.

The law does not say that and if your killing a human being why aren’t you jailed for it ?

But I see at last you agree with me as you’re now also saying “ a potential human “

So it’s not “ children “ or “babies “ anymore but a “ potential human “

By contraception you mean things like birth control pills, correct?

Well done Sherlock

We'll assume that's the focus here.

The giveaway was in the term “ contraception “

Contraception is different than abortion

Quiet similar actually as both are preventative measures

because it stops the potential life from existing in the first place

Exactly what abortion does as in stops a potential life from existing

. In other words, the fetus doesn't exist.

Because you’ve prevented it existing like abortion

With abortion, you're ending the fetus' life.

You’re preventing it from being born the exact function of contraception, making you a ......hypocrite

No, I actually encourage contraception for teens and those who think they don't have the money to raise a child, the same goes for adoption.

So you encourage the prevention of a birth because teens and others may not have the money to raise a child , so if a teen gets pregnant why not encourage abortion or does your hypocrisy not allow this either

No, I'm against terminating a life.

But you’re for preventing a potential child life

No, I'm pro-contraception.

Yes your hypocrisy noted

It is, read this

fe·tus

ˈfēdəs/Submit

noun

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby

Nonsense

A fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken

Tell that to Mississippi*

I did say “ primitive “ Mississippi “ and it’s inhabitants are not exactly renowned for being “ intellectual powerhouses “ are they ?

Are you a native ?

I ask this because of your views also on Evolution , it is a typical knee jerk Bible Belt retort by American religious nuts to the Evolution is fact statement , this seems to drive a fair amount of mainly Americans insane while the rest of the world know it as fact

A fetus is an unborn human being. Let's get that straight.

It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making , don’t take my word on it consult a medical text

Even if I allow for your assertion that its a “ human being “ so what ?

Yes, I do. I use your reasoning.

Another typically childish response

So, because it's inside another human being, that human being has zero rights?

Correct

and it's a woman's choice whether to abort or not

Again correct

Why does she get to choose whether or not to kill another human being?

Her body , her choice

You've yet to answer.

I keep telling you but for some reason you fail to complain smile statement , let’s try for to 50 th time ...... ready .....listen

Her body, her choice

What gives her the right, other than your faulty logic?

My logic is fine your being childish yet again , so you’re saying a woman should have no rights over her body , that makes you a bully and a tyrant

you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset

Will I repeat it again for the 51st time ?

What question did you ask? Restate the question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions most which you avoided by remaining mute , let’s try one of them again as in ......

What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body regarding abortion ?

should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not

No.

But contraception is used to prevent a life being born so you disagree with contraception ?

Tripped up on your own logic again , you’ve admitted you’re against preventing a life to be born so therefore to be consistent you have to be against contraception , well ?

The fetus is a human it’s not go consult wiki

and a living human at that.

It’s alive but not as yet a human

I've answered your question,

You avoided mind

now answer mine

I have several times

Again, because I think that abortion is manslaughter

Merely your opinion based on your own view of the situation and thankfully lawmakers and legislators disagree with your primitive viewpoint

and more often than not abortions are impulsive.

What do you base that ridiculous reply on ?

And what should I conclude from that statement ? .......................

Interesting , well in that case the man has to accept the consequences of his actions and “ pay the piper “

You are

I don’t even know what this is meant to mean at this stage

Well you don't know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby

Considering you spent the whole thread saying a fetus was a baby at last you’re starting to get it that a fetus is not a “ baby “ ,

Why you’re blaming me for what you have only eventually grasped is beyond me .

So when you use your logic to fit your narrative, it's cool, but then somehow it doesn't work when I use the same reasoning to fit my narrative?

You don’t use “ reasoning “ I’ve said from the start a fetus has zero rights to sustenance or useage of a womans body and it’s a woman’s choice whether to abort or not , you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset as you continue to do a ridiculous dance around terms , why’s that ?

Let’s cut to the chase in an attempt to avoid your childish attempts to avoid actually answering what I keep asking , should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not , if not why not ?

Would you like me to use a different argument? Fine. Let me set the scene:

You're a slaveowner. Your slaves try to revolt. You kill some of them because they're on your land and rely on you to survive, so it's your choice on whether or not to kill them. Doesn't that seem immoral?

Why theses ridiculous analogies ? Is this another avoidance tactic by you ?

Why do you assume you have the right to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ?

And yet you fail to realize your own...

What a “ superb “ reply

It is

It's not

more false logic from Dermot.

You do not understand the first thing about logic

I'm not.

You are

intellect is above the bar for normality, but not by very much.

With this I agree

No "dumbing down" required, just a bit of sense from your side.

Well you don’t know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby so blaming me on your stupidity is hardly fair

It’s only faultless when it works in your favour

Which is relatively easy when used against your “ arguments “

I’m pretty self aware , though I can’t say the same for you considering the “ arguments you’ve typed so far

Maybe I need a “ front lawn “ argument as common sense eludes you

How’m I the clown

There’s that lack of self awareness again

Your last statement is nonsense and void of implication .... what a surprise

And you say I'm petty?

Yes and pedantic also

A fetus is a human clump of cells with human features.

A fetus is a clump of cells ...... yes

I'd say it's a pretty good analogy,

It's not but if it makes you feel good that's fine

I'm not babbling,

You are

unless you consider arguing like a normal person

If your intellect is the bar for normality , I will attempt to dumb it down for you

I'm also not saying any gibberish unless you consider your own logic gibberish.

No I consider your babble gibberish , my logic is faultless

Also, how'm I the clown?

Self awareness is not one of your strengths is it ?

Also what's how'm mean ?

You're the one running in circles.

Yes , attempting to flee your front lawn gibberish

How is a fetus not a baby?

So a baby is now a fetus and every new baby you see you call a fetus , interesting

An unborn baby is still a baby.

So there's no such thing as a fetus now ?

Maybe a dog fetus isn't a human, but a human fetus is a human.

So you go around calling fellow humans a fetus

That's on you, Derm *^

Says you the pedant

You said "defending your attacks. Why would you defend my attacks?

You're making no sense again

I have been this whole argument.

No , you're still not

I meant strict.

I know just pointing it out as I know how important it is to you

Because abortion isn't legally defined as murder as of 2018.

Yes , so a woman who aborts is not as you falsely claim a murderer

I didn't say you said it, I said what your logic entails.

No , that's what your faulty " reasoning " assumes

But I don't,

You do and I'm not the first to point it out

I'm copying your logic.

You're not and you need to stop stating you use logic when the concept is alien to you

An adult human

Is a human and all that entails

a clump of cells too.

That's a fetus

So, an unborn baby is a nonhuman clump of cells? This makes no sense.

A fetus is a clump of cells , yes a lot of things make no sense to you it seems , maybe if you run off and get your " book "and crayons we can draw you a couple of diagrams ?

Analogy, Derm

Poor Analogy at that

I accept different points of view from people who actually argue instead of spewing the same 3 sentences.

Says the clown who keeps babbling on about front lawns and contradicting his own gibberish

There is no difference, a fetus = a baby.

Incorrect

An unborn baby, at that, but a baby nonetheless.

A clump of cells

Are you not a clump of cells?

I'm a human being and all that entails a fetus is not

I have a problem with your hypocritical statements, but that's it.

Back to insults I see , back that statement up or withdraw it

But I'm making perfect sense.

Yes! You finally realised

Back to being pedantic , oh dear

Why would you defend my attacks

What the hell are you talking about ?

The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".

Yes you should try it some time

I'm using your reasoning

You're not , you're using your faulty reasoning to force a point

assessed according to strick principles of validity to prove my point.

What does the term strick mean ?

And I'm saying that one, abortion is murder

It's not , why then are women who abort not doing life for murder?

and two, that it's okay for you to do anything to anyone on anything you own.

I never said that so stop telling me what I didn't say

It also fits your logic.

It doesn't , you need to work on your logic

Oh dear you just denied you said it

I didn't deny I said it, I denied that you said it. I know I said it.

They're both humans.

They're not unless one attributes new meanings to the term fetus and human

Do my rights as an adult Trump those of a child

No

That's because a fetus is not a child

I'm just saying the fetus shouldn't be treated the same as an inmate would be.

I know what you're saying , I disagree , in your world do you not accept different points of view ?

So, why does the fetus have zero rights "regarding usage of the woman's body"

The woman's rights should always trump any rights real or imagined the fetus actually has

^As you said, it takes two to make a fetus

Don't tell me you disagree with that statement as well ?

so if they took the risk,

Yes unprotected sex is a risk

why doesn't the fetus have any rights?*

As I stated it's a woman's individual choice not mine if she wishes to carry to term fine , if she wants to abort fine as that's her choice not mine or yours

How is that? How did two humans make a non-human?

A fetus

How do you not know the difference between a fetus and a viable baby ?

A human fetus, correct?

A clump of cells

I didn't say a human is a fetus

You did , read above

. Actually, I didn't even say anything about a fetus being a human.

You did read above

But I did comprehend the statement.

You keep saying things then denying you said them as in above , which you will now deny saying no doubt

Also, you are still insulting me.

My rule on here is if you throw the first insult you will get it back , if you play fair so will I

I don't have a problem with it, but it seems hypocritical.

Because it is

But you do have a problem with it otherwise why bring it up ?

Try using Grammarly to prove my point.

You're making no sense

and neither is yours.

It is

1, you still need to work on it.

Stop being pedantic

2, stop being petty, please.

As in pointing out I missed .... spaces , irony or what

It doesn't help your argument.

It's me merely defending your attacks , my argument is sound

By that logic, it's fine to kill anyone on my property because it's my property, my choice.

Again you're using the opposite of logic to attempt to force your point ,

According to your logic, it's fine to kill anything on your property.

I never said that , what I'm saying is it's sbsolutely fine for a woman to abort

I called your opinion on the matter as such

Right, but my opinion is still an opinion about abortion.

We have different opinions yes

it's your exact logic

It's not , your term " exact " is amusing to say the least

. insert noun 1's insert noun 2, insert noun 1's choice.

Still being petty are you ?

No, I meant what I said.

I know it fits your narrative

No one mentioned morality.

Really why are you saying you brought into the discussion then as in .......

I brought it into the discussion.

Oh dear you just denied you said it , no doubt you will deny this

Now is it human or is it not human?

Non human , unless in your world a human is a fetus , well is it ?

If not, what is it?

A fetus , this seems very difficult for you to grasp, why’s that ?

No, actually, you were the one to start the insults when you said "do you not know what that means ?".

That was not an insult as it was merely pointing out your failure to comprehend a simple statement , your incomprehension informed my opinion

As for your grammar, I don't know how you can call yours perfect,

Because it is

regarding the fact

Your “ opinion “ is not factual

you insert spaces before and after commas, question marks,

Get the space police .....quickly

and exclamation marks.

I never use them

You said her body, her choice,

Yes I did

proving my point

Ehhh no

that according to you, it's fine to kill anything on your property.

I never said that , stop lying

First, do you mean puerile?

I did , but I decided to test your pedantry

Second, I wouldn't call any talk about abortion childish.

I didn’t , I called your opinion on the matter as such

No,

Yes

it's your exact logic

It’s not

put into a different circumstance.

You mean to fit your narrative

See how it's now immoral?

Who mentioned immortal except you ? Are you on a different topic ?

Right, I know what you said. But you aren't answering my question. Is it or is it not alive?

Of course it’s alive

do you not know what that means ?

Ah , now you’re resorting to insult I see , my logic is sound you’re the one who does not know what unborn means , regarding grammar yours definitely leaves room for .... vast improvement

think you just proved my point.

You’ve yet to make one

According to you,

No higher authority needed

it's a fine comparison.

It’s not , it’s typically pureile nonsense from you

their land their choice

Their land, their choice.

More puerile nonsense from you

So is it not alive?

I said it's unborn do you not know what that means ?

If so, why does a woman get to kill a living thing just because it's inside her?

Her body , her choice

That's like saying you get to kill any children that are on your lawn.

No it's not , that's a ridiculous comparison

Because it’s unborn that’s why it’s called a fetus .

Embryos and fetuses live inside the womb, and newborn babies live outside the womb.

So the fetus isn't a human?

That’s seems strange to you , unless in your world where people refer to a fetus as human

That seems odd, considering it was created by two humans.

Yes it does seem “odd “ to some

Tell me in law where that " special right " isn't.

Oh ok , you’ve invented new rights that are called special rights that are applicable to a fetus ?

I’m not saying she doesn't have a choice, but I have the right to call her a murderer.

Well yes you would say that but she’s still not a murederer except in your mind

A baby's been born and a fetus hasn't

Yes a fetus is still in a woman’s body , what’s your point ?

.

Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born

Correct

So what gives the baby the right to live?

It’s now a separate entity and granted human rights like the rest of us , do you really not know this ?

If a woman chooses to take the risk of having a child, the fetus has "the special right".

Really ? Really tell me in law where that “ special right “ is ?

What parents

You haven’t parents ? Interesting

They took the risk, they should live with the consequences.

They had sex got pregnant their body their choice , why should a woman carry a fetus to term her choice not yours

How's a baby a separate entity but a fetus isn't?

I think you really need to look up the difference in a dictionary because you don’t seem to think there’s any difference

How about you try letting it be born?

I couldn’t care less either way have the child or abort it’s the woman’s choice not mine

Is there something that gives the baby the right to have been born that the fetus doesn't have?

Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born

Why doesn't it have the right?

Does anyone have the right to life and sustenance from your body ? why should a fetus have this “ special right “ ?

You said it isn't a parasite,

Yes I said that

so why doesn't it have the right to live there while I live in my home?

You’ve been granted that right by your parents , why should a woman who wants an abortion be told what to do by a stranger like you ?

What gives you the right to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do with her body ?

A baby as a separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not

Why's that?

Because it’s a separate entity

Does being born give you those rights?

Yes

Well, you said I was incorrect by saying babies rely on their mothers' bodies.

I said a fetus relies on its mother’s body for sustenance over which it has no right it also “ resides “ in the mother’s body which it has no rights to either

Can babies feed themselves? Can babies dress themselves? Change themselves?

A baby as separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not

It takes two to do it , also a fetus has zero rights regarding usage of the woman’s body , a baby is not reliant on the body of the woman for sustenance over which it has no right

What a typically idiotic comment from the Engllish twat ...........................

You said well, there's a difference between the terms because they aren't the same word

There you go

Where did I say say a newborn is self sufficient ?

Well, there's a difference between the terms because they aren't the same words

Thank you for agreeing ...... at last

, but the only differences between a fetus and a baby are 1, a baby has been/is being born while a fetus is unborn and 2, a fetus is typically smaller than a baby.

I know you just agreed there’s a difference after saying the opposite

I can,

But yet you didn’t

but I didn't see the need to since you didn't either, when you said "Incorrect".

I did , I said a fetus was reliant on a mother’s body , you said a baby was also , making you incorrect yet again

Ok , leave textbooks out and maybe consult a dictionary or your nearest medic for clarification

You did say A fetus is still a separate entity

That’s absolute nonsense and you know it

Ok , so you don’t see the difference between the terms fetus and baby why’s that ?

I know the definition of a fetus do you know the definition of a baby ?

Incorrect ? But you cannot Back your objection up

I’m not using books to help my points I’m pointing out what you’re blissfully unaware of medically ,the rest of your point makes no sense at all

They aren’t different

They are thus the terms fetus and baby

A baby is a fetus, a fetus is a baby

Read above

. Size doesn't matter here.

Ok , so is an adult a fetus and if not why not ?

A newborn is reliant on a mother

I know but it’s not reliant on her body to live

Again, a newborn is reliant on a woman

I know it’s also in most cases reliant on a man as well

and by extension their body) as well.

Incorrect

And yet again, yes, a fetus is separate to a mother.

Medical textbooks disagree with your assessment as do I

They are different if not what are you arguing about ?

Regarding a baby it’s not reliant on a woman’s body to have life is it ?

A fetus if it was a “ separate entity “ then how come it’s reliant on a woman’s body ?

I never used the term “ parasite “ did I ? Yet again a fetus is not separate to a mother

So it's magically not okay to kill as it's being born?

What are you talking about ?

How's that?

???

Babies are reliant on the mother until they aren't infants, and they still have no right over her or her body,

Yes a baby has no right over a woman’s body as it’s now a separate entity

so why isn't it okay to kill a newborn?

Read above

If a fetus is "just a clump of cells" and that makes it okay to kill it

A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate

It is exhausting

That’s like something a drama queen would say 🙀 try clearing snow off a driveway for an hour or so .....now that’s exhausting

How did I forget “ The Rock “ certainly a strong contender right up there with ....... Caiiytean Jenner 🙀

Yes she should , it’s a done deal if she decides to run unless Kim Kardashian’s decides to give it a go

Yes I do ; nearly every day one hears yet another account from the U S about how unfairly blacks are treated and the accounts always come from some group with a vested interest in constantly pushing this agenda ; any attempted debate on the topic leaves one open to the lame knee jerk reaction of being branded a racist

Recently I watched a very intersting documentary which clearly showed that worldwide universities and colleges are the ones who push the whole over the top P C bullshit which discourages debate of any sort on these controversial topics , it’s the new form of censorship of which I will not be a part off

I wonder do African Americans ever stop whining their biggest enemy is their self pitying attitude and sulking poor me attitude

I always say ,an ass is there to be ridden ,and thanfully life provides many such willing beasts ,visionaries like you and I also spot the willing beast a country mile away and give them a fully deserved riding 👌☺️🍷

Hi Antrim , you’re correct , the mutual ball licking society get a couple of halfs down their collective gannets and start getting all misty eyed and sentimental ; I detest these clappy happy mutual love ins 👌🍷

Be nice to Foamwithin , Nowastain , and Sitard ? 😳 Steady on that’s a bridge too far even for me 🙀🙀

It wouldn't matter they will just bitch about who's ass is bigger or what lipstick colour is " hot " ........

Hi Marcus , neither do I , they're merely a demonstration of the typical names used in name calling in this particular case .

Offence is not given but taken , agreed , but many blacks do in fact find these terms deeply offensive .

When I was a kid we had Golliwogs and my parents used to watch the black and white minstrel show , one never saw a black man or women in Ireland unless it was a tourist ; Dubliners used to joke about the late Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy fame being the only black man in Ireland

I had a feeling Antrim the poor guy just wants my approval

Ah come on ! Is that it ? You can do better I'm not feeling hurt yet 😇😇😇😇😇

So you don't like me ? 🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😫😫��😫😫😢😢😢😢😢

This is so true we are the bestest name callers ever , here ya go courtesy of Wiki ....... 🙀🙀🙀

Af

(Rhodesia) African to a white Rhodesian (Rhodie).[1]

Ape

(U.S.) a black person.[2]

Béni-oui-oui

Mostly used during the French colonization of Algeria as a derogatory term to describe Algerian Muslims.[3]

Bluegum

An offensive slur used by some United States white Southerners for an African-American perceived as being lazy and who refuses to work.[4]

Boogie

a black person (film noire) "The boogies lowered the boom on Beaver Canal".[5]

Buck

a black person, also used to describe Native Americans.

Buffie

a black person.[6]

Burrhead / Burr-head / Burr head

(U.S.) a black person (referencing stereotypical hair type).[7]

Colored

(U.S.) a Black person. Once generally accepted as inoffensive, this word is now considered disrespectful by some. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People continues to use its full name unapologetically. Some black Americans have reclaimed this word and softened it in the expression "a person of color".

Coon

(U.S. & U.K) a black person. Possibly from Portuguese barracoos, a building constructed to hold slaves for sale. (1837).[8]

Crow

a black person,[9] spec. a black woman.

Eggplant

(U.S.) A black person. Notable for appearing in the 1979 film, The Jerk.[10]

Fuzzies

(U.K.) A black person. In the 1964 film classic, "Zulu", the British officer played by Michael Caine refers to the Zulus as "fuzzies".[11]

Gable

a black person.[6]

Golliwogg

(UK Commonwealth) a dark-skinned person, after Florence Kate Upton's children's book character [12]

Jigaboo, jiggabo, jijjiboo, zigabo, jig, jigg, jiggy, jigga

(U.S. & UK) a black person (JB) with stereotypical black features (dark skin, wide nose, etc.) Used to refer to mannerisms that resemble dancing.

Jim Crow

(U.S.) a black person; also the name for the segregation laws prevalent in much of the United States until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.[13]

Jim Fish

(South Africa) a black person[14]

Jungle bunny

(US and UK) a black person.[15]

Kaffir, kaffer, kaffir, kafir, kaffre

(South Africa) a. a black person. Considered very offensive.

Macaca, same as "macaque"

a person of black African descent, originally used in languages of colonial powers in Africa[16]

Mammy

Domestic servant of black African descent, generally good-natured, often overweight, and loud.[17]

Monkey

a person of black African descent.[16] See also Macaca (slur). It also gave rise to the racist "monkey chants" in sports.

Mosshead

a black person.[6]

Munt

(among whites in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zambia) a black person from muntu, the singular of Bantu[18]

Nig-nog

(UK & U.S.) a black person.[19]

Nigger / nigra / nigga / niggah / nigguh

(U.S., UK) An offensive term for a black person. From the word negro which means the color black in numerous languages. Diminutive appellations include "Nigg" and "Nigz". Over time, the terms "Nigga" and "Niggaz" (plural) have come to be frequently used between some African-Americans without the negative associations of "Nigger".

Niglet / nigglet

a black child

Nigra / negra / niggra / nigrah / nigruh

(U.S.) offensive for a black person [first used in the early 1900s][20]

Pickaninny

a term – generally considered derogatory – that in English usage refers to black children, or a caricature of them which is widely considered racist.

Porch monkey

a black person,[21]

Powder burn

a black person.[6]

Quashie

a black person.[6]

Sambo

(U.S.) a derogatory term for an African American, Black, or sometimes a South Asian person.[17][22]

Smoked Irish / smoked Irishman

(U.S.) 19th century term for Blacks (intended to insult both Blacks and Irish).[6]

Sooty

a black person [originated in the U.S. in the 1950s][23]

Spade

A black person.[24] recorded since 1928 (OED), from the playing cards suit.

Spook

a black person.

Tar baby

(UK; U.S.; and N.Z.) a black child.[25]

Teapot

(British) a black person. [1800s][26]

Thicklips

a black person

Neither have I 👌😂............................................

Yes bibles exist I believe I have one upstairs ..... somewhere

The red hot Shiites .....................................

I know ! I cannot believe how brave I was to make such a bold statement . ...

Ah , so only Native Americans are ' bright ' ... hmmmmm 🤔

No , you're just a raging lunatic who believes Bin Laden was a ' decent guy ' and 9 / 11 was an ' inside job ' ; at least you disagree with everyone on C D which shows how far your lunacy has gone

I think you're onto something here ; and the U S breeds it's fair share of home grown idiots without importing others

Other words misused are Your and You're

The Pakistanis seem to be a most savage nation and when one reads of atrocities like the one you cited by the military it makes for very sad reading .

An annex of Pakistan seems most sensible maybe future government may take the step unless of course it's all tied up agreements that are legally binding .

Thank you for the information it's good to hear fro one who knows firsthand .

Very interesting Jatin , Pakistan and Bangladesh have seem their far share of suffering I wonder what the future may bring them .

Trump is a loose cannon and an egotist what's more chilling is ihis Vice President Mike Pence an out and out nut job .

Actually there are a lot of similarities in both our countries in our struggles for independence and I remember reading an article about the similarities from history Ireland it's most interesting ....

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/politics-learning-the-tricks-of-the-imperial-secession-trade-irish-and-indian-nationalism-in-the-30s-and-40s/

The situation here is very complicated republicans would indeed support a united Ireland , the people of Nothern Ireland would be majority Protestant and loyalist and would resist any such change whilst the Catholics would support it .

I live in the Republic and a united Ireland and can not envisage a united Ireland anytime soon ,I often think the brits would prefer to be rid of it

I heard more or less the same nonsense about the US until I went to live there many years ago and my opinions about it being an easygoing and fairly carefree society quickly changed .

Would love to visit India some day and may do so yet

A typical reply from a dimwit who seems to think he has a right to dictate what a woman can and connotation do with her body .

Refusing to admit the obvious is something you consistently do yet you accuse others of it ..... you're dismissed

Fascinating reading thank you ; it's truly incredible the differences in societies across the world

Yes he seems the typical republican dimwitted and and unoriginal .

That does indeed sound like a pretty rough deal for Indian women wonder will it change in the future ?

Well actually it's you who fail to see that your inane argument was put to bed in my opening salvo , then again your stupidity is the stuff of legend as your daily rantings demonstrate beautifully.

American politics does not really interest me and your obsession with the democratic party shows how insecure you are .

Why do you speak of inhumanity when you think it's right and proper to tyrannise a woman by forcing your views on her ?

But you don't believe in the rights of the woman whose body it is .

But you believe you have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body .... you're a hypocrite

Only a moron like you could bring slavery into this debate because you have nothing significant to say and as usual you downvote differing opinions to yours .

It's sad that people like you seem to assume you can tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body , you mister anti slavery seem to assume it's ok for you to dictate to a woman what she can do with her body ....isn't that what slavers used to do as in tell slaves what they could and couldn't do with their bodies .. ouch 🙀

A woman who gets an abortion does not have to give excuses to anyone or justify her actions to anyone , so it's really you who is talking hogwash which is par for the course for you

That's right and very well put ...............................

Yes thank you for agreeing , as I said I put it to bed several days ago , your defeat is just another of many you have suffered

Well logic is not one of your ' strong ' suits and I suggest you may wish to re examine your past ' glories ' on C D , you have become a laughing stock even Stain defeated you easily in debate , maybe you need a new hobby ?

I put your arguments to bed a couple of days ago , your inability to comprehend this simple fact seems to be something you may need to ' work on ' .

There we go again yet another butt kicking for you , why don't you post up your ' amicable ' onversation with these ' three people ' ?

Bet you won't ?

He is a rather strange person he never actually engages in debate , he is remarably adept at spouting nonsense .

You say .. you might destroy my claims 😂 you haven't done so as yet , and this latest long winded post of yours is just more of your mind numbingly boring nonsense which actually aids you in your goal which is not to engage in real debate .....

Incidentally I think you may wish to read your opening comment on the debate topic because it does exactly what you accuse others of ....... posting utter nonsense which totally ignores the debate topic .....

Your argument is destroyed and you're dismissed

Thank you ........................................................

By telling me you're .......................ignoring me 🙀

Well now you're just making stuff up what a surprise , still upset because you don't have a school in your village ?

Still no up votes ?

Too embarrassed to talk about your latest butt kicking on CD ?

Well no you have not , Jatin put you in your place from the first shot all you're doing is your usual whining as you've no valid argument

There you go ! As I stated your usual tactic when getting hammered in a debate resort to insult and side issues ......

Thank you for demonstrating what I stated about you .... case proven

Jeffrey you told me to go look at all the great arguments you make and all the up votes you get ?

This latest attempt by you is an example I take it of your ' powerful ' debating style ?

It's extremely amusing the butt kicking you're taking I almost feel sorry for you ...... easy now I said ....... almost

I agree about not eating pork , I've never tried camel urine ....

When I was a catholic we used to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ which kinda makes Muslims look ..... normal 🙀

If you find it insulting so fucking what ? Its a bit rich coming from a 🇬🇭 Ghanaian beast who previously stated women fantasise about being raped

Very interesting piece thanks for that ................................

Yes I'm aware of that I'm asking what are your sources for stating .....You mean, the very same labor jobs robots are predicted to replace in the near future?

The data worldwide is indeed confirming what I claim at the moment anyway , here is a snippet from an article in the Guardian ; my own brother is involved in the implementation of a scheme for a large multinational in replacing a large number of office workers with bots as we speak .....

Guardian .....

Last year, reporters for the Associated Press attempted to figure out which jobs were being lost to new technology. They analysed employment data from 20 countries and interviewed experts, software developers and CEOs. They found that almost all the jobs that had disappeared in the past four years were not low-skilled, low-paid roles, but fairly well-paid positions in traditionally middle-class careers. Software was replacing administrators and travel agents, bookkeepers and secretaries, and at alarming rates.

Economists and futurists know it's not all doom and gloom, but it is all change. Oxford academics Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A Osborne have predicted computerisation could make nearly half of jobs redundant within 10 to 20 years. Office work and service roles, they wrote, were particularly at risk. But almost nothing is impervious to automation. It has swept through shop floors and factories, transformed businesses big and small, and is beginning to revolutionise the professions.

Knowledge-based jobs were supposed to be safe career choices, the years of study it takes to become a lawyer, say, or an architect or accountant, in theory guaranteeing a lifetime of lucrative employment. That is no longer the case. Now even doctors face the looming threat of possible obsolescence. Expert radiologists are routinely outperformed by pattern-recognition software, diagnosticians by simple computer questionnaires. In 2012, Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla predicted that algorithms and machines would replace 80% of doctors within a generation.

In their much-debated book The Second Machine Age, Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argued that we now face an intense period of creative destruction. "Technological progress," they warned, "is going to leave behind some people, perhaps even a lot of people, as it races ahead … there's never been a worse time to be a worker with only 'ordinary' skills and abilities to offer, because computers, robots and other digital technologies are acquiring these skills and abilities at an extraordinary rate."

So where does that leave the professions, whose hard-won expertise is beginning to fall within the power of computers and artificial intelligence to emulate? The efficiency of computerisation seems likely to spell the end of the job security past generations sought in such careers. For many, what were once extraordinary skillsets will soon be rendered ordinary by the advance of the machines. What will it mean to be a professional then?

"We'll see what I call decomposition, the breaking down of professional work into its component parts," says leading legal futurist professor Richard Susskind. Susskind's forthcoming book Beyond the Professions, co-authored with his son Daniel Susskind, examines the transformations already underway across the sectors that once offered jobs for life. He predicts a process not unlike the division of labour that wiped out skilled artisans and craftsmen in the past: the dissolution of expertise into a dozen or more streamlined processes.

The point I'm making and you're missing is the fact that the jobs being replaced at the moment are not the ones that require manual skills as in the jobs I mention but are more office related jobs that are now beginning to make workers in theses fields redundant .

Where did you get your information from ?

Here is a piece from the Guardian .....

Last year, reporters for the Associated Press attempted to figure out which jobs were being lost to new technology. They analysed employment data from 20 countries and interviewed experts, software developers and CEOs. They found that almost all the jobs that had disappeared in the past four years were not low-skilled, low-paid roles, but fairly well-paid positions in traditionally middle-class careers. Software was replacing administrators and travel agents, bookkeepers and secretaries, and at alarming rates.

Economists and futurists know it's not all doom and gloom, but it is all change. Oxford academics Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A Osborne have predicted computerisation could make nearly half of jobs redundant within 10 to 20 years. Office work and service roles, they wrote, were particularly at risk. But almost nothing is impervious to automation. It has swept through shop floors and factories, transformed businesses big and small, and is beginning to revolutionise the professions.

Knowledge-based jobs were supposed to be safe career choices, the years of study it takes to become a lawyer, say, or an architect or accountant, in theory guaranteeing a lifetime of lucrative employment. That is no longer the case. Now even doctors face the looming threat of possible obsolescence. Expert radiologists are routinely outperformed by pattern-recognition software, diagnosticians by simple computer questionnaires. In 2012, Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla predicted that algorithms and machines would replace 80% of doctors within a generation.

In their much-debated book The Second Machine Age, Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argued that we now face an intense period of creative destruction. "Technological progress," they warned, "is going to leave behind some people, perhaps even a lot of people, as it races ahead … there's never been a worse time to be a worker with only 'ordinary' skills and abilities to offer, because computers, robots and other digital technologies are acquiring these skills and abilities at an extraordinary rate."

So where does that leave the professions, whose hard-won expertise is beginning to fall within the power of computers and artificial intelligence to emulate? The efficiency of computerisation seems likely to spell the end of the job security past generations sought in such careers. For many, what were once extraordinary skillsets will soon be rendered ordinary by the advance of the machines. What will it mean to be a professional then?

"We'll see what I call decomposition, the breaking down of professional work into its component parts," says leading legal futurist professor Richard Susskind. Susskind's forthcoming book Beyond the Professions, co-authored with his son Daniel Susskind, examines the transformations already underway across the sectors that once offered jobs for life. He predicts a process not unlike the division of labour that wiped out skilled artisans and craftsmen in the past: the dissolution of expertise into a dozen or more streamlined processes.

At the moment worldwide bots are replacing humans in the workplace I know two people actively involved in the day to day implementation of such schemes .

Interestingly the safest jobs in the future may be ones that require manual skills as in gardening , shelf stacking , restaurant work etc ,etc. as bots are not yet advanced enough to carry out these tasks .It would be most interesting to re visit the world in a hundred years time to see how much society is affected by these changes.

Yes you probably do but you're fooling no one are you ?

My point is your homosexual no one cares and you may attempt to turn it back on me I care not as you're the one who claimed to worship black and white dick ... remember ?

Jeffrey since you came out three months ago you've got very anti woman whys that ?

Just accept your homosexuality ,you don't have to keep saying you hate women everyone gets it you prefer men , get over it ....

I remember watching the debates and the impression I got about Hillary was that she was petty and nasty , when I watched Trump and Hillary in action they looked like a pair of bickering school kids and you're on the money Clinton is universally hated

😂😂 🙀

Sole message is god wishes you to do evil as he is an evil god

No one told Bill that as he claimed he did not have sex with that woman 😀 I sorta guessed it might be though thanks 😀

what if his hair is ' fabulous ' in other universes ? On earth he has a serious contender in ' The dear leader ' in North Korea for ' best ' hair .

Depends on who they are 😀 well it certainly wasn't sex ... as Bill defined it anyway 😀

Well one thing you's still can't do is make beer 🍻🍻that's why American beer is served very cold so you can tell it from piss 🙀🍺🍺🍺

🙀🙀🙀 you said that over here there would be a lynching ,every house at one time had a picture of the Virgin Mary and JFK .... good ole Bill was a contender until the dick sucking incident ....

Where is the lovely Monica these days ?

And he's even got this 👉 .....

Hyphenation: trump‧ery

Noun Edit

trumpery (plural trumperies)

Worthless finery; bric-a-brac or junk.

1610, William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act IV, scene 1:

PROSPERO.[To Ariel]

This was well done, my bird.

Thy shape invisible retain thou still:

The trumpery in my house, go bring it hither

For stale to catch these thie...