Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LMNO

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 2154
But do you really think that telling someone about a neat fact of biology is going to change their stance?

I mean, they didn't ask for scientific evidence when they drew their initial conclusion, so why would that sway them after they've come to their decision?

And if it's true that the decision is ultimately one about morality, starting by accepting their moral POV cripples whatever counter argument you're trying to make.

The bible doesn't say life begins at conception

Psalm 139:13, if that matters.

I think there's also an element here, where the definition of "life" may differ between the two parties.  You may be talking about biology, but the pro-life camp often takes the viewpoint that an irreducible "soul" exists, and becomes a part of the baby/fetus/blastocyst at some point.

So, even if you try to make the argument that a fetus is biologically 'part of the mother' up until a certain number of weeks, you can't scientifically approach the concept of a "soul" and when it does or does not inhabit a fetus.

Essentially, it seems like you've jumped to stage two of an argument without addressing stage 1: Setting the parameters and definitions of the debate.  Your solution sounds fine, as soon as your opponent agrees that pure atheistic biology is the context of the argument.

In fact, one could posit that the entire debate vanishes as soon as that's agreed upon, regardless of how clever your position is.

And, for FoFP, I offer this hypothetical example:


10 PRINT "Abortion is murder."

20 PRINT "All abortion?"

30 PRINT "Yes.  Because life begins at conception."

40 PRINT "Ah!  But [scientific jargon], so the fetus should be considered a part of the mother's body until X weeks of pregnancy."

50 PRINT "No."

60 GOTO 40


2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support

Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: The #AltWoke Manifesto
« on: April 13, 2017, 07:58:49 pm »
We might also want to point out that more than 70% old white men voted for Trump, and less than 30% of young people did.

Trump won because of racism, disenfranchisement, and the electoral college's disproportionate weighting among the states.

Among other things, of course.  If you want to bring about change, what you need is #wokeseptuagenarian.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: The #AltWoke Manifesto
« on: April 13, 2017, 06:56:28 pm »
Sounds nice, but that still sounds like a way to avoid the meaning of #woke.

As in, it's hard enough to make people respect the Other; this appears to be away of avoiding that, and going an easier, less meaningful way.

Richard Nixon's glittering half-life sarcophagus / Re: ABSOLUTE CHAOS
« on: April 13, 2017, 01:19:56 pm »
I swear, some of my most frustrating moments have been trying to figure out why the numbers don't add up before discovering that the numbers themselves are wrong, after being repeatedly told they're not.

It's also fun when someone asks you to do an apples to apples analysis, but provides a set of apples and a set of sea cucumbers.

Literate Chaotic / Re: the beginning of nothing
« on: April 11, 2017, 01:06:30 pm »
I'd read more of this.

Richard Nixon's glittering half-life sarcophagus / Re: ABSOLUTE CHAOS
« on: April 11, 2017, 01:03:28 pm »
Odysseus has come home to Ithaca.

Sounds like you're in for a good time, for a specific definition of "good".

Yeah, six years is a bit of a pause.  I think I wanted to re-write day 26.

You seem perfectly suited to this task.


Aneristic Illusions / Re: General Trump hilarity free-for-all thread
« on: April 01, 2017, 05:31:10 am »
The inauguration of Donald Trump was a surreal experience for pretty much everyone who witnessed it, whether or not they were at the event and regardless of who they supported in the election. On the dais, the stoic presence of Hillary Clinton — whom candidate Trump had said he would send to prison if he took office — underlined the strangeness of the moment. George W. Bush, also savaged by Trump during the campaign, was there too. He gave the same reason for attending that Bill and Hillary Clinton did: to honor the peaceful transfer of power.

Bush’s endearing struggle with his poncho at the event quickly became a meme, prompting many Democrats on social media to admit that they already pined for the relative normalcy of his administration. Following Trump’s short and dire speech, Bush departed the scene and never offered public comment on the ceremony.

But, according to three people who were present, Bush gave a brief assessment of Trump’s inaugural after leaving the dais: “That was some weird shit.” All three heard him say it.

I like to think of W finally finding peace and contentment as an artist, having long given up on obtaining approval from  his father.

W was president when a lot of really bad shit happened, so he's got to own it.

That being said, Nigel just came up with the most heartrending epiloge any tribute could have.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 2154