US Politics : Biden 100 days edition

[scudsucker]

The stats we are effectively talking about are the inverse of the miscarriage rate.

Really?

Basic science is not that hard, konfab.

 

[scudsucker]

You made an unsubstantiated claim. He did not.

Ok. There is no way for us to understand each other when you do not understand what, exactly, is an unsubstantiated claim.

There is that thing about bringing facts - verified facts - to the discussion that do help your argument. We often refer to that as "verification". Also called "substantiation". Look it up, it is no doubt, something worth leaning about.

Perhaps that is part of the problem with the right wing.

So your rationale doesn't actually exists, but anyway lets see if you change your opinions after he's provided it.

Singular "exist", comma after "anyway"

Haha cute. Refer your last sentence to your first.

I love it when you try to punch up. It provides endless entertainment. Never change.

Ok, Kieps. I have no plans to change, and if that is what your thing is, I am not going to stop you from enjoying it.

Yunno... because I am not a fascist.

 

[Cray]

That is my definition of life. Which does coincidentally sit at about the same place in development as heartbeat.

Although there is a very good argument from the pro-life side against this, is that a foetus at 6 weeks has a 95% chance of "getting better" in 9 months. Would it be murder to pull the life support of someone who has a 95% chance of waking up in 9 months?

The difference is, the life support of a patient is via machine and nurses and doctors. If those Nurses and Doctors quit their jobs, could you force them to work to keep that patient alive,? Because that is exactly what you are doing by forcing a woman to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want, forcing a person to use their body to keep another person alive.

 

[Cray]

Wow - just wow.
Your reasoning is truly psychotic.

Bugger off back to the creationist cesspool where you belong troll.

 

[Cray]

Careful now.
If "brain activity" is used as the absolutely/only standard, it can for example strongly be argued that libtards are not alive.

Anyone who has read your tripe before would be far more concerned about your brain activity or lack thereof.

 

[scudsucker]

....

RIght-whingers are riddled with idiots who support the death of a mother/host over the rights of the blastocyst whose viability is of fairly uneven odds.

 

[scudsucker]

Anyone who has read your tripe before would be far more concerned about your brain activity or lack thereof.

Certain unfeasible foetuses make it to full term. Is that not the premise of this whole discussion?

They do, however, tend to some level of mental deficiency if they do get so far.

 

[Kieppie]

Ok. There is no way for us to understand each other when you do not understand what, exactly, is an unsubstantiated claim.

There is that thing about bringing facts - verified facts - to the discussion that do help your argument.

No sucky.
This is a discussion page not a scientific paper. You can take most things at face value since no one is purposefully lying. I know this is a hard concept to grasp, but do try. If some claim looks suspicious you're free to go look it up and then say it's definitively false or misleading.

Perhaps that is part of the problem with the right wing.

Singular "exist", comma after "anyway"

Ah yes. When losing the argument, throw some unsubstantiated accusation and revert to grammar nazi.
The grown ups in the room ignore those and focus on the argument. You're welcome.

Ok, Kieps. I have no plans to change, and if that is what your thing is, I am not going to stop you from enjoying it.

Yunno... because I am not a fascist.

Great we have some common ground.

 

[Kieppie]

The difference is, the life support of a patient is via machine and nurses and doctors. If those Nurses and Doctors quit their jobs, could you force them to work to keep that patient alive,? Because that is exactly what you are doing by forcing a woman to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want, forcing a person to use their body to keep another person alive.

No your analogy is incorrect.

The doctors did not put the patient in that situation due to their actions. Otherwise they would be culpable.
The woman, baring a few exceptions, did.

 

[Kieppie]

RIght-whingers are riddled with idiots who support the death of a mother/host over the rights of the blastocyst whose viability is of fairly uneven odds.

Some more unsubstantiated claims. Care to back it up?

See it's easy to do this...

 

[scudsucker]

This is a discussion page not a scientific paper.

Ok.

I do love this idea - recently pioneered by Cosmik - that there is no reason to prove what you claim because this is "not a scientific paper". That absolves you all from trying to actually provide proof, and instead you can spout as much nonsense as you wish.

Well, sorry. The real world is not the same as the world in your head.

You can take most things at face value since no one is purposefully lying. I know this is a hard concept to grasp, but do try. If some claim looks suspicious you're free to go look it up and then say it's definitively false or misleading.

You seem... gullible. I wish I had figured that out earlier.

In any case, the words "burden of proof" form the basis of a concept you may wish to explore by entering them into your favourite search engine.

Ah yes. When losing the argument, throw some unsubstantiated accusation and revert to grammar nazi.

If you could just do your spelling and grammar right... oh, OK. I will try to stop that. Lower level matric was a long time ago, for you, and it is unfair for me to bully you because of your being unable to express yourself cogently.

You win on that.

The grown ups in the room ignore those and focus on the argument. You're welcome.


Great we have some common ground.

Uhm, thanks, I guess.

 

[greg0205]

No your analogy is incorrect.

The doctors did not put the patient in that situation due to their actions. Otherwise they would be culpable.
The woman, baring a few exceptions, did.

A few exceptions like rape or incest, maybe?

I'm sure a just and fair system would make provisions for a few exceptions, don't you, Kieppie?

Like maybe this system:

Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature

Bill Text (2021-05-19) Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. [Effective on 9/1/21]

legiscan.com

Be a pal, and copy/paste the protections this just and fair system has to protect those few exceptions, Kieppie.

You know how to copy/paste, don't you?

cmd-c and then cmd-v.

 

[scudsucker]

cmd-c and then cmd-v.

For Kieps, ctrl-c, ctrl-v

#justsaying

 

[scudsucker]

Some more unsubstantiated claims. Care to back it up?

See it's easy to do this...

Apologies; this may be paywalled. You can use the Internet archive to access the content.

‘Executing Babies’: Here Are the Facts Behind Trump’s Misleading Abortion Tweet (Published 2019)

Infants are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them.

www.nytimes.com

In support:

"Conservative" views of abortion - PubMed

"Conservative" views of abortion

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I hope that helps you.

EDIT - first link seems a little sensational at first, please read to the end.

Second link, well, I don't actually expect you to comprehend what it says. I would say, "trust me" but you won't, so good luck!!

 

[buka001]

Careful now.
If "brain activity" is used as the absolutely/only standard, it can for example strongly be argued that libtards are not alive.

Ooooh edgy.

 

[Kieppie]

Ok.

I do love this idea - recently pioneered by Cosmik - that there is no reason to prove what you claim because this is "not a scientific paper". That absolves you all from trying to actually provide proof, and instead you can spout as much nonsense as you wish.

Well, sorry. The real world is not the same as the world in your head.

Haha I don't think you understand the real world. You have this warped caricature idea of what a scientist is.
I'm sure you're the life of the party always asking people to corroborate their opinions or views. Heck you probably ask your SO to give you a written performance review with sourced references.

Yes normal conversations are like this. You don't query every thing you hear and ask them for proof. You're more than welcome to show some literature to disprove a claim. Most posts here do, in fact, start with some referenced source and then a conversation ensues. You're behaving like a child.

You seem... gullible. I wish I had figured that out earlier.

In any case, the words "burden of proof" form the basis of a concept you may wish to explore by entering them into your favourite search engine.

If you could just do your spelling and grammar right... oh, OK. I will try to stop that. Lower level matric was a long time ago, for you, and it is unfair for me to bully you because of your being unable to express yourself cogently.

Remember the Afrikaans saying "A goeie begrip..."
You're a living embodiment of this expression in demanding lengthy explanations or correcting grammar where the grownups focus on the argument itself. Let me know if you need assistance in understanding the expression.

Anyway keep punching up. It remains humourous

 

[Kieppie]

Apologies; this may be paywalled. You can use the Internet archive to access the content.

‘Executing Babies’: Here Are the Facts Behind Trump’s Misleading Abortion Tweet (Published 2019)

Infants are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them.

www.nytimes.com

Or you know just hit esc while it's loading, but that's probably too advanced for you...

In support:

"Conservative" views of abortion - PubMed

"Conservative" views of abortion

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I hope that helps you.

EDIT - first link seems a little sensational at first, please read to the end.

Second link, well, I don't actually expect you to comprehend what it says. I would say, "trust me" but you won't, so good luck!!

I can see why such a short article might be difficult for you to understand.
So you post two "sources" which does not actually prove anything you stated. You know how sources are supposed to work right?

Gotta appreciate the hustle to find a random 1997 article with the title ""Conservative" views of abortion". Please tell me that wasn't your search criteria.

I would love to read some scientific literature you produced. It's sure to be comedy gold.

 

[scudsucker]

Haha I don't think you understand the real world. You have this warped caricature idea of what a scientist is.

OK Kieps.

To be fair, I'm not convinced that you have any idea about what it is to be a scientist.

I'm sure you're the life of the party always asking people to corroborate their opinions or views. Heck you probably ask your SO to give you a written performance review with sourced references.

I'm somewhat flattered that my private life has become part of your **** bank. Thanks for that.

Yes normal conversations are like this. You don't query every thing you hear and ask them for proof. You're more than welcome to show some literature to disprove a claim. Most posts here do, in fact, start with some referenced source and then a conversation ensues. You're behaving like a child.

Excellent observation!

I am behaving like a child who has been trained to question everything. To become a "scientist" even if they do not go into science. To observe, identify and deduce what the evidence presents using the scientific method. Perhaps you are familiar with the scientific method from your matric?

Remember the Afrikaans saying "A goeie begrip..."
You're a living embodiment of this expression in demanding lengthy explanations or correcting grammar where the grownups focus on the argument itself. Let me know if you need assistance in understanding the expression.

You are aware that my Afrikaans is quite poor. Thank you for your generous offer, do please translate for me. Baai dankie.

Anyway keep punching up. It remains humourous

Up/down (and right/wrong, fascist/,non-facisst) for the right wing seems to be a nebulous concept, so forgive me if I take that with a pinch of salt.

 

[scudsucker]

Or you know just hit esc while it's loading, but that's probably too advanced for you...

Ok Kieps

I can see why such a short article might be difficult for you to understand.

Ok Kieps

So you post two "sources" which does not actually prove anything you stated. You know how sources are supposed to work right?

Yes, Kieps.

Gotta appreciate the hustle to find a random 1997 article with the title ""Conservative" views of abortion". Please tell me that wasn't your search criteria.

No, Kieps.

I would love to read some scientific literature you produced. It's sure to be comedy gold.

I, on the other hand, would be quite keen to read your thesis. You can PM a link to it for me.

 

[Kieppie]

A few exceptions like rape or incest, maybe?

I'm sure a just and fair system would make provisions for a few exceptions, don't you, Kieppie?

Like maybe this system:

Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature

Bill Text (2021-05-19) Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. [Effective on 9/1/21]

legiscan.com

Be a pal, and copy/paste the protections this just and fair system has to protect those few exceptions, Kieppie.

You know how to copy/paste, don't you?

cmd-c and then cmd-v.

Welcome back on your soapbox Greg. Enjoy the stay.

As mentioned in earlier post. Don't pretend you actually care what is contained in the bill. You are against the very nature of it. No matter what exceptions are included.