Total posts: 2,768
-->
@Somebody
The equation E=MC squared tells us that 2 fundamental particles spinning at the speed of light are mass and energy equivalents.
No it doesn’t, as E=mc^2 doesn’t have any applicability to speed. Indeed, the equations that account for mass and energy of a fast moving object show that its impossible for an object to move or spin at the speed of light. Because of this, your sentence appears to be meaningless word salad.
I call it the the logic of inevitable consequences.
So you are making things up?
The observation is the energy that the sun produces which has to come from some small particle source.
Like... say Fusion? A well evidenced and experimentally verified process that agrees with all the observation evidence of the Sun, theories of subatomic physics and gravity.
The sun's gravity squeezes the aether particles together giving C squared energy.
Aether particles? So they exist? How do you know? What is your observational evidence? What is your experimental evidence.
Please provide a scientific explanation and justification for why you believe the particles you can’t show exist convert mass to energy when squeezed. By what process does this operate,
The universe is like a jigsaw puzzle which has only one correct solution. If you make one small error the whole concept falls apart.
Jigsaws don’t fall apart when you make one small error....
This a perfect metaphor actually. Scientific theories produce a big picture, like a jigsaw: just because some parts are missing doesn’t mean the entire constructed picture so far is completely wrong and needs to be torn up.
The standard or accepted model is totally wrong because it can't unify matter, gravity, space, light and energy. Whereas, my theory has no missing pieces and everything is accountable.
You don’t have a theory. A theory must have an explanation, and must have supporting evidence. It’s not even a hypothesis - as hypothesis must be logical and potentially testable. What you have - is a series of assertions that don’t really make any sense, and seem barely even tangentially related to the things your trying to explain.
Now, what you are confused about, is that the standard and accepted model is not “totally wrong” - it doesn’t explain all parts of the universe in all ways - but it does explain particular parts exceptionally well.
in that respect no science here is “totally wrong”, because it fully explains much of the universe and the observations. It is merely incomplete.
My theory is 100% logical and doesn't rely on magical fields and action at a distance nonsense. My theory is 100% mechanical with no bullshite airy fairy magic.
You have literally pulled the whole thing out of your ass without any plausible justification, or evidence. Your theory makes no logical sense, is devoid of any supporting evidence, and appears to be the construct of an irrational bumbling idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
And ironically, OMNICD is literally fake news:
Strangely, they make millions from publishing badly cited or crack pot studies with little or no validation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Unfortunately, this “article” doesn’t appear to be either peer reviewed, and is not really a medical report: it doesn’t actually contain any research - it’s simply an opinion paper that references other information. It looks formal, because it’s part of a broadly discredited publishing group who appear to conduct no peer review, and have been shown to lie about their affiliations and practices.
You seem fixated with fraud in the science industry, but appear not to care or even bother to look up actual instances of fraud in the examples you cite in support.
Created:
-->
@Somebody
All fundamental particles spin at the speed of light.
How have you experimentally verified this? What observations have you made that indicates this is true?
This speed is generated at the galactic centre
How have you experimentally verified this? What observations have you made that indicates this is true? How have you modeled the method of energy transfer?
where galactic jets shoot out at the speed of light
Which observations have you made of this galaxy that indicates:
a.) there are “galactic jets”
b.) they move at the speed of light.
which creates the spin energy that generates the universe.
How does your “idea” explain how the transfer of energy occurs? How do you account for observed energy/mass changes due to relativistic speeds? How have you resolved issues with conservation of energy? What do you even mean by “generates the universe”, and how can you verify this is true. What experimental evidence do you have to support this claim? What observations have you made that indicates this is true?
At this time, your wild assertions appear to be what is colloquially referred to as “pulled out of your a**”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Using your own words “omg evil liar!!” It’s just hard to tell who your insulting, as you tend to do much more of that than you do actual argument.
i mean come on: even the point you were trying to make was pointless. That the founding fathers owned slaves... and? Their achievements were invalid? That America wasn’t founded as a liberal democracy or with liberal principles? That liberals are evil?
I sont think ecen you you know what your real point is any more - so forgive me for being confused at exactly which person or people you nonsensical decided to call names.
Perhaps it would be less confusing for everyone if you made a rational argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Medical system based information so you can't whinge and whine that its not official and medical system sanctified information.Common known causes of irritant contact dermatitis include detergents, soaps, disinfectants, metals such as nickel, cement, fragrances or perfumes, cosmetics, and some plants such as mustard, clematis.
Nothing in this link indicates or implies that any soap or detergent product is deliberately manufactured to produce dermititis. This claim is made up.
Reference for leaky gut syndrome clinical studies showing all the same symptoms as common cold. (flu)
Nothing in this link indicates “leaky gut syndrome” exists, nor argue that it has the same symptoms as cold and flu: nor does the existence of “leaky gut syndrome” mean that illnesses that we can definitively show are caused by viruses aren’t.
This link is mostly unrelated to anything you said, and it looks like you didn’t even read your own link.
Quote -1.) You cannot catch a viruses caused illness without some vector that gives it to you from another source. You cannot catch HIV without being without exposure infected blood or body fluids. It is beyond illogical to presume that only people who have had unprotected sex with someone who has HIV has “poor diet.”
Reply - The gay life style of late nights, poor diet, excessive alcohol and drugs leads to leaky gut syndrome and bacterial overload. (AIDS)
Sure, I await the detailed statistics, mathematical correlations, that indicate a substantial corrletsfion between excessive alcohol and
dris when adjusted for promiscuity - together with your counter examples showing inmumefable cases without demonstrable diseases vectors, and epidemiological spreading consistent with an inherent health limitation rather than proximity to HIV outbreaks (IE - if you drink heavily in an area with high HIV prevelance - is your chances of HIV the same as in a low prevelance area).
This is is of course before I get asking for your causal evidence, and studies into leaky gut that control for all other factor, and control for conditions consistent with spread of viruses.
All this is simply basic information you need to provide in order for what you just said to be anything no more than made up pseudoscientific babble that isn’t true, and can’t be supported.
Note - There such thing as an AIDS or HIV virus. (Medical system verified information.)
Yes there is - this claim is made up.
Quote - 2.) infections are massively reduced in hospitals, in the home, in schools, and in every place it has been studied by the introduction of basic sanitation practices - not by improving the diet of those becoming ill.Reply - You are just ranting and raving without any evidence to prove it. Just eat nothing but McDonald's burgers and shakes every day and you will become sick more often then you are well. Thus, diet is everything and sanitation is mostly irrelevant.
This is all based off multiple centuries of extensive scientific research across the planet. If you say nothing but McDonalds it will affect your health. It will do so in predictable, understandable ways.
Food can affect your health, but this being true does not mean viruses do not exist, or if I drink alcohol, I will get the flu. Some illnesses are caused by diet, some by bacteria, some by viruses.
we know this through study and research.
You are simply making sh*t up.
Quote - 3.) There is no correlation with virus caused diseases and diet other than well known causative factors - such causal improvements or impacts to your bodies immune function that helps assist or prevent your body fighting infections.Reply - False assumption. You are assuming that viruses cause disease when I have already shown that its your own internal bacteria which cause disease. Germs are the result of a disease and not the cause of a disease as Antoine Bechamp stated 200 years ago, but nobody listened.
Could please stop confusing “shown” with “pulled out of your arse and pretended as if it was fact”
I’m not assuming viruses cause some disease - this conclusion is based on research.
We know viruses exist because of experiments, the most basic is the concept of “immunization”. Milk maids who had caught coe pox didn’t catch small pox no matter how good or bad their diet was. Tobacco plants could be given a disease by filtering the sap from a diseased plant that had been filtered (but not from a healthy plant).
No one believes their girlfriend if they said they caugh herpes from “bad diet”.
You're just making stuff up, and have shown no evidence thus far of anything you’ve claimed.
I can ask again - would you like me to e plain what evidence is, and how it works
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
In the middle of all your insults, calling me a liar, an idiot and evil, it’s not particularly clear where your nonsensical diatribes end, and your and hominem nonsense begins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well it seems that pointing out your consistent and repeated errors is all that makes me a piece of shit, so I guess I’ll take it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nah, don’t be a cretin. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt that you couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to be making the argument that you were actually making. My bad.
Its kinda funny to watch, really. If you’re not smart enough to be able to separate the validity and benefit abstract ideas from those that make them, and if you’re not clever enough to make a distinction between principles that guide political thought from those that outline them, then I don’t think your clever enough to understand any response.
Id simply tell you to google “Genetic Fallacy”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh sorry, I thought you were just being ignorant, now it appears you’re being obtusely ignorant.
The American revolution, was absolutely based in principles of liberalism, and the founding of the US as a liberal democracy, was easily the most outwardly successful liberal political victory to have been won up to that time.
Of course, society doesn’t become perfect all at once / that requires both liberalism and a little progressivism over time - with the continued reform of society over longer periods of time.
So double wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No but keep lying.
Actually yes. I’m assuming you’re just ignorant rather than outright stupid, but this is literally a matter of historical fact. The democrats were primarily the conservative ones aspects of race; hence why the south was solid blue until the civil rights era - when disaffected racists jumped from northern democrats - who were becoming much more socially liberal - passed civil rights legislation.
While your angry dismissive posts are mildly entertaining, they are indeed factually inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Youre confusing 18th century democrats with liberals.
Unfortunately at this point up the democrats were the Conservative party, and the republicans were the liberal party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
People who hate freedom should loose theirs.
That’s what he’s saying...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Firstly, the existence of soap and sanitization predates the pharmaceutical industry. You provide no evidence of anything you’re saying here about the pharmaceutical companies and doctors is true. You provide no evidence linking soap usage to dermitisis, and you provide no examples of how you know anything you’re saying is true.
As such, the first part of your posts appears to be simply an unqualified rant of things you’ve just made up. Please provide evidence.
The second part, again is not evidenced: to claim that flu is caused by poor diet must be supported by evidence. Please link the clinical studies that show the direct correlation between quality of diet - and flu occurrence. If you were correct, any basic study conducted should show this, as you have provided no evidence: one must presume you’re making it up.
Importantly, virologists - and individuals who actually care about evidence rather than made up claims - have produced vast amounts of data and evidence to support basic claims about viruses:
1.) You cannot catch a viruses caused illness without some vector that gives it to you from another source. You cannot catch HIV without being without exposure infected blood or body fluids. It is beyond illogical to presume that only people who have had unprotected sex with someone who has HIV has “poor diet.”
2.) infections are massively reduced in hospitals, in the home, in schools, and in every place it has been studied by the introduction of basic sanitation practices - not by improving the diet of those becoming ill.
3.) There is no correlation with virus caused diseases and diet other than well known causative factors - such causal improvements or impacts to your bodies immune function that helps assist or prevent your body fighting infections.
It appears you are simply making your claims up, as all the evidence obviously is against you, and you have provided no positive evidence to support your claim.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
if God did not judge the world - it would show him to be a liar.
Why would you conclude God is a liar in this case? Because a book written by humans, edited by humans and produced by humans said he did something? Why are you putting so much faith humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
It appears, given that nonsensical, unscientific assertions you keep throwing out, that you’re just making stuff up. If you understand what evidence is, and are capable of resenting it here, I’m sure people would listen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
The particles name is Steve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Excellent.
If viruses don’t exist please provide an explanation of how illnesses spread that accounts for current viral properties, such as mechanism of transfer and size.
Lets start simple.
Why does washing your hands reduce incidents of cold and flu?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
I’ve provided two of the most famous experiments that prove time dilation occurs. These were predictions based on the application of a scientific theory - a theory which allows you to mathematically calculate the exact amount that time would tick slower.
You said time doesnt change: as your nonsense “aether” assertions are now claiming that time does change: you just refuted yourself, and there’s little more I have to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Time can be slowed down, depending on both speed and force of gravity.
This has been experimentally conformed multiple times:
Two of the most famous examples:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Calling someone a bully for simply asking you to evidence your outlandish claims, tells me everything I need to know about the veracity of your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
Sure, here is how it would be abused: any late term abortion being allowed for one of the following: all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age
Again, for the 4729175th time, you are being deliberately dishonest.
The key is Risk to the woman’s health: this requires there to be a Risk to the woman’s health. The mere presence of physical, emotional, psychological, familiar or ages issues are not in and of themselves a risk to the woman’s health. You’re argument is that situations that no rational human being would ever consider as a risk to a woman’s health will be considered to be risks to a woman’s health - because you are repeatedly and dishonestly confusing the criteria and that may be considered with whether the severity and Impact are sufficient to be a risk to the woman’s health.
I feel I have to put “risk to a mothers health in bold”, because you appear not to understand what that is. if a rational human being wouldn’t consider it a risk to a woman’s health - it’s not going to be legal.
So again, can you quit trying to stoke your own outrage, stop triggering yourself on semantic insanity and actually try and apply a rudimentary understanding of basic concepts here. It will serve you greatly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
And again - you confuse the meaning of “Risk to the mothers health” to be “any impact on mothers health” - that’s just nonsense, and you keep repeating this error over and over again in response to me pointing out that out.
You're claims that this would lead to abortion on demand is nonsense - and based on this dishonest portrayal: the pretence that any event could be semantically haggled to allow the abortion - which it can not.
These types of abortions are already pretty rare, and it’s likely not going to materially effect the number of these types of abortions as a result based on the existing exemptions.
I presented a very specific example of an example - which you ignored, even when I pointed out several times - a page or so back, and I asked you about 5 times to provide a plausible and realistic example of how you feel it sould
be abused - and silence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Like I’ve said, and you’ve ignored (including again), your repeated error is what constitutes a “risk”, not the broad categories where such a “risk” should be considered.
Your faulty logic is to assume that minor impacts would constitute risks - which is ridiculous and nonsensical; and isn’t a position actually shared by normal regular people.
Consider for example a risk to life: using your obtusely poor logic, abortion is already “on demand”, because continuation of any pregnancy at any time broadly introduces some “risk to life” of “life is in danger”
The reason it’s not used that way, is for the same reason that “risk to health”, has not and won’t be used that way either - because it’s not applied to tenuous risks and dangers in the way you claim.
At this point, after you have repeatedly, repeatedly ignored this point, and all others it seems that you’re being deliberately dishonest rather than simply misinformed.
As for the purpose of this law - it is to codify the current constitutional law relating to roenvs wade and doe in case they are overturned. They were pretty clear about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Wait, I don’t know what I’m talking about for suggesting that you shouldn’t lie to the FBI?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Or, you know, you could not deliberately lie to the FBI. It’s kinda that easy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I wouldn’t bother.
She’s doing what many pro life people do -,assuming that “risk to health” applies to examples that would not be considered a ‘a risk to health’ by any rational human being, doctor, lawyer or judge.
Sure, the area which could be considered part of “health” is broad, but her implication that almost any scenario would constitute a risk to health is nonsensical, and a view that’s only really shared by other pro lifers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
My “impossibly high standards” involve someone providing specific evidence that supports your specific claims, and positively establish what you’re saying by providing specific facts, specific studies and other information that show a pattern that can only be true if your claims are true, as well as a series of detailed supported explanations of how your claims explain all the evidence currently supporting the existence of viruses.
Every other well established scientific theory meets this burden of evidence, and if you feel that burden is unfair it has nothing to do with my standards of evidence being too high, but your quantity of evidence being far too low!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Its true! Dictators are never satisfied with the status quo!
Again, completely unrelated.
Would you like me to explain how evidence works, because what you appear to be doing, is simply asserting things that you want to be true, and providing a set of tenuous unrelated links and data that doesn’t even begin to be convincing, then pretending it supports your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Do you need me to explain what evidence is, and how it works?
Neither of those links provide facts, data, investigations or study’s that show viruses don’t exist. They aren’t even closely related to that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
The evidence is called money. You can make lots of money from the germ theory of disease but you can't make any money from the vitamin deficiency theory of disease. Thus, all medical professionals will adhere to the germ theory because that's where the money is. The Benjamin Franklin axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”Just study the history of germ theory and especially the rivalry between Luis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp. The germ theory of disease was only accepted because Luis Pasteur married the rector's daughter and thus had the upper hand.The true cause of all disease is thus, vitamin deficiency.This results in an associated problem called leaky gut syndrome which allows gut bacteria to enter the blood stream. Thus, germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of disease.You haven't bothered to answer any of my logic questions. Is that because there is no answer and that germ theory is a fraud?Quote - "normally spread through movement in some fashion from one human to another" Please explain how germs/viruses organize and move to attack in a pandemic such as 1919 influenza attack on humanity.Or ............. you can admit that it was a vitamin deficiency problem caused by World War I where there were massive food shortages world wide.
You offered no evidence at all, and this post is little more than an unfounded accusatory rant that you provide no actual support for.
Why should I believe you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
But aside from Konstantin Kilimnik, Maria Butina, the two Agalarovs, the Russian Ambassador, Natasha Veselnitskiya, where are the Russians that the Trump campaign was in contact with?
And aside from meeting with Russians to get dirt from the Russian Government, the involvement of Roger Stone with Wikileaks who obtained information from the Russian government, and appear to be a cutout thereof, the passing of private campaign polling data to Russians with links to the Russian government, the involvement of Trumps personal lawyer being in direct involvement with the Russian government over Trump Tower Moscow - and the fact that almost everyone involved has repeatedly lied about all of it - where is the evidence of collusion????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yeah, calling people names, and not actually trying to justify your position makes you look like you have a super valid position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So you think that not wanting to be a mother is something that “puts someone’s health at risk”.
If so, walk me through that logic.
Created:
Posted in:
I would be find for removing rankings for regular debates.
you may not want to do away with rankings entirely, but have professional debates earn more
i would also suggest the professional league has blind debates. IE:
You press a “debate” button on the professional debate page, you are automatically matched to another debater (who also pressed debate)- but you can’t chose who it is - nor the debate rule specifics - and you are assigned a random topic and side from a pool of topics.
Otherwise you may find some people would just pick the easier opponents and topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The evil standard of asking you how you can possibly justify your incoherent assertions that any reasonable person would consider anything you just said as “a risk to a mothers health?”
I may as well be Hitler!
On a completely unrelated note: having a melt down, and resorting to calling people evil with literally no argument, and after ignoring every objection to my point is pretty much proving my point that this is just hysteria used to manufacture your own rage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Keep lying about me and what is being discussed. Evil prick.
What an excellent, compelling and rationally explained argument. Plato, Socrates and Lincoln would be astounded by your reasoning ability and compelling prose...
No, I’m not lying about what is being discussed. You, and others are literally being literallt incoherent and hysterical.
Why on earth would you think ANY rational human being, or health practitioner would consider a women coming to them two days before giving birth not wanting to have a child, nor wanting to give birth and then give them away for adoption would constitute a “risk to the mothers health”. It’s literally not happening?
No person on earth that is any sort of command of their brains and bowels soildnever consider this lunacy as compliant with the law. It’s a retarded and nonsensical straw man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Again if her health is at risk, birth will be risky. Killing the baby doesn't have anything to do with that. A c section would.
And you just answered your own argument....
If you believe that any regular or rational human being would consider “not wanting a baby” and “not wanting to give the baby away” to be a genuine risk to the mothers health that warranted an abortion, you're smoking crack.
You, Thett and many other pro lifers are manufacturing a fictional scenario that would never happen based on a completely nonsensical interpretation of the law, and using that as a reason to be outraged.
its ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Firstly no: what you’re stating is not an example of a mothers health being out at risk, the insane example is simply a pregnant woman saying she didn’t want to be a mother; there is no actual or inferred psychological health problems.
Secondly, no: the second boldes part of your statement is not an example of a mothers health being at risk, how on earth is can you explain “not wanting to give a child away” being something that is a risk to a mothers health.
it appears that you’re deliberately trying to select things that aren’t risks to the mothers health and wouldn’t be assumed as such by any meaningful person, assert that they will be used as justifications as to why the mothers health is at risk, then tell us that as a result the law will be used to abort babies even when the women’s health isn’t really at risk. Its nice that your creating fictional examples with fictional women, fictional healthcare providers, and fictional behaviours that no one would follow and fictional justifications no one would use and fewer physicians would accept, and then tell us all it constitutes a real issue with the law.
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Argue all you want this boils down to a woman walking into an office, saying I just can't be a mom two days before birth, not wanting to give the kid away and letting someone pull the head out enough to kill the child. It's not the same as a regular abortion and saying it is makes you an evil prick. Funny in other conversations the evil pricks would say their is no evil or morality. So there you go. It's like arguing with a pedophile that a three year old wasn't asking for it. They can't see they are evil.
These two parts, and especially the latter do not consistute “a risk to the mothers health” in any meaningful way, or way that could be reasonably interpreted by pretty much anyone. As a result, the example you just gave would almost certainly not be considered legal under these circumstances.
