Recent Comments

1. 8 days ago on Michael Ramirez

   The days of casual misogyny and homophobia in male dominated workplaces are numbered. Acknowledge and evolve, or sink.

2. 8 days ago on Michael Ramirez

   Gruden was not a kid when he made those comments.

3. 13 days ago on Off the Mark

   Did they verify that the people taking the survey were actually Ph.Ds or was it on the honor system? How was the data collected? Did it undergo peer review? Not saying there might be hesitancy among that group but I am saying that it needs to be reviewed before the findings are taken as fact.

4. 14 days ago on Bob Gorrell

   You are creating a strawman argument. As a group, African American’s have been denied access to wealth and advancement in this country and straight up denied the opportunity to create generational wealth. Why are there historically back schools? Because they weren’t allowed to attend the schools where white people went. Why do black people have their own museums, movies, entertainment channel, awards? Because they have been systematically left out by those who held power in government and industry.

5. 15 days ago on Bob Gorrell

   This cartoon is in very poor taste.

6. 21 days ago on Lisa Benson

   When the ship you take over is already underwater, that’s where you have to start out. He’s moving forward though, glad you admit that.

7. about 1 month ago on Michael Ramirez

   If someone uses a fallacy to make a point then they should find a better way to make the point.

   Regarding the conjoined twins, newborn, and embryo.

   Conjoined twins: It is an incredible medical and ethical dilemma. Here is one doctor’s story https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/01/conjoined-twins-separation/

   Denying a newborn the sustenance it needs to survive and grow is a crime but nowhere is it required for the mother to breastfeed. Again, this is her body and no one and nothing has the right to any part of it. There are myriad options that do not require the mother to breastfeed.

   An embryo in the uterus is using the mother’s body and, as I said in my original post, no one and nothing has the right to take from your, my, or her body.

   I agree, we do have obligations to offspring that we do not have to random people but they do not include our bodies. Morally? Sure! I would give my son or daughter my kidney, my liver, my heart. But it is not law that I do so and that is a good thing.

   And at this point, I’ll stop because I am in danger of using the “slippery slope” fallacy.

8. about 1 month ago on Michael Ramirez

   Ad hominem, you’re two for two on posts containing logical fallacies. And your calling me callous still doesn’t change the fact that no one has the right to use any part of someone else’s body without that person’s consent.

9. about 1 month ago on Michael Ramirez

   First of all, that is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Thank you for illustrating it so well. Secondly, I would try to help as much as possible but that would be my choice. I wouldn’t be doing it because the law said I had to. Except in very specific cases, there is no “duty to rescue” in this country. See the difference?

10. about 2 months ago on Michael Ramirez

    No one and nothing has the right to use your body for its benefit without your consent. And in places like Texas, sex is a hush-hush topic (which is why it has the ninth highest teen pregnancy rate). Texas doesn’t cover contraceptives for low income teens on the state health insurance. Fix that, remove the stigma of talking about and learning about safe sex and you will see abortion rates drop.