Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Picts - Waiting to...
Last post by RAV
Today 03:24 PM
18,135 Replies, 2,854,800 Views
New Hitman 2 Trailer...
Last post by BeardedSonOfNel
Today 02:04 PM
3 Replies, 754 Views
Weekend Headbanger -...
Last post by BeardedSonOfNel
Today 02:01 PM
5 Replies, 133 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by RAV
Today 11:36 AM
2,278 Replies, 262,950 Views
Divinity: Original Sin...
Last post by PatrickRes9
Today 10:54 AM
10 Replies, 1,008 Views
Battlefield 5 ...
Last post by [GH-SC]Ryctor
Today 09:46 AM
13 Replies, 1,106 Views
Gear.Club Unlimited 2...
Last post by wml
Today 05:58 AM
4 Replies, 718 Views
Giant Shark Movie The...
Last post by Chimpbot
Yesterday 04:35 PM
12 Replies, 2,141 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-25-2018, 01:51 AM   #1081
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,045
You guys are funny writing page long screeds about one guy’s observations about the internet which, at least in the circles people on these boards probably frequent and if we’re honest with ourselves, probably matches up. The left wields a heavy hammer of censorship and will excise you and your thoughts from a community lest they become a cancer to whatever vision they hold of their utopian community.

But it goes both ways. For example progressive newspaper, news show sites, YouTube channels etc lock their comments sections down to prevent conversation or critique. But if you pay attention to the right wing communities (we’re talking online here) like Dailywire or Brietbart you can comment but if they don’t like it they’ll use the shout down/insult method and drown you in bullshit as a way of censorship.

(QUICK EDIT here for clarification) I also think it might be notable to mention, again in my experience, often in the cases I’ve seen on the left the users allow, and often even insist, the host of the community “protect” them from the evil doers. In the examples of the right wing it is the apathy of the host of the community which allows the abuse to proceed. Often this will drive out the unwanted guest unless they are bound and determined to troll (see below). (END EDIT)

The further right you go the worse and cruder and irrational the insults and people tossing them will get. For the right they don’t care if you stick around but usually you aren’t going to make much progress.

It doesn’t help the typical leftist visitor in right wing communities on a regular basis are usually either:
1) Brand new and are trying to preach and are completely patronizing, as if the right wing folks have never heard the argument before
2) Frequent trolls just stirring up shit and they know it and make no bones to hide it
3) Trolls stirring up shit but pretending they aren’t trying to stir up shit

Very rarely is there a true debator visiting willing to change their mind or interested in dialogue these days.

YMMV.

Last edited by vallor; 02-25-2018 at 02:09 AM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 06:59 AM   #1082
Phoenix1985
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,234
[QUOTE=VenomUSMC;2506947]I'm a little surprised you're confused by this, so I brought it to the top. I do have to admit, I find it somewhat humorous that you are confused by it. I stated "I think you're more closely aligned with those rabid Leftists than you care to admit." Do you really not understand how that would fall under not being genuine? You seem to want to present yourself as if you even attempt to be objective, wanting evidence, etc., and then you do the opposite whenever it suits you. To be clear: I still do not think you're genuine (such as in your tax thread), and I think you're more aligned with the rabid Leftists than you care to admit -- both are really quite related.


It's not an actual question, as I was merely bringing up your stance on the topic as seemingly imploding in on itself. You're complaining about the lack of evidence of this or that, but you're ignoring any evidence sent your way and simply declaring your opinion on the topic to be correct.

What do you want, someone posting as "Anonymous" to abide by social science standards? I do think this poster has a point, and I supplied you with support as to why people may find the post agreeable. What do you think the main point of the post Bearded shared was? Did you perform a scientific study on the topic, or is that just for other people?

Who said anything about right-wing groups not existing on FB? What was argued was the evidence that FB has suppressed conservatives at what appears to be higher rates than Leftists. If you read the post that sparked this, you may notice that he's mentioning degrees of difference.

Good, you're making an assumption. Have you conducted a study, or is that only required for those who disagree with you?

"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the Internet." Yeah, 100% means the entire internet /sarc


You're making an assumption and concluding that your opinion is correct despite not conducing a formal study on the subject.

It seems as if you're reducing a complete sentence to confirm your own bias.


It would depend why that person thought those crimes meant more. Is it because 100% of illegal immigrants are committing a crime by virtue of being here illegally and this is in addition to that? Is to due to a belief that they're causing even more economic strain due to being illegal and in the justice system?

For the voting, would it bother you if we called it foreign influence or meddling? Also, if you can hear the dog whistle... you're the dog.

There has to be something you can think of.


No ideology has an exclusive claim on opposing speech they don't agree with. Sure, but I didn't argue that they did. As it stands today, which side is more often seen promoting such censorship?

Not all groups associated with higher education lean Left, just the majority. If the claim is idiotic, perform a scientific study and prove otherwise. Meanwhile, a study noted that liberals would discriminate against open conservatives in the hiring process and paper reviews.

I don't think it's convoluted at all; the internet appears to increase partisan tribalism, so why would if be idiotic not to notice that Leftist forums more frequently experience censorship?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Maybe. I definitely can't point to a lot of perfect examples of what I would like to see, and as I have said before, a lot of the stuff liberals are doing seems absolutely counter productive for society. Very short sighted.


Just so we're clear, you're aware that I still do not believe that you're genuine, right?

No, I wouldn't think that statement was idiotic if that was your opinion. I don't know what forums, aside from this one, that you're on, and I wouldn't demand that you conduct a social science experiment.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as paid shills, and if you do, do you think they're an issue?



No, you cannot dismiss his statement as being incorrect if you do not know what his statement is based upon. Considering he stated that he noticed it, you and I are not likely privy to what forums he was on that resulted in this conclusion. Where did the science demands go? It's as if you went from demanding objective, unbiased evidence to suddenly - and unscientifically - knowingly exactly what he was referencing, even if it meant you had to cut portions of his statements, simply because it's what you wanted to do.

Yet you don't have any underlying evidence to what lead to his statement. It's almost as if your complaints over a belief that a lack of following some sort of social science protocol are less than genuine.

No, I don't think Jesus Christ has to virtue signal. Who is the liberal? You are, just in case you were confused on that portion.

I didn't call you a millennial. I'm aware that you're closing in on 50.

By giving what appears to be the majority of working family's a tax cut, you've fleeced them? Notice how you're incorrectly framing this: you're saying you "gave" me 10 cents to support a policy. That's not how taxes work. When I get taxed, it's based on money that I worked for. So, when I get the amount of taxes taken from me lowered, I'm not being given something -- I'm having less taken from me.

Do you think someone working for a private company should thank the government for giving them money when they get a paycheck? Regardless of how you feel, you know that fleecing is taking away, right?

Is this mid-mental breakdown or something?

Yes, you are free to make huge assumptions, but I guess the person in Bearded's pic isn't. The statement made by the poster isn't unsupported by anything; nor does it defy logic, or reasoning, but if the statement is a fact can certainly be questioned.

Banning doesn't eliminate bump stocks. That would at least require confiscation if one even hoped of doing so. Regardless, it's fruitless -- you don't need a bump stock to bump fire. If you want to get rid of bump firing, you need to remove all semi-automatic firearms.

If they wish to raise the buying age, they need to (and should have) raised the age to join the military. As it stands, the military will hand you an actual machine gun at 17 years of age, not to mention grenade launchers and whatnot.

What's the issuing with arming teachers? As long as it's voluntary and they receive some training, I don't see the issue. My friend, a VA State Trooper, fires his handgun once a year to qualify. He does not go shooting outside of that, at least in the last few years, due to work and not really being interested in doing so.

We know that laws do not prevent such killings, and unfortunately we've seen that some of those sworn to protect and serve will wait outside while it happens. Things can go wrong, armed teachers could hurt additional people and completely fail to remove the threat (or become the threat themselves), but there is no answer that will guarantee this stops.
The quintessential Venompost. Gallop away, my friend.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintBlitzkrieg View Post
Also, Telltale signed with xbox, with fear that if they released Jurassic Park on the PS3, the dinosaurs would get loose.
Phoenix1985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 09:22 AM   #1083
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
"I think you're more closely aligned with those rabid Leftists than you care to admit." .... To be clear: I still do not think you're genuine (such as in your tax thread), ...
You question if I am genuine in being a leftist.
You assert that I am not genuine enough about being so strongly aligned with the most genuine leftists.

So, to be genuine in your eyes, I must simultaneously disavow my affiliation with leftism and assert the strength of my alignment with the most "rabid", extremist, genuine leftists around. OK. I genuinely now do both.

My tax thread. Yeah. Watch out for that. I was hoping to wait a few more days to spring my trap, but you have discovered my plans a bit earlier than I had anticipated, so gotcha. I have you now. I win. My partisan perspective dominates the Internet in a general phenomenon of my supremacy. It's easy really, you just start a thread. Then everybody freaks out because it isn't actually a genuine thread about what you write in it. It is a secret Russian bot double spy recruitment algorithm that catches everyone who suspects it. It is so simple it is actually brilliant.

On a more serious note, when you hear those little paranoid voices about who and what to trust, make sure you listen to them. You caught me this time, but you have no idea how many of us are out there to trick you.

As for Ted's little comments, it appears we are at an impasse.

Your obsession with my character has dominated/ clouded your ability to do anything except repeatedly assert that the only acceptable and valid criteria for assessing the value of a statement that I had nothing to do with is to use my character.

I, on the other hand, think we should use basic principles of grammar, support, logic, etc. I have written numerous examples that show each element of Ted's statement is questionable as written based on non-partisan standards. Each of these you have ignored in favor of asserting my character exclusively is proof that this idiotic statement is actually factual. (or something to that effect. )

But, because you ignore my examples and have done so repeatedly, I conclude you are arguing in bad faith.

Each time you have written that I am "assuming something" you are making my case for me. The statement as written is terse. There is little of substance there. A generalised interpretation. A subjective assessment. A factually incorrect conclusion. and lastly, another wildly unsupported conclusion. The reader is left to fill in a lot of gaps. Clearly, a skeptic would look at the thoughts as jumbled, over reaching, over simplistic, and unsupported relative to the weight and magnitude of the issues discussed. And, an objective skeptic would so that regardless of partisanship. The objection to this statement as written does not rest on my partisanship, but you are unwilling or are unable to grasp that and have ignored multiple legitimate examples that show this to be true. I am not saying that everyone has to view this from my perspective or that it is the only way to see things, but I have made a solid case for how one could see it, and that is sufficient.

Having said that, here are more examples of the principles involved that have nothing to do with Ted's statement or my partisanship that exemplify the objective principles on which the statement could be considered inadequate. (whether somebody chooses to elevate an inadequate statement as some kind of encapsulation of a larger truth is their own choice, but I think it is idiotic. my opinion)

1. Oversimplification

a. Raphael caused the Renaissance.
b. Titian caused the Renaissance.
c. Picasso caused the Renaissance.

Which is true? While causation is asserted, no specific mechanism is described, therefore, regardless of common sense or historical accuracy, there is no method to assess whether the Author has successfully made his case, regardless of whether it matches information outside of what the author intends. In this case, the correct answer is C, and the author's intent was the implication of omnipotence and a time machine.

2. Over Generalization.

a. Everyone who agrees with Ralph is an idiot.
b. Everyone who disagrees with Ralph is an idiot.

Which statement is true? Well, in this case, the generalization does not allow for somebody to agree with Ralph on some things but not others, which at least some people could, making neither statement accurate.

3. Assumption

a. Person observes a pattern in x amount of y samples. Person assumes that observation represents a trend that characterizes all y samples. Was x sufficient? How was this determined?
b. Person notices something and assumes a mechanism. Based on what?
c. Two populations, Yellow and Blue overlap, resulting on some Green. How does one accurately sort them for characterization?

4. Subjectivity

a. Person looks at waves crashing on beach and categorizes each wave as either somewhat less foam or regular amount of foam.
b. Person watches traffic streaming by a freeway at night and decides tail light brightness as neutral, brighter than some, dimmer than some.
The phenomenon being categorized are complex and involve overlap, making these sorts of qualitative labels inadequate. Similarly, the relativity of these specific perceptions prevent accuracy.

5. Bias

a. a person counts marbles to determine total number of green and total number of black marbles in multiple buckets. There are only 2 directions. 1. Don't count armies of green ones. 2. Be extra sensitive to black ones. Person counts some marbles from some buckets. Person pretends that the two rules do not have an impact on count totals.
b. Person from example a finds some buckets seem to have more black marbles. Assumes a mechanism for this that confirms expectations.
c. Person assumes general trend from counted buckets applies to other other buckets.

6. Omission

a. An English teacher is grading a paper that contains this sentence, "The crucial dynamic tension that characterizes Romeo and Juliet is ."

The teacher gives the student a D. The student insists that his answer was correct and points out what was written and says that he wrote "the crucial dynamic tension." The wise and handsome teacher explained that while it is true that part of the thought was actually on paper, he did not specify enough information for anybody to properly evaluate whether what the student though the answer was actually had any connection with what the text supported. You don't get credit for what was not written. Then the student said, "You say I shouldn't just leave the answer blank and pretend that it is right anyway, but you are just doing the same thing in assuming that I didn't say it, but it does not matter if I actually justify or explain or qualify anything because this isn't about what I wrote, this is about some other guy's character and whether he is genuine."

And they lived happily ever after. But the student was still suspicious that some guy wasn't genuine enough. Especially about the changes to his tax withholding.

Last edited by Whimbrel; 02-25-2018 at 09:34 AM..
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 09:53 AM   #1084
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
But the student was still suspicious that some guy wasn't genuine enough. Especially about the changes to his tax withholding.
First it was "nice."
Then he was "fleeced."
Now it's not "genuine" aka 'lying.'

Fucking leftist progressives...douchebags all.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 02:38 PM   #1085
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
You question if I am genuine in being a leftist.
You assert that I am not genuine enough about being so strongly aligned with the most genuine leftists.

So, to be genuine in your eyes, I must simultaneously disavow my affiliation with leftism and assert the strength of my alignment with the most "rabid", extremist, genuine leftists around. OK. I genuinely now do both.
No, that's not what you're expected to do. Are you really that unaware of your own double standards? You demanded that an apparently anonymous poster have conducted a study in which this person studied all of the internet, possibly discounting a sliver, before saying they had personally noticed a general trend. He said something negative about liberals and that can't stand in your mind. Meanwhile you making objectively factually incorrect claims, don't source your arguments, and have a meltdown because supposedly a major of taxpayers will get to keep more of their money.

Look at the joke that is your response to Vallor in the thread about firearms. It has factually wrong information, lacks any actual sourcing for your claims, and features generalizations and contradictions. Why is it that you're not expected to perform these social science studies? It's simple: you're not genuine.

Imagine if a sociology professor was set the following criteria for a paper in his class: "Class, the paper must abide by the ethics of modern sociology, factually correct, and be properly sourced. Those rules do not apply if your paper aligns with my political opinion."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:03 PM   #1086
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
No, that's not what you're expected to do. Are you really that unaware of your own double standards? You demanded that an apparently anonymous poster have conducted a study in which this person studied all of the internet, possibly discounting a sliver, before saying they had personally noticed a general trend. He said something negative about liberals and that can't stand in your mind. Meanwhile you making objectively factually incorrect claims, don't source your arguments, and have a meltdown because supposedly a major of taxpayers will get to keep more of their money.

Look at the joke that is your response to Vallor in the thread about firearms. It has factually wrong information, lacks any actual sourcing for your claims, and features generalizations and contradictions. Why is it that you're not expected to perform these social science studies? It's simple: you're not genuine.

Imagine if a sociology professor was set the following criteria for a paper in his class: "Class, the paper must abide by the ethics of modern sociology, factually correct, and be properly sourced. Those rules do not apply if your paper aligns with my political opinion."
See that. You did it again. You completely ignored everything I wrote to justify my critique of the original statement on non-personal or non-partisan grounds in order to focus again on your idee fixe that it has to be about me. You have to evaluate it based on my conduct, which is dull, dull, dull, since it is also your conduct. I wish you luck, but this is not worth my time.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 03:14 PM   #1087
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
See that. You did it again. You completely ignored everything I wrote to justify my critique of the original statement on non-personal or non-partisan grounds in order to focus again on your idee fixe that it has to be about me. You have to evaluate it based on my conduct, which is dull, dull, dull, since it is also your conduct. I wish you luck, but this is not worth my time.
You don't post on non-personal or non-partisan grounds, hence your double standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
On a more serious note, when you hear those little paranoid voices about who and what to trust, make sure you listen to them. You caught me this time, but you have no idea how many of us are out there to trick you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 10:20 PM   #1088
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,045
The democrats have chosen to back a new contender in Illinois 3rd District by refusing to back pro-life democrat Dan Lipinski. Lipinski is the last pro-life Democrat at the Federal level and even though he is hard core on every other issue, including Transition gender surgery for military members and even kids, the party is backing a different candidate.

I wonder if this will cost votes. As much as the message of pro-choice is couched in "reproductive health" it's really just code words. But it is freedom of sorts. I don't agree with abortion, especially these days as it is so often used as birth control instead of a $2 condom, but I do struggle with the idea I have the right to inject myself into the decision of this magnitude of another family.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 06:34 AM   #1089
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I don't agree with abortion, especially these days as it is so often used as birth control instead of a $2 condom, but I do struggle with the idea I have the right to inject myself into the decision of this magnitude of another family.
In this situation, you should ask yourself why you are against abortion. If you're against abortion because you think it exterminates a human life, then you are well within your rights to be against it, even if it injects your views into another family's decisions. However, if it's just another medical procedure then we have no right to inject ourselves into such decisions.

I keep these things in mind on this one: Scientifically speaking...
1) There is life at conception.
2) DNA is present at conception. This DNA shows that it is human life.
3) That DNA is unique from the mother and father.

Either human life is sacred or it isn't. If it is then I think it's pretty clear that abortion is wrong. If it's not sacred then we we can justify a lot more than just abortion.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 07:25 AM   #1090
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
...

I keep these things in mind on this one: Scientifically speaking...
1) There is life at conception.
2) DNA is present at conception. This DNA shows that it is human life.
3) That DNA is unique from the mother and father.

Either human life is sacred or it isn't....
Vallor and Chief, I think you both made good points. I'm pretty aligned with Vallor here. I am not in favor of abortion, but I think people need to be able to make these choices for themselves. I wish that we would do everything possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies including vastly expanded sex education, contraception education, contraception availability, etc. If measures like this could have a drastic effect on the number of abortions, that would be amazing. I know that the foster system is overwhelmed and there seems to be something wrong with the adoption system, but it would also be great if we could do something to motivate people to carry more kids to term and have really good and healthy options for those kids.

I think Chief made a good point that really exemplifies why this is such a problematic situation for having some kind of uniform consensus.

There is a science side and there is a sacred side. The two sets of evaluative frameworks really don't overlap, but both seem to be relevant here.

In the section I quoted above, I don't really see what you are getting at with points 2 and 3 that would be relevant to the abortion issue. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that the point you are making me be too subtle for me to see what you are getting at there. Yes there is DNA and yes some of it is exclusively DNA from the parental species, some of it is present in thousands of species. Yes some of the DNA comes from the mother and father and with recombination and replication errors, the result is probably unique. But these same points could also apply to any other offspring of reproduction, and if they were changed a bit, they could apply to almost all life. I just can't tell in what way those statements influence your thinking relative to abortion.

At one point you said, "scientifically speaking".. I think the abortion issue goes way beyond what is scientifically supported. There is no concept of "sacredness" in science, and life is pretty ubiquitous and is often wasted far more callously than what we would consider in abortion, sometimes as part of a reproductive strategy. So, what is strictly scientific does not seem that instructive to me in terms of what humans should do. Or, rather more bleakly, a scientific study of nature would indicate that terminating the life of unborn embryos by the millions is par for the course, which isn't really the best instructor here.

In terms of the pro-life democrat, I don't think they will lose many democratic votes by going with somebody who is pro choice, but again, this is an issue where the divides of extreme partisanship seem to have enforced a chokehold on compromise middle ground and accepting differing opinions.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 08:24 AM   #1091
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Scientifically speaking...
1) There is life at conception.
2) DNA is present at conception. This DNA shows that it is human life.
3) That DNA is unique from the mother and father..
The science is very simple, unless you're a progressive. Same thing for sex identification (xx or xy). Same thing for global warming (no statistically significant warming for two decades). Same thing for genetically modified foods (safe, necessary). Same for fossil fuels (the energy source that has made modern life possible).

It must be exhausting for them to deny reality on so many fronts.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 08:59 AM   #1092
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,498
The rationale behind points #2 and #3 is this. Many will argue that what is in the womb is not a baby. But yes it is. It is a living organism with human DNA. This is not a virus or some other creature. It may not always look too human but it is human life. Some will respond that this clump of cells may be human and alive but it's simply part of the woman's body. And #3 shows that, no, it isn't. It's a new and unique human.

I bring up whether or not life is sacred because I've seen people argue in favor of abortion because they don't believe that human life is sacred. I can't argue with those people because the lack of sacred human life is an impasse. But if you do believe that human life is sacred and you can accept the scientific points I listed, then you cannot be in favor of abortion without contradicting logic in some area.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 10:48 AM   #1093
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
The rationale behind points #2 and #3 is this. Many will argue that what is in the womb is not a baby. But yes it is. It is a living organism with human DNA. This is not a virus or some other creature. It may not always look too human but it is human life. Some will respond that this clump of cells may be human and alive but it's simply part of the woman's body. And #3 shows that, no, it isn't. It's a new and unique human.

I bring up whether or not life is sacred because I've seen people argue in favor of abortion because they don't believe that human life is sacred. I can't argue with those people because the lack of sacred human life is an impasse. But if you do believe that human life is sacred and you can accept the scientific points I listed, then you cannot be in favor of abortion without contradicting logic in some area.
OK. I appreciate you clarifying what you were getting at. I recognize that this is a controversial and emotional issue and I have no desire to get into some giant battle about how one person sees things as opposed to another on this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 10:51 AM   #1094
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I have no desire to get into some giant battle about how one person sees things as opposed to another on this.
There is no "how one person sees things as opposed to another" on the subject of when human life begins. Science categorically shows it begins at conception.

The real question is when do liberals value human life enough not to kill it? The answer to that is...definitely not inside the womb, maybe outside the womb, but increasingly comfortable with after-birth abortion and euthanasia. So...not much.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 10:38 AM   #1095
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Back to the original spirit of this thread, a place to admit that not all liberals are as perfect as the right makes them out to be.

Or something along those lines. The Washington Post seems like it has crossed a line. I don't really see how the goals of journalism and embracing bias can be reconciled, so they confuse me a bit. Add to that, today's story that apparently shows that Wolff is something of a fraud, which I am sure many on the right had already concluded. Although, as a money guy, he definitely made the right move at the right time to make some bread, so go capitalism!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.90024806f3c0
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 10:52 PM   #1096
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,045
In the same spirit:
Republican Senator Ben Sasse (NE) disagrees that people who are obviously in the process of mental break should have their weapons removed asap.

If someone is crazy and there is clear evidence of having a breakdown then there is a good case for suspension of due process.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 10:22 AM   #1097
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Don't take this as an argument against what you are saying, just as an add on. The courts, judges, mental health agencies, etc, don't actually work in coordination with police in the way we would think to make this actually work. In the instance where somebody has a gun on them when they are pink sheeted, yes. But almost any other situation based on this scenario would be like catching gnats with a chain link fence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 11:06 AM   #1098
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
In the same spirit:
Republican Senator Ben Sasse (NE) disagrees that people who are obviously in the process of mental break should have their weapons removed asap.
No, that isn't Sasse's stance. Sasse's stance revolves around due process. Do you think people opposed to stripping people of their rights due to being on the No-Fly List because there is no due process means they want terrorists to buy firearms? The answer should be no, of course. The current federal law on the topic of federal firearms prohibition on the topic of persons adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
Quote:
A person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has made a determination that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
Is a danger to himself or to others;
Lacks the mental capacity to contract of manage his own affairs;
Is found insane by a court in a criminal case; or
Is found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility, pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the UCMJ, [blah blah blah]

A person is "committed to a mental institution" if that person has been formally committed to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or lawful authority. This term includes a commitment:
To a mental institution involuntarily;
For mental defectiveness or mental illness; or
For other reasons, such as drug use.
The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or by voluntary admission.
According to reports, the Florida shooter underwent mental health treatment. This doesn't appear uncommon for these types. On top of that, it's been claimed that there were at least 45 different calls to the Sheriff's department about issues at the shooter's home since 2008. The FBI admitted it's failure to respond to warnings.

Federal law already allows agencies the ability to revoke a person's gun right -- they've failed to do some in many high-profile shootings. I also don't expect them to be perfect; they will miss things, as that's the unfortunate reality that these agencies, boards, mental health professionals, and whatnot are not perfect. However, pointing out that people should have due process rights does not equate to saying people that are appear to be on the verge of carrying out an attack due to a mental break or illness shouldn't have their weapons removed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 11:10 AM   #1099
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If someone is crazy and there is clear evidence of having a breakdown then there is a good case for suspension of due process.
Suspension of due process? Don't be a moron. Seriously, that is absolutely idiotic. Don't Trumpify your posts with ill-considered verbal diarrhea.*

* I love it, because he triggers snowflakes, lol, and because he's implemented more conservative agenda items than even Reagan did at this point in his administration, but he has no filter. At all. And doesn't consider what he's saying before he says it.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2018, 03:08 AM   #1100
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Vallor and Chief, I think you both made good points. I'm pretty aligned with Vallor here. I am not in favor of abortion, but I think people need to be able to make these choices for themselves. I wish that we would do everything possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies including vastly expanded sex education, contraception education, contraception availability, etc. If measures like this could have a drastic effect on the number of abortions, that would be amazing. I know that the foster system is overwhelmed and there seems to be something wrong with the adoption system, but it would also be great if we could do something to motivate people to carry more kids to term and have really good and healthy options for those kids.

I think Chief made a good point that really exemplifies why this is such a problematic situation for having some kind of uniform consensus.

There is a science side and there is a sacred side. The two sets of evaluative frameworks really don't overlap, but both seem to be relevant here.

In the section I quoted above, I don't really see what you are getting at with points 2 and 3 that would be relevant to the abortion issue. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that the point you are making me be too subtle for me to see what you are getting at there. Yes there is DNA and yes some of it is exclusively DNA from the parental species, some of it is present in thousands of species. Yes some of the DNA comes from the mother and father and with recombination and replication errors, the result is probably unique. But these same points could also apply to any other offspring of reproduction, and if they were changed a bit, they could apply to almost all life. I just can't tell in what way those statements influence your thinking relative to abortion.

At one point you said, "scientifically speaking".. I think the abortion issue goes way beyond what is scientifically supported. There is no concept of "sacredness" in science, and life is pretty ubiquitous and is often wasted far more callously than what we would consider in abortion, sometimes as part of a reproductive strategy. So, what is strictly scientific does not seem that instructive to me in terms of what humans should do. Or, rather more bleakly, a scientific study of nature would indicate that terminating the life of unborn embryos by the millions is par for the course, which isn't really the best instructor here.

In terms of the pro-life democrat, I don't think they will lose many democratic votes by going with somebody who is pro choice, but again, this is an issue where the divides of extreme partisanship seem to have enforced a chokehold on compromise middle ground and accepting differing opinions.
Then you are in favor of abortions if you support people having them. You can't have it both ways.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 PM.