zedvictor4

Fortunately no one is white....Therefore no one should be offended.

And some people are sensible, and some people are particularly stupid....And we've always known this...So we should be used to it by now.

How will everyone make a living....That is.....Acquire money to convert to goods and food.

And yet we will continue to increase a more redundant population.

The future looks quite bleak for a lot of people.

Well stated.

Concept over reality.

Legality is make believe.

And living tissue is.

And I am pro-choice

Because I am not selectively moral 

And "babies" are born. (Check your dictionary)

Killing babies is illegal.

All living tissue must cease living at some point.......Internally or externally.

Your argument is silly.

@RatMan

You're referring to special needs individuals.

One was just making  a generalization relative to TheUnderdogs general curiosity.

If you wish to specialize , then I suggest that  you create a specific forum topic.

50 hours.......Sounds like a good deal.

Seriously though, I fully agree, 6 weeks is a good cut of point....Most women are aware of their pregnancy by this stage.

Morning after pills seem like the sensible solution to unprotected sex.  Though I am sure that there are downsides to an unrestricted implementation of this option. 

One can either read or not.

Comprehension is a different matter altogether.

And grammar is largely out of the window these days.

Does this site actually have any darker skinned members?

Or is it  really  just a site for opinionated, young, light skinned, male Americans.

HaHa......Ethanesque goading.....Kind of weird.

And one persons normal is another persons weird, and vice versa.

And Bro D achieves, what they set out to achieve....And walks away unscathed.

I am always entertained but never respond......As response is futile.....And that's what makes Bro D smarter than you.

Yep...But you've still got to get things done.

So if you've got huge groups of people that do not agree, how do you move things forward.

Well, as you stated....A ballot....So majority decision.

And so for instance, if your four choices relating to abortion and taxes were put to a ballot and the results were 28%, 27%, 23%, 22%.....Then who's ideas and principles would eventually be ignored.

And who organises the ballot......Other than an authoritative body that ultimately, dictates procedure and is responsible for outcomes.

Jews might fear Iranians.

So, what are the legitimate questions?

If your qualifications and level of intellect are as you say. (# 5)

Then you should be able to answer these questions yourself.

Re #2

What has "antisemitism" got to do with anything.

You are a multi-conflationist.

How would anything get done in your system?

And eventually like minded people would come together and form a collaborative group....AKA....A Political Party.

Being independent is useless, unless a majority agree with you.

And you would need a lot more than 3 ideas to be a successful politician.

Typical "simplistic" and inaccurate emotive pleas.....No one advocates the "execution of babies".

Category difference 2:

The removal of a blob of organic matter, execute the sentient human being.

One can differentiate all day long.

Though selective morality in regard to life and death, is always a necessity.

And so the story goes.

Bro D is smarter than you might think.

So who do you think is a weirdo?

Nope, one is only hypocritical if one denies being selectively moral.

So for instance, if you consider abortion to be immoral, but capital punishment to be morally justifiable and admit to being selectively moral then that is not hypocritical.

Nonetheless if one concedes to this level of honesty, one inevitably must concede to a pro-choice position.

Because to be pro-choice and then seek to deny pro-choice, is undoubtedly hypocritical.

Questions don't imply.

Questions question.

I'm questioning why do covid conspiracy theorists assume to know better than experts.

Well, not withstanding that there is no such thing as "objective morality"....(Established but variable  moral expectancies perhaps).

If one is honest about ones selective morality, then one is not being hypocritical.

So how, lets ask, would you distinguish yourself from a "weirdo"?

Or is your appreciation of a "weirdo", just a subjective opinion of someone who appears not to think as you do?

It's just that your dialogue is usually quite rational.

"Weirdo"  seemed a tad out of keeping.

Anti-Semitic is bang on trend. Along with Anti-Black and Anti-Gay.

And some Jews are themselves, are Anti-Semitic.

And some Blacks are Anti-White

And some Gays are Anti-Straight.

People thrive on such stuff.

It's just a case of who's Anti is currently the most popular.

I'm sure that some pompous liberal twat gave her a good talking to and then charged her for the privilege.

And as she handed over her money she thought....Pompous liberal twats.

For she was also an Anti-Pompous Liberal Twat.

Me...I'm just an observationist.

LOL

What is a weirdo in the religious section?

Et tu, Brute.

Undoubtedly a truism.

Physicists believe.

Physicists propose all sorts.

Though something can only expand if there is the potential for it to do so.

And that potential might be unlimited

Even though, that which is expanding might be limited.

So said physicists are saying the same but slightly differently.

Stretch will suffice.

The same principle can also be applied to time.

Agree.

See above.

All morality is subjective.

And selective is an easy word to understand, and couple it with morality and you have a very simple concept.

Apply that to a typical Pro-lifer and you will typically find contradiction within a Pro -Lifer's variable interpretation of pro-life.

Some might refer to it as hypocrisy, but I prefer selective morality.

Simple.

That's your valid opinion.

And as valid as any other opinion.

One doesn't need to be a "credible historian" or an "academic" to be able to accept that a charismatic person did probably exist at that time. Probably more than one, as the Earth was whole lot bigger than the Arabian Peninsular.

Though the name "Jesus" is undoubtedly an interpretation.

Proving that said character was the son of a supernatural god or the personification of a supernatural god is a whole different ball game, and beyond the capabilities of historians and academics.

Nonetheless, remove the storytellers and ardent theologians guff, and what one is left with is the basis of all other naive  Earth based GOD principles.

And that is:

We don't actually know, so we conclude that it must be magic.

And so here is our version, based upon a charismatic chap who claims to be the son of a god.

Who or what  the god is, we don't actually know....So you will just have to accept that one without proof (Believe).

And yep...Interpreting old books is what some people spend a lot of time doing, and there's nothing wrong with that.....Each to their own.

And what, at the end of the anthropological day is an Englishman?

Best ask an anthropologist to interpret that one.

And as I like to reiterate:

GOD principle sound, but not a floaty about bloke. 

You have an amazing power of recall.

Did I respond?

"Knowing"....Is Acquiring, understanding  and storing data.

"Intending" Is internally manipulating data and outputting, often relative to an action.

Two separate and different internal processes.

One can intend, and speculate about consequences.

But one can not know consequences for certain, until they have occurred and been, internally assessed.

The fact is, that we interpret accordingly.

And the bible is and always was open to interpretation.

We cannot even prove if the sermon on the mount was delivered by anything other than a man, or if at all.

Though charismatic people and their ideology, have always been able to delude the gullible.

Perceivable differences are.

And therefore have an internal cause.

This is realism

Whereas "race" is a linguistics issue, relative to perceivable differences and eggs and spoons.

What about Species Realism?

Opinions are always right.

Even though we might disagree with the content of an opinion.

Whether abortion is or isn't actually right or wrong is unknown, because there is no greater authority.

All that you have is your own righteous opinion.

Selective morality is always going to throw up contradictions, irrespective of how I might call it.

Consciousness with intellect.....Conceptuality v instinct will create ethical dilemmas.

The rationale is that Universe has limited potential.....Cannot expand indefinitely.....Is finite.

Therefore the finite universal requirement of space does not necessitate the infinite possibility of space.

"Exposed"

"State run"

You've lost me there.

But feel free to be wise in your own mind.

Freedom of thought.....I expect that one day we will  be deprived of that.....What do you think?

OK....Let me put it another way.

Q. Why do numpties disagree with virologists, epidemiologists etc.

A. Because they are gullible numpties.

Well "we" stay at approx  98F.....Temporarily of course......Just joking.

And I don't imagine that a new "Ice Age" would be a click of the fingers event.

So I see no reason why not.

Things would get progressively cooler and a global human society would modify accordingly.

I think that you and I will be OK Doc. 

The dilemma is the concept of morality and it's inevitable contradictions. 

Good old Chuck.

I agree entirely.

Though I would rather stick balls into holes than be punched in the head.....Or punch other people in the head, for that matter....Or watch people being punched in the head and knocked senseless and then cheer with delight.

But hey.... Each to their own and consenting adults and all that.

And not that I play golf.

I'll take that as a compliment.

HI Doc.

I imagine that a new ice age would be pretty catastrophic.....Well......For human society.

I don't suppose that the Planet would be too bothered.

It will just keep spinning around, until such times when it can't spin around any more.

Though clever people will probably survive.

Because we know that clever people need to survive.

Even if the not so clever, are sometimes jealous of clever peoples cleverness.

Grown up  people knocking each other senseless.

Though some might argue that they were already senseless.

Fortunately there are people who do very clever stuff.

And then are the clever people who manipulate the already senseless.

Such is human development.

How many daft rednecks, in their plaid shirts with their big beards and their baseball caps, actually own a microscope.