Jump to content

mooeypoo

Moderators
  • Posts

    5698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mooeypoo

  1. Well, this explains why you refrained from actually debating anyone, and came to this forum with a seemingly clear agenda, doesn't it?
  2. But you've been concentrating on a single aspect of this conversation that is convenient to you. That's not quite the way things work on an online forum. No, argument from authority would be if I said "Swansont must be right because he has a PhD in Physics," which no one is saying. Asking you if you think you are a better science person is not argument from authority, especially since you seem adamant in critisizing the way we proclaim to do science. It was yet another question you beat around the bush with. It's getting quite tiring, rah. This isn't a 2-man debate, rah, it's a science forum, a forum is a public place where you should meet many people's comments. I know it might be tough to multitask, but we're not talking about being attacked with 50 different angles.. you can continue waiting for whatever you think ajb "owes you" for an answer and still relate to other points that are raised. For that matter, I think my post summarizes the crux of the issue that many others tried to explain to you through the repetitive insistence to avoid uncomfortable questions and frame the discussion so it would be more convenient for you to argue. But ajb is not the only one that can explain that statement, especially since we all share the sentiment. You're not supposed to be here to pwn a single person, or to pin a single person to the wall so they answer you. You're here to discuss the merits of claims, and ajb is not the only person that can argue the merit of true claims. Seriously, dude, I think you should go over the rules of the forum one more time. You don't seem to WANT to, though. As I said, other people explain things and you seem to beat around the bush and avoid the ansewrs when they don't quite suit you, and then concentrate on a single wording aspect of given arguments. This just confuses people, make them forget what it is they wanted to say as an actual point, and make you feel like you are "winning". This isn't about winning, it's about discussing the merits of ajb's post, which (if you didn't notice) most of the scientists in this forum agree with.** Are you here to discuss, or to pwn? ~mooey ** Before you argue that this is an argument from authority, read what argument from authority means. I am not saying ajb's statement is true BECAUSE most of the scientists in the forum agree with it (that would've been argument from authority), but I am saying that there are many other people who agree with ajb and can join the argument in explaining WHY his claim has merit. I'm saying you should stop waiting for a single person to take the time and formulate an answer other people may have formulated because they agree with him, just so you can avoid dealing with the actual claims.
  3. ... So, wait, I took the time to explain and answer but you dismiss my post out of some 'hidden unconscious telling assumptions' you refuse to elaborate on, and *that* should let us believe you're a better science person than the rest of us who studied the mainstream theories? You're not doing a good job showing your own prejudices, rah. [edit] So, you got your answer from ajb, which you seem to insist on beatin around the bush with, stating things like "define [randomg word in the sentence]" and trying to pwn without substance. Do you mind answering my post, and those of people who try to explain your (quite valid, actually) question, or are you just here to say "you're wrong!" regardless of people's explanations? C'mon now. At the very least, show some respect to people who take time to discuss this with you. ~mooey
  4. I've been skimming this circular-argument thread and I thought I'd chime in with an attempt at explaining the original question again. I think the point may have been lost in the multiple "buy why?" questions. I actually think the original question (in the title, and original post) are interesting and important. So, here's my two cents about it. Why? For a number of reasons: Accepted theories in science didn't just land on us by magic or some brilliant "eureka!" day-dream in the bath. Accepted scientific theories are, for the most part, a collection of explanations that were each validated and collated to produce a coherent and consistent explanation to physical phenomena. When we suggest that some fringe science is better than these theories, we should be able to say why -- and in order to say why, we should know what the original theory actually says in full. Otherwise we are easily debunked by people who know the other theory's strengths while we can't answer properly. Knowing what the current theories say and how YOUR proposed theory is better shows people you've done your research, you're not wasting their time, and you know what you're talking about. If I come to you and tell you I have a much better way to produce wind turbines than the current technology -- but I am unable to fully understand how current technology works, and hence why my idea is better -- it is more likely I will sound like a belligerent crank than a person that actually thought this and researched this through. Scientific theories build upon one another, almost all the time. Even a theory that seems to "abolish" another has a large basis in current thought. Einstein's relativity (both special and general) seemed to have "destroyed" Newton's laws of motion when it comes to large bodies - but in fact, it built upon it, only "destroying" some. It wouldn't have existed WITHOUT knowing Newton's work and Kepler's work. It just doesn't work like that (and if you spend time going over how the theory has actually emerged, you'd see it wasn't just Einstein who woke up one morning with a Relative headache and an idea. These things take many years, and much much collaborative work) Fringe science is not necessarily false science, but it is something that requires validation most of the time. In order to know how to test and validate (or invalidate) these ideas, it would be very useful to know how other theories were validated. For that, you need to at least be familiar on the history of the theories that were accepted in science -- and those that were rejected. Every single one of the scientific revolutionaries - Newton, Einstein, Marie Curie, Kepler, and others - knew what the current and accepted scientific theories stated, deeply and thoroughly, before they started working on their own improvement. Beyond the fact that this gave them a better understanding of how science works and what they would need to "battle" in the "mainstream field" to get their ideas validated, this also gave them the opportunity to learn what the "weaker points" about the current theories are, and see how their new ideas corrected them. For instance, one of the major evidence for Einstein's General Relativity (and there's a LOT of evidence for this theory, as it works consistently, so far at least, with our observations) -- was "Planet Vulcan", or rather the fact that if we calculated the movement of the planet Mercury by the then-accepted mathematical models, we would have a problem with Mercury's perihelion. Quoting the problem: (Source: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/General_relativity.html) Einstein couldn't have tested and validated (and properly defined!) his theory of General Relativity without knowing how the previously done methods worked. If you follow the way Einstein's theories were composed, you'll see he's using some of those methods extensively. Science usually BUILDS on science, and in order to build on something, you need to kow it -- even if you decide to build on only a fraction of something else, or even if you evnetually decide to first destroy that something. To conclude, I'll share another quote from the same website above: That's why. ~mooey
  5. mooeypoo

    Yay, GUNS!

    I didn't mean it as a simplistic "this is true" and "this is false" statement, I was trying to demonstrate what happens when I take the specific posters' invalid logic and use it against them. The invalid statement is invalid either way, that's the point.
  6. Emily, that sounds like a pretty cool research. I know these things take time and all that, but I'd love to see your analysis/results when you have something, if you're willing to share them with us (or link to the published paper). It sounds fascinating.
  7. But a relaxed control freak. I am working in school, so I'm not sure if it counts (graduate assistant... it's not really work-work like I'm used to with an office and coworker.. more like continuous paid homework ) Also, just to clarify, is this meant for anyone around the world, or is it separating people per country/society? I wonder if people from different countries have different factors to consider.
  8. Then keep that discussion in that forum and do not discuss it in other threads. That is called thread hijacking, and it is against our rules. Insisting on doing it again after being warned is called trolling, which is also against our rules. Don't answer moderation posts. If you want to argue your point against moderation note, use the report button so another staff member can go over it without derailing the thread even further.
  9. ! Moderator Note Dear community, We usually don't like to take drastic measures as to erase or delete posts. However, our job here is to make sure discussions continue on their proper path without being derailed into off-topic or pseudoscience or get out of focus. This is true especially for mainstream-thread questions, where the original poster may get seriously confused about what the real science actually says if and when people interject with their own interpretations. This, I'm afraid, is non negotiable, as we've posted multiple notes in this thread to explain in a friendly manner. So, when a moderation note is posted in a thread for the third time, over the same subject, and is then (AGAIN) challenged with once more the same type of content we objected to, we are left with little choices. While we'd rather not delete anything, we sometimes have to. These decisions are not made lightly, and are not made by a single moderator. We must have consensus when this action is to be taken. As we did in this case. If anyone wants to challenge a moderation action, please click the "Report" link and explain your concerns (as some of you have done), so the moderators can discuss the issue as a team. I can assure you, we go over *all* the reports we're getting, and we don't ever dismiss a report off hand. We always discuss and make a decision as a team, along with the administrators, in light of the forum rules AND the members' enjoyment. Now, please, get back on topic. That would be the mainstream topic, not an opinionated response one. Feel free to open a new thread if you wish to proclaim your own ideas have their own merit in science. Our experts will surely go over those in their proper place. Please don't discuss moderation actions (or your own view of science) in this thread anymore. It's colorful enough. Thanks, Your Friendly Moderation Team
  10. We represent the universe with physics via mathematics... I don't understand what your point is.
  11. We are? Well. I'll need to re-earn my diploma, then. So would all other physicists. And biologists. And chemists. Get to it, Hypervalent_iodine. Very substantiated one, at that. It explains why all those hot half-naked gay men glow in the dark in gay clubs downtown NYC. Now, a bit more on topic, I am not sure I understand the original question. There is no "gay species", there are homosexual/gay individuals in *many* species. As was pointed out before, this can be explained evolutionarily, but we should also take into account that what we culturally define as "gay" is a multi-facet definition of things that exist in nature outside of humans. Our current modern society finds it convenient to divide sexual orientation to 'extremes' - gay, bisexual or straight - and according to many observations (both in human beings and in other species) that might not necessarily be the case. Homosexuality might be more similar to a sort of "range" (Ever heard of the Kinsey Scale?). The range is represented more as 'extremes' because that's more convenient out of the taboos we have in our society against same-sex relationships. Even if a person is predominantly straight and 'leans' towards homosexuality, it would be (socially and culturally and, most often personally) more convenient to disregard that "small" taboo inclination and settle for the "straight" title. Same for predominantly homosexual people who might not be on the extreme end; society expects you to title yourself, and we tend to comply. But that doesn't mean NATURE title us this way at all. In fact, the more we get into these issues in both humans and other species, the more we learn these things tend to be a lot more layered and complex than we'd like to believe. ~mooey John answered the point about the weird-logic here, but I would like to point out that even if you're right, "not normal" doesn't really mean anything. Einstein's intelligence, according to your definition (and I would assume most definitions) wasn't normal either. It was greatly beneficial to our existence, though. Natural immunity to diseases is not "normal" but it is an evolutionary step forward in producing offspring that is naturally immune to diseases... "Normal" is something that constantly changes. I don't see how it's relevant even if your definition of it is correct.
  12. ! Moderator Note We might, but not in this thread. This thread is about a different topic, and this conversation needs to get back to the ORIGINAL topic, as described in the first post. If you want to open another discussion about smart people and their contributions to society, feel free to start one of your own. Do not derail the thread further by replying to this moderation note, please. Get back on topic, guys!
  13. ! Moderator Note Anilkumar, seriously, we've JUST posted *another* friendly reminder about thread hijacking, and immediately after that you post "in my opinion" post. So let's be clear: This is a mainstream topic, asking a mainstream-science question and as such will be receiving mainstream-supported answers. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions, and we're trying our best to be extra-nice about this, but it's getting ridiculous. If anyone thinks their idea of physics is better than the mainstream, they are more than welcome to open a new thread in the speculation forum and show us how well their idea works in reality. We'll be happy to discuss the merits of whatever opinion you share with us (with proper substantiated support) there. Posting your own opinion as an answer to a physics question in a mainstream thread is against the rules. It is confusing the original person who asked the question, and it is thread hijacking. This moderation note is also valid to anyone ELSE who thinks their ideas about physics are superior to mainstream science. Speculation forum is the right place to do it, not here.
  14. No one's being a bigmouth here, Maroun. People noted your math (if it can be called that) is making no sense. The connection you are making to religion doesn't help your case either. Your equations are lacking, much, and they don't serve to remotely prove what you claim they should prove. Maybe you should take a step back and explain your theory again, this time deriving all the equations properly so we can see what it is you're trying to do. Physics doesn't speak English, it speaks math, especially when evidence is required. And this: Is quite evident. So, let us help you learn how the mechanics of theories is done, by starting with a properly drafted derivation -- without all the fluff semi-racial religion-related dribble. It's irrelevant. ~mooey
  15. I agree, completely. And I agree about your points about religions. And I also agree about your point that religion should be irrelevant to this discussion. But my issue here is that - unfortunately - it's not irrelevant to the discussion, because (a) it keeps being inserted into it, by politicians, as a source and reason for making laws for the land, and that requires our immediate response and (b) many (I suggest most) of the points against this freedom issue, if scratched beyond the superficial claim, are holding on to these religious principles. We can't really move forward in any of the debates without pointing out the ACTUAL claims that stand behind the superficial attempts at hiding the crux of the issue... it just doesn't work. Ideally, we would have full separation of religion and state from both government AND ethics. Ideally, we won't have to talk about religious claims when we argue about laws of land. Sadly, we're forced to, and since we are, we should attack them head on and not pretend we don't notice it when our opponents are trying to be coy about it. ~mooey
  16. I am not sure if I agree with your insistence to use "significant" in that sentence. While it usd to be true that pregnancy was a significant risk for a woman's life, that's no longer the case today with modern medicine. The vast majority of pregnancies are perfectly safe. We can't say that they all carry significant risk. They all might carry risk, but there are varying levels of risk. In my opinion, when we talk about risk in late-term pregnancies, there's a meaning for the level of risk to either mother or baby, beacause at that late-term time, the fetus actually starts to fit our definition of "person" and we should weigh their suffering and/or interests alongside the mother. But when we do define a baby as a person (much later in the pregnancy than the usual speak of abortion is conducted normally) then whatever risk it imposes on the woman is (a) not necessarily "grave" risk, in fact, most of the time it's almost nonexistent risk if the pregnancy goes well, which most of the time it does. And (b) the baby has no *intent* to inflict risk of death. I do agree that the life of the woman probably carries more weight at that time, but I think that once the baby becomes a person (feeling pain, for one, able to have rudamentary instincts, etc) then the conversation should shift to *include* the considration of the baby's life. It is still not a completely living person, in my personal opinion, but I do think there's a difference between the non-personhood of a first trimester blastocyst/fetus and the status of the late-term pregnancy, especially in discussions about abortions. I agree with this completely. I just think the discussion does have a shift when it concerns early- and late-term abortions. That doesn't mean the woman's life or right to choose is less important, but if, in my opinion, we go by science to define a person a person, we must follow on this change of definition when the baby begins feeling pain and has a developed brain. ~mooey
  17. ! Moderator Note Arnaud Antoine, this thread deals with actual supported mainstream science, not personal speculations. Please keep your own interpretations of science to the speculation forum.
  18. That's not quite accurate. All pregnancies might carry some risk, but there are definitely cases of 'extreme' risk, and we can identify them just fine medically, most of the time. If a medical professional declares that if the pregnancy proceeds, there is serious and extreme risk for the woman's life or the baby's (and these are rare, but they do happen) then I see a reason for late-term abortion. Otherwise, the late-term abortion itself carries a lot more risk than possibly warranted. Of course, I don't account for all cases (since I can't) but this, in my opinion, sould be the guiding principle, while allowing for examination of the options on a case-by-case basis.' The bottom-line point I am trying to make is that in my opinion, there can be more leeway in early-term abortion than there should be in late-term abortion, because there's less of a way to explain an early-embryo as a person than there is after said embryo develops a brain and the means to feel pain and have *some* basic instincts.
  19. You're right. I should have said the embryo is not a person. A plant is alive too, and as you said, so is sperm and egg. "Alive" is not enough. My entire post above was more concerned with (as you say in the rest of your post) the definition of personhood. That's why I talked about the inconsistent laws and inconsistent claims. I actually started out saying "person" and then at some point switched to "alive" and I'm not even sure why... You are right. It's the issue of 'person', not the issue of 'alive'. I agree. I'm not entirely sure this thread deals with this particular question (there are other threads we discussed this) but if it helps the debate about whether or not abortion moves us towards freedom, maybe we should explore this. ~mooey
  20. Yes, because quoting famous people (religious, at that) is absolute proof, everyone knows that. Do you have anything to actually contribute, Anders, or are you just going to ignore our request to stop using empty emotional fallacies and bombard us with tidbits you find online until we tire? (just in case I need to clarify: We already talked about the problem in these type of statements which assume that a fetus is living without first establishing so. Please keep up with the debate if you want to actually participate in it. Otherwise, it just turns to be trolling.) ~mooey
  21. Thanks, it is never easy to examine ones own fault in things, especially when one is so sure one's right. And yet, it's important, if one wishes to really call oneself a skeptical person. I send a salute, one vagina to another. I think the point is that if you believe a fetus is a living person, then abortion can only be justified in cases where there's extreme risk to the life of the woman; that is, if the woman is at risk of dying if she carries the term, then an abortion (a so-called "killing of another person") is self-defense, and can be justified. Otherwise, a person is a person. Which is the crux of the argument, the way I see it. I understand lots of people believe a fetus is a person - but that doesn't mean they are right. Quite frankly, lots of people believe evolution is a lie. That doesn't mean they're right. In fact, fighting democratically for the right of the children they insist on brainwashing (that is - fighting to teach evolution and not some religious non-alternative) seems to be an advance towards freedom, doesn't it? Same goes to abortion. Everything we know about science tells us that a fetus is *not* life. Not until relatively further down the line. In fact, we don't even treat it as life, not completely. If we had, then things would have looked COMPLETELY different during the pregnancy: Many blastocysts do not "catch" and proceed to a full-on pregnancy. If a blastocyst was a person, we'd have a funeral when we discovered there was such blastocyst that didn't stick to the uterus wall. It was a person, wasn't it? Women sometimes have natural abortions, especially in the first trimester; If a blastocyst and a fetus is a person, we would have refered to it as a death and investigated the option of a manslaughter charge, or negligent homicide. It was a person, wasn't it? And yet, we don't. We don't really consider the fetus and blastocyst a baby unless we talk STRICTLY about the prospect of an abortion. That's a double-standard. Beyond being a double-standard, it's also non-scientific; a first-trimester fetus is not a person under any sort of definition (except a religious or meta-physical one). Moving away from non-science and towards laws and social conduct that follows science is, I believe, the definition of advancing towards freedom. Just like the case with evolution. Just like the case with separation of religion and state. Same goes with abortion. It has nothing to do with how many people believe it one bit. The problem with this in my opinion is consistency. If one believes in the sanctity of life, then if a woman becomes pregnant and has a natural abortion, she's a killer; negligent or accidental, perhaps, but she didn't keep her baby "safe". And yet, that's absolutely not what we do, it's not even what the religious folk claim. If one believes life begins at conception and the soul is attached to said blastocyst the second of conception, then what's the explanation for twins? Do they share a soul? Etc etc etc ad-nauseum. That's the main issue in my opinion. The religious folk insist on removing a woman's right to choose over her own body in a case where science clearly does not consider the blastocyst life because they insist on being inconsistent in their definition. That makes no sense to me. On top of the purely and obviously-religious claims against abortion, there are social claims against abortion and metaphysical claims against abortions. The metaphysical claims (about the potential for a soul, mostly, etc) have the same type of problem as the religious one. They get inconsistent really fast. The social claims boil down to pure misogyny and condescension (we should protect women from themseves, so they don't run to get an abortion just because they forgot to ask the man for a condom) and hence do not hold merit in my book. Either way, according to this, if we move away from the religious, the metaphysical and the misogynistic, we're giving a woman a right to choose over her body, and we are moving towards freedom. Now we can argue "how long". As in, how long should we allow for this right into the pregnancy; first trimester? second trimester? should we allow this throughout the pregnancy? This, again, depends on biological processes, medical definition of life, and medical risks. Clearly, in the first trimester, the fetus is not life according to science. It's VERY hard to make a case that the fetus is alive during that time, so the closest one can claim is that it "has the potential to be alive". Great. So does a sperm, and we don't discuss the merits of masturbation in the law, do we? Consistency. However, late-term abortions are trickier. The fetus is no longer just a bunch of cells, it already has a brain, and (arguably) some more chance of feeling and development of soemthing more resembling actual life. Late-term abortions should be taken more seriously, then, and depend on medical conditions and a rational evaluation according to the medical condition of both mother and child. That's why these arguments usually separate between early-term and late-term abortions, and why many of the "pro choice" supporters might not proceed to support abortion under the same conditions during late-term abortions. But the above is based on actual medical evidence and actual science. If we use these principles to dictate the basis for our laws, we move away from the emotional-appeal-fallacious persional-opinion realm and into a reality-based madicine-based decision-making. That, in my book, is an advance towards freedom. I know what you're saying, but I disagree, and here's why: The argument about abortion turned emotional, and will continue, likely, to be emotional. It's very hard to argue an emotional argument especially when it's filled with other types of fallacies that make the argument move away from rational discussion and into the realm of being completely unfair. When that happens, you can either get upset and frustrated (like I have) and not really reach a resolution, or you can try and understand your "opponent's" motivation, so you can shift the argument away from the fallacies and cheap-shots and into the ACTUAL crux of the matter. An example, would be something like "So, you don't ACTUALLY think that the fetus is alive from conception (for the reasons above) -- what you ACTUALLY think is that women should be controlled by men, who want to procreate to be strong and mighty". (This doesn't represent all or even most of the arguments here, I just used a random example to make my point. Please don't jump to assume I'm ridiculing anyone specific) That's an incredibly important distinction, and when you find these motivations you can actually move forward in the discussion and conclusion. If the motivation is STRICTLY religious, then to the purposes of laws that are in a country that (is supposed to have) separation of church and state, it's no longer relevant. And it's important we speak about the motivations so we don't beat around the bush with this, either. Yes, you can, and no, it's not the same as burning witches. In fact, I think your example proves my point better than it does yours. If you get into actual history and research the time of the Salem and other witch trials, delving into the motivations of the people who blamed those women of being witches is *essential* in understanding why this happened and what *actually* happened. Many of these women weren't even remotely related to anything metaphysical -- they were either women who were stronger and showed some (god forbit) leadership, or were insubordinate to the strict male-dominated religious society of the time. Very few of those women actually practiced anything even resembling 'witchcraft', even by the definitions of the time (like chemistry or medicine). Sure, some practiced medicine, but there were men who practiced medicine too and weren't burned as witches. The reason, then, was not what they *did* -- it's the fact they were women who dared stapping out of the social definition of where their "proper place" is. Those are (mostly) the motivations behind the people who burnt witches. Those are essential to understand if you want to discuss that piece of history, especially if one wants to consider making a law that supports (or bans) the burning of witches. People's motivations shed light on what they actually want to say and what they actually mean. It's very easy to hide one's true motivations behind empty non-rational emotional claims; but when you uncover these motivations you can actually start discussion a resolution, and see how to either reach a middle-ground, or decide that the ACTUAL motivations are so far out there that they should not be accepted in a free society. And yes, of course you can prove motivation, by simply turning the argument away from the "symptomatic" cover-up claims and concentrating on these motivations. You shift away from the surface and go into the core, and the people who discuss matters have no choice but to examine their own motivations. I agree that jumping to the conclusion of WHAT the motivations are is the wrong thing to do, but you are absolutely justified in trying to stop dancing around the bush and, instead, go into the core. Using something like "So is X what you're actually saying?" is a good way of doing that, and forces your opponent to either expose their motivations if they were trying to hide them (which happens a lot with religious people) or it forces your opponent to CONSIDER their motivations in case they weren't fully aware of them. Either way, that's a good transition, and it's the only way to truly discuss solutions that are supposed to be rational. ~mooey
  22. The explanation is statistics: http://thisnation.com/congress-facts.html (original here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=ethnic) And while my racial statement was sarcastic, it wasn't false. Also, to clarify, I did not mean "mostly-white" as a derogatory statement, but rather as a statistical one, and the point was to hint at the fact that we're dealing once more with a group of people who are NOT part of the group they insist to discuss and make decisions for. That was added irony, which is why it was said in sarcasm. White men in 1st world countries have a much less tendency to know what it is like being on the "weaker" end of discrimination, as a whole, on average, by far. That was the point of mentioning it in that context. I guess that explains us women; we're too fixated on our own vaginas to think critically. I'll just leave you men to talk about the theoreticals, shall I? Let me know what you guys decided, I'll be in my special spot in the kitchen, making sandwiches. ~mooey ---- Okay. Here's the deal. I was quite taken aback by ParanoiA's insistence that I need to apologize. As it was, I believe Anders' tactics were beyond irrational, his emotional appeals were unhelpful and demeaning and infuriating. I think, also, that anyone who's read any of his posts may understand why I may have "jumped" to the conclusion of race. As swansont pointed out, this wasn't done in a vacuum. I don't think I owe such a person who uses such cheap demeaning tactics any apologies, especially because of the point I was making in my above text. So while I will not apologize to Anders (and I believe he will not lose sleep over this) -- I will, however, apologize to ParanoiA. I spent quite a bit going over the posts in the thread with other sources (cough)Capn(cough) to try and see why it is that you insist I should retract my position when I believed in it so wholeheartedly. It seems, then, that a couple of things happened: (a) I was under the impression that the word "Negro" was racist in itself, and that no one ever uses it unless they mean to be demeaning. It seems that's a wrong assumption in the context given. (b) I interpreted the business-owner-right issue in conjunction with slavery. Some of this was due to some misunderstanding of the post, and some was likely due to my knowing Mr. Anders. Either way, I understand that this was the biggest source of ParanoiA's frustration. That, I concede, was a misunderstanding. So, ParanoiA, I request that you read what I wrote above, about women, and mostly-white-men, and statistics, and the relevancy of these (and my intentions, which were by no means racist or even racial on their own) and I offer a single apology to you, for jumping defensively for the wrong reasons rather than trying to see if the source of the frustration was, indeed, my own doing. I would also venture to suggest that in cases of abortion, people refrain from raising emotional appeals. It serves nothing for the argument, but even worse, Nazi-related emotional appeals that are peppered with demeaning talk about women are just starting to get not worth the replies. I'm sure we can resume a RATIONAL discussion about whether or not the right (or not right) of abortion is advancing us towards freedom. It seems sometimes my vagina allows me an ounce of reflection, but only when I'm out of the kitchen and not doing the laundry.* ~mooey * That was sarcasm. Thankyouverymuch.
  23. Yes, I inferred, but I did so based on logic. I did so based on the text that was written, the images that were posted and, admittedly, on the unique poster's general attitude overall in the entire forum. My inference was, apparently, not all that illogical, seeing as other people seem to agree with me. And I do want to point something out here; This thread discusses abortion, but it also delves into what people should and shouldn't do with decisions regarding women's bodies, and how far up their genitalia law should go when discussing the decision women are allowed to make. This might earn me a claim of being emotional. Maybe that's true, but you should take into account that while most of you here are talking *about* women, I am talking about my body. I am not sure how clearly it shines through the amount of condescending claims about women's abilities to think for themselves or control menial things like their own vaginas, how they are being used, and why, but maybe if some of yo put your pink glasses on, it may become a bit clearer. I am a mostly-rational woman. I might hold a different opinion than some of you, but I actually own a vagina, which I carry with me throughout my life. And, if I move to certain states in the USA I am not just discussion what "should be done" with vaginas, I will actually have to physically submit it to the probing and poking of mostly-white mostly-religious mostly-old men who want to make sure I am not stupid enough to not consider the implications about my own body. So, yes. When claims are tossed around that women are unable to control themselves because sex is cheap, as if my vagina is just this purse I bought in the mall and I don't mind sharing it with the nearest man that will buy me a new lipstic, I wonder if the poster understands what he's saying. And yes, when claims are raised that equate the holocaust, a radically horrific event that purposefully eradicated millions - part of my family with it, by the way - to *my* personal decision to control *my own body*, I have to wonder if this is a real discussion or if this is just trolling. And yes, when cheap low-blow emotional appeal exaggerations are raised in an attempt to equate me, a pro-choice vagina holder, with the Nazi mass murderers, it is no longer about opinion, and no longer about respect. Where's my apology? We can agree on abortions or disagree on abortions, that's perfectly reasonable to have different opinions. In fact, there were quite a number of discussions lately that were handled relatively respectfully, and had points on both sides. There are women who are on either side of that fence, this isn't a 'man vs woman' issue, clearly. But this discussion in this thread (and the other one, somewhat) went from disagreement to condescending inaccurate inappropriate remarks with a severe stench of misogyny and condescension. No, ParanoiA. I owe no one an apology. ~mooey
  24. Fine. "The rights of business owners" was to descriminate against black people at their businesses. My point still stands, and so is the ridiculous logic. (Read Anders' previous posts, though, please, before you accuse me of misunderstanding the blatant, repeated racism, and pointing it out loudly, with disgust) I'm sorry, what? We are discussing the issue of women's rights and abortions, and are being confronted with an exaggerated emotional fallacy-salad using race and Godwin's law (the holocaust.. really?) and *I* am the one who's low? I am not American, so excuse me if I mistakenly understood the racist comments as a different kind of racism. Regardless, it doesn't change my point. Saying that by granting EQUAL rights to black people you actually took away the rights of business owners to discriminate against them is misunderstanding the meaning of rights in a society. And then comparing it to the "rights" of the so-called fetus is just mixing the subjects into an emotional appeal while setting up a false premise. I have little tolerance for racism, ParanoiA. While I usually try to be polite when I criticize (though not always successfully so) when things like these blatant racist claims come up, I save no blow. Just like I will not ask for an apology for the blatant abuse of the holocaust just to reduce the argument to cheap low-blow emotional appeal, I will hand out no apologies for criticizing the flawed logic as I've seen it, and the fact that I might have misunderstood the TYPE of racism doesn't change the overall meaning, or the point I was making. We already have a huge thread on the validity or lack thereof of abortions, or whether or not they're women's/human right. There are more arguments than the one you present, though I do agree it is a good one. It is, however, what I said, when I told Mr Anders that in order for his claim to fit the situation, he must first show that a fetus is alive. I didn't ignore the issue of the "life forms". I simply don't treat the blastocyst as a life form until it actually is one. You can disagree with me on it. That's your right. That doesn't mean I am ignoring the fetus, though, and if you think I am, I suggest you go to the other thread and see the more thorough discussion on the matter. Using (rather, abusing) emotional appeals with a huge addition of racism just to make the people who are so-called "pro choice" sound like low-life murderous bastards is the low blow, ParanoiA. My pointing out that this is a cheap trick with faulty crappy logic? That's just a response showing that these methods are ridiculous in a discussion that's supposed to at least be somewhat rational. ~mooey
  25. Your logic is ridiculous. Saying that the abolishment of slavery resulted in taking away business owners' rights to own slaves is the same as saying that making a law against murder is taking away criminals' rights to kill you. It's very Hobbesian, and yet if you bother to read his entire point, even he agrees that the right to hurt others is not, in fact, a right at all. Now, in order to claim that abortion takes away the right of the fetus to live, you must first establish that a first trimester fetus is, in fact, alive. Saying so just because you feel like it is not, in fact, proof. In fact, you did not prove it, and the scientific and medical evidence we actually have suggest that a fetus does not fit our definition of 'alive' in the first trimester. Not even remotely. There is little distinction, medically speaking, between the blastocyst and any other cyst, which is why if an unfortunate woman suffers natural abortion, we do not arrest her for manslaughter. This argument is simply not consistent, and your attempt to bombard us with cheap low-blow attempts of emotional mumbo jumbo might make people upset, but it won't actually prove your point. We're a science forum, not a personal racist blog. The fact you don't approve of the abolishment of slavery (you're not even being coy about this) doesn't serve your point, either. If you don't mind, we prefer going by evidence, rational arguments and the avoidance of ridiculous fallacious emotion-filled not-even-hidden racist salad. Thanks. ~mooey
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.