KLCCLK, here we go again

There goes lonebadger6 again. What exactly makes that post "trolling"? Understanding legal positivism and its fallout is basic literacy, not some kind of provocation. Just a reminder: according to the European Court of Human Rights, the legal status of an unborn child remains unresolved (look at the precedents in France or ABC v. Ireland—the ECHR case law is pretty definitive here), which brings us right back to the margin of appreciation doctrine.

I’m hoping lonebadger6 actually has a rational argument this time to explain why that post qualifies as trolling.

Thank God this is the last time... :)

lonebadger6 said:Fortunately, this turns out to be the last time, too.

You’ve never actually explained a single card. It’s easy enough to hand one out, but you clearly struggle with the reasoning behind it—probably because there isn't any.

Thanks for the effort, but that one line makes you sound like an actor in a stage play who hasn't read the script. Here’s a quote of yours from the banned section:

Nah, that's not irony. What you're describing is sarcasm—two completely different things—but you still missed the mark there. - lonebadger6

The Orwellian Thought Police always seem to push the same old lines, just dressed up in different outfits.

It’s pure irony. Irony isn't just a literary device; it's the fundamental mechanism of the universe. It’s that bitter gap between what we expect to happen and the messy reality that actually hits us. Think of it like a driver checking their GPS only to realize they've been circling a parking lot for twenty minutes while staring at the map—it's the mismatch between intention and outcome.
Sarkazam - Sarcasm is essentially a verbal mask—a way to say one thing while clearly signaling that you mean the exact opposite. It’s less about being direct and more about using irony to highlight how ridiculous a situation or a statement actually is. Think of it like a linguistic shrug; you aren't just delivering information, you're adding a layer of skepticism to it. While it can be used to sharpen a wit, it's often just a cynical tool used to point out the obvious flaws in someone else's logic.

Irony is basically just a linguistic tool where the actual meaning is either buried under the surface or stands in direct opposition to what’s being said literally.
Sarcasm is just irony turned up to eleven. It’s biting, sharp, and meant to sting.

In everyday conversation, irony and sarcasm often blur together. You rarely hear people break them down with textbook definitions, but the distinction is simple: sarcasm is essentially just irony with a sharper, more offensive edge.

It isn’t exactly a "completely different thing," despite what you're claiming. Haeckel’s discredited recapitulation theory is fundamentally distinct from Darwin’s theory of evolution, even if the users you protect through your moderation tend to conflate them inaccurately.

It’s just like how the Orwellian crowd rebrands recapitulation theory as evolutionary theory. They do the same thing with human rights. It’s the classic wolf in sheep's clothing tactic used to manipulate the Orwellian Thought Police.

O'Rahilly and Müller's work in Human Embryology & Teratology (2001).

Moore, Persaud, and Torchia's *The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology* (2019 edition).

Moore, Persaud, and Torchia's *Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects* (2019).

That’s exactly why lonebadger6 got banned—scientific facts tend to bruise fragile ideologies. It's just a way to make sure people actually see what's happening behind the scenes.

Scientific literature from world-renowned embryologists dating from 2001 to 2019 is dismissed by the Orwellian Thought Police as nothing more than "fifty-year-old books that are mostly out of print." Yet, they continue to peddle their lies on this very topic, all while under the watchful eye of "moderator" lonebadger6.

Cuka has joined the thread, looking like yet another member of the Orwellian Thought Police who suddenly remembered "rules" exist just so they can decide how to treat anyone who isn't pro-choice. Quoting Cuka:

You better back this up with actual arguments, or we aren't talking.

Look, I want you to speak up and have an opinion, but I don't want you passing off information that you can't actually defend........that’s all. So far, you haven't provided much of an argument at all.

And I’m not asking for anything specific or difficult; copying a link is basic discussion etiquette, and quoting from that link is standard procedure for this forum—it’s clearly stated in rule this pdf.

Here are those quotes from the literature I cited in my previous post. This is what a properly supported argument looks like:

It is now accepted that the word embryo, as currently used in human embryology, means 'an unborn human in the first 8 weeks' from fertilization'.

The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution.

You can also find info from these same sources here regarding the discredited recapitulation theory.

Listen, Cuka, you say you don't want people "passing off information they can't defend." Fine. Why don't you defend the things that have been posted here for years?
Provide some professional embryology literature claiming an embryo isn't a human.
Provide some professional embryology literature claiming an embryo isn't a human being.
Explain why north wind has spent years calling "recapitulation theory" the "theory of evolution."

I'll quote north wind, since she's been flooding this thread with these exact points for ages:

The fact that an embryo is a human zygote and not a "person" isn't my claim, it's science based on evolution. Essentially, to become a person, it still has to develop. And it develops in a woman's womb. Otherwise, if it were already a "person," it wouldn't need to undergo development inside someone else's body. Those are established facts.

Yes, I mention evolution because that's where the evidence lies. What you're presenting as "proof" is just plain old creationism. To me, that proves nothing. The proof is in evolutionary theory, so go grab an embryology textbook and study it... I'm not going to hunt down literature for you.

So, Cuka, why don't you try arguing against this years-long spam and trolling? Go ahead and name that "embryology textbook" north wind keeps mentioning.

Go ahead, Cuka, explain the mental gymnastics north wind uses when she spams this thread saying: "An embryo is a zygote, not a person."

A zygote, an embryo, or an embryon are synonyms. So, logically, her statement boils down to: "An embryo is an embryo, not a person." If you apply the definition from the literature I provided above, you end up with: "A person is a person, not a person." 🤣

Another user pretty much laid it all out in that thread, which allowed Ged Earthse to take those points and "logically" conclude that a pile of crap is actually a human being.

You’re just throwing Cuka and those "peer-reviewed" studies at me that Ged Earthse used to back his claims. When I actually pressed him for the citations, he couldn't produce a single one—he just started dodging and burying me under a mountain of questions. It's a classic deflection tactic. just another internet troll.).
He pulled the exact same stunt when I asked him to back up his claims with actual embryology textbooks.

It’s stifling in here. All right. If you want to argue that abortion isn't a human right, you’re going to have a hard time countering North Wind's claims. You'll need more than just an opinion; I'm looking for a specific ruling from the ECHR to back that up.

While you're busy lecturing a female forum member for being anti-abortion, others are dropping links to 2012 articles about Savita Halappanavar, claiming she died because of Ireland's abortion ban. Now you’re going to try to argue your point by... You can find the link to the official investigation into that case in the post above..

You’re going to argue with Cuka and keep up that multi-year streak of trolling and calling out certain forum members for being "ineffective." Catholic contraception. It’s an old debate, but the core friction remains the same..

This is just the tip of the iceberg; you'll have to explain what you actually mean by that. Just another internet troll..

By the way, I’m just one of those people who refuses to look the other way when it comes to how common abortions actually are among women. The only choice left. When a government fails to uphold the social and economic rights it's fundamentally obligated to protect, it’s essentially a breach of its own social contract. Pro-choice.I can't exactly call a lack of choice "pro-choice." It’s like when you call someone out for not respecting women—do you actually respect the entire moderation team running this PDF?