Is it you ? :razz: :lol:

As far as I know we have not talked about this subject in the past so there are at least 2 of you with that opinion ... is that what you are saying ?

What is your views on the subject then and are you then a " tree-hugger " ? :razz: :eek:

Must be something in the water :neutral:

salt ? :eek:

I know you said not to take anything you said personally but you make it kind of difficult with stingers like this. Quite a bold statement.

I second Quinn's suggestion that you do some more research into the science of evololutionary and other theories which differ from creationism as many of the "facts" you cited are either highly inaccurate or mere rumours. Remember to always study both sides of an issue to obtain an unbiased opinion, or at least try. I have read the bible and have taken a couple university courses on the practice and study of various religions, quite possibly my favorite classes. There are so many different beliefs that it seems impulsive to say only one could be correct.

I once met a guy who described himself as an apathetic agnostic, "I don't know, and I don't care.".

Now this one has me confused...

First off, I did not call you a redneck, I was illistrating the fact that it was unfair to call me a tree-hugger because the act of chaining oneself to a tree to save it from a chainsaw has little to do with the topic(s) of this discussion. If you re-read the post I hope you'll see that I was saying it would be just as inaccurate to call you something dissimilar.

And...I don't wear panties, never been a lady, don't plan on having the sex change operation anytime soon.


I might as well add, I have a moose-hunting, 4x4 driving, C&W listening good friend of mine who I often call an ignorant redneck, and he loves to call his backpack wearing, anti-TV, bicycle commuting friend of his a tree-hugger, so I can take a good natured ribbing, I'm not that sensitive.

pro life = anti choice

.

[tangent]
I don't think it is necessary/desireable to get into this debate but I strongly dissagree with this statement. I think that we can all agree that the names these different camps have decided to call themselves are not really descriptive of their respective views so much as they are derrogatory of the opposing view. Really, no one belives that if you are not "pro life" you are "anti life" or "pro death" and if you are not "pro choice" you are "anti choice". Obviously choice and life are valuable to all of us. The difference in opinions lies in when human life is believed to begin.
[/tangent]

I did not call you a tree-hugger ... you did :lol:

you were also the one that brought up the term redneck and threw it out there with my name attached to it and then retracted it just as quickly ... I know you may feel very fond of your 4X4 friend but lets keep the term redneck out of this conversation if you dont mind.

also ... the term tree-hugger in this case was a term my friend called herself ... not that she actually chained herself to trees or anything like that but she has very strong feelings on the subject where animals are concerned ... but fails to have that much passion for people starving in the third world countries or the diseases like aids that are ravaging some countries.

Agree it is not a desirable topic.

Disagree that the name is insignificant. There are many pro-lifers who could more accurately be described as anti-choice.

Personally, it's a terrible thing that is sometimes necessary.

I'm ready to move on, was enjoying this thread 'til now. Not meaning to offend.

Worry not Cap'n I wasn't offended :cool: .

And I never suggested that the name is insignifigant. Only that the names cleverly represent a falicy of logic - the strawman falicy I think.