What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol

[gregathit]

1 hour ago, markdf said:

Except that people CAN get rid of kids they can't or wont take care of. That's why we have the foster system, child protective services, and safe drop locations. You can 100% walk away from them. 

And here is the first landmine to step on.  While I applaud foster care, it should be voluntary and the irresponsible parents (yes both) should be forced to pay upkeep for the child until they are 18.  They did the fucking and had the kid, their wages should be garnished.  If you incur a debt, YOU should pay for it.  Perhaps the payment can be low depending on the circumstances.  It could even be traded as labor.  These are details that should be worked out on a case by case business.  If this is not done, then this irresponsibility will increase exponentially.  Why behave responsibly if there are no repercussions?  This should be common sense.  Again, this is complaining about the outcome of a decision and action that THEY MADE.  Don't boom boom and you don't have to worry about any of this.  I guess that is just too hard.  Pathetic.

 

CPS and blah, blah are government crap and government has proved time and time again it can't manage its way out of a wet paper bag with sharp scissors.  If any government is involved at all, it should be at the city/town or county level at most.  Beyond that, children cease to be children and just become cases and numbers.  Orphanages are horror stories of failure on a massive level.  Can we not learn from history?

1 hour ago, markdf said:

I'm sure you're aware that most western countries DO have a long history of sterilizing people against their will. The mentally ill, the poor, unwed mothers, black and indigenous people, pretty much anyone that the attending doctor personally believed shouldn't be having children. It's generally considered to be a monstrous practice. 

You mean Europe?  North America "West" hasn't been around long enough to have a "long history" of anything.  Oh, and I clearly labeled it as hyperbole, which clearly you missed.  It was a logical leap to the silly nonsense you were saying.

1 hour ago, markdf said:

But if we're talking about society footing the bill, why are you so worried about spending a few pennies of your tax dollars on medical care instead of worrying about how thousands of your tax dollars are being spent on literally ANY other nonsense? Like pointless wars? Or making it harder to vote? Or border walls that are 50% imaginary and 50% falling over because they were built by grifters? Complaining about the "cost" of maternity care is laughable. 

Ah yes.  A few pennies for the kids.  Yep, the good old argument that folks think is unbeatable.  Except it isn't unbeatable and the money isn't generally used for kids.  And it is never just a few pennies and it the temporary levy never seems to end, despite them telling us it is just for a few years.  And I've seen the inside of government agencies, all of which will spend any money that they saved for the year prior to that year expiring because they are afraid that they'll get a budget cut for the next year.  Talk about awarding grift.  

 

And how asinine of you to assume that the other stuff you mention doesn't bother me.  Did you have a sudden revelation of my innermost thoughts?  Since you clearly didn't, let me help you.  Nope, I don't want the US to be the world's police.  Bring the troops home.  No, voting should just require a picture ID, and an address, which anyone can get.  The Georgia BS is total BS.  New York has tougher voting laws.  Sorry that facts bust your narrative.  Yes, we need border walls.  Yes, they should be good walls and should be patrolled.  A country with no borders ceases to be a country.  Yes, I am still concerned about ANY item that makes demands of me.  If it does not benefit me, then NO, I don't want to fund it.  PERIOD.  Walls, guards, law and order, secure voting, these things benefit me.  Being a money bag for an irresponsible person who refuses to face the consequences of their actions.....NOPE.  No benefit for me there.  You want to fund it, go right ahead.  My body made the money, so MY CHOICE.  ?

1 hour ago, markdf said:

Besides, those kids will cost you -- personally -- a lot more tax money in the form of schooling and medical care (which IS free for many young children) than they ever will if they're aborted.

Which is why I am for dumping the public school system.....which is an utter failure.  I want to see vouchers (tax credits) for folks to send their kids to whatever school they choose.

1 hour ago, markdf said:

Hopefully we do find a way to transplant fetuses, and the true believers can spend the rest of their lives in birthing farms while the rest of us get on with our lives.

ROFL!!!  The absurdity of this is so far beyond the pale that I don't even have to make a pithy comeback.  Congratulations.  You clearly don't care about kids (or mothers for that matter) a bit with a statement like that, so why are you even bothering to go on this little crusade?  Something smells off here.

[gregathit]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Did you just compare a 12 week old fetus to a 4 year old child? One that has barely formed as a being and the other that has been born for almost half a decade? You called them both children? 

Context my friend, context.  My point was that you can't walk away from either.  The 12 week old is dependent on the parent the same as the 4 year old.  Abandonment of one is both morally and ethically wrong.  However only one of these actions is illegal.  Which to me is weird.  Also, what is the biological difference between a baby/fetus in the womb and a new born?  It just seems a bit unscientific to me that a slap on the ass or a change in location makes one a person and the other a blob of cells that can be disposed of at will.

23 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Next you're gonna tell me a 16 year old is no different from 20 year old, so to hell with 18+ rights?

What?  How is that even remotely a connectable dot to what I said?  Sorry, that dog ain't going to hunt.  Straw man anyone?

[gregathit]

4 hours ago, chain729 said:

What pisses me off?  Hypocrisy.  Lying is a very close second.  Unfortunately, western society tends to reward both nowadays.  

Sadly it is rewarded.  Also sadly, the west doesn't have the corner of the market.  It is being done the world over.

[markdf]

19 minutes ago, gregathit said:

You clearly don't care about kids (or mothers for that matter) a bit with a statement like that, so why are you even bothering to go on this little crusade?  Something smells off here.

 

I absolutely care about mothers. I don't much care about pro-lifers, which is why I get so much amusement from the idea of them lining up to have unwanted fetuses transplanted into them. Except that so few people will actually want to do it that it will be a full time job for the true believers. The rest will just finally shut and move on once their hypocrisy is on full display.

[27X]

2 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I love Apples to Hand Grenades. This however was more like mental gymnastics. Or Metaphors are a more accurate term.

 

People kill animals just because they hate eating vegetables so I don't see where they get their morals from. Now here is the flaw in your argument. Cows aren't even four when they get butchered. Ban slaughterhouse abortions?

 

I highly doubt this discussion will go anywhere or change anything so I'll end my... is it an argument or is it a joke? but I'm up for sterilizing stupid people. I mean why not?

 

Except those whom are eating purely vegan diets will literally die from malnutrition. Those little sprays of cheaty vitamins are literally necessary to keep eating vegan and not end up in the hospital. People eat meat because they're designed to, and no amount of twitter check marks can alter reality, same as the last sixty years of social engineering can't erase 5 million years of hominid evolution.

[Mr. Otaku]

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

My point was that you can't walk away from either.

So my comparison was right then? What context is there to see?

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

The 12 week old is dependent on the parent the same as the 4 year old.

Yeah but the 12 week old fetus is not a person and the 4 year old is.

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Abandonment of one is both morally and ethically wrong.

Pure conservative moral manic talking point, debunked and shredded millions of times. A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

However only one of these actions is illegal.

Yes because aborting a fetus is not the same as murdering a child. To suggest they're both murder you have to also suggest that a 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year kid. So what exactly was the context i was missing here?

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Which to me is weird.

A subjective thought. Everything's weird to someone out there. I think furriers are a little weird, that doesn't mean they have to care about that or stop their ways.

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Also, what is the biological difference between a baby/fetus in the womb and a new born?

This question ignores the fact that a baby is not a fetus and vice versa and to suggest otherwise is to ignore well known medical science that honestly even many illiterate people vaguely understand.

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

It just seems a bit unscientific to me that a slap on the ass or a change in location makes one a person and the other a blob of cells that can be disposed of at will.

Well seems is a very weak reasoning to go off on don't you think? It seems very weird that earth isn't actually a flat bed of dirt and water, i can't see the curve. That's no reason to think the globe is unscientific. One blob of cells is a person, the other has barely even formed yet. That's the distinction.

 

18 minutes ago, gregathit said:

What?  How is that even remotely a connectable dot to what I said?  Sorry, that dog ain't going to hunt.  Straw man anyone?

You see what it feels like now to look at hyperbolic extrapolation? I said that on purpose for that exact reason.

[Darkpig]

9 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Sadly it is rewarded.  Also sadly, the west doesn't have the corner of the market.  It is being done the world over.

And always has been done.

[markdf]

3 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

Except those whom are eating purely vegan diets will literally die from malnutrition. Those little sprays of cheaty vitamins are literally necessary to keep eating vegan and not end up in the hospital. People eat meat because they're designed to, and no amount of twitter check marks can alter reality, same as the last sixty years of social engineering can't erase 5 million years of hominid evolution.

 

That's not even remotely true. I love meat as much as anyone, but people can absolutely survive on a vegan diet. Humans are consumate omnivores, we can survive on some pretty extreme diets -- from entirely plant based, to almost entirely meat based. That's not ideology, it's human biology. And if you're not convinced, try to actually identify even ONE nutrient that is not available in adequate quantities from a vegan source.

[27X]

15 minutes ago, markdf said:

 

That's not even remotely true. I love meat as much as anyone, but people can absolutely survive on a vegan diet. Humans are consumate omnivores, we can survive on some pretty extreme diets -- from entirely plant based, to almost entirely meat based. That's not ideology, it's human biology. And if you're not convinced, try to actually identify even ONE nutrient that is not available in adequate quantities from a vegan source.

 

I don't have to.

 

The top two >vegan< (not vegetarian) scientists have a list of mandatory supplements, and will not sign off on any diet that does not contain them, because any diet that does not contain them will cause long term irreversible damage.

 

End of discussion.

[gregathit]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

So my comparison was right then? What context is there to see?

Um.....the part where you took it to an absurd end?  But hey.....details right?

4 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Yeah but the 12 week old fetus is not a person and the 4 year old is.

Stab or punch a pregnant woman in the belly killing the baby but not the woman and see if you don't wind up getting a murder charge for the baby.  Funny the hypocrisy in that.  

6 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Pure conservative moral manic talking point, debunked and shredded millions of times. A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

Except you can't prove that a fetus doesn't have feelings.  Going down that road, a baby just out of womb suddenly develops those feel feels do they?  That rap on the ass makes that ball drop?  Or does the baby not have feelings so tossing them in the dumpster when your having a bad day is just peachy?  Sorry, the only debunking is the train right off of the logic tracts with that nonsense.

9 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Yes because aborting a child is not the same as murder. To suggest they're both murder you have to also suggest that a 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year kid. So what exactly was the context i was missing here?

Leaving a four year old in the ditch is the same as pulling said 12 week old out.  You are definitely risking the life of one and killing the other.  Abortion is legal for now so what why are you even concerned?

13 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

A subjective thought. Everything's weird to someone out there.

Hey, we agree.  

14 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

This question ignores the fact that a baby is not a fetus and vice versa and to suggest otherwise is to ignore well known medical science that honestly even many illiterate people vaguely understand.

Oh, right.  So leaches should still be used and if you can't see something with your naked eye (like germs and bacteria and viruses) then it doesn't exist and blah, blah, blah.  Medical science is by no means fixed.  It continues to redefine what it thought it knew over and over and over.  As for a fetus not being a