I think, as with Thett, that your conclusion that evil baby killers will abort babies based upon this law even in cases where there is no risk to the mothers health is based on your assumption that there is a queue of evil, unethical baby killers willing to use laws contrary to their obvious meaning an intent.
Either way, that’s not a specific issue with the law itself, as much as the fictional group of people you believe exist.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
As I said:
1.) You keep saying it’s “proper”, and can’t provide me reasons other than “because you say so”
2.) You’ve ignored the massive issues with your nonsensical nature argument.
3.) You’ve ignored the massive issues with your nonsensical history argument.
4.) You keep saying you’re correct, despite systematic inability to defend your position.
Given the systematic deflection over all your position here, you are either intellectually incapable of defending, can not defend or will not defend your opinion.
The first would lead me to conclude you’re an idiot, the remainder would lead me to conclude you know that you’re wrong, and have conceded the point.
By all means, feel free to provide arguments to support and justify 1-4 above.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You said you’d position is fact, not an opinion.
If it’s a fact, you should be able to produce a reasonable and objective explanation as to why what you’re saying is true.
You have produced arbitrary, subjective and opinion based criteria to justify your position.
You won’t defend those criteria, and simply assert that these subjective and opinion based value judgements are coreevrx
IE: you refuse to show that it is a fact, and your arguments all indicate it’s your opinion.
Given this has been pointed out repeatedly, you are not able to show it’s a fact, you refuse to show it’s a fact, and refuse to acknowledge that there are major subjective flaws in your position.
As this is a debate website, the only conclusion I can make after this many posts, with you being willfully obtuse, and attempting to deflect from these core deficiencies - I can surmise that your either wrong and won’t admit it, or are cripplingly stupid and are unable to coherently convey your position.
I am accepting your inherent concession, because I don’t think it’s nice to assume you are simply a fool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
So, how do you know they are viruses? Is it because somebody who makes a living out of the virus myth, told you so?How did the first person to find a virus know that it was a virus without any previous pictures of one?How do viruses attack humans on mass in pandemics like 1919 influenza attack? Where did they meet up to organize this attack on humanity?Note -If you don't have any brains, legs, ears and eyes how did they find any humans to attack them?Their you go...........lol
Please show me your evidence as to why virologists, neurologists, doctors, clinicians - in their hundreds of thousands have all repeatedly lied about the existence of viruses.
Please also explain the clinical studies, and documentary evidence that show that spread, and outbreaks of illnesses and diseases currently attributed to viruses can be reasomably explained by some other theory.
Also, explain why you feel the details of viruses - microscopic objects that infect humans at the cellular level, and normally spread through movement in some fashion from one human to another’s necessitates them “having ears, eyes, brains and legs”. This is not clear from your post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Good lord, again. For the 6th time - you are just pulling an over generalized interpretation and applicarion of the law out of your ass so you can be made at people.
Simply repeating the same assertion doesn’t make it true. You’ve also dodged each one of my questions.
1.) For you to interpret this as abortion on demand, the definition of “risk to a mothers health” must include things that no reasonable person Would consider risk to a mothers health. You have no legal or rational backing for that definition.
While your reply where you assumed your own conclusion on this count is nice, it also didn’t answer the question.
2.) If risk to a mothers health was so broad that it would support abortion on demand: then the ruling that “in some cases” post viability abortions are accepted would be moot: as if the courts decision would be that the “some cases” where late term abortions would be permissible are all cases. That makes no sense. It’s pretty clear that the court defining what “risk to a woman’s health” in this case doesn’t mean the same thing as you do. Again you didn’t answer the question.
3.) I provided a specific, reasonable example, where a late term abortion would not be supported by the current law, but would now. Silence
4.) I asked you to come up with a plausible real world scenario with real human beings where this would plausibility be used as an “abortion on demand” again silence. I’ve askes multiple times now.
As I have said many times, and have been ignored each time:
Any rational person, doctor, lawyer or judge would interpret the “Risk to mothers health” to mean that there is risk of substantial harm to the mother - short of death - that will be realized by the birth of the baby that can’t be mitigated other than through abortion. It’s literally only pro lifers that interpret “risk to a mothers health” to mean general, lower grade, or minor issues or problems that imply abortion on demand.
Again, in reality, this would mean major impacts or major problems (as I gave an example), it cannot be meaningfully interpreted as some arbitrary justification unless you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Your position, and this pro life “abortion on demand” nonsense, requires women who have been pregnant for over 6 months - to suddenly decide they don’t want the baby, for arbitrary reasons, and for healthcare providers to decide that even though there is obviously no risk to the mothers health, that there is a risk to the mothers health. Not only is that not reflective of the real world - the idea that such people wouldn’t already be doing this by misrepresenting a risk to the woman’s life - such as being shicidal about the pregnancy - is laughable.
But please, go ahead and continue to ignore this point, and bask in your own outrage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Okay, you’re just being deliberately obtuse now.
1.) No reasonable people, or reasonable court applies the “health risk” clause to mean things that aren’t real health risks, and aren’t substantial. The only people who beleive this clause applies so broadly as to allow any abortion for any reason are pro life people like you. Simply repeating that this clause will be interpreted to mean what you say, doesn’t make it true. You are interpreting this clause to mean what you say, not because of any genuine legal treatise or justification, but because you want to believe people are baby murderers.
1.a) On what legal, ethical, and logical grounds do you base your opinion that the definition of “risk to a woman’s health” encompasses things that no reasonable person would consider “risks to a woman’s health?”
1.b) As I pointed out, the law and doe exemptions CLEARLY arent intended to be as broad as you are accusing, as it would render the very ruling that listed them completely unnecessary in the first place. Silence.
2.) You asked for an example of how this law would apply, I gave one. I could also think of many examples including rape and abuse that could also be allowed under this clause that would not be unreasonable. Silence.
3.) I asked you three times now to produce a reasonable real world example where it would be applied by real world humans. Silence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
And for the Nth time - the only people who view these specific rules as broad and as all encompassing as you do - to the point they allow for abortion on demand - are pro life people like yourself - reasonable interpretation of these rules doesn’t let you draw such hyperbolic conclusions, and as I pointed out theee is literally no practical or plausible chain of events that would lead real humans to do what you’re suggestinf even if they were. This is a case of convincing yourself that this is the result of baby murdering psychopaths - by interpreting the rules, and required actions of individuals as if written and interpreted by, and acted upon by baby murdering psychopaths. That’s not how this works. This is not how any of this works.
The “health at risk” clauses means just that. Minor ailments with fairly limited impacts would not count as putting health at risk. While you may consider having a stubbed toe, or chance of a hangnail as putting “health at risk”, the implication of the law would be that it requires substantial potential risk and harm : otherwise the original ruling would have been Carte Blanche - or would have been challenged next like alllll the other provisions you’ve said.
The most likely application of this specific law would be relating to unborn babies that were either inviable in themselves or were not expected to live long due to substantial deformities. In this case the potential emotional harm to the mother could be substantial - depending on the scenario and the individual - over simply carrying the pregnancy to term.
What real world scenarios with real people could you imagine this actually being abused?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think I write the rules? Why do you think that? Because you can’t defend what you’re saying? No: that doesn’t even make sense as an argument here.
Now, I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate why what you’re saying is a fact, to provide a justification to why you are correct, or to otherwise demonstrate that your claims about reality are actuallly true, and that these gender roles are “proper”
You don’t seem to be able to do that. As this whole exchange is based upon you asserting that these roles are indisputable facts, and you are woefully unable to defend that position: then you are implicitly conceding the whole argument. You are implicitly accepting you have no justification, and thus your claims are merely your opinion.
If you don’t concede, feel free to provide an objective explanation of why you are correct that isn’t a) simply an assertion of your opinion, b) an appeal to nature which has been demonstrated as nonsense or c) an appeal to history which has been shown to be nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #22
Clearly not, as shown by your repeated nonsense posts that have early ##22 bullshit points, you appear to be the only one here who resorts to idiotic trolling because they are unable to provide an intelligent defense of their position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
As I’ve said, a couple of times now, the overly broad interpretation of these rules to constitute abortion on demand, is an interpretation that is only shared by pro lifers trying to stir their own outrage. In the real world, with real humans, your interpretation is not shared by anyone real people, and while I can think of innumerable valid scenarios where the new rules will genuinely help, as I mentioned, I can think of no plausible actual scenario where anything like you’re interpretstion could or would ever be applied.
Created: