Scott Mayers
-
Posts
1,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scott Mayers
-
-
35 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:
Why is that?
Why is there a sea and air embargo imposed on Hamas?
Are they victims, or is this of their own doing?
Neither party is innocent. You can't make either look like a victim.
I'm being absolutely censored and so am unable to answer!! Every word was taken out. It would be interesting to learn HOW this was done immediately upon clicking 'submit reply' Then I was redirected to a thread I did not even look at! If this gets posted, print it before this gets removed for later interests.
-
On 5/25/2024 at 10:12 AM, blackbird said:
The simple fact is Canada, the U.S. and other countries demanding a two state solution for Israel is completely unrealistic and shows their complete ignorance of the situation.
The Palestinians have a number of terrorist organizations in their midst which have absolutely no interest in living in peace with Israel. So to carve up Israel to give them their own state would only weaken Israel and threaten Israel's very existence. The Israelis know this well but it appears many countries and leaders outside Israel have no understanding at all about this. It is frustrating to see Trudeau adoringly bow to the ICC ruling saying Israel must stop fighting Hamas and create a two-state solution. He knows nothing about what he is talking about. He proves again he is just a puppet globalist who blindly follows whatever the U.N. and it's sister organizations say.
Some European countries have even unilaterally declared they recognize a Palestinian state or will do so. This is reminiscent of the 1,500 years of European antisemitism that the Jews lived through. Apparently antisemitism in the world still widely exists and in fact is getting worse. Unfortunately, Canada is doing a poor job of opposing it and it is worse in Canada as well. When we have leaders that talk the way they do about the situation in the middle east, what can we expect? The Liberals and NDP are not helpful.
"
The sad fact is that the only Palestinian state that might arise at the moment would permanently be at war with Israel. A state that supports and glorifies Palestinian suicide-bombers, missile launchers, and rapists against Israel’s civilian population; a state where the airwaves and newspapers are filled with viciously antisemitic and bloodthirsty anti-Israel propaganda; a state whose leaders crisscross the globe and lobby every international institution to vilify and criminalize Israel.
The only Palestinian state that might arise at the moment is a state whose political and religious figures outright deny the historic ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, and demand settlement of Palestinian refugees in pre-1967 Israel as a way of swamping and destroying the Jewish state.
The only Palestinian state that might arise at the moment is, in fact, a state like the current Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, aside from being corrupt and tyrannical towards its people, commits all the above crimes against Israel; or a state like “Hamastan” in Gaza that would repeat the October 7 massacres one thousand times over.
And therefore, the war against the Palestinian threat in Gaza and the West Bank cannot be cut short. That’s an Israeli consensus; rare, but real and valuable."
Preventing peace: The cost of rewarding Hamas with statehood after Oct. 7 - opinion (msn.com)
I agree to the fact that a 'two-state' solution would not work and for many of the same reasons. However, you probably presume a 'one-state' that is FOR Israel, which still will not work without having absolute powers to genetically annihilate ALL Palestinians. So are you for this 'solution'?
I have a proposed different solution: either a 'zero-state' solution for both OR a 'one-state' solution that creates a NEW country that is actually democratically sincere for all people? That is, would you be for a state that removes both religious extremist constitutions that treat people individually as humans without regards to their religious affiliation AND that SEPARATES the power of their government from making laws that are used to favor or disfavor SPECIFIC religious beliefs of those said individuals?
-
On 5/20/2024 at 9:00 AM, blackbird said:
This is an important ‘equation’1 that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.2 Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.
"Natural Selection" is a TYPE of rationale for "evolution" that contrasted with different arguments that exist for the same. Some, like your favored Creationists, used the older interpretation referencing how animals 'evolve' (genetically) by how they CHOOSE to change their genetic progeny by how they behave in life. Stepping forward into the field of genetics that was founded upon 'Natural Selection', we know that you cannot presume that your offspring's' genes record your environmental history. For instance, the initial old guess of 'evolution' was that one DOES pass on their 'culture' through their genes, something that our own non-Creationist governments tend to believe in practice when they support 'culture' as some intrinsic right to one who is born of some genetic class, like how many think it more appropriate to respect an adopted child's 'natural' family's heritage over the family they grew up with.
For example, the older version of 'evolution' interpreted that a giraffe's baby's grew longer necks simply because their parent's attempts to stretch their necks to taller trees. This implies that the genes would have to RECORD particular events one lives in order to decide what their children will be.
So, before going into other arguments, can you try to give a proof of how say, two people of black colored skin (ie, Black or African genetics) can MAKE their children have white skin color? THAT would be 'scientific' proof that your Creationist idea of 'evolution' could work.
What the 'Selection' part means and is easily provable by your own perspective, is that if you are Black and wanted 'white' skin for your child, you'd have to SELECT someone who HAS white skin TO MATE WITH in order to increase the likelihood of having white children.
Just stick to this simple argument for now. Do you agree or disagree and why?
-
On 5/12/2024 at 8:25 AM, Perspektiv said:
This was acknowledged by Biden, himself. The obvious.
Gaza doesn't want the war to end, nor to protect the best interests of its population.
Why is the onus entirely on Israel to bring a stop to this conflict?
What am I missing here?
You ignore that the Palestinian's whole population in both the West Bank and Gaza are in giant concentration camps of Israel. That is, their whole population is held 'hostage' and why Hamas has opted to choose kidnapping some of Israel's own innocent hostages as a counter-defensive strategy.
I asked this to the Jewish members of the Liberal Party to imagine if a subset of Germany's Jewish population within one of their concentration camps during WWII were to decide to kidnap their Nazi guard's innocent children as a means to try to free the whole of the population among them, would they think that those rogue members who organized it among the Jewish were to be thought of as acting irrationally 'terroristic'? I think it was convincing enough to perhaps make some change their minds in quitting the party over disagreements about Israel's role in all this.
Does this help change your own perspective?
-
On 5/12/2024 at 11:29 AM, eyeball said:
It would be more accurate to say Hamas doesn't want peace. For the same reason Netanyahu's political coalition doesn't want peace.
Peace would make them both redundant.
Finally I see an appropriate party-party "Hamas-Netanyahu" reference rather than the "Israel-Hamas" label, a country-party type reference that our Western media sells the war as.
I look close at how the media shows its bias by how they label things, like how the term, "Isis" (over "Isil" or "Daish") was preferred as an indirect means to inoculate the audience to the link of the Egyptian 'god' to terrorism. Some of us in the skeptic community have referenced Isis to the Jewish messiah and to the Christian Jesus, in particular.
As to the comment here, I think that both extremes will always exist regardless. The one-state nor two-state solution will work because of this fact. I think that the only realistic solution is to 're-state' a single territory that is democratic to ALL people and that requires a distinct separation of ANY religion [to its governors]. Both extremes are 'fascist' by definition and why they will NOT agree to a two-state solution.
[Definition? "Fascism" is the belief that a constituted state should serve one genetic class of people with a specific religious criteria that links their people as 'indigenous' to the land by the auspices of so 'Superior' being. That is, each extreme believes that they are rightfully proprietary owners of the land by Nature (as their 'God' represents) and based upon that genetic link of ancestral heritage. ] I'm not sure if you or others might agree but it is worth discussing as a point on this topic.
-
46 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
LOL...no I suppose you're not. I would imagine you'd rather cozy up between Pelosi's thighs.
None of which changes the fact that its YOU calling for the trashing of the US Constitution and removal of SCOTUS judges, based solely on who nominated them.
But hey...I would entreat you to keep it up. Because in the end...if Trump runs again...he'll win. And then...I'll have the distinct pleasure of watching you jack-asses howl at the moon again...
Like the rational limp noodles y'all are...
Have a warm and fuzzy day.
The nominations by him regardless would have been accepted which makes his 'nomination' indifferent to an 'appointment'. I also understand that no one can get a position without nomination.
Your threats only prompt some to work harder to oppose. Trump's initial election was itself only due to doubt of his likelihood of succeeding. I know this because I was warning people that his apparent circus show should be takien more serious when others were strongly dismissing his likelihood of his success.
While I too am concerned about those on the Left to be absurdly 'woke', it is still relatively safe to vote for them considering the diverse views of similar extremes that exist there. On the Right, this behavior is both default to their ethics and DOMINANT to those who are more in sync with their own form of 'wokeness' that just lacks the label for BEING the traditional power who concentrated their passing of the torch to ONLY their own kind.
The Left's 'wokeness' is a reactionary reflection of them using what is normally Right-wing methods (as some of the Left-wing methods have equally been applied by contemporary Rightwingers as well. The dominating power on both sides are those with wealth AND to those most concentrating the passing of inheritance to their own kind. The Left has multiple such cults who simply lack the dominance independently. As such, the conservatives of alternative cults to the traditional fundamentalist are taking the reigns on the Left with only the agreement among them to NOT harm each other while they attack a shared common 'enemy'. They support 'heritage', which is simply an extenstion of regular economic inheritance normally favored by the Right.
The tactics used by the Right have always been to exploit others using rhetoric, deception, and misdirection where the Left prior to the information age lacked the Internet as a source of exposing the secrets of manipulation used by different political interests of all party ideals. As such, the 'woke' factors are being used BY similar thinkers hoping to exploit the power of reflecting the tactics used against them from the beginning of time.
The left wing parties for all its flaws prevents the extreme views from STAYING consistent. So much of the extreme wokeness is temporal as everyone normally unnoticed for their issues are being heard for the first time in history. Much of this is also due to technology such as the Internet as well as 'Smart' devices which permit 'feedback' noise that make people deluded into thinking they are more popular than they actially are.
If we think of the world as being one big ghetto run by gangs. The 'Right' would be supported by the traditional mobs while the 'Left' are run by independently weak gangs who recognize that they can collect their interests to assure that they can compete with the bigger gang. But even though the majority of people everwhere are less affliated with particular gangs, they are cleverly being turned against each other and isolated by those commanding distinct alignments to these gangs.
The 'democratic' side (and the name of Leftwing parties representative counter to 'republican' authoritarianism) refers to the people being treated EQUAL in power; the Right believes in power to the INHERENT wealth classes as though they are Royalty deserving of EXCEPTIONAL voting power than the one-person-to-one-vote ideal of democracy. They are deluded into interpreting their successes as completely self-earned without recognizing that the most advantageous power for being more wealthy (or selectively more 'beautiful' in artificial standards) is the greater capacity to FAIL more oftern WITHOUT equal consideration of those less fortunate.
For the poorer and more concentrated racially segregated classes, failure may only be permissible once and make them liable to greater penalties in contrast to those with better standards. As such, those who were forcefully segregated FROM beneficial wealth are aligning with their own 'kind' in the same way the wealthy normally do by passing economic inheritance onto only their own relatives (nepotism). Thus the wokeism itself happening by the Left is the modelling of the "inheritance" rights normally held by conservatives by monetizing culture as equal TO a form of inheritance that where respected enables those who normally lose for failing once to better succeed.
So you are the limp biscuit here deluded in your interpretation of what is happening today. I can and do fight against those on 'my' side on the same concerns. It is changing in the same way a new letter is added to the LBGTQ+ list of all that are simply 'non-heterosexual' in shared meaning. They keep growing because of another screaming 'me too' which WILL eventually become moot once an H is applied to the end of that list. ["H' is for the complementary heterosexual who will eventually also be the last member making the distinctions no longer concerning.]
-
2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
You is what you is I'm afraid.
True. But I'm glad I'm not the Trump-Dick-Sucker here!
-
Just now, Nationalist said:
Interesting.
I'll have to say it again Scotty...your TDS is showing.
Does it make you feel more siginficantly rational for labeling me by an acronym rather than debating the issue competently?
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
I love authoritarianism? How do you figure? Oh wait...I get it. You're engaging in projection. It is you calling for the removal of SCOTUS judges.
I would ask you...do you think the protests and attempted (albeit in limp Tweenkie style) murder of a judge, has all been justified?
"Removal" of the judges to me is not killing them!! It is retracting of their position as judges. And I in particular am arguing this removal based upon the nature of their nomination by a poisoned authority. That is, IF Donald Trump is proven criminal by any standards, I am suggesting the removals given his choice to select them where his capacity to 'select' in the interest of the people is proven to be suspect. The timing of the last one to his realization of losing his Presidency is severely suspect given the domination of the court by his own selection can skew how they might interpret any appeal of his for ANY future convictions. That would make him above the law IN PRINCIPLE! And THAT is what you are supporting. Call it what you will. I assert that you are supporting authoritarianism based upon your support of his Presidency regardless of the fact that his acts are indifferent to acting as a sovereign dictator, like a King.
I don't support any violent acts against the judges I question. It is not their 'fault' to BE nominated and their coinciding favor to BE political would have to be a separate issue.
-
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
this is not true
I value both lives equally
there is no dehumanization involved in opposing the murder of a human
you are dehumanizing the unborn child by supporting it
I already agreed that I do not evaluate the life of a zygote or preborn POTENTIAL child as signficantly worthy in contrast to the living person. I do not believe that life before birth are persons in light of the inability to define whether they have a common sensation of things like pain (or pleasure) and that terminating them is not 'murder'. I compared this to other animals in which you need to address. Isn't eating eggs literally eating aborted chicks? At what point does the life being developed within the egg turns from being one that lacks sensation to one that does? If the animals we eat are invalid relative to us, are we not invalid in our treatment against them in kind?
This is not a question of whether I prefer other animals over humans but whether they are not 'naturally' equal in their 'right' to live relative to themselves. And if so, Nature itself does not care whether we eat other animals or if other animals eat us. Nature does not specify life as 'superior' nor 'inferior'.
As to whether an unborn entity is or is not worthy to justly YOUR 'right' to respect, if Nature favored your view, .....if God favored your view.... then the death of a validly worthy being would be saved regardless of what we could do. So why is it YOUR right to impose limitations about others where the question still exists about whether it is signficantly valuable to Nature that is at question? If Nature apart from human intervention should be preferred, then NO form of civilization matters and should be 'aborted'. That is, if you think that our direct technological capacity to abort seems 'unnatural' to you, then why are you accepting the benefits of any technology. [This assumes you may be dubious of the act in the way one might feel if they had to choose to kill one man to save many. The positive act psychologically affects your perception to chose to kill another even if the nature of it is just.]
You dehumanize the grown human person opting to abort over the mere potential life of a baby because you prioritize a belief that the potential child's life is paramount over the actual certain life of the woman as a host to it.
Note too that while my own belief about life is more nihilistic, this is NOT the case for the vast majority of those believing in a right to abortion. Most do not believe, for instance, in abortion close to birth (within the last trimester). The degree of life for most is based upon structure of the lifeform (its 'stage' of development) with the added assumption of sufferring as pre-existing. My stonger position would even place question upon babies born as having a capcity to suffer (or find pleasure) but require LEARNING to feel as they develop past birth. So it is unlikely that the unborn baby would even 'care' whether it exists or not. It is ONLY a religioius belief to assume so.
I DO favor at least a need to defend life post birth regardless. But the likely reason we lack memory of these times with more force than we do later is because our early memory is 'anethetized'. A baby has unnecessary networked links in the brain that would probably be as potentially halucinogenic and uncomfortable to us if we were to experience it consciously as adults. A similar factor of nature that hunters should know is that when an animal is killed, if it isn't killed quickly, its meat tastes 'wild' due to reactionary chemistry that pain amplifies where it suffers longer. This points to the anesthetizing capacity of living things to evolve mechanisms that reduce the suffering more siginficantly to the younger creatures that tend to become victims of another predator.
It is unlikely then that an unborn baby 'feels' suffering under the operation of abortion. As to anything that you may otherwise BELIEVE about souls being implanted by God into the zygote, there is no real suffering that remotely compares to the nature of death we ALL eventually succumb to at some point in our lives regardless.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
most of the pro-abortion crowd can't argue their position without
1) valuing one human life above another
and/or
2) valuing the choice to murder above the right to life
and/or
3) not valuing human life at all
all of which are terrible arguments
I addressed this in my last post but after you posted this. I showed that if you accuse the proabortion of dehumanizing the zygote, you are counter-dehumanizing the value of the woman to chose to abort. Thus, you are evaluating one human life above another as your (1) here.
You have not defined 'murder' and need to read my above two posts to note my reference of defining this term BY govenerments, not Gods.
I do not devalue life, I realistically interpret our human life as equivalent in value BY NATURE to every other part of nature. This includes anything by nature and would be equally applicable to non-living chemistry and physics. If WE evaluate ourselves as MORE worthy by nature, then we should respect ALL of Nature's existence as equally worthy.
-
28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:38 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:Expand
"murder is not a right"
Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!
...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?
life is a right
cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans
dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion
first you call into question the value of human life to justify abortion
then you call into question the value of the unborn child relative to other humans to justify abortion
it seems most who support abortion cannot justify it to themselves without first devaluing human life to do so
and you are clearly one of them
"life is a right"
It is only a 'right' to those who are predefined as living PERSONS themselves in law, not to the contested determination of whether an unborn potential life is a "person". Again, this decision of 'value' is still one among people to negotiate and not some 'right' that exists outside of the our artificial creation of it through the auspices of governments made up of humans. That is, there is nothing outside of our preference to call it 'right' to BE a right. The desire to assert what is 'right' independently also belongs to EACH AND EVERY lifeform. That is, to a cow, 'living is a 'right'" because it is most favorable to their OWN condition. So...
"cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans"
Would these other animals agree with you? If it were natural for them to serve our 'right' to eat, is it not their 'right' not to be murdered too?
"dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion"
And humanizing unborn potential children as though they have some superior 'right' over their host's life is a key tactic of the anti-abortion advocates to dehumanize the woman's value as inferior by contrast.
-
22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument
then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down
your cognitive dissonance kicks in
you immediately retreat to the freedom of choice argument to justify both abortion and your anti-life eugenics argument
clearly indicating you have no good argument in favor of abortion whatsoever
and you built your justification on a house of cards
You added this after the above.
"first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument"
No. I said that women cannot hypocritically argue for a unique right to their body without accepting other conflicting issues, such as how laws are also made to force the male who impregnated her to accept responsibility SHOULD the women uniquely decide to KEEP the child; I also added that where the child is born IN NEED, the same hypocrisy extends if society is expected to support their welfare.
Your anti-abortion view also conflicts on the conservative side because your side also dislikes ANY supports for welfare in general, let alone the fact of your feigned compassion for the baby's.
"then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down"
This is your delusion, not mine. Eugenics was considered evil for taking away the choice of some to WANT to have children AND, more definitively, to foster an "improvement" (a value) of the human genetic strain. It was abusive because it presumed a sound interpretion of what is 'improved'. [I happen to have an old Eugenics book somewhere that was based specifically on religious explanations of appropriate 'virtue'.. It COMMANDED what is or is not 'good' genetic selection of one's progeny.] So I was NOT arguing Eugenics at all. You misinterpreted the argument for humanity as being WITHOUT intrinsic value BY NATURE as though they are unvaluable. This is like how one presumes an Atheist as one who 'denies God's existence' rather than being WITHOUT a posited belief in some magical but invisible beings.
I argued that we have to also be concerned for imposing poverty (a living environemental, not genetic) condition. My preference for using laws regarding the prevention of overpopulation concerns is dependent upon the environment's capacity to sustain all life (already existing) unrealistically. "Birth controls" do not imply evaluating the worth of living beings specifically and do not require eugenic interests. For instance, a law requiring limiting ones' right to get pregnant before a negotiated age (usually 18 for most Western countries), is an example. It penalizes those who choose to have sex based upon something we ALL share,...aging, ....not their particular 'virtue' in some assumed standard of 'quality' of sexual selection, such as one's beauty, their mental functionality, or race.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
murder is not a right
free choice doesn't mean any choice you make should be a right that governments protect
this includes abortion
if you are arguing that murder cannot be judged as good or evil
simply because religions have a stance on subject
that is totally irrational
arguing that people having differing moral views on a subject
means that no view is more rational or moral than another is stupid
and using that as justification for the view that government should not restrict murder is also stupid
"murder is not a right"
Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!
...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
you sure use a whole lot of words to say nothing of relevance
do you have a point somewhere in all that gobbledygook?
So given I gave you more than enough proof of your position being unsound you opt to dismiss it as too complex and irrelevant? Without repeating the post, you can 'summarize' it as expressing how and why your preference for anti-abortion is invalid (not able to be logically 'fit') with closure.
To ease your mind regarding your God's disapproval of abortion: If He is sufficiently powerful, he doesn't need privileged humans to be His vangaurd. If He gave us all 'free will', why would he expect SOME SELECT human-representatives to uniquely be able to DEFINE where the limits of ALL others' freedoms should end? If you interpret value as meaning we all agree to the same ideas of 'good' and 'evil' intrinsically, you misinterpret your personal evaluation of what is 'good' or 'bad' FOR YOU as coinciding with God's prematurely.
[I think you need to wait post-life judgement by your God to decide whether you WERE 'good' or 'bad' independently, or you believe you represent God and so LACK 'free choice' to believe for 'knowing' God]
-
16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
ideas being religious doesn't make them wrong
you don't just get to label an idea as religious to dismiss it
again you are creating dichotomy between rationality and religion
and creating a moral relativism where human life is no more valuable than any other form of life is asinine
you speak of rationality, yet present none
if you really value rationality as much as you claim, then you would value human life above other life on this planet
because humans are the most rational life forms on the planet
you strawman ideas of those you disagree with
to justify your idiotic positions as being the only alternative to the strawman
because your ideas don't stand on their own merit and only look good when compared to deliberate misrepresentation of the actual alternatives
See, you interpret government as being a place to EXPRESS your own personal preferences about things beyond the capacity of living people to know, such as your personal religion. You also interpret FROM your religion (whichever one of many exists) and this biases your interpretation that government laws that express 'value' however 'good' are DUE TO your religion.
I interpret government as BEING the contemporary and tentative beliefs about functionality among us as HUMANS who DEFINE our collective idea of 'value' through the laws we make. That is, there is nothing valid about expecting govnerment to accept particular religious views but rather that our governments serve to make laws that participating members negotiate and agree to by some means regardless of religious views to serve.
As such, govnerment should not be a system to serve YOUR particular beliefs that are contentious in their ability to be provable nor disprovable. So a religious argument regarding whether women should or should not have abortion is 'religious' if you think that you have some wisdom of God (or 'goodness' in general) to know which is right or wrong for all.
I also mentioned capitalist self-interests to which you think is some 'opposing' anti-religious position. [The defintion of 'dichotomy' requires accepting OPPOSING positions, not shared ones.] The capitalist (which can and often DO include the religious), would be interested in population growth as an advantage. This is a contrasting interest beyond just the religious alternative for why one on the conservative right would still be interested in preventing birth controls. I was covering the grounds for those non-religious who MAY still agree to a ban on abortion. The example of how more people implies more supply over demand then suffices to explain anyone's general beliefs against abortion. That though would be for long-term interests and so the religious view is the most predominant problem here.
-
20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
you create a false dichotomy
there is an authentic pro-life position that opposes abortion
supporting abortion from a eugenics position, a humans are a virus anti-life position,
is even dumber than supporting it from a freedom of choice position
that's going backwards to Margaret Sanger and Thomas Malthus
it was an evil argument then, it is an evil argument now
A dichotomy is usually referring to polar opposition by contradiction. Just because I opted to reference two examples does not make them 'dichotomies'. ANY belief regarding virtue of life of early dependent development is 'religious' because it treats them as though they suffer such extreme loss that needs attention.
Also belief in the virtue of life should not be hypociritcally accepted for humans when it is not accepted for those living things we eat. To believe WE are somehow 'special' to Nature with values of 'good' and 'evil' are themselves RELIGIOUS period.
I expressed humans as indifferent to viruses and bacteria given we tend to not care about whether we can control our tendency to overpopulate regardless of any reflection upon the environment. Note too that viruses are not necessarily living things in contrast to bacteria. Their nature is similar to a mere chainletter that just uses any resources it encounters to replicate itself. And yet this is the foundational basis for life. So the comparison is about our DEFAULT tendency to copy (have babies) without rational insight. Religion is just a posthoc reflection of ourselves as 'superior' using a pretense of some Nature shared by ALL living things as though all other life is there to serve us.
So stop being hypocritical to argue for some 'value' of life that you have no actual PROOF exists beyond your artificial religious preferences. As to non-religious justifications such as how overpopulation favors the capitialist greed in the same sense that viruses don't limit their own numbers, this too is 'religious' if you think that it is a 'right' to profit over others misfortunes.
To add to the two that you mistaken for a 'dichotomy', there is a serious hypocrisy on those like yourself who may believe that you should have 'freedoms' independently to capitalize upon others' weaknesses selfishly, with sole power to rule over your own families as you wish, that contrasts hypocritically when you demand SPECIAL privileges to even CARE about whether someone else with unique indepence should choose abortion or not. Your 'side' also favors hunting and 'culling' through war without blinking which proves contradictory (and thus a 'dichotomy' on your side's part) to value of life. Do only helpless dumb but cute living dependent babies have more 'value' EARNED in life with better virue than aged living adults who have? Why is it okay to favor the CERTAINLY understood 'living' beings as being worthy of suffering but not those NON-CERTAIN unborn beings that only have the same kind of emotional compassion we have in favoring puppies or kittens to adopt over those are fully grown?
You are either religious in some way or in favor of the potential advantages that overpopulations represent to your own interests regardless of the literal compassion of the unborn. These are 'contrasts' most representive of the conservative politics involved. They lead to dichotomies in rationale given the contradictions of other beliefs you hold that are hypocritical.
-
8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Men don’t have power to decide with whom they mate?
Men do not have the power where it just happens to coincide with her own desires. But women ALONE have the VETO-power outside of rape or other similar violations which has empowered them to SELECT the very kind of males that evolve to be the more physically dominant. The point in this argument for me is that it is moot to argue that women's sole 'right' to decide is at issue.
-
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:
my point is that there are three lives involved in a pregnancy
the mother, the father and the unborn child
many pro-abortion activists on this board want to pretend like the only life that matters in the decision is the mother
to justify killing the child
and pretend like that is the equal rights position
instead of extra rights for the mother and no rights for the child
And I would only agree to the fact that the mother's 'freedom' is not the signficant argument they should be making. However, the opposing conservative side's signficant arguers come from religiously biased people are also NOT concerned for the child but for their social dimishing power of influence OR, for the strict capitalists on top, they only want MORE children BY especially the poor because it increases demand for jobs and empowers employers to pay their workers less.
We need populuation controls to reduce the burden on Earth itself given we are indistinguishable from bacteria or viruses in our evolved drive for derining value by self interests alone.
So I'm FOR abortion but agree that the women's 'right to their body' is not appropriate to argue without looking at the hypocrisy of the power that women always have had. [Like how women alone through time have always had the sole power to decide WHO they mate with beyond rape itself, for instance.]
-
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:
I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?
obviously not
pregnancy is not rape
equivocating the two is not only stupid but reprehensible
Like I said,..."I'm likely missing enough context...." and was just making fun of the latest post I just begun reading on this thread.
I'm all for a right to abortion but disagree with the argument defending merely a woman's right to freely decide what she wants. I think that we need means to prevent undesired children and believe that children are NOT merely proprietary rights of parents to independentaly have power over. The complaint about women's right to her body ignores the same side's arguments regarding making the 'father' be held liable for later child supports,.....not to mention for the burden on society where both parent's power to conceive independently impose supports by the people as a whole for those who cannot afford to raise them.
-
2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
If someone is taking your bodily fluids without your consent, could you kill them to defend yourself?
I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?
-
15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Why would their impeachment depend on Trump’s guilt?
Also, which court do you imagine would get the final ruling on any conviction of Trump?
See my response to Nationalist on what I even think about the court. I think that such judgements be up to the people regardless of background. Individual leaders nor 'senates' should have a say. But as to the representatives, they should only be permitted power of such charge where a larger than mere majority put them in place. So for the Americans, I'd prefer to see a vote about Trump by the pulblic directly.
-
12 hours ago, Nationalist said:
Scotty...Scotty...Scotty...
Your TDS is showing.
Should a Republican be elected in 2024, would you be OK with whomever that might be...dismissing all the Liberal judges from the SCOTUS?
And your obsessive love of mono-authoritarianism that Trump represents shines through. [...which is just an excuse for those like you to prop up his power knowing that he'd take the blame. My concern against Trump is just as much based upon the cowards supporting him knowing they can lose direct accountability where he would take the fall.]
As to what I think regarding such 'supreme' courts, I question HOW even SCOTUS members are affected by political influence and question how they can even BE nominated by ANY President. I also question the function of 'senates' as they tend to significantly represent owners interest rather than their region respecting ALL people.
So your assumptions about me are not called for.
-
On 7/19/2022 at 5:53 PM, cultsmash said:
Trump only submitted people to be considered to be members of the supreme court. It was congress who approved those nominations. So ultimately the fault lies with congress.
"Congress" is BOTH the Senate and the House of Representatives. But for the nominee by the President, only the Senate, which consisted of majority of the Republicans, had the power. Your choice to use the term, "congress" is thus intended rhetoric to hide this major signficance.
Trudeau's speech supporting the ICC against Israel and a two-state solution is ludicrous
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I AM BEING CENSORED AS I WRITE AND SO HAVE TO LEAVE. I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT WELCOME HERE BY WHOMEVER IS RUNNING THIS SITE. Fascism is real! Wow.