Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

Yeah, Too much hypocrisy to Justify their mental gymnastics, It's Disgusting. Double Standards. Just goes to show that they don't have any ground to stand on. It's all about "me me me" Emotional over Reason.

Mental gymnastics at its finest.

No, just the facts.

Life is everything living, from zygots to elephant, from plants to humans. But what we are talking about is not life, its the limit we put to ourself to accept where and when we can end this life when it becomes a necessity for a woman.

Such as the fact that we can accept to take the life of a flower but not the life of dog, we must accept when necessary to take the life of a zygot but not the life of a human.

The reality is that consciousness is the common factor. So we must see when consciousness starts. And its around 20 weeks. But to besure, we can start a bit earlier, that's why abortion is sometimes allowed up to fourteen weeks.

If you guys are failing to see this simple and logical thing, then we might indeed have a problem. But I'm used to fight pro life, anti women's rights and far right propaganda.. so bring it on.

 

[Ravagerblade]

No, just the facts.

Life is everything living, from zygots to elephant, from plants to humans. But what we are talking about is not life, its the limit we put to ourself to accept where and when we can end this life when it becomes a necessity for a woman.

Such as the fact that we can accept to take the life of a flower but not the life of dog, we must accept when necessary to take the life of a zygot but not the life of a human.

The reality is that consciousness is the common factor. So we must see when consciousness starts. And its around 20 weeks. But to besure, we can start a bit earlier, that's why abortion is sometimes allowed up to fourteen weeks.

If you guys are failing to see this simple and logical thing, then we might indeed have a problem. But I'm used to fight pro life, anti women's rights and far right propaganda.. so bring it on.

You feel the need to Justify that a budding life is not worth it knowing it'll be Life etc but then you say I'm the one that Denies the Science. Just say your a GD Hypocrite already. You use "science" as a shield to justify yourself and hide behind it but then you also deny it too. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Logiko]

You feel the need to Justify that a budding life is not worth it knowing it'll be Life etc

Only you is saying that the seeds of a life are not worth it. What I'm telling you is that this descision is not up to you, its up to the person who own the body that will recieve and nourrish this life.

If a woman or a transman decides to keep the baby that they did not expect, then its a descision we must respect. The same way, if they decide that this life is not something they can accept and give life forces to, then ending this life before it grows into a conscious being is their descision too and we must ALSO respect it.

but then you say I'm the one that Denies the Science.

Science in this case only gives us the time limits : the beginning of life and the beginning of consciousness. Its up to us to create a boundary where it is acceptable for us to end life and when it is innaceptable to do so. My vision limits that around 15 weeks, but you can differ.

Noone is hypocrite about science here, we all agree on the scientific premisse. What we don't agree, is on the choices we make with it.

 

[Zenos7]

That's precisely the point.

A foetus is not a beautiful human life, its a big bunch of skins and electrical signal that has the POTENTIAL to become a full human life. Its not beautiful, its gross. Sometimes life, is gross. And its necessary to understand that its only a gross potential for human life to fight pro life propaganda about beautiful already formed human life form/babies in the womb. To make clear that people have absolutely no right to take women's rights to own there body and to remove an unwanted lifeform taking all the life force out of them if necessary.

What about the new body and its rights?

And its highly subjective whether one thinks its beautiful or not.
[automerge]1703893165[/automerge]

A feotus IS life. It is alive in the biological very technical sence. But its as alive as plant in their early stages are alive. Its not human yet., its only a potential human life. It only gets all the characteristic of human around the 20th week chen consciousness arise.

Therefore there is no "killing human" with abortion, its a nonsense.

Consciousness is no requirement to biologically be a member of the species homo sapiens, still. And thats enough for pro-life people to assign the same human value to a fetus as you do to 20+weeks individuals
[automerge]1703893317[/automerge]

Such as the fact that we can accept to take the life of a flower but not the life of dog, we must accept when necessary to take the life of a zygot but not the life of a human.

*human zygote.

Pro life peeps most likely dont care if you abort a rat zygote or fetus or whatever. They care about the human part. Their opinion is humans have intrinsic value over other life forms regardless of developmental stage.

Just agree to disagree
[automerge]1703893381[/automerge]

Just say your a GD Hypocrite already. You use "science" as a shield to justify yourself and hide behind it but then you also deny it too. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cherry picking the convenient shit. Not exactly uncommon

 

[Logiko]

What about the new body and its rights?

What about it ?
At what point do you consider that life gets rights ?
When it appears ? Then we should give right to plants, I mean why not, but good luck with that.
Or when it gains consciousness ?

Tell me. At what point of the conception of a lifeform do you consider that life should get rights ?

Consciousness is no requirement to biologically be a member of the species homo sapiens, still

Until consciousness arise, its not an homosapiens yet, its just the potential for an homosapiens. Again, it would be like saying that a bunch of bricks is a building, its not, its the potential for a building even if we are sure that it will become a building.

And thats enough for pro-life people to assign the same human value to a fetus as you do to 20+weeks individuals

And its wrong just as I explained in my previous reply.

 

[Zenos7]

Its not about a change of specie its the start of one. From nothing to something. A ball of skin is not a specie.

No a species is a group of individuals. There is no start of being an individual of a species down the line of development. A human zygote is different to a zygote of another animal species.
Your nonsense here is massively antiscience
[automerge]1703893718[/automerge]

That's not really what I saw in the process when she admitted her guilts about those situations.

Telling the person you used physical violence on to not be a baby about it is not admitting guilts, it is not recognizing the guilt and having no remorse.

Holy fuck
[automerge]1703893787[/automerge]

specified that it was a two way abusive relationship

Yes, and abusive = violence?

I know you hate actual definitions of terms so I wouldnt even be surprised at this point
[automerge]1703893840[/automerge]

don't know.. @TheAncientCenturion could suddenly choose to place in the staff someone who is aware of the problem such as transphobia or sexism, maybe he could even recrute a transwoman.. That would be neat.

Sure, they wont do anything over me saying the truth though

 

[Mathias]

I think the Christmas peace has now ended. Can we get back to business please ?


One of the Hamas hostages Mia Shem released an interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-just-Hamas-civilian-families-interview.html

 

[Logiko]

No a species is a group of individuals. There is no start of being an individual of a species down the line of development. A human zygote is different to a zygote of another animal species.
Your nonsense here is massively antiscience

No, its your statement that are antiscience mate. You putting conceptual human traits on somethings that does not have all the traits of an individual human yet. Therefore you are not making science, you are creating a myth.

A human zygot, just has the POTENTIAL to become the member of a specie and a full fledge individual. Its not an individual yet, its just a ball of skin and again, electrical signals. It only becomes an full fledge individual once it gets all the mental and physical attribute of an individual. And those attribute are in fact just one thing: consciousness.

I think the Christmas peace has now ended. Can we get back to business please ?


One of the Hamas hostages Mia Shem released an interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-just-Hamas-civilian-families-interview.html

"everyone is a terrorist" she said.. damn. you can make it less horrible than that.

 

[Zenos7]

Not in science bro

This doesnt even remotely make sense. If gender is part of sociology and sex part of biology and the terms are defined by sex in dictionaries (im not going to again share countless dictionaries again, even scientific ones), then according to the science relevant to the definitions what im saying is 100% accurate.
[automerge]1703894221[/automerge]

If pro Life were consistant they would also fight for plant, for the right of people living under very hard conditions because of the society (trans/poor people/people of color) and for the end of the death sentence.

But since pro life are most of the time far right and conservative, they won't to that.

The plants dont belong here, since it is about the value of human life. Other than that sure, some pro-life people are not consistent about valuing human life

 

[Mathias]

"everyone is a terrorist" she said.. damn. you can make it less horrible than that.

She mentioned the kids as being evil

But this ain't no meme, it's Israeli national tv

 

[Zenos7]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that there is no evidences showing that Depp was mentally or physically harm by the situation (not by the violences) of the trial. The trial actually helped him and the entire world leftist aside defended him. So there was no harrasment, no meme and lauging or deligitimization campagn. Those were only for Heard.

But considering his situation with heard, he was in the same vicious circle. That's why this trial was so complicated, both were abusive, which is extremelly rare.

You know the trial came way after her initial accusations, right?

The trial eventually helping him doesnt take away what happened inbetween lmao.
[automerge]1703894493[/automerge]

What about it ?
At what point do you consider that life gets rights ?
When it appears ? Then we should give right to plants, I mean why not, but good luck with that.
Or when it gains consciousness ?

Tell me. At what point of the conception of a lifeform do you consider that life should get rights ?

I dont really have a strong position on this. But lets not pretend like the body of the woman seeking an abortion is the only body involved in the situation, no matter how much you try to dehumanize it

 

[Logiko]

This doesnt even remotely make sense. If gender is part of sociology and sex part of biology and the terms are defined by sex in dictionaries (im not going to again share countless dictionaries again, even scientific ones), then according to the science relevant to the definitions what im saying is 100% accurate.

The problem is you thinking that dictionaries are part of the science process. I think some linguist might have a problem with that conception of language.

There is no such things as scientific dictionnaries, words evolve with time, space and usage. So putting definition on words is a complete antiscientific process.

What we can do on the other hand is try to define observable process of our universe and describe them (of course you will give definition to categorize attributes, but those definitions might evolve). This is why I can say that right now, sex and gender are not describing the same things. Therefore its completely bonkers and antiscientific to try to use biological term (sex characteristics) and try to confuse them with sociological stuff (genders).

This is why a transwoman is a woman EVEN if she has male related sexual characteristics such as a penis.

The plants dont belong here, since it is about the value of human life. Other than that sure, some pro-life people are not consistent about valuing human life

As long as we are talking about life, we are talking about all life forms. Our discussion wasn't only centered around biological life form, the question the question was about life as life preservation (and not just human life preservation) is the most proeminent argument against abortion

But yes, if we are talking about biological human life then we can recenter the debate.

The trial eventually helping him doesnt take away what happened inbetween lmao.

Maybe you don't remember, but before the trial (during years before in fact) Amber was harrassed by depp's fan and mocked on social media. This did not happened to Depp who only lost SOME of its sponsors.

I dont really have a strong position on this. But lets not pretend like the body of the woman seeking an abortion is the only body involved in the situation, no matter how much you try to dehumanize it

It is. It ABSOLUTELY is the only body involved....

....up until the appearance of consciousness, when the growing body gets THE characteristic that distinguish us from unconscious life forms and therefore gives it human rights.

 

[Zenos7]

Until consciousness arise, its not an homosapiens yet, its just the potential for an homosapiens. Again, it would be like saying that a bunch of bricks is a building, its not, its the potential for a building even if we are sure that it will become a building.

It has a full homo sapiens genome from conception onwards. Its just in an early developmental stage. Biologically. If we go by biology, what you are saying is antiscientific drivel.

You are still confusing this with philosophical personhood, as i already mentioned.
[automerge]1703895559[/automerge]

And its wrong just as I explained in my previous reply.

Eh, imho its subjective and people can assing whatever value they want, just like bob assgning more value to animals if i got that right
[automerge]1703895648[/automerge]

No, its your statement that are antiscience mate. You putting conceptual human traits on somethings that does not have all the traits of an individual human yet. Therefore you are not making science, you are creating a myth.

Nah
[automerge]1703895827[/automerge]

A human zygot, just has the POTENTIAL to become the member of a specie and a full fledge individual. Its not an individual yet, its just a ball of skin and again, electrical signals. It only becomes an full fledge individual once it gets all the mental and physical attribute of an individual. And those attribute are in fact just one thing: consciousness.

Again, biology =/= philosophy.

A human zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens. Get over it. This has nothing to do with what value is assigned. If you are fine with a human being in its earliest developmental stages being terminated because of the inconvenience of the mother (majority of cases) then great for you. Im also relatively fine with that.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

For once I agree with nameless, you mfs have no life.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

A feotus IS life. It is alive in the biological very technical sence. But its as alive as plant in their early stages are alive. Its not human yet., its only a potential human life. It only gets all the characteristic of human around the 20th week chen consciousness arise.

Therefore there is no "killing human" with abortion, its a nonsense.

This sounds like the same logic pro organ transplant folks use when they go on tangents about how brain dead humans are completely dead to justify cutting out their organs for profit.

 

[Zenos7]

The problem is you thinking that dictionaries are part of the science process. I think some linguist might have a problem with that conception of language.

I dont think that at all lmfao. The definition is just based on a specific scientific field, in this case biology. And not the scientific field you prefer in this context, sociology.

So again im gonna repeat: hit me up when definitions are the way you want. Currently, they are based on sex, so biology. And then transwomen are men who are transgender.

And you still cant really have a properly functioning definition based on gender because it will be circular
[automerge]1703896681[/automerge]

This sounds like the same logic pro organ transplant folks use when they go on tangents about how brain dead humans are completely dead to justify cutting out their organs for profit.

Braindead humans are basically dead. Their organs should only be taken if that is what they wanted though
[automerge]1703897064[/automerge]

This is why I can say that right now, sex and gender are not describing the same things. Therefore its completely bonkers and antiscientific to try to use biological term (sex characteristics) and try to confuse them with sociological stuff (genders).

Im not arguing they are describing the same things. Like, you are just making up shit at this point.

The definitions for man/woman are based in biology, not gender.

Definitions for transwoman/transman are based in gender. For the lolz:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/trans-woman#google_vignette

This specifies gender identity, whereas the definitions for man/woman specify male and female respectively. I dont know how often people have to tell you about basic definitions until you get them

Its actually you using sociological stuff and confusing it with biological terms lmao.

Hit me up when the definitions change in your favor.
Until then, transwomen are not women and this statement is not offensive to reasonable people who can use basic definitions

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Braindead humans are basically dead.

And their movements including facial movements are just rEfLeXEs and eLeCTriCaL SigNalS riiiiiiiight. 🤡 I never fell for this propaganda, the problem is the health industry deliberately shaping public opinion getting people to think organ transplants are ethical

 

[Zenos7]

As long as we are talking about life, we are talking about all life forms. Our discussion wasn't only centered around biological life form, the question the question was about life as life preservation (and not just human life preservation) is the most proeminent argument against abortion

But yes, if we are talking about biological human life then we can recenter the debate.

Why would we instantly talk about all life forms? No thanks

Also, not only centered aroumd biological life forms? What other life forms if not biological are you thinking of?

My point is just that the pro life crowd talks about the value of human life, not life in general.

Im still not pro life lol
[automerge]1703897324[/automerge]

is. It ABSOLUTELY is the only body involved....

....up until the appearance of consciousness, when the growing body gets THE characteristic that distinguish us from unconscious life forms and therefore gives it human rights.

Thats your opinion. Pro life people thinknotherwise. And while im not pro life, i dont agree with you that conssciousmess is the relevant factor

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

up until the appearance of consciousness, when the growing body gets THE characteristic that distinguish us from unconscious life forms and therefore gives it human rights.

my bunny, what is unconscious life?!

 

[Zenos7]

And their movements including facial movements are just rEfLeXEs and eLeCTriCaL SigNalS riiiiiiiight. 🤡 I never fell for this propaganda, the problem is the health industry deliberately shaping public opinion getting people to think organ transplants are ethical

Muscle movement can occur in dead individuals. At work we had a horse that was dead for hours but there was muscle movement when cutting it up
[automerge]1703897857[/automerge]

my bunny, what is unconscious life?!

Plants and maybe some animals like jelly fish or corals. Not sure about how conscious they are