Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Fetus is human:Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.
These two points can be condensed to "the fetus is human and distinct from the woman's body".
The response is simple: irrelevant. Rapists are human and distinct from their victims as well, but I doubt many think this is justification for the violation their victims.
Simply put, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
Privacy of a woman’s body
Medical decisions are a private matter. Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, abortion is a private matter.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your post indicated that confederate statues were erected due to segregation. However, segregation is over so it's just pieces of metal that are in the public eye.
No. My post explicitly stated many of these statues are symbols of white supremacy. As such, the statues are not just pieces of metal in the public eye because the intended purpose has not been forgotten by those who were targeted by it. That is why these statues must go.
The museum is going to care because it would be overkill for a civil war museum.
Museums being unable to save all statues is no reason to continue commemorating hate. 'There is no where for these statues except in the public square' isn't a great argument...especially when many were commissioned to marginalize part of our society.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Conservative southerners opinions carry no greater weight than mine.... You have not addressed the substance of my post.
Fwiw, maintaining Confederate statues in perpetuity stands to be much more expensive than taking them down - and why should I or anyone care if they can all fit in a museum?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Please explain what there is to glorify about the confederacy.I'm not a southerner; your asking the wrong person. I think it's a lot like Mongolia glorifying Ghengis Khan or Egypt not taking down their pyramids (which were built by slaves).
I'm a southerner - the Confederacy deserves no glorification. Besides, many of these statues were erected as symbols of white supremacy. Case in point, a surge in 'commemorative statues' occurred as Jim Crow laws were also 'commemorating' (aggressively attacking) African Americans civil rights.
Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war’s end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be memorials that mourned soldiers who had died, says Mark Elliott, a history professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro.“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s. [Link]
Graph showing this correspondence in link. Blue indicates courthouses, red signifies other places including memorials, and green represents schools: [Link]
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
No clever mix of determinism and indeterminism solves for freewill.
Agreed.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Another reading comprehension issue. Look, you asked,Is this some treatise about the myth of freewill?
Yea, yea, reading comprehension issues - thats me. Btw, my name is SkepticalOne...it was secularmerlin who asked this question, friend.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
TS Eliot was once asked by a journalist immediately after the first night of a play production Eliot had written: "What does it mean?".Eliot replied, "It means what it says."That you interpret poorly is entirely on you and I have no inclination to correct.
Apparently, the problem isn't in the message but the audience. Oh, and Havoc thinks his cornflake post is on the level with works of TS Elliot. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You create a thread asking why Trump is considered an issue and then dismiss all answers because "he hasn't been indicted". I guess it never occurred to you he has been impeached or that indictment isn't the end-all-be-all of being an "issue".
Trump's previous transgressions coupled with his continuing (negative) effect on the Republican party along with his future plans keeps him relevant. Holding him accountable to the Constitution (which doesn't necessarily require an indictment) is something a Constitutionalist like yourself should be interested in.
For the record, I am quite happy to let the process play out, but that requires we accurately name the (alleged) wrongdoing and submit them to unbiased jurors. So far, that hasn't happened. Supporters and even co-conspirators have been among his jury. I do look forward to the inevitable future indictments though. We can revisit this conversation then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You mean besides trying to influence the results of an election with the influence provided by his office, trying to undermine confidence in our democratic process, or trying to overturn the results of an election with demonstrably false claims?NONE of that exists in any indictment. Do you get that? Your condition is much more than skeptical. Just skeptical would understand, You're in lalalland assuming he should already be in jail. just stop it. I get it. You hate him. And?
You asked why Trump is a threat to democracy and I gave you easily verifiable facts. Obviously, someone can be a threat without an indictment - that is a ridiculous moving of the goalposts. Its not that I hate Trump, its that I want to see him being held to account for his actions. I think you should ask yourself why you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Ah, I see - you allow no nuance. Good luck with that, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Again, you're relying on your own interpretation of the Constitution to suggest Trump is innocent because of 'Mueller's Impasse'. Yet, you are not a lawyer while Mueller is as well as being former head of the FBI. There's really no comparison between opinions here.
Trump is a threat to democracyI've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.
You mean besides trying to influence the results of an election with the influence provided by his office, trying to undermine confidence in our democratic process, or trying to overturn the results of an election with demonstrably false claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not, but you have, even without an indictment, let alone a trial.
Trump admitted to actions and the other is recorded. He did the things he is accused of.
Just so you know, being skeptical is about being willing to consider the evidence - not claims without any or which run contrary to it. Besides, I'm not a juror or a judge, so there is no need for me to remain impartial.
You are very selective about "Mueller's conclusions". The report also stated:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
And,
"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
And, let's not forget,
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment".
Litigate this all you want, but as I said before, Trump was protected from the well deserved consequences of his action by Republicans committed to party over country. Trump and Trumpism is a threat to our democracy - he is still very much an issue worth critical attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Trump was undeniably guilty of these offensesImpeachment's only conviction is removal from office. It is a political act, not a legal one.
Abusing the highest office in the land is arguably the most serious of crimes. You can suggest 'its political, not legal', but don't presume to lecture about the Constitution ever again - after all, it is the law of the land. Or in your own words:
"Why don't people understand the simplicity of the Constitution? It is LAW."
Furthermore, he said it was not his place to prosecute a sitting president.Mueller is so full of shyte there [...]
It is interesting you've focused on a mere 2 sentences of my reply. If your best argument is essentially 'Trump wasn't guilty because of how I've interpreted the Constitution'...well, its not a very good argument, now is it?
Do you have no response to the fact that Mueller did not clear Trump of wrongdoing ...or references to other offenses (which are explicitly criminal)? I have no interest in bad-faith conversations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I understand using taxpayer funds to smear a political opponent and inciting an insurrection are impeachable offenses. Trump was undeniably guilty of these offenses - it is only because party was put before country he was not found guilty.
As for Mueller, surely even you must know Mueller did not clear Trump of all wrongdoing. Furthermore, he said it was not his place to prosecute a sitting president. You can tell whatever stories makes you feel good, but I prefer facts over mere belief.
As for his other offenses, (such as attempting to taint the result of a fair and free election - Georgia and Raffensperger) hope springs eternal he will be held accountable - especially if his obstructionist allies don't block justice once again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Everything that sucks now is on Biden.
Thats not how it actually works. Biden is responsible for the things which happen on his watch. He is not responsible for circumstances created by the last guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Quite simply: Trump is still an issue.
He hasn't been held to account for his numerous offenses - offenses which would disqualify him from any future office. He plans to run for the highest office in the land - the office he held where he committed these aforementioned offenses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
See...this is what I am referring to when I say you're smuggling your own assumptions in.Enlighten me on how I did so? In one scenario God exists and the other no God exists.
No. That's not a given. I mentioned many possible gods previously and not all run contrary to materialism. Clearly, you must be thinking of a god which isn't material and which could not exist if materialism were true.
Plus, I don't know of I've had this conversation with you, but the absence of belief in a god doesn't automatically make someone a materialist. Surely, you must know some atheists believe in ghosts and all manner of immaterial things.
Tl;dr: Not all god concepts run contrary to materialism. Non belief doesn't necessitate materialism.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Sure sign Biden isn't doing all that badly - critics complain about September, August, and even April press briefings in...*checks notes*...October.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
As ever, I had to remember to look at what Tucker Carlson said last night to figure out what your were on about:
Ahhh, now I see. Thanks for that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
think you might need to consider why I am not responding as you think I should. The term "God" carries some baggage for you.Enlighten me please. I don't see how this is relevant at all even if you think you're making some kind of a point. I'm not asking about me. This was a topic created for your freedom of expression not mine.
You may not be asking about you, but you're own assumed conception of god is being smuggled in to the question you are asking of other people.
Give me any general idea of how you personally would define or acknowledge a concept of God and we can work from there
I don't prefer one definition of god over another - they all seem equally likely/unlikely.
That being said, the dynamics of god existing can be no more precise than the definition...and that is indeterminate.But, it is in stark contrast to materialism.
How do you figure? How are you defining god so that materialism and god are mutually exclusive?
See...this is what I am referring to when I say you're smuggling your own assumptions in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The dynamics of God existing as opposed to not existing are pretty significant. I'm trying to allow you the freedom of being creative here instead of me giving you all the details or implications.
I think you might need to consider why I am not responding as you think I should. The term "God" carries some baggage for you.
Assuming a god exists doesn't tell me if that being is the greatest imaginable or merely something preexisting or marginally more powerful than humans. It doesn't tell me if that being is mortal or immortal. It doesn't tell me if that being is THE creator or even a creator. It doesn't tell me if that being has anything to do with humanity at all.
That being said, the dynamics of god existing can be no more precise than the definition...and that is indeterminate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"[...]The cumulative gross domestic product of the United States during the 10 years from 2022 to 2031 will be $288 trillion. The $3.5 trillion Build Back Better agenda is therefore just 1.2 percent of GDP."
This really is a tiny amount for much needed infrastructure...
Created:
-->
@949havoc
in response to Covid, to prohibit gathering for religious services when, in NV, for example, casinos were allowed to remain open.
I haven't heard about that one. Do you have a source I could peruse?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
If your religion involves human sacrifice; do you still have the right to practice that religion?
This. I fear many of the people I'm surrounded by from day to day would nod in the affirmative.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
But, what if you're wrong, that there are absolutes. I believe there are, and rights are, then, absolute, as well?
What you believe about rights is logically impossible. Our rights don't exist in a vacuum- they bump up against other people's rights. Absolute rights wouldn't 'bump' - they would crash through. It is simply not possible for everyone to have absolute rights.
You're not the only skeptic; I just reside on the other side of skepticism. I believe in the eternal. How's that for absolute?
I don't think that word [skepticism] means what you think it means. Skepticism =/= accepting claims uncritically.
This is no longer related to the OP, but I'm not opposed to having this conversation in an appropriately labeled thread.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
The difference is that you maintain that the natural state of rights is that they are limited. I'm saying the limitation is because of us. That they become limited is a given. I'm saying we are the cause, not that rights are inherently limited.
I maintain nothing of the sort. Rights don't exist in the wild. They are a human conception and any limitations necessarily come from humans.
I maintain the notion of rights doesn't work in any absolute sense. Rights must be limited if they are to perform the function we imagine.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
No, I did not agree rights are limited; not inherently. If something you think is a right is limited by its existence, that is not a right, that's a privilege, WE limit rights by our own thoughts and actions, limitations imposed on ourselves by ourselves and toward others, as I previously said.
I'm saying "rights are limited". You're saying "we limit rights". I'm not seeing where the disagreement lies. Both statements equate to rights being limited.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I'm shocked...I really thought THIS conspiracy theory was gonna be the one to relieve Trump of accountability for inciting an insurrection.
Oh well.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
You've basically agreed rights are limited while trying to avoid that language, but no matter what you call it, rights are limited so that everyone can have them.
If someone is a hermit - their rights are irrelevant because there is no one they need to be protected from. But - we're not talking about hermits, we are talking about members of a society. There is no right to endanger others in the name of personal freedom. That represents a misunderstanding of the entire notion of rights. Rights are a shield ...and vaccines, masks, seatbelts, airbags, allowing black people into hospitals (all things mandated by the government) aren't harming you, but they are protecting all of us.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Which is it, a restricted right, which is otherwise known as a privilege, and not a right, or does it maintain its universal application, and Biden has committed another unconstitutional act? It's either, or; there's no middle ground.
All rights are necessarily restricted because absolute rights for absolutely everyone is absolutely impossible. You have asked a loaded question.
Also, there is a difference between making personal decision and a societal decision. The first is a right (bodily autonomy) - the second ...not so much.
Created:
Posted in:
Depends on what god it is I supposeWell my hypothetical does not suppose any particular God described, just that God does exist.
That's pretty vague and my following answers will reflect this.
but, in general, I don't think it would have any great impact to my life.But what are some of the implications you believe would transpire due to God's existence? it doesn't change your life yet I'm assuming you understand the difference between materialism/atheism and theism?
Sure. I understand atheism and materialism are not the same thing (so that part is hinting at a non sequitor), but, of course one cannot be an atheist if a god were demonstrated. So, I'd have a different label.
if God exists, what are some things you believe follow that reality on your behalf?
The existence of a god wouldn't change my identity or any core principles. I would still critically evaluate claims, I would still strive to know whats actually true, I would still hold to humanism. There would be no practical difference between SkepticalOne in a world where an undefined god exists and one where gods are a question mark.
Are you telling me that there is no difference to you between being the product of nature compared to being a product of an eternal God?
No. I'm saying the existence of something undefined may or may not make any difference. How is being a product of nature or being the product of something called god important?
For the record, you have added an attribute to "god" which is not a given - eternal. Is this part of your hypothetical...god is eternal?
If not, your hypothetical can include gods such as a very mortal little Johnny programmer who created humanity for a class project and has long since traveled into oblivion.
your origins don't matter to you?
Nope. How humanity came to be doesn't have any effect on my day to day life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If it could be proven, shown and demonstrated that a God exists, what implications would arise for you personally? What would you want out of discovering this knowledge?
Depends on what god it is I suppose, but, in general, I don't think it would have any great impact to my life.
I don't get the last question. I mean, what more (besides having a better understanding of existence) would someone want from this?
Created:
-->
@janesix
How do you show something to be true?
Evidence and reason.
Created:
-->
@janesix
If we can't test someone's knowledge for veracity, is it really knowledge?That's hard to figure out.
Knowledge is "justified true belief". If someone can not show their belief is true, then it is not justified or knowledge.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Won't it be a hoot when it is discovered [it will be] that the real insurrectionists of Jan 6 were agents of the FBI and Capitol Police.
First, it was Antifa posing as Maga...now its FBI and Capitol Police?! Hold on - let me get my popcorn before you tell this tale!
You're giving the novellas a run for their money...
Created:
-->
@janesix
I suppose some people could have superior knowledge to mine, yet you have no idea if your knowledge is truly correct. How could you?
If we can't test someone's knowledge for veracity, is it really knowledge?
BTW: I'm glad you are feeling better!
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Why aren't the vaccines I suggested viable alternatives?
I asked if the vaccines you listed were completely free of fetal lines in - not just development, but also - testing and production. If fetal cells were used in no part of the process then they would be viable alternatives. I don't know if this is something you considered.
I disagree that we are in the socio-political position to make such demands on nurses.
Maybe - I don't have enough info to weigh in on that
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I have 2 thoughts.
First, you suggest there are vaccines which were not developed with fetal cells that might be used to satisfy those with a religious objection. However, unless we also discount vaccines which use fetal cells for testing or production, I submit we are not really providing a legitimate alternative. How many vaccines meet this limitation?
First, you suggest there are vaccines which were not developed with fetal cells that might be used to satisfy those with a religious objection. However, unless we also discount vaccines which use fetal cells for testing or production, I submit we are not really providing a legitimate alternative. How many vaccines meet this limitation?
Secondly, we don't have a viable alternative currently. If one were available to meet the objectors demands, I would agree - give them what they want so we can keep qualified staff. In the absense of a valid alternative, the only option is to ask them to leave. We should not lower our standards of expertise in the name of keeping 'qualified' individuals. If they do not recognize best practices and/or take seriously their oath to 'do no harm' they are not qualified.
Created:
A regional medical center in Arkansas is requiring all staff to be vaccinated by Oct 8. About 5% of staff are using religious exemptions to avoid getting vaccinated because they were developed with fetal cells lines (from an abortion in 1973).
Interestingly, a number of OTC medications were also developed with this same cell line. Hospital administrators, in an effort to ensure sincere belief and perhaps inform those unaware of the scope of their convictions, are requiring objectors to sign a form stating they will cease using these drugs as well. These include Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Motrin, Tums, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Benadryl, etc.
[LINK]
Suffice to say, I am of the opinion there is nothing immoral with using any of these drugs/vaccines. Even if someone were opposed to abortion, the abortion from which these cells are derived has already occurred. No amount of conscientious objection will change that. Might it be that from a prolife position utilizing these cells is the best way to honor the fetus from which they came?
I dont know - food for thought.
Created:
-->
@thett3
True, but when no argument is provided by OP it doesn't really matter.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I'm not attacking the opinions of the author. I showed the self-admitted bias of the source.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
From your source:"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."Yeah and you using this (if it even came from any of the sources) is just you ad homming LOL.
It is not an insult to quote a source - if you view someone's own words as impugning their character, you should probably find a better source for your information. Also, you did not make an argument (not even one) - you posted a bunch of links. They can be dismissed in the absence of argumentation - no dodge is needed. If you posted this in a formal debate, you would be eaten alive.
Again, you don't understand ad hom (or debate).
Created:
You don't understand ad hom very well.You've failed to demonstrate this at all.1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments).2. What insult has been directed at your person?"they admit to a bias (alt-right)" -- This is Ad Hominem. It attacks the nature of the people making the argument (who are apparently "alt-right"), as opposed to the argument itself (that the shitlib narratives are wrong).
From your source:
"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
You don't understand ad hom very well.
1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments).
2. What insult has been directed at your person?
Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I stated facts about the inadequacies of your source. Do you find that insulting?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Your source leaves a lot to be desired. In short, they admit to a bias (alt-right) and avoid the methodology (science/peer review) which would filter it out. Using this to 'substantiate' your position doesn't do a lot for you...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic.
'There's enough evidence for god to hold the view that god is not known (agnosticism)'.
Agreed.
BTW- atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. So, you're undermining your own argument...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either.This is the proposal under discussion.
Is it?
Created: