Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#702 May 06 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
I would really like to know how this is all related. I'm facinated.
Because Alma is an idiot of epic proportions and finds a way to derail every thread into some moronic discussion of his. Unlike me, he's not trolling and believes the sh*t he spews. Also, gbaji.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#703 May 06 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.

"Nice guys finish last" is a phrase that losers use to console themselves when they find out they've been rejected by every woman they know. Unless you honestly believe that every well-off man is an asshole. Which, given the numerous other psychological issues you've evinced here, would not surprise me.
Mmmm more like people who think the bare minimum should get them chicks and a medal
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#704 May 06 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.

"Nice guys finish last" is a phrase that losers use to console themselves when they find out they've been rejected by every woman they know. Unless you honestly believe that every well-off man is an asshole. Which, given the numerous other psychological issues you've evinced here, would not surprise me.
Mmmm more like people who think the bare minimum should get them chicks and a medal


Well it's not really the bare minimum because it's getting them neither chicks nor metals.

On the upside, they could try doing the bear minimum.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#705 May 06 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.

"Nice guys finish last" is a phrase that losers use to console themselves when they find out they've been rejected by every woman they know. Unless you honestly believe that every well-off man is an asshole. Which, given the numerous other psychological issues you've evinced here, would not surprise me.
Mmmm more like people who think the bare minimum should get them chicks and a medal


Well it's not really the bare minimum because it's getting them neither chicks nor metals.

On the upside, they could try doing the bear minimum.
Poor nixnot.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#706 May 06 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.

"Nice guys finish last" is a phrase that losers use to console themselves when they find out they've been rejected by every woman they know. Unless you honestly believe that every well-off man is an asshole. Which, given the numerous other psychological issues you've evinced here, would not surprise me.
Mmmm more like people who think the bare minimum should get them chicks and a medal


Well it's not really the bare minimum because it's getting them neither chicks nor metals.

On the upside, they could try doing the bear minimum.
Poor nixnot.


I'm glad you got the joke.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#707 May 06 2011 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
This is genuine sympathy. He might feel so dirty that he'll actually shower.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#708 May 06 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,622 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I completely understand. You don't. You're saying a sperm will never turn into a child unassisted.


No, it wont ever happen period.

Belkira wrote:
You need to merge it with an egg. Same with the egg, it has to merge with a sperm cell.


Yes

Belkira wrote:
But you seem to think that a zygote will magically turn into a child with no help from you or anyone else. Your exact words. My point is that the zygote needs assistance, just like the sperm and egg do. They need the womb in a woman's body.


You're not assisting anything if it happens naturally. Like I said, a newborn child needs assistance to live, do you support child neglect?


I have absolutely no idea how you make the leaps and bounds you make in your head. It's truly astounding.

Almalieque wrote:
So like I said, what's all the huss-fuss about? Let it exit naturally if you don't want it. Since it "needs the mother assistance", just do nothing and let it naturally exit. Problem solved.


But there's no guarantee it'll happen, and sometimes, the woman doesn't want something growing inside her.

Almalieque wrote:
So... by being irrelevant, it added no value to the conversation, but you presented as if it did. I countered it to say it had no effect on the topic.

Belkira wrote:

No, dimwit. According to me, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then the cells don't represent a person or anything to her. Just a parasite. If the woman wants a baby, then the cells represent a baby.


WTF.. You just admitted above that it was irrelevant. You agreed that it doesn't matter if the woman wants to be pregnant or not. It doesn't freakin matter. The thing is the still the same thing in both scenarios. Just because you want an abortion doesn't make it something else and just because you want to have a child doesn't make it something else.

Belkira wrote:
Your analogy is stupid. If my mother had aborted me, I wouldn't care. Because I wouldn't be here to care.


It wasn't an analogy nor was that the point. The point was to show you that people have emotional attachments to their early stages of life because they know that represented them and not some parasite. By destroying that parasite, you are destroying that person. A parent knows that and that is why a "good" parent would never say that to their child, even if it were true.

More to the point is that connection is somehow lost when referencing to abortion. When pro-choice people talk, they say it's nothing but a group of cells that don't represent a person. Yet, you admit to be sad if your parents told you that they wanted to get rid of a some filthy 'ol parasite.

If you truly believed that those group of cells don't represent a person, then you shouldn't be upset unless they wanted to kill you AFTER the legal limit when society considers you a person. That isn't the case, because even you, considered yourself a person at 3 weeks in your mother.

Pla-Dow!!


oh, I get it now. You either don't understand context and perception, or you don't think they matter. Which it does, of course. I have no idea how to explain it any better than I did. It was pretty plain. Written in English. Even short, concise, and without any analogies.

Let me know when you figure out what "context" and "perception" mean. Then maybe we can have a talk like grown ups.

Almalieque wrote:
You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.


It's ok, Alma. I understand that you're special.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#709 May 06 2011 at 11:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,036 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
I would really like to know how this is all related. I'm facinated.
Because Alma is an idiot of epic proportions and finds a way to derail every thread into some moronic discussion of his. Unlike me, he's not trolling and believes the sh*t he spews. Also, gbaji.



ah the ecosystem of this forum is becoming clearer.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#710Almalieque, Posted: May 07 2011 at 6:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're not playing along.... You're supposed to counter by asking me to explain how you're not understanding it.
#711 May 07 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Belk, really. Just stop.
#712Almalieque, Posted: May 07 2011 at 7:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, please... You're just embarrassing yourself.
#713 May 07 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sorry, I accidentally skipped you.
I figured you were done, actually.

Almalieque wrote:
My point is that the statement "it's not a viable life form in it's own right" is something people say to justify their action of the abortion. The fetus at 24 weeks in 1 day has not changed significantly from a day earlier. Nor did the baby significantly change from 23 weeks and 6 days to 24 weeks. The fact that the probability of living outside of the uterus increases as time progresses doesn't change anything.
Actually no, the fact that it develops into a life form that is viable in it's own right does change everything. As does the fact that the foetus has a nervous system that is capable of registering pain. These are the things that change at 24 weeks, Alma.

Almalieque wrote:
If it's only 50% chance of survival, then that's 50%. You're looking at the glass half empty instead of half full. So, why is abortion 100% authorized on something that has a 50% survival rate? I mean, if your argument is being able to live outside the uterus, a full 9 month new born will 100% die outside of the uterus if not taken care of. You have to take care of it, which is why you can get charged if your baby dies due to neglect.
No I'm not at all. When it reaches a 50% chance of survival if born then abortion is illegal, not "100% legal" as you put it. Also, if the mother's life is in a significant amount of risk after this, it may still be necessary to abort. Meaning the mother's right to live still trumps the right of the foetus.



Almalieque wrote:
My question wasn't redundant.

I stated that I interpreted a fact as objectively true, i.e. not false. Furthermore, I said that although you may add additional information unto a fact to make it more factual, anything contrary to that fact discredits it's validity.

You countered to say that was just an instance that you provided and that new facts can reduce the margin of error from old facts. So, I asked you to provide an example of reducing a fact's error. You stated the fact of gravity exists and how additional facts on gravity gave us a better understanding of how gravity works. I replied that was fine and dandy, but the original fact in question "gravity exists" didn't have an error. It was the supporting facts that had errors and were later adjusted.

So, I ask again, provide me a scenario where you can reduce the margin of error of a fact with contradictory information.
It is redundant. It adds nothing to your original argument that "theories arise from lack of facts". Unless you are now trying to backpedal and say that you mean facts to the contrary, instead of admitting you mixed up the definitions of "hypothesis" and "theory".
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#714 May 07 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I want Alma to explain to me what "Good guys finish last" means in relation to sex, and why it explains that he's still a virgin. Honestly, as much of a misogynist that you are, I wouldn't call you a "good guy" before I'd call rapebaji a "good guy".
#715 May 07 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Belk, really. Just stop.


Yes, please... You're just embarrassing yourself.
Of course she is. Picking on the retarded kid never looks good.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#716 May 07 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,622 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Your only counter is that it will die on it's own..... well, so will a newborn baby. What is your point? You're not ACTIVELY assisting the growth of the fetus. You simply being alive and healthy are the necessary conditions for the development. The same isn't true for a newborn. Just because you're alive and healthy doesn't mean anything for the newborn. You have to ACTIVELY assist growth or it will die.


Apparently you've forgotten what we're talking about again. You do this a lot.

Almalieque wrote:
So you're acknowledging the difference that it can and it will eventually turn into a person on it's own? That's good


No, it won't happen "on it's own."

Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
and sometimes, the woman doesn't want something growing inside her.


You mean like internal organs?


Speaking of "embarrassing yourself...."

Almalieque wrote:
I understand exactly what it means. In a conversation of specifically defining when you can call something life, your perception AFTER the definition is irrelevant. That's the whole point of having the definition made in the first place.


And, once again, you're not sure what we're talking about.

Almalieque wrote:
What if a woman who doesn't see the cells as a parasite, but a blessing and a child, but made the tough choice of having an abortion based on other personal issues? Can she now be charged for "killing" her child? NO! Because the law authorized abortions up to a certain time frame, so it doesn't matter that I think it's considered a child or if you think it's a parasite, the actual "thing" itself, never changed from the "thing" in the definition.


And I never said it did.

Almalieque wrote:
In another discussion, you might would have a point.


Unfortunately for you, you never seem to have a point. :(

____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#717 May 07 2011 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
alma wrote:
belkira wrote:
and sometimes, the woman doesn't want something growing inside her.
You mean like internal organs?


Not sure If I should attack this for missing the word 'sometimes', the fact that other people aren't allowed to add internal organs to you when you don't want them there, the general foolishness, or just let it pass by as "Alma as usual".
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#718 May 07 2011 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
alma wrote:
belkira wrote:
and sometimes, the woman doesn't want something growing inside her.
You mean like internal organs?


Not sure If I should attack this for missing the word 'sometimes', the fact that other people aren't allowed to add internal organs to you when you don't want them there, the general foolishness, or just let it pass by as "Alma as usual".


Just go with "Alma as usual".
#719 May 07 2011 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
My large intestine is growing with what I take to be disgust.
#720 May 07 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
alma wrote:
belkira wrote:
and sometimes, the woman doesn't want something growing inside her.
You mean like internal organs?


Not sure If I should attack this for missing the word 'sometimes', the fact that other people aren't allowed to add internal organs to you when you don't want them there, the general foolishness, or just let it pass by as "Alma as usual".
Well, cancer also grows inside of you.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#721 May 07 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Guenny wrote:
My large intestine is growing with what I take to be disgust.


So that's what BT calls his penis.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#722Almalieque, Posted: May 07 2011 at 12:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not sure what you mean by "in relation to sex", but since Belkira doesn't want to play along, I'll explain her inaccuracies to you.
#723 May 07 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Belkira wrote:
Apparently you've forgotten what we're talking about again. You do this a lot.


Remind me then.

Belkira wrote:

No, it won't happen "on it's own."


According to your logic, NOTHING "lives on its own". You need oxygen, nutrients and water to survive. What you are referring to are common factors to all forms of life. If you include those things, then you support any murder as anyone can make the same argument against any other living thing.

Belkira wrote:
And, once again, you're not sure what we're talking about.


Yes, I do. You're interjecting perception and context as if they matter and I'm telling you that they don't matter.




Edited, May 8th 2011 3:38am by Almalieque

Edited, May 8th 2011 3:38am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#724 May 07 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
I want Alma to explain to me what "Good guys finish last" means in relation to sex, and why it explains that he's still a virgin. Honestly, as much of a misogynist that you are, I wouldn't call you a "good guy" before I'd call rapebaji a "good guy".


I'm not sure what you mean by "in relation to sex", but since Belkira doesn't want to play along, I'll explain her inaccuracies to you.

Firstly, I didn't say that good guys CAN'T get a girl. I said that they FINISH last, which means thy actually get a girl. Everyone is insinuating that I'm unable to get a girl from using that saying. Just because there exist guys who use that saying simply because they can't get a girl, it doesn't change the actual meaning of the saying.

Secondly, you're looking it at from a male's point of view (constantly being rejected until finding the right woman) as opposed from the female's point of view (continually falling for the wrong type of guy until finding a good man). There's been plenty of times when my relationship with a woman was accelerated because I was "so nice". I know I'm far from being the "nicest guy in the world", so that only tells me that their previous relationships were with dirtbags. When they tell me their stories (usually cheaters and guys who only want sex), my guess is correct. So although I was very successful with a woman, the "nice guy finishes last" still applies and there was no rejection.

Thirdly, that saying completely compliments the sayings "There aren't any good men left" and "All men are dogs". Women who believe that or say that only say that because they can't find a good guy.

So, all of you can pretend that isn't the truth, but as always, I keeps it real.

Note: I use "good guy" and "nice guy" synonymously. A "nice" guy might not be "good" for everyone. I'm using the term good as "treating women with respect and how they are supposed to be treated".


Edited, May 7th 2011 8:43pm by Almalieque


The only thing this gibberish translates to is "I need to get laid".
#725 May 07 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
HEY GUYS, THE GRASS IS ALWAYS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THIS IS TRUFAX BECAUSE EVERYONE SAYS IT.
#726 May 07 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Guenny wrote:
HEY GUYS, THE GRASS IS ALWAYS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THIS IS TRUFAX BECAUSE EVERYONE SAYS IT.
If I'm your neighbour, its probably true.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#727 May 07 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
******
41,233 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Firstly, I didn't say that good guys CAN'T get a girl. I said that they FINISH last, which means thy actually get a girl.
Being proud of bagging the last call girl is probably something I'd hide.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#728 May 07 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Firstly, I didn't say that good guys CAN'T get a girl. I said that they FINISH last, which means thy actually get a girl.
Being proud of bagging the last call girl is probably something I'd hide.


If she's a call girl, I doubt you'll be the "last" guy....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#729 May 07 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
******
41,233 posts
Swing and a miss.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#730 May 07 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Swing and a miss.


Oh, I get it... well I got nothing..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#731 May 08 2011 at 1:28 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Almalieque wrote:
None of that matters. You can "kill" a person without them feeling any pain. Does that justify the killing? Everyone keeps skipping over the fact that a newborn can't live on it's own either. When does it stop? Does a fetus at 24 weeks magically live on it's own? No. Society has arbitrarily picked a time in the human development where people would feel the least amount of guilt for the abortion. At the end of day, the action and the result are the same at all stages of the child.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. You keep concepts that apply to fully grown human beings and applying them to a foetus. You really don't see why they're not the same thing do you? A foetus is not sentient. It can't feel pain, it can't feel distress. It is not viable before 24 weeks. These facts are anything but arbitrary.


Almalieque wrote:
The point was on the survival rate.. So at 23 weeks and 6 days, it's at 50.0 % survival rate or 49.999999999999999999% survival rate, why is abortion 100% legal? Your entire argument implies that "it's ok because the survival rate is low".
No my argument is that it is not a viable life form, within defined limits. You don't understand the need to say "Okay, 50% viability is an acceptable cut off", do you? Oh and before you jump on the words "defined limits", see what I said above. The data used to define the limits are not arbitrary.

Almalieque wrote:
NO ONE is denying the woman's right to LIVE to give birth. That's not part of the argument.
Seriously? This is what you took from what I said? You think a woman's only right in this scenario is to give birth?


Almalieque wrote:
If you can't answer the question then just say so. Don't accuse me of being redundant and back pedaling. I asked you a simple question, either provide a scenario or say you can't do it. I told you from the beginning to not try to jump ahead, but here you are saying it "adds nothing to my statement", when in fact it very well does add a lot to that statement.

There's a huge difference between adjusting the fact "Gravity exists" vs adjusting the facts that support the fact "gravity exists".

So are you going to answer the question or are you just going to pout and stump with false accusations?
Fine, advance your argument. Seeing as you're the king of goalpost moving and whatever I say you'll say it's not good enough for another three pages, I can't provide an appropriate example. Your move sparky.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#732 May 08 2011 at 1:34 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,833 posts
That's a really silly distinction to try to make though Belkira.

Belkira wrote:
You stated that a sperm or an egg does not develop into a child without help. That a zygote was a stage in human development. I pointed out that sperm and eggs are also stages in human development.


We've had this argument before. A zygote has the complete set of DNA which defines it as a distinct "human" separate from either mother or father. Sperm and egg do not. You're being incredibly inconsistent with how you view the different stages of said development.

Quote:
You stated that they could not develop into a child without assitance, but that a zygote would, with no help from you or anyone. But that's not true. A zygote, too, needs assistance to develop into a child. Which makes your argument against sperm and eggs moot.


I'm sorry, but this is an absurd argument to make. For abortion to even be an issue, then we are already assuming a zygote located inside the womans body and which will, barring intervention, grow "all on its own". The woman has to choose to take an action to terminate that process, but you seem to want to argue it's the other way around. Sperm and eggs don't to that unless we take an action to put them together. The result of that action is a zygote. That's the point at which the issue ceases to be about taking an action to cause a human to develop and becomes about a human developing unless some action is taken to stop it.


I get the whole "my rights versus those of a growing potential person's rights" bit. I really do. But I just think you only weaken your position if you feel you have to twist around the facts to make it appear like the issue is something other than what it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#733 May 08 2011 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
****
9,246 posts
Allow me to point out that a zygote is not a living human or even a sentient form of life.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#734 May 08 2011 at 5:46 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Nilatai wrote:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. You keep concepts that apply to fully grown human beings and applying them to a foetus. You really don't see why they're not the same thing do you? A foetus is not sentient. It can't feel pain, it can't feel distress. It is not viable before 24 weeks. These facts are anything but arbitrary.


I know exactly what it means and I countered all of your points to support otherwise. Your points are, it can't feel pain and it isn't viable. I stated that a person can be killed without feeling pain. Does that justify the action? Secondly, I stated that child isn't viable after 24 weeks and that a newborn will die on it's own. No one has yet countered that argument.

Since anyone can be killed without feeling pain, your argument relies on being viable, which is countered by the fact that a newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb then it was inside the womb.

Nilatai wrote:
No my argument is that it is not a viable life form, within defined limits. You don't understand the need to say "Okay, 50% viability is an acceptable cut off", do you? Oh and before you jump on the words "defined limits", see what I said above. The data used to define the limits are not arbitrary.


You read above also. Your "defined limits" are arbitrary based on the counters I presented. No, I don't understand the need to say "okay, 50% viability is an acceptable cut off".

Nilatai wrote:
Seriously? This is what you took from what I said? You think a woman's only right in this scenario is to give birth?


What? I said the exact opposite. I said that no one is denying her health. So, if there is a situation where her health is in danger, no one is arguing against her having an abortion in that scenario.

Nilatai wrote:
Fine, advance your argument. Seeing as you're the king of goalpost moving and whatever I say you'll say it's not good enough for another three pages, I can't provide an appropriate example. Your move sparky.


The level of immaturity is overwhelming. You're not providing an example because it's not possible. A fact must be true, if there exist error, then it is no longer a fact. It's a very simple concept. So stop accusing me of "goal post moving", "back peddling" or any other accusation. I'm sure you spent that time trying guess my direction and to counter it. You must have came up with something or you would have kept whining. Let's see.

You agreed with the definition that I quoted that scientific theories are "constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena".

What are the predictions? Are they predictions within the theory itself, predictions of applications of the theory, a combination of the two, something else or all of the above?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#735 May 08 2011 at 5:51 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,246 posts
Alma wrote:
Since anyone can be killed without feeling pain, your argument relies on being viable, which is countered by the fact that a newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb then it was inside the womb.


If it's still in the womb, it's not a newborn child, and if it's after the first trimester, it's an unborn child. Before that though, it's a smattering of cells with zero sentience.


____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#736 May 08 2011 at 6:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Alma wrote:
Since anyone can be killed without feeling pain, your argument relies on being viable, which is countered by the fact that a newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb then it was inside the womb.


If it's still in the womb, it's not a newborn child, and if it's after the first trimester, it's an unborn child. Before that though, it's a smattering of cells with zero sentience.




Ok, let me rephrase the statement as you think it makes a difference. A newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb than in ANY state, to include a "smattering of cells", inside the womb.

You're ping-ponging the argument. I've already stated that anyone can cease someone's life with no pain. So, you argue "it's not viable". I counter to say that a newborn is more helpless than the "smattering of cells" and you go back to say "It' doesn't feel pain"!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#737 May 08 2011 at 6:19 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,246 posts
Quote:
Ok, let me rephrase the statement as you think it makes a difference. A newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb than in ANY state, to include a "smattering of cells", inside the womb.

You're ping-ponging the argument. I've already stated that anyone can cease someone's life with no pain. So, you argue "it's not viable". I counter to say that a newborn is more helpless than the "smattering of cells" and you go back to say "It' doesn't feel pain"!


Alma, I'm making the argument that first trimester abortions are not immoral due the the fact that it's not sentient. If you're saying that it doesn't matter whether or not it feels pain, then I have to assume that you're a vegan, because your food felt pain before it became food otherwise.

Your pain argument is irrelevant. Of course it's wrong to harm a newborn child, but that has nothing to do with the topic of abortion. So, why don't YOU stop "ping-ponging" the argument.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#738 May 08 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Alma, I'm making the argument that first trimester abortions are not immoral due the the fact that it's not sentient. If you're saying that it doesn't matter whether or not it feels pain, then I have to assume that you're a vegan, because your food felt pain before it became food otherwise.


First, I'm not arguing morals, because that's an emotional argument that abortion can not win.

Second, my argument has always been that those smattering cells are part of the human life cycle and the time when abortion is legal is just a time where people feel less guilty for doing the action. At the end of the day, it's the same action and the same result in any trimester. The "feeling" argument wasn't mine. I merely countered it to say that it doesn't matter because there are ways to end life where the "victim" doesn't feel any pain.

Driftwood wrote:
Your pain argument is irrelevant. Of course it's wrong to harm a newborn child, but that has nothing to do with the topic of abortion. So, why don't YOU stop "ping-ponging" the argument.


You're bringing in morals again. My argument wasn't to HARM newborns, but not doing ANYTHING to the newborns. Let them live on their own, like they were doing inside the womb. In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow. It stays in the womb up to 9 months, where as a child wont live 9 days outside of the womb with no attention. So this "it's not viable" is completely trash, because the newborn can't survive without MORE assistance than before for YEARS before it can survive own it's own.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#739 May 08 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Almalieque wrote:
In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow.


Oh lord. Yeah, women just get pregnant and incubate. Nothing inside our outside of the woman's control affects the growth of the fetus: it just grows quietly inside the woman and it's hardly noticeable!

Alma, you can't make these claims if you've never seen a real vagina. Just stop.
#740Almalieque, Posted: May 08 2011 at 8:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Don't project your stupidity unto me. If you're incapable of grasping the point at hand, that is a personal problem... If you need clarification, just ask.
#741 May 08 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Abortion can win the moral argument. Some lives are not worth living. Whether you believe this to be untrue because you've had some unspeakable trauma or--more likely based on what you're typing--you've just kind of had the easy way through your whole life, it doesn't make it untrue. Can you honestly say that you'd want to live a life of poverty and need just because you can? Or be sent through the horrors of our adoption system? Yes, it works for some, but not for all.. Especially those with crippling diseases or defects. Imagine a teenage girl who has her birth control fail, or a condom break, or both. Can you honestly say that she deserves to give up her future for that? It's not our side of the fence that's heartless.

"They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman."
#742Almalieque, Posted: May 08 2011 at 8:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You obviously haven't been paying attention AT ALL. So when you go back read what has been discussed, then you can come back to me...
#743 May 08 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow.


Oh lord. Yeah, women just get pregnant and incubate. Nothing inside our outside of the woman's control affects the growth of the fetus: it just grows quietly inside the woman and it's hardly noticeable!

Alma, you can't make these claims if you've never seen a real vagina. Just stop.


Don't project your stupidity unto me. If you're incapable of grasping the point at hand, that is a personal problem... If you need clarification, just ask.


Come back when you learn a little about basic biology and then try to make your "point".
#744 May 08 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow.


Oh lord. Yeah, women just get pregnant and incubate. Nothing inside our outside of the woman's control affects the growth of the fetus: it just grows quietly inside the woman and it's hardly noticeable!

Alma, you can't make these claims if you've never seen a real vagina. Just stop.


Don't project your stupidity unto me. If you're incapable of grasping the point at hand, that is a personal problem... If you need clarification, just ask.


Come back when you learn a little about basic biology and then try to make your "point".


Come back when you realize I never said nor implied what you accused me of.... Yeaaa. go do that.. Learn to read.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#745 May 08 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow.


Oh lord. Yeah, women just get pregnant and incubate. Nothing inside our outside of the woman's control affects the growth of the fetus: it just grows quietly inside the woman and it's hardly noticeable!

Alma, you can't make these claims if you've never seen a real vagina. Just stop.


Don't project your stupidity unto me. If you're incapable of grasping the point at hand, that is a personal problem... If you need clarification, just ask.


Come back when you learn a little about basic biology and then try to make your "point".


Come back when you realize I never said nor implied what you accused me of.... Yeaaa. go do that.. Learn to read.


How about you don't come back at all.
#746 May 08 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow.


Oh lord. Yeah, women just get pregnant and incubate. Nothing inside our outside of the woman's control affects the growth of the fetus: it just grows quietly inside the woman and it's hardly noticeable!

Alma, you can't make these claims if you've never seen a real vagina. Just stop.


Don't project your stupidity unto me. If you're incapable of grasping the point at hand, that is a personal problem... If you need clarification, just ask.


Come back when you learn a little about basic biology and then try to make your "point".


Come back when you realize I never said nor implied what you accused me of.... Yeaaa. go do that.. Learn to read.


How about you don't come back at all.


And miss out on all of this fun!! Ha!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#747 May 08 2011 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,036 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Allow me to point out that a zygote is not a living human or even a sentient form of life.


BUT IT HAZ CELLS AND DNA like cancer and toenails and hair

____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#748 May 08 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Abortion can win the moral argument. Some lives are not worth living. Whether you believe this to be untrue because you've had some unspeakable trauma or--more likely based on what you're typing--you've just kind of had the easy way through your whole life, it doesn't make it untrue. Can you honestly say that you'd want to live a life of poverty and need just because you can? Or be sent through the horrors of our adoption system? Yes, it works for some, but not for all.. Especially those with crippling diseases or defects. Imagine a teenage girl who has her birth control fail, or a condom break, or both. Can you honestly say that she deserves to give up her future for that? It's not our side of the fence that's heartless.

"They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman."


You obviously haven't been paying attention AT ALL. So when you go back read what has been discussed, then you can come back to me...
I have been paying attention, you twat. The point is, these are moral arguments on which abortion can prevail. Since you explicitly said abortion can't win the moral argument, you're stuck here yet again either admitting you're wrong or trying to cover up your miserable reading comprehension.
#749Almalieque, Posted: May 08 2011 at 11:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you were paying attention, you would have realized that no one was arguing against most of the stuff you mentioned. In any case, you are clearly in denial if you believe for a SECOND that abortion would win in a MORAL argument. You're better off arguing "women's rights" and "not being sentient", but only because you're probably too dense to understand, I'll break it down in a way that even you can understand...
#750 May 08 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Keep trying, guys. I think he's starting to get receptive to your ideas!
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#751Almalieque, Posted: May 08 2011 at 12:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Keep hope alive!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT