Total posts: 542
-->
@Vegasgiants
Did you know that the word "ignore" has a Latin root meaning "one does not know"
It's from where the English language gets the term "ignorance"
So perhaps your last comment finally forms a coherent admission as to your situation.
Perhaps you may wish to stop embarrassing yourself.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
"Review what I have asked you for and produce.....
a dozen valid sources supporting you opinion that there is no scientific heart at 6 weeks
a list of insults that you have perceived to exist"
Are the "insults" real or are they yet more manifestations of your response to imaginary stimuli?
Now produce the list of "insults" that you imagine to have existed.
Otherwise form a cogent response the is somehow related to reality.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
All you have are insults.....because you got destroyed in debate. Lol
As I said before ...
My posts are coherent and on topic; yours are not. Some of your responses seem to be in response to imaginary stimuli.
Review what I have asked you for and produce.....
a dozen valid sources supporting you opinion that there is no scientific heart at 6 weeks
a list of insults that you have perceived to exist
And YOUR position was destroyed in this forum by me and others, by your lack of evidence and your demeanor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How many of those people have an open mind?
There is no way to quantify an answer to that question.
Are you saying that because someone does not have an "open mind" that they are somehow different from you?
No one has an "open mind" on all subjects in all areas at all times.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
In dealing with Vegasgiants
prepare for an infinite regression
In dealing with Vegasgiants
prepare for an infantile regression
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You are posting bogus articles that are citing “fraud” that has long since been debunked.
It is a forum. Its purpose is to bring things into the light.
Re-examination of thoughts and ideas is the "product of the human intellectual life".
Whether the claims are "bogus" or not is less relevant than that many believe them.
Here is a news article from January 2023... "Almost a third of Americans still believe the 2020 election result was fraudulent" https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/almost-third-americans-still-believe-2020-election-result-was-fraudule-rcna90145
Some would say" Let's not talk about it", which leaves it as a festering wound in the nation.
Others say " Let's have a dialogue; let's heal the wound".
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Are you sure you're ok?
My posts are coherent and on topic; yours are not. That is why I asked if you were OKAY, because some of your responses seem to be in response to imaginary stimuli.
Review what I have asked you for and produce.....
a dozen valid sources supporting you opinion that there is no scientific heart at 6 weeks
a list of insults that you have perceived to exist
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Are you okay?
My posts are coherent and on topic; yours are not. That is why I asked if you were OKAY, because some of your responses seem to be in response to imaginary stimuli.
Can you read my posts?
Some of your posts seem to be in response to imaginary stimuli.
Don't you love these personal questions?
You have a strange concept about what is a personal question.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Please explain how you haven’t sorted out the facts yet nearly three years after the election. Why haven’t you read the articles that are out there from legitimate news sources and exercised critical thinking skills?
I have, i have and I have.
It is a forum. Its purpose is to bring things into the light.
Please proceed.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I guess you don't want to answer personal questionsMe neitherAsk them again or insult me and this is all you get
Is this in response to a previous post?
It makes NO SENSE.
Are you OKAY?
Kindly cut and paste the question to which you are referring.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
OK then I will just talk about you.
Did you not comprehend what I said? What intellectual or behavioral quality have I utilized that demonstrated a state of dis- ingeniousness? Have I been hypocritical? Have I clung to an opinion even after it is disproved? Have I taken an agenda as a fact? Have I taken a single source as fact without any corroboration? Have I said that was "bad science" and then gone ahead and done it anyway? Have I made general accusations and then failed to cite specifics?
Should I wonder about your reasoning?
said the parrot in the cage.
Can you be saved?
said the parrot in the cage.
Is it difficult to be you?
said the parrot in the cage.
Is your argument going to be productive at some point?
Review what I have asked you for and produce.....
a dozen valid sources supporting you opinion that there is no scientific heart at 6 weeks
a list of insults that you have perceived to exist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
And this is what a lively discussion looks like in a free forum.
I will say that my experience with those working the polls demonstrates that it is a weak point in the practice of democracy.
We had a case a few years back where two poll workers got into a fist fight over accepting / rejecting a voter.
Ideally more states will tighten the rules.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
But is it too late to save you?
Save me from what? From science?
Let's talk about you and not the debate
That is fine as long as the discussion is about the discussion. If I were arguing in a hypocritical manner, it would be right of you to point it out; just as it is right for me to point it out to you.
That's not insulting....right?
Right.
Now list the "insults" that you have perceived, or understand that not doing so, since you brought it up, is highly hypocritical.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It may be too late to save you.
This statement was made originally by prefix, and merely parroted by Vegasgiants.
"Meaning of parroting in English
to repeat exactly what someone else says, without understanding it or thinking about its meaning: She doesn't have an original thought in her head - she just parrots anything that Sara says."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/parrotingYou can take this as parroting the ACOG without finding any supportive documents.
You can take this as parroting prefix where the use of the parroted phrase is both unclear and unproductive.
Created:
-->
@John_C_87
Okay, so an SSN is a legal proof, but not a metaphysical proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Look
This is a forum. I posted an editorial for discussion, yet people "like you" cannot discuss but rather react.
I may not even agree with the editorial. It is for discussion.
You might want to look up the definition of "forum".
I do however appreciate that you posted a relevant counter to the editorial. Perhaps more will follow.
I was actually hoping to see some legal findings referenced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
All of the nonsense has been explained over the last 3 years by the people whose job it is to run elections
Kindly list the explanations of each of the 9 points.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
As usual it is unclear what you are saying.
Are you saying that the statement "You seem to have difficulty in finding supporting documentation. A rational being might begin to question that being's beliefs." is an insult?
Let us break it down...."You seem to have difficulty in finding supporting documentation." is a statement based on the fact that you set forth NO documentation that supported you view other than one comment from one source. I submitted over a dozen countering scientific sources. FACT!
And ..."A rational being might begin to question that being's beliefs." FACT!.
If facts are insults to you, perhaps some meditation and introspection is required on your part.
Here is more reading for you
"Is stating a fact an attack if someone finds it offensive?...Not when you are trying to set the record straight.
In today’s climate, however, people seem to forget what counts as a fact and what constitutes an opinion.
A fact is what the reality is.
An opinion is what you think the reality is or should be.
If you have stated a bona fide fact, you aren’t attacking, you are setting the record straight. Their anguish at being corrected is on them, not you."
In today’s climate, however, people seem to forget what counts as a fact and what constitutes an opinion.
A fact is what the reality is.
An opinion is what you think the reality is or should be.
If you have stated a bona fide fact, you aren’t attacking, you are setting the record straight. Their anguish at being corrected is on them, not you."
Dennis Manning 2020.
Created:
-->
@John_C_87
Not having a social security number is not a good method to determine nonexistence.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I have asked you before to list the "insults".
You have not.
Therefore they do not exist.
There is a difference between an insult and a description.
And as far as making my point....I have made points time and time again which you ignore ( look up logical fallacies)
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Parrots speak only what they have heard.
You have parroted my statements AD NAUSEAM .
You say something in this thread, and yet something totally opposite in another forum ( here you argue opinion over scientific evidence; in another you argue "Science requires evidence not faith") So yes to evidence and no to evidence at the same time, from the same person. ( hypocracy ).
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
In another forum titled "Contradict?' you said
Science requires evidence not faith
And yet the hypocrite rejects science when it fits not his agenda.
And it probably is too late to save you from yourself and political correctness.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Dude anyone can say thatIt's called an opinion not a fact
Is your mind starting to open?
Are you comprehending the difference between opinion and fact?
Or is this yet another act of hypocrisy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
"Nine peculiarities about the 2020 election"
(e.g.) "2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No. My point is that it is too easy to commit voter fraud. There is no denying that there were numerous anomalies in the 2020 election.
"There have been 283 convictions across 36 states for voter fraud in all US elections between 2016 and 2020.
- 144 convictions related to a presidential or congressional race: 136 cases involved one vote, three cases had seven votes or less, and two cases had an unknown number of votes.
- The political affiliations are known for 161 defendants: 39.1% of those convicted were Democrats, 40.3% were Republicans, while the remainder were Independent, nonpartisan, or unaffiliated."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
See if one can decide how easy it is to commit voter fraud....
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Since you like to read scientific papers, here is some info...
"In this paper, I am going to argue that the proponents’ argument with regard to the implausibility of categorizing fetus as human being is unjustified and wanting. In other words, the way in which the proponents of abortion talk about the idea of personhood is, inadequate and vague, semantically speaking" . Quote is from the Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, paper "Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point?" by Soroush Dabbagh
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The fetus has not developed enough to be considered a valuable human life. That's biology
Show me ONE valid source supporting this view
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Conversing with Vegasgiants reminds me of the old adage....." you can lead a donkey to an encyclopedia, but you can't make him think"
Still the conversation is rather easy, and very very revealing.
Perhaps an indictment of America's educational system is warranted.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
We've moved on
As was proven you are not capable of moving on.
You are making, at a minimum, two errors.
Error # 1 - You have taken a political opinion as fact.
Error #2 - You believe that opinion ( i.e. It is my opinion that that opinion is a fact )
Error #3 - You believe that your opinion, based on an opinion, is more important than an opposing opinion based on scientific research.
You have committed the following logical fallacies:
Fallacy of Division
Composition Fallacy
Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy
fallacy Ad Populum
fallacy Ad Verecundiam
"It's important to remember that opinion articles only reflect the author’s perspective"https://www.allsides.com/blog/9-logical-fallacies-used-opinion-writers
Of great interest is " Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy....Ignoratio Elenchi is a Greek word meaning "ignorance of contestation" or “missing the point.” This is when the conclusion fails to address the issue in question, or the conclusion is one that changes the point of what is at issue in the premise. ( ibid)
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I have proven the existence of the scientific heart at 6 weeks by citing more than a dozen scientific papers.
You, on the other hand, have used just one quote from a member of a lobbyist group; no science, no research, no nothing.
Since you enjoy disregarding facts, here is another "...some have come to worry that many – if not all – the issues connected to science are viewed by the public through a political lens." https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/
Do you realize that while you, Vegasgiants, exist scientifically, you do not exist politically even after 6 weeks.
Therefore YOU ARE A DISMISSED HYPOCRITE.
And you proved my previous point.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So your position is that while there is a "scientific heart" at 6 weeks, there is no "political heart" at 6 weeks.
N B Science is objective; politics is subjective.
So your position is that while there is an"objective heart" at 6 weeks, there is no "subjective heart" at 6 weeks.
This concept ( Homo Mensura ) has been disproved time and time again.
You,Vegasgiants, have been disproved time and time again.
Your concession has already been accepted
You are incapable of "moving on" and I can prove that very soon.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So you have changed the argument from "science" to "politics"
Thereby, you have admitted that you held a non scientific view.
Abrams lied scientifically.
Abortion will be a minor issue in 2024.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Some days it does seem that way.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Make them pay upfront.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Here are yet more FACTS for you to disregard.....
- Pregnancy, Birth and Baby, a website backed by the Australian government: “If you have an ultrasound in the sixth week, you may be able to see the baby’s heart beating.”
- Public Health Agency of Canada: “The tissues that will form the heart begin to beat. The heartbeat can be detected with ultrasound at around 6 weeks of pregnancy.
- Johns Hopkins places it even earlier, saying on its website that “the heart is beating” by the end of four weeks.
- TheBump.com: “Baby’s heart is typically beating away by six weeks.”
- Whattoexpect.com: “Your baby’s heart has started to beat sometime between week 5 and now.”
- BabyCenter.com: “Your baby’s heart isn’t fully developed, but cells in the heart tube have started beating fast, around 160 times a minute. You may hear the sound this week if you have an early ultrasound.”
"Even Planned Parenthood’s website .... [described ] a six-week embryo as having “a very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop.”
“A baby’s heart is actively beating at 6 weeks gestation and will have already beat nearly 16 million times by 15 weeks. In fact, at 6 weeks, when Stacey Abrams says a heartbeat doesn’t exist, that baby’s heart is actually beating at about 110 beats/min.”
Harvard-Trained Scientist Confirms: “A Baby’s Heart is Actively Beating at Six Weeks”
All above references from" The fight over ‘heartbeat’ further inflames tensions in abortion battle" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/26/fight-over-heartbeat-further-inflames-tensions-abortion-battle/ unless otherwise noted.
It is also found that ACOG is a registered lobbying organization.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The National Institute of HealthThe Lozier Institute"Detection of Functional Changes of the Fetal Heart in the First Trimester of Gestation. " by Pinto de Avila MA, et al."When Does the Human Embryonic Heart Start Beating? A Review of Contemporary and Historical Sources of Knowledge about the Onset of Blood Circulation in Man""Embryonic heart activity: Appearance and development in early human pregnancy""Embryonic length, crown-rump length and fetal heart activity in early human pregnancy determination by transvaginal ultrasound."Nishantivf "No heartbeat at 6 weeks is a sign of miscarriage"HealthlineAmerican Public Health AssociationThe National Center for Biotechnology InformationPubMedThe National Library of MedicineThe Centers for Disease ControlThe US Deportment of HealthThe American Pregnancy AssociationMedical News TodayThe National Health Service of the United KingdomAmerican Journal of RoentgenologyThe Radiological Society of North America.
" there is a heart at 6 weeks gestation." per John_C_87
You P have offered NO CORROBORATION FOR ACOG
NO PAPERS
Never accept science based on a single source.That's bad science
HYPOCRITE!!!!
Why don't you and the DNC get a room?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Do you have any original thoughts at all?
Do you need assistance in finding evidence to corroborate the ACOG opinion?
Are you aware of the hierarchical importance of research over opinion?
If you cling to ideas that are incorrect, where is the room for actual reality in your tiny crowded miniverse?
Never accept science based on a single source.That's bad science
The above is a quote from Vegasgiants on 07.16.2023 12:35PM , #109 in this thread.
And yet the argument by Vegasgiants, rests completely on a single source ( the ACOG ).
It is admitted by Vegasgiants as "bad science"
And Vegasgiants defends this with a single source.
A hypocrite is defined as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." Hypocrite Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The APA states "Hypocrisy is a special case of cognitive dissonance, produced when a person freely chooses to promote a behavior that they do not themselves practice."
Hypocrisy by Vegasgiants is found here.
Cognitive dissonance by Vegasgiants is found here.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Ah the P chirp!
It must be difficult to be you.
It is no more difficult than it is for any rational being.
But you might not be aware, as you leave too much in an unresolved state.
You seem to have difficulty in finding supporting documentation. A rational being might begin to question that being's beliefs.
"i anexétasti zoí den axízei na ti zeis"
sokrátis aná plátona
Created:
-->
@John_C_87
Thanks for your post.
Perhaps a review of this thread may help.
The poster ( hereinafter P) began with "The key to victory in 2024 for the democrats lies in abortion"
prefix ( hereinafter Victor or simply V) listed several concepts of more import.
V then found humor in the Freudian "democrats lies in abortion" and pointed out the lies about abortion.
Humourless P missed the joke entirely and asked for quotes that were lies.
V gave examples of democrats disseminating misinformation. P saw misinformation as being factual.
We then narrowed in on the concept of "at what age is there a gestational heart"?
P quoted ONE organization that supported his view of "no heart at 6 weeks"
V gave over a dozen respected scientific sources supporting the existence of the heart at 6 weeks.
V even gave personal experience supporting his view ( i.e. the family OBGYN)
P dug in his heels and denied ALL science.
And that brings us here......awaiting the next P chirp.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I will reply with them to you now on
Is there a context here?
What concept are you trying to advance?
It may be too late to save you.
Save me?
From what?
From scientific data?
From facts?
It is in fact you who needs saved:
Saved from an entrenched chauvinistic view of thinking that your OPINION outweighs FACTS presented by dozens of science based entities.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You claim someone or something insulted you, yet you have not listed the ostensible "insults".
Are you not aware of them?
Is it just a feeling that you or someone has been insulted by someone or something?
It must be difficult to be you.
Where is that debate?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I am tired on your entrenched, yet inaccurate view of how things are.
I'm a little tired of your insults
List here the "insults".
You are the one who has nothing.
Your reasoning is dismissed.
P.S. The NWS has predicted temperatures that preclude the existence of snowflakes.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I wonder about your reasoning ability. Show me research by any respected authority outside the ACOG that supports the ACOG opinion.
You have failed repeatedly to do so.
Show me a statement by ACOG that denies that there is contradictory research.
Show me a statement by ACOG that states that they have read contradictory research.
You take opinion as fact. You need to review the discipline of epistemology.
Now put up a debate or admit defeat.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Here is the "value" of the ACOG "position"( which at best is expert OPINION)
"Expert opinion is a comment or judgement made about a subject by a single expert or group of experts in that field. It might take the form of an editorial or an executive summary. This can be helpful when there is a dearth of empirical evidence but should be displaced if research arises which contradicts it.
Expert opinion is not considered a research method, but it can be invaluable when informing health policy, particularly where research is lacking."
I hope you learn something.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I'm still waiting for you to produce a dozen VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view.
I asked long enough.
You made all these claims about the NIH and did NOT POST ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM THE NIH
Have someone explain to you that there are many sub agencies to the NIH, many of which were cited. Are you so literal that you do not understand the transitive property?
It appears that agenda have entrenched your reasoning. It may be too late to save you.
How about a debate, where others can vote against you?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
TIME IS UP
You have posted NO supporting documentation to support the ACOG
You had ample time
It could have been done easily
Except it does not exist
You are in default.
Now how about that debate?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Running away is not an answer. You have 4 hours. Do your due diligence.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
How about debating me on the issue at hand.....if you know what it is.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
We are not.
You have 4 hours to produce a dozen VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view. That is plenty of time to so do, iff ( if and only if ) such exists.
Created: