Best Recent Content

• Abortion should be illegal

  John_C_87

  5:05PM

  Plaffelvohfen said:

  @John_C_87
  
  John, unless you can demonstrate that the right to life ENTAILS a right to someone else body without continuous consent, you have no arguments...
  
  Your argument here is irrelevant and fallacious, consensual sexual activity is in no way a consent for pregnancy and this consent NEEDS to be continuous...

  Nope. It doesn't. All I haver to demonstrate is all woman can get pregnant by having sperm swim into contact with the living egg inside a woman. Like I sated as fact pregnancy does not continue it has a end in which the woman must seek a place to announce citizen ship as united state. Well unless maybe woman move into international water or outer-space? 
  
  Your argument here is irrelevant and fallacious, consensual sexual activity is in no way a consent for pregnancy and this consent NEEDS to be continuous... Your trying to argue a whole truth as a right or wrong. No my argument is not wrong or irrelevant murder has no statute of limitation and you are dragging all men as a united state scream and yelling into this argument, as they are accomplice or a accused criminal. 9 months + or - yep, sorry read my lips no new continuance of permission.
  
  Again the argument is over the crossing of a international border created by the woman's body and (all nations) as a Untied State. Sending the egg/sperm combo back to were it came is not murder if it is returning directly from an origin state. The actual basic principle is not when life starts by how may times it can be continued to an end, this directing us to the proof of demonstration your requested of truth.
  
  John, unless you can demonstrate that the right to life ENTAILS a right to someone else body without continuous consent, you have no argument... 
  Yes, we can demonstrate this together providing you ovulate or know some-one who does, are truthful, and do not mind once. Not one egg askes for permission to enter the woman's body. Ever. Not one sperm ever asks for permission to enter a male body ever, and they enter by the millions.
  
  Keep in mind in basic principle I am saying a woman does have a Constitutional right to body antimony, you are however not representing it in truth, and are not going to reach that status of Constitutional in the direction you are heading, as there is already the commitment to a what is argued as a legal self-incrimination to deal with.   
  
  
  
  

  

• Breaking news: NY Times targets YouTube conservatives, and centrist Patriots. What are your thoughts

  all4actt

  June 18

  AlofRI said:

  Well, youtube conservatives and centrist "patriots" have been targeting our democracy and rights …. and the NYT, WP, and any other media that doesn't like "their way" for some time now. It's not one sided. May I say Thank God? (As a figure of speech, of course ;-).

  So what your saying is free speech should only be allotted to people who agree with you opinion?

  

• Breaking news: NY Times targets YouTube conservatives, and centrist Patriots. What are your thoughts

  Plaffelvohfen

  June 18
  @all4actt ;
  

  So what your saying is free speech should only be allotted to people who agree with you opinion?

  
  It's not a question of free speech... Youtube, Facebook, newspapers, online forums, etc, are all private entities who can arbitrarily and at their sole discretion, impose any rules they want on their platforms...
  
  Free speech issues arise when the government tries to stop you from saying something... I don't see the government stepping in here... 
  

  

• Breaking news: NY Times targets YouTube conservatives, and centrist Patriots. What are your thoughts

  Plaffelvohfen

  12:26AM
  @all4actt
  

  but I say that it is everyones responsibility to assure freedom of speech is allowed across all platforms.

  Not privately owned platforms... The right to free speech doesn't entail a right to an audience... 
  
  There's no way I will let the KKK, Nazis, evangelicals or flat Earth loonies hold speeches on my lawn and, YES all those privately owned platforms (youtube, facebook, etc) are exactly like privately owned lawns...  
  
  When we say it's a "free speech" issue, we're implicitly using the legal definition and bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. 
  
  There's no way out of it... 
  
  Now, we can talk here about the concept of "free speech", the abstract philosophical grounds for the flow of ideas, its benefits, its failings and everything in between if we were in your living room or mine, but as much as I care for free speech, if anyone is in my home and they start spewing nonsense, I'm under no obligation whatsoever to listen to said nonsense and throw them out of my house as unceremoniously as I want...
  

  

• Breaking news: NY Times targets YouTube conservatives, and centrist Patriots. What are your thoughts

  Plaffelvohfen

  12:22PM
  @all4actt
  
  I will avoid responding to the barely veiled ad hominem, but this here is fallacious:
  

  By all means lets encourage private companies to censor decending opinions like North Korea and China do.

  North Korea and China are governments, they are not private entities...
  
  Youtube, facebook, etc, are private properties in the same way my living room is a private property...  How is that hard to understand??

  

• Breaking news: NY Times targets YouTube conservatives, and centrist Patriots. What are your thoughts

  YeshuaRedeemed

  2:35PM
  @AlofRI Free speech is a human right.

  

• Abortion should be illegal

  John_C_87

  4:21PM
  @Plaffelvohfen ;
  

  A fetus is using someone's body parts. Therefore, under bodily autonomy it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person continuous consent. if they deny or withdraw consent, for any reason whatsoever, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else's body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.

  The woman’s permission was given with all consensual sexual activity and is a poor argument for a united state constitutional right. The biggest argument is as a united state is sexual activity would need to be documented in writing as consensual.

  The united state all woman creates by sacrificing the privacy of all women with publicly disclosure is citizenship not body autonomy. A woman is arguing the right to decline the crossing of a border into America as the basic principles.

  Body control would be made, proven by not having sexual intercourse which ended in fertilization of the already living egg.

  As common defense pregnancy abortion needs a coaching influence to help hide the self-incrimination described as crime publicly by all woman to complete the idea of alibi as a justification to use lethal force, or lie about original consent of sex. In whole truth the pro-choice, pro-life innuendo is a method to limit any woman's united state constitutional right, however the overall principle may be designed to create a civil legal practice which has failed in attempts to protect the union of Marriage as a civil union. As far-fetched as that sounds, truth stranger than fiction.
  

  

• human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerning

  ZeusAres42

  3:53PM

  Akhenaten said:

  
  

  @ZeusAres42 ;
  
  Quote - You do realize these are the kind of people that also probably think the sun goes up in the morning and goes down in the evening right? 
  
  Reply - The universe in general doesn't have a north, south, east, west ,up, down or centre. Thus, your last statement is totally illogical. Neither the Earth nor the Sun goes around anything unless you use a reference point first. Then, when you have first nominated a reference point, then and only then, will the Sun or Earth will move according to that reference point.
  
  In the case of your above statement. You have nominated the Earth as being the universe's sole reference point. Note - This is only your own personal opinion and doesn't apply to any other person except to yourself.

  Need I say anymore?
  

  

• human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerning

  Akhenaten

  9:53AM

  
  

  @ZeusAres42 ;
  
  Quote - You do realize these are the kind of people that also probably think the sun goes up in the morning and goes down in the evening right? 
  
  Reply - The universe in general doesn't have a north, south, east, west ,up, down or centre. Thus, your last statement is totally illogical. Neither the Earth nor the Sun goes around anything unless you use a reference point first. Then, when you have first nominated a reference point, then and only then, will the Sun or Earth will move according to that reference point.
  
  In the case of your above statement. You have nominated the Earth as being the universe's sole reference point. Note - This is only your own personal opinion and doesn't apply to any other person except to yourself.

  

• human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerning

  ZeusAres42

  June 18
  @piloteer
  

  
  

  
  

  I am now beginning to know why Oxford Professor and medical physician Ben Gold Acre once said: "I'd rather slam my bleep in a door than have a full-on debate with a climate science denialist." It is honestly that painful. You don't have to say or infer anything about their mentality; their own words demonstrate that quite clearly:
  

  Akhenaten said:
  

  "Climate change is a total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society."

  Sharky Said:
  "It has become obvious to open-minded and well-informed observers that the climate change issue is being exploited to consolidate power and control and to divert trillions of dollars into the pockets of people who support the leftist power base"

  Sharky Said:
  "True Believers have morphed into a band of religious fanatics and their beliefs are now based more on faith than on science."

  Sharky Said:
  "This is the same phenomenon you see with extreme leftists who advocate for socialism and communism. Despite the spectacular failure of leftist governments all over the world during the last century and the hundred million people that they murdered."

  CYDharta Said:
  "The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true."

  Sharky Said:
  These tactics have been in use by powerful people for centuries in their quest to exert control over the masses. They are very transparent to those of us who have studied history and their use in promoting AGW doomsday scenarios is so obvious as to be laughable.  

  
  

  CYDharta Said:

  
  

  GenericName said:

  Hey TK, if it is that obvious, what reasoning do you suggest for why the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community cant see it?
  If you are able to see how false it is so easily, why can't the people all over the world who spend their lives studying this not see it?

  
  

  They start from the assumption that it's true and their jobs are simply to find proof.

  CYDharta Said:

  
  

  LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.  When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they believe in the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high consensus.  Of course group-think is unavoidable.  If you open the question up to scientists in related fields, the "consensus" drops considerably;
  

  
  

  As I said before
  

  “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”

  
  ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

  
  

  When I contemplate this and other things related to science and other stuff for that matter as of late I can't help but feel the same way that Hawking did:
  

  
  

  "We are witnessing a global revolt against experts." - Stephen Hawking, Renowned physicist