Total posts: 5,875
-->
@dustryder
Think man. If all those were really people claiming to vote for Hillery that the polls gave her a 20% lead, what happened to them? Did they evaporate? Leave the Earth? Change their minds 4 hours before voting? If the poll were not bogus, how did Trump win?
I believe I asked you if you had evidence.
And I gave it to you in the form of logic. You not being equip to handle it is not my problem.
This is a splendid theory but is sorely lacking in evidence.
It isn't a theory. Trump won. Unless you are implying election fraud, the polls showing Hillery with a 20% lead on election day were fake.
Think about it.
If you cannot answer a question, just say so
No, I will not. I will ask you another question. That is what you've been doing. I will not answer your questions if you won't answer mine. That you need to dodge questions is telling.
No. If everyone finds it unacceptable, there is no controversy. Controversies occur between people who find a certain behavior unacceptable, and those who do not.
Great. So do you accept that of the examples I have listed, some groups find such behaviours unacceptable and hence they are controversies?
Controversies between which groups? Liberal are perpetually outraged. As I told you, just because easily triggered liberals don't like something, does not automatically make that thing a controversy.
When you cannot answer a question, say so.
How can I possibly answer a question until I know what your definition of subjective is.
Then ask for it. My questions are not rhetorical. If you will not answer my questions there will be little reason to continue. Unlike what most liberals think, conservatives do not have to submit to your grilling, and you don't get to be the only ones having questions answered.
For example, I think that the years spent on education is an objective measurement of education. If you do not see this as an objective measurement then clearly, we can't agree on what is subjective and what is objective
Nice deflection, but what is subjective and what is objective is irrelevant here. Whether a person is appropriate for a job is not up to you. You do not have all the details about the person. Whether the person has education or not is not the question, but whether the president thinks the person is right for the position. He did think she was capable, and from the success of his administration, his assessment of her capability was correct.
You said, "Nepotism places people who have not deserved it into positions of power they would've otherwise not been able to attain."
That isn't what nepotism is.
I didn't say what nepotism is. I said it's what nepotism does
That isn't what nepotism does either.
That still isn't nepotism.
Still didn't say it was
When you figure what it is, perhaps your charging Trump with it will make some sort of sense.
Discernible to whom? She knows him, and has his best interest at heart. He thinks she's qualified, and she has probably been advising him already. You are assuming your bias.
I suppose to anyone who is aware that Ivanka is serving in an official governmental capacity under her father and also makes a conscious thought of "Is this right?". Regardless I don't think you quite fully answered my question. It's certainly not an issue for Ivanka or Donald personally, but in a wider scheme do you think it's an issue in terms of how the executive branch is being run?
Again. I asked you what your "it" was. You said "nepotism". Only to later tell me you didn't say it was nepotism. Equivocating and substituting an "it", that you later morph into nepotism will not work.
So, "do I think it's an issue in terms of how the executive branch is being run?"
No. As it isn't nepotism, no, I don't think its an issue.
No.
In american society then, why can't there be events that are objectively controversial independently from your personal acknowledgements?
What does my personal acknowledgement have to do with it? Whether I personally acknowledge an event or not does not affect reality.
My only point is to show you that just because you and your liberal pink hat hoards find something objectionable, that doesn't mean it is a social controversy.
You want it to be because you began by blaming Trump for "controversies". The silliness and unfairness of blaming Trump for fake "controversies" drummed up by the fake media is objectionable.
The media comes up with some fakery, you get triggered, and then blame Trump for the "controversy" in society? No sir.
Logic will be required of you here.
Created:
-->
@KingLaddy01
Thank you King. Why liberals cannot figure out that simple bit of logic is beyond me.He holds zero responsibility for the schemes of retards as well. This goes beyond the press. He isn't accountable for Charlottesville, fake news, or any of the issues that may have his name involved.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Donald himself being President is the evidence Einstein.
How so?
Think man. If all those were really people claiming to vote for Hillery that the polls gave her a 20% lead, what happened to them? Did they evaporate? Leave the Earth? Change their minds 4 hours before voting? If the poll were not bogus, how did Trump win?
American society.
How does being part of American society allow you to judge whether news is controversial or not, without having knowledge or interesting in the news in question?
Think about it.
Accepted behavior cannot be controversial among the people who find it acceptable.
But equally, unaccepted behaviour can be controversial among the people who find it unacceptable right?
No. If everyone finds it unacceptable, there is no controversy. Controversies occur between people who find a certain behavior unacceptable, and those who do not.
So a purely subjective opinion?
Are the years spent obtaining a doctorate compared to someone obtaining a GED subjective measures of educational achievement?
When you cannot answer a question, say so.
It cannot be referring to nepotism. You made no mention of family in your definition. You said “people”. Nepotism is the placing of family members in public positions they are not worthy of.
I understand the confusion.
OK, we'll go with you being confused about nepotism.
I made no definition of nepotism.
You said, "Nepotism places people who have not deserved it into positions of power they would've otherwise not been able to attain."
That isn't what nepotism is.
I merely generalized a reason for why nepotism is looked down upon. That is, people are placed into undeserved positions
That still isn't nepotism.
Probably not, but that would likely be because he would not have known her otherwise. Trump is the one who evaluates her qualification. You seem to be assuming your bias.
Is it an issue to have someone with objectively no discernible relevant experiences serving in official governmental capacity?
Discernible to whom? She knows him, and has his best interest at heart. He thinks she's qualified, and she has probably been advising him already. You are assuming your bias.
How large is the “around you” you ask about?
I would consider American society to be the entirety of American people. Did you have a different grouping in mind?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
7 Ways Marijuana May Affect the Brain
Marijuana has a reputation as a relatively harmless drug, but researchers are learning more and more about the effects it may have on the brain.
An increased risk of psychosis, changes in the brain's reward system and the scrambled neuron signals that may underlie "the munchies" are just some of the many potential effects of marijuana use on the brain.
"The biggest risk related to the use of marijuana is the increased risk of psychosis," said Dr. Scott Krakower, assistant unit chief of psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, New York.
Another significant risk, for those who use marijuana during their teenage years, is an increased likelihood of an IQ drop. "It is safe enough to say that people who smoke marijuana," especially when they are young, are more likely have a reduction in their IQ later in life, Krakower told Live Science.
Here's a look at the recent research on marijuana's possible effects on the brain
Marijuana and psychosis
Multiple studies have linked marijuana use with a higher risk of psychosis, which is a medical term that applies to symptoms that involve losing touch with the real world, such as hallucinations or paranoia. For example, in an analysis published in 2016 in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin, researchers looked at previous studies of about 67,000 people.
They found that people in the study who used the most marijuana were more likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic mental-health condition, such as schizophrenia, than people who had never used marijuana.
A review published in April 2016 in the journal Biological Psychiatry also found a link between cannabis use and an increased risk of psychosis. "Overall, evidence from epidemiologic studies provides strong enough evidence to warrant a public health message that cannabis use can increase the risk of psychotic disorders," the authors wrote in the review.
Pot and IQ
Teens who smoke pot may be more likely to experience an IQ drop when they are older, research has suggested. In a study of more than 1,000 people in New Zealand, researchers administered IQ tests to the participants twice: when they were 13, and then again when they were 38. The researchers also asked the participants about their drug use throughout the study period.
About 5 percent of the teens in the study had started using pot when they were teens. And it turned out that those who smoked pot at least four times a week and continued to use pot throughout their lives experienced an IQ drop of 8 points by the end of the study, on average.
It's not clear why pot may have negative effects on people's IQ, but it could be that teens are more vulnerable to pot's effects on brain chemistry, Susan Tapert, a neuropsychologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in a 2012 interview.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the above may explain some of our more challenged posters. What seems like poor reading comprehension, or unending vitriol, might just be low IQ and psychosis from too much pot smoking.
Why do people smoke pot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
That is why the jails are full of you mental patients. You are nobody. You are mentally handicapped.We are willing to go to jail and shout from the jail cells, 'We Fertilized Eggs @ Are Somebody'.
Please shut up and go away. Your opinion trumps on one else's.
You are like the deranged bum who stumbles into a wedding party. You stink, you are loud and stupid, and no one wants you around.
Shut up. Go away
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Give them a second chance to do that, now that they know the score.
How did bully do on his second chance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You called it. But willows is gone and bully has been banned twice so far. Patience.So, while he's being a good boy he's still going to follow us around doing everything he does without the things that will get em banned.
I'll just call you a prophet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I guess whomever was forcing you to talk must have released you. I hope you feel more free now.They don't believe in the invisible friends but are forced to talk about it....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't care how many of you other mental patients you have with you. Shut up and go away.We are Fertilized Eggs @ and we mean business
You are not sane. No one wants you yelling at them. I don't care what you think.
You are nothing more than an internet loonie, making loonie posts.
Shut up, and go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Subjective means the quality is in the mind of the subject perceiving. Objective means that the quality is within the object itself.
Sir, race is not a quality in man. Race is the description you use to classify people. It can be based on any perceived quality.
You seem to mean that 'subjective' means 'inexact', which is how the word is commonly misused, especially among the young.
Without knowing you, I can confidently say I am older than you. Subjective means determined/influenced by the human mind. And that is exactly what your "race" is.
But color is100% objective. A leaf is green, I don't think that it is green.
Of course you do. Nothing has color except light. Green is only in your mind, not in the leaf. Plus, there is no way for us to know if the "green" you see is the "green" I see.
On the other hand, Doris being nice or mean completely depends on my perspective. Green being the best color depends on my perspective. Race is an easily measurable, real quality.
Depending on the qualities you assign to "race".
We know this because if you lined up a bunch of people in front of me, had them guess their race, and then genetically tested them and compared the results, the guesses would be spot on 99% of the time. Subjective qualities don't do that.
You should probably re-read this paragraph.
I have no problem with your classification system. There can be many. And yours may work as a simple classification. My issue is with what its proponents say "race" means. For example, "race" A may have wider hips than "race" B. So what? The people who state hip width to propose discouraging "race" B from equestrian endeavors use the data incorrectly.
Race is an assigned classification based on pre-picked qualities. Sure the qualities can exist objectively, but your classification doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
No, you just an online idiot with a mental illness.I am the Fertilized Egg @ and I mean business
Shut up and go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Race is as objective as color itself, being a general descriptor of ethnic origin that operates on weighted gradients.
OK. But color isn't objective.
The term 'subjective' doesn't apply to anything that exists on a gradient, it applies to something which depends on the subject rather than the object for value (exists in the mind of the subject rather than in the object itself).
True. Race applies no?
Which race isn't, it's literally a quality of the object being discussed.
Yes, but the association of "race" to that quality is ad hoc, arbitrary, and unscientific. So for example, the "white race" all have white skin, but what makes white skin a qualifier for race? That is purely subjective.
I can't say 'I'm an Australian Aborigine', or 'Denzel Washington is Chinese' and then claim that race is subjective so my personal opinion is valid.
Well, as GP pointed out, people do say it. But I get you, you can't say it logically. Terms like "Australian Aborigine" are assigned classifications and thus are subjective by the classic definition of subjunctive.
That's what the world 'subjective' means. Whether someone is nice or not is subjective. Weather they are Polynesian or not is objective.
I don't think you are using the terms correctly. Whether they are Polynesian or not is NOT objective.
Sure, they may be half Polynesian, but they are objectively half Polynesian.
What do you think objective means? You seem to be using "objective" as if it means "authoritative".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I understand. But those people responded in a way that your proposal cannot explain.
For example, what benefit to others did Nixon see in his behavior? Or what benefit to self did Rosa Parks calculate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Nice save! But we know what you intended. Its relatively true, but his original claim remains true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
What's the difference?Consumerism is a form of slavery. It should not be confused with capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
As "human races" is a subjectively set up thing, I don't care if someone thinks it applies. What is more important is why a person points this out. And as we see, the OP has a racist reason for the assertion.
But no matter how history will judge human races, treating it as anything more than a subjective classification is not logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You are a gifted philosopher then. ; )Obtuse nitpicking is a good definition of philosophy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We can test this with actual historical examples.I suggest that is all there is to 'morality'.
Does your theory explain Adolph Hitler?
Does your theory explain Richard Nixon?
Does your theory explain Rosa Parks?
I don't think it does. Real life shows you are incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It doesn't have to. "Pretty" is not a thing, but an opinion held by people. This is inherant in the definition of pretty. You are being an obtuse nit picker.
Your rebuttal fails.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Do you think the polls represented real people saying they would vote for Hillery?
Do you have evidence that attests otherwise?
Yes. President Donald Trump.
How does Donald Trump attest otherwise?
Donald himself being President is the evidence Einstein.
A real controversy is viewed so by more than just leftist Trump haters.
How do you personally measure and evaluate the viewership of a story to determine whether it is controversial, non-controversial or fake-controversial?
The viewership of the fake news channels.
I am part of the society that determines controversy.
Which society?
American society.
Again. What liberals don't like does not a controversy make.
But equally, just because conservatives are accepting of behaviour, doesn't mean an event isn't controversial.
Accepted behavior cannot be controversial among the people who find it acceptable.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Disagree of course. Who is the party finding the behavior controversial?
How does one know what position someone would've otherwise not been able to attain?
We can evaluate a candidates education, experiences and temperament, balanced against the requirements of a role and the performances of previous personnel compared to their education, experiences and temperament. For example, an 18 year old high school dropout is unlikely to be employed as an astronaut.
So a purely subjective opinion?
Your "it" here is equivocation. To what does it refer?
Nepotism
It cannot be referring to nepotism. You made no mention of family in your definition. You said “people”.
What you just described is not nepotism. Perhaps you don't know what it is.
In what way is what I have described not nepotism? Would you care to give your own definition of nepotism?
Nepotism is the placing of family members in public positions they are not worthy of.
Sure. But I have no clue who you're talking about.
In what way is Ivanka Trump qualified to be Advisor to the President? Do you think she would've been appointed to the position if she were not the President's daughter?
Probably not, but that would likely be because he would not have known her otherwise. Trump is the one who evaluates her qualification. You seem to be assuming your bias.
In a society I am not a part of, sure.
Which society are you a part of?
American society.
Is it comprised of just those around you?
How large is the “around you” you ask about?
Perhaps those who share your ideological views?
Very few people are intelligent enough to share my ideological views. I live surrounded by irrational liberals and progressives corrupted by political correctness.
Created:
Posted in:
Untrue. "Lauren is prettier than Ingrid" is a statement referring to what someone thinks, not Lauren or Ingrid. So depending on who is being referred to, the statement is certainly either true or false, therefore, the claim stands.if the 'something' is "Lauren is prettier than Ingrid" then your claim does not hold.
Your rebut was wholly semantics and did not disturb the logic of the OP's claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@dylancatlow
Another classy and lucid post.
Without the concept of truth, "uncertainty" cannot be meaningfully interpreted.
SecMer should read this. Dylan, your posts may be too upscale for our site. But please continue, we may rise to meet them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And the reason for stating that opinion is bogus too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
He has been antisemitic and racist for as long as he's been trolling. More than 5 years ago on DDO and now here. In the entire time, he has been exactly the same, posting the same single line posts, repeating the same silly comments." Those of us who know him know he isn't......OK, if you get my drift.
So most people, besides noobs and the similarly loony, ignore his posts. Responding to him is like responding to a vitriolic pepper plant, lots of burn and very little sense.
You'll see for yourself.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Earth changed because of what man did. If you conclude from that,Guess man is more powerful than god to change the earth and the laws of nature.
1. God could not similarly change the Earth,
2. The change was powered by man and not simply a natural consequence of what he did,
3. And that "laws of nature" were changed...
Your "logical process" probably has you locked away tight from any rationality reaching you. You obviously did not get those conclusions from what I said. They don't follow.
I've given you the Christian answers. Accept or reject them, but weird conclusions mentioning things I didn't say, like "more power" and "laws of nature" are just games. Address what I say, not what you think.
Are you by any chance disabled?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You are a nobody moron.
You cannot tell me what to do. You obviously have mental issues. How many people have told you that?
No one wants to talk to you, or respond to your irrational posts, with it's weird symbols and fragmented ideas.
Shut up, and go away.
Created:
Posted in:
I wonder if he himself understands his loony posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You have a rich imaginary life. This explains your multi posts to me and posting walls of text at my simple "lol".Its like your obsessed with me....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Hey snowflake, "lol" is not an attack. You're guilty and your conscience is bothering you. How does that concern me? If I don't address you, don't address me. But if you choose to, I will expose you and your little voting club.
I didn't recruit you to be a ringer. I don't pay you to be a ringer. I didn't put you in the voting club. If you don't like being exposed as a ringer, perhaps you should be a ringer.
Just saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol, mustardness is lucid to 3RU7AL. Why is that not surprising?
Lucid? rofl!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
And that is where it fails.No, my position does not extend rights to the fetus,....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Did I not tell you to shut up and go away?
Why do crazy people always want to shout at others?
Now, take your stinky mattress and be gone. You can't tell anyone anything. You're just a loony guy on the net. Go away, we can smell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, since you already clearly stated that you don't want to "solve the problem of abortion"
I did not state that liar. Really, dishonesty will not aid you.
That's one of the perks of lying.I'm really confused....
Everyone agrees and has always agreed that a "baby is a person".
Don't scratch your head Gentle Reader. He has admitted to being confused. Perhaps he doesn't know he's lying.
...that blastocyst is an invader within the sovereign territory of the host
Revisiting your stupidity will not morph it into sense.
....that individual is, at that moment, an invader in violation of the host woman's sovereign territory and she has every right as sovereign, to either allow the invader to stay in her sovereign territory for any arbitrary time period or to have them deported at will.
You keep saying this, yes, and each time you do, you are shown why it is not only untrue, but spellbindingly stupid. Sorry, but stupidity, no matter how pristine, will not win arguments.
Oh, ok, you don't want to fix the "abortion problem"?
Sure I do. But that isn't what we're doing here. We're just looking at your position on abortion, and going by what you've said, you may have serious mental issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Didn't I tell you to shut up and go away moron?
You are an idiot with no authority. You can't tell anyone anything. Now shut up, and go take your meds.
Boy don't make me wanna change...... my tone.
Is the real world hassling you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
TL:DNR
Wall of text posts make you look guilty Pinocchio.
You're innocent right? Then stop posting to me.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why did a benevolent God create the natural laws that ensure the strong inherit the earth?
He didn't. When man chose sin over God, the entire Earth changed. Sin affected not only people, but all of nature. I have the verses but will site them only if you ask.
Does he just hate disabled people?
Of course not. Some of the greatest champions in the bible were disabled. In fact, Jesus was asked sort of the same question as yours about a disabled man of His time. Jesus' answer is telling.
Are disabled people evil?
No more so than other people. Disability will not stop the salvation of God. There will be tons of formally disabled people in Heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Now you've done it. Little Adolph is mad. Our benevolent racist will now pull a righteously angry Kavenaugh.
He doesn't hate blacks, he just thinks they should be relegated to a sports career at birth because that is where they can reach their greatest potential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Posting to the same thread you're on is stalking? Did you really think no one would notice?Oh look! It’s my biggest fan, come to stalk me again!
Somehow you always find something better to do, and some other thread to respond to when ever I post direct evidence that your claims are factually false - an odd coincidence.
Anyone can see that you lie. No need to respond to your lies. You get apoplectic all by yourself.
Bsh1 and Virt are in your little club, so relax, no one is going to stop you from ringing. You need not pretend to be so outraged. Bsh1 will soon be #1 anyway. Half you work will be done.
Quick of you to "volunteer" on Medium concerning votes. That is like Iran being on the Human Rights Commission in the UN. bsh1 thought it was a great idea. The same guy who got all your points in the fixed debate. Talk about odd coincidences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
If there will be a humor or comedy section, Castin has a great sense of humor.
Created:
Posted in:
I can add stuff related to vote quality, analyzing debates and common errors
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Your putrid racism goes beyond the scope of this thread? Really?Again, this really goes beyond the scope of this thread.
Obviously my mom doesn't. So talk about her a little more. Racists who are ashamed of being racist are funny. The dissonance must drive you nuts. Though racists are nuts already.
All I wanted to do was show that human races exist,...
Captain Obvious just wanted to do a public service post. Lol. Sorry jasper, your ulterior motives were exposed.
Then you turned out to be a sleazy jerk too. Am I lucky or what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hey shemp,
If you start cursing, swearing, insulting people, typing in all caps and bold, people are going to think you are angry and emotional. What else can they think? Someone just asks you a question and you go postal, repeating posts over and over and typing in all caps.
Your posts are angry and emotional, full of insults, exclamation marks, and all caps.
Created:
Posted in:
And that is where your position fails.If the woman has rights and the fetus has rights, then one necessarily does not have inalienable rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is clearly untrue. Sometimes it is not just pregnancy people don't want, it is children they don't want.Nobody will choose abortion if ectogenesis is the same price and the same convenience.
The exact same people who choose abortion now will opt for ectogenesis if it is the same price and the same convenience.
No sir. Many of those people do not want KIDS, they would still choose abortion.
Nobody is bloodthirsty for human embryos. Take a breath.
Thank God I can take a breath. I see liberals march in the streets demanding the right to kill babies, fight and violate due process of a judge to preserve the ability to kill babies, notice the idiots on this very thread, angered into vulgarism to retain the ability to kill babies. Many people are indeed hungry for the blood of infants.
If the unwanted zygote, blastocyst, embryo, foetus, or citizen or non-citizen can safely be removed/evicted/deported from the host without damage, it is a perfect win-win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You lost the argument, so a tie now appeals to you. It isn't a win-win. Much less a perfect one. Your original position was illogical. And this new position suffers the same error. Your argument is illogical because you view the baby as a non-person. And now that your lack of logic has been exposed, you must dodge the question about whether the baby is a person.
We were not on a mission to solve the problem of abortion, we were debating the logical viability of each others positions. Your position has been found logically lacking. So running to external wombs does not save your broken argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@SkepticalOne
No sir. We debate using logic. Your position is yet illogical. The reasons you gave for why a baby in the womb was not a person were illogical in light of your position now.Ok. So, other than the language I've used, we agree on the personhood of embryos in artificial wombs. Sweet.
A consistent position would have been:
"A baby is a person, but the sovereignty of the mother is a higher right and as long as the baby and mother are inseparable, the rights of the mother trumps"
But no pro-life person said anything like this. To a man, they all insisted that the baby was not a person. But they could never explain why dependency prohibited personhood. The connection was spurious.
Friend, personhood is not a right, but a designation indicating a being with rights.
Your semantics doesn't change the dynamic. If some of those rights indicated are inalienable, then babies have either always been persons, or are not persons now. Your position is illogical.
Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Thank you.
Agreement alone doesn't cut it. If you agree with me that 2 +3 = 5, but think it equals 5 because any two single digit numbers equal 5, we will not be in agreement.
We were not trying to find a political solution for abortion, we were examining each others position for logical consistency. And your position remains illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I expect you to.
But my opposition to abortion is not theoretical. It is clear now that we have an artificial womb, the reasons put forth as justification for abortion were bogus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Persons are not persons because they are "considered" persons. Personhood is an inalienable right. Blacks would not become inferior if everyone suddenly "considered" them inferior.Given that it is not a part of another being's body and extending rights would not necessarily infringe on the rights of others, I personally see no reason why an embryo in an artificial womb should not be considered a person.
Babies are either persons or not persons regardless of how they are "considered" by others.
Created: