Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Interesting.
After reconsideration and some researches, it appears effectively that I'm wrong and you were right. Biologists do indeed call human foetus, "humans" as "members of the human specie"
The reason it appeared as illogical to me is because I had a different definition from biologists that I - at least in my researches - read.
Biologist seem to explain that a human starts being a human at the fertilization when I was myself refering to those characteristics
(
"Most aspects of human biology are identical or very similar to general mammalian biology. In particular, and as examples, humans :
- maintain their body temperature
- have an internal skeleton
- have a circulatory system
- have a nervous system to provide sensory information and operate and coordinate muscular activity.
- have a reproductive system in which they bear live young and produce milk.
- have an endocrine system and produce and eliminate hormones and other bio-chemical signalling agents
- have a respiratory system where air is inhaled into lungs and oxygen is used to produce energy.
- have an immune system to protect against disease
- Excrete waste as urine and feces.
(+ consciousness on my part as the defining factor of humanity)
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_biology )"
So my point of view seems to be wrong from a consensus standpoint but I will still note that it rises an - indeed - philosophical, logical and political problem, as it create the notion that something that has only the blueprints of something (in this case a embryon that only has the genetic potential of a human) is to be considered similar as something that is at least viable. Again, its the metaphor of the building: The blueprints and the construction site, in that case, are also called a building when they are just blueprints with some bricks and therefore not viable. Which is completely illogical as it create the narrative that a potential X is the same as viable X.
Which gives yet another illogical pro human life argument to pro life propagandist..
Another reason why science without politic, ethic and logical thinking can lead to problems. We have a perfect example here.
If this was obvious, why not mention men's responsibilities in the first place ?
This was a wake up call, I will start listening to them with more attention from now on, I don't want science to be used against human's rights.
This doesn't really answer my question tho
No gov are above the laws, wdym ?
The right doesn't agree that biden is the status co, only you think that. The right thinks that Biden is a wokist that wants to change everything and take their rights and freedom away.
Again, only you thinks that liberals are the status co.
Where do you see that I support Amber heard ? I've been saying from the start that she was also an abuser. What I want is for her the violences against her to be recognize. All I want is justice and equal treatment. Because recognizeing that means that we can also recognize the reality of other victims of abuse and violences.
I only listened to 10 second of that of the main guy speaking about anti woke sh*t, this was enough for me mate.
Again... no.. they are not the same. The basis for liberalism is meritocracy an capitalist property where the basis for leftism/socialism/communism/anarchism is the opposite
Yes granted, Biden is not as meritocratic as a liberal like Macron. This is why he is called a liberal leaning left and why i'm not as harsh with him that I'm with Macron. But just making small mesure about equality doesn't equate to a full battle against meritocracy, its just patches.
The US and the world need enormous reforms. That's a thing liberals don't want to do.
Biden, is still seen in a bad light by the left
https://jacobin.com/2022/11/joe-biden-socialism-government-spending-tpusa
(And this is not the far left we are talking about here, just simple socialists)
You affirming things without data mate.
Can you lead me to the facts affirming this ? I'm not 100% aware of the trial
Yes true mate. Sorry if your sexist brain don't want to accept that.
And ? We are talking about victim of abuse, women being violented or killed by men because they are women here not homelessness
Do you have data and context for that ?
Just like women are being 90% of the time ignored by justice in cases of rape. The thing you are not mentionning is that the number of abuse against men is but a fraction of the number of abuses and violences because the rest is against women
The comparison was legitimate. We are talking here about a life form taking life ressources without consent.
Nerves.
Because we have no choices.
There might exist a time where we can coexist with plant without taking their lives away but I don't know how it can work.
Its not about giving a lower rank to plants, its just about aknowledging that plants are not conscious beings.
Electric signals
After reconsideration and some researches, it appears effectively that I'm wrong and you were right. Biologists do indeed call human foetus, "humans" as "members of the human specie"
The reason it appeared as illogical to me is because I had a different definition from biologists that I - at least in my researches - read.
Biologist seem to explain that a human starts being a human at the fertilization when I was myself refering to those characteristics
(
"Most aspects of human biology are identical or very similar to general mammalian biology. In particular, and as examples, humans :
- maintain their body temperature
- have an internal skeleton
- have a circulatory system
- have a nervous system to provide sensory information and operate and coordinate muscular activity.
- have a reproductive system in which they bear live young and produce milk.
- have an endocrine system and produce and eliminate hormones and other bio-chemical signalling agents
- have a respiratory system where air is inhaled into lungs and oxygen is used to produce energy.
- have an immune system to protect against disease
- Excrete waste as urine and feces.
(+ consciousness on my part as the defining factor of humanity)
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_biology )"
So my point of view seems to be wrong from a consensus standpoint but I will still note that it rises an - indeed - philosophical, logical and political problem, as it create the notion that something that has only the blueprints of something (in this case a embryon that only has the genetic potential of a human) is to be considered similar as something that is at least viable. Again, its the metaphor of the building: The blueprints and the construction site, in that case, are also called a building when they are just blueprints with some bricks and therefore not viable. Which is completely illogical as it create the narrative that a potential X is the same as viable X.
Which gives yet another illogical pro human life argument to pro life propagandist..
Another reason why science without politic, ethic and logical thinking can lead to problems. We have a perfect example here.
If this was obvious, why not mention men's responsibilities in the first place ?
This was a wake up call, I will start listening to them with more attention from now on, I don't want science to be used against human's rights.
This doesn't really answer my question tho
No gov are above the laws, wdym ?
The right doesn't agree that biden is the status co, only you think that. The right thinks that Biden is a wokist that wants to change everything and take their rights and freedom away.
Again, only you thinks that liberals are the status co.
Where do you see that I support Amber heard ? I've been saying from the start that she was also an abuser. What I want is for her the violences against her to be recognize. All I want is justice and equal treatment. Because recognizeing that means that we can also recognize the reality of other victims of abuse and violences.
I only listened to 10 second of that of the main guy speaking about anti woke sh*t, this was enough for me mate.
Again... no.. they are not the same. The basis for liberalism is meritocracy an capitalist property where the basis for leftism/socialism/communism/anarchism is the opposite
Yes granted, Biden is not as meritocratic as a liberal like Macron. This is why he is called a liberal leaning left and why i'm not as harsh with him that I'm with Macron. But just making small mesure about equality doesn't equate to a full battle against meritocracy, its just patches.
The US and the world need enormous reforms. That's a thing liberals don't want to do.
Biden, is still seen in a bad light by the left
https://jacobin.com/2022/11/joe-biden-socialism-government-spending-tpusa
(And this is not the far left we are talking about here, just simple socialists)
You affirming things without data mate.
Can you lead me to the facts affirming this ? I'm not 100% aware of the trial
Yes true mate. Sorry if your sexist brain don't want to accept that.
And ? We are talking about victim of abuse, women being violented or killed by men because they are women here not homelessness
Do you have data and context for that ?
Just like women are being 90% of the time ignored by justice in cases of rape. The thing you are not mentionning is that the number of abuse against men is but a fraction of the number of abuses and violences because the rest is against women
The comparison was legitimate. We are talking here about a life form taking life ressources without consent.
Nerves.
Because we have no choices.
There might exist a time where we can coexist with plant without taking their lives away but I don't know how it can work.
Its not about giving a lower rank to plants, its just about aknowledging that plants are not conscious beings.
Electric signals
not necessarily. that depends on you and how you decide to assign value. i think its perfectly fine for people to have differing views on when to assign value or how much. as i said, them biologists tend to be more on the pro choice side. so thinking its a human doesnt force you to think it has as much value philosophically as people with consciousness, if thats the characteristic you want to go by.
i think the ability to feel pain should be a turning point at when abortion should stop being a viable option i guess. generally though, it should be legal so people dont try to abort through other risky means or whatever. and the prolife people can choose to not get abortions. i dont get why peeps cant compromise like that.
Nah, science should be without the other things. but you can use scientific findings to improve your views in the other fields. not the other way around though
they dont get abortions, so i didnt feel the need to mention their responsibility
i think the ability to feel pain should be a turning point at when abortion should stop being a viable option i guess. generally though, it should be legal so people dont try to abort through other risky means or whatever. and the prolife people can choose to not get abortions. i dont get why peeps cant compromise like that.
Post automatically merged:
Nah, science should be without the other things. but you can use scientific findings to improve your views in the other fields. not the other way around though
Post automatically merged:
they dont get abortions, so i didnt feel the need to mention their responsibility
I wouldn't mind if those values weren't taken as arguments by people who want to end some of the rights of women. That'sw hy those values, harmless in theory can become harmfull in the wrong hands.
Because some people are not basing their reasonning on logic
Actually you can do both. I don't know if you saw it but I made a long post a week ago explaining clearly why women were without a doubt under a system of domination I added at least 15 scientific papers and data report to support this claim. With one of the point I explained why without a clear feminism push, science could be bias. Simply because in science, women are
- under represented
- Not listened to
This is a situation that creates a few objective biases in science in general. It can be because women's data are delegitimized or because researches on women are done by men who have clear sexist bias on their work and on the field of research.
This is a prime example where science without politic (ethic/feminism/militantism) can lead toward problematic results.
The concept of science that should not be limited or influenced by politic is a liberal concept. But it doesn't take the potential danger of science into consideration: The experimentation on animals for example, the development of nuclear principles or more recently...
The development of AI without restrictions.
Science with bad politic leads to bias researches but science without politic can lead toward very problematic and unethical situations.
Because some people are not basing their reasonning on logic
Actually you can do both. I don't know if you saw it but I made a long post a week ago explaining clearly why women were without a doubt under a system of domination I added at least 15 scientific papers and data report to support this claim. With one of the point I explained why without a clear feminism push, science could be bias. Simply because in science, women are
- under represented
- Not listened to
This is a situation that creates a few objective biases in science in general. It can be because women's data are delegitimized or because researches on women are done by men who have clear sexist bias on their work and on the field of research.
This is a prime example where science without politic (ethic/feminism/militantism) can lead toward problematic results.
The concept of science that should not be limited or influenced by politic is a liberal concept. But it doesn't take the potential danger of science into consideration: The experimentation on animals for example, the development of nuclear principles or more recently...
The development of AI without restrictions.
Science with bad politic leads to bias researches but science without politic can lead toward very problematic and unethical situations.
Irrelevant
Science in the best case scenario is disconnected from the one performing it anyway. If you let politics or ethics or whatnot get in the way science lowkey stops being science.
Science needs to be without bias generally. Some.peeps failing at that just means other scientists have to and will find out that their findings are subpar for that reason
Uhm not at all, its just science
Science in the best case scenario is disconnected from the one performing it anyway. If you let politics or ethics or whatnot get in the way science lowkey stops being science.
Post automatically merged:
Science needs to be without bias generally. Some.peeps failing at that just means other scientists have to and will find out that their findings are subpar for that reason
Post automatically merged:
Uhm not at all, its just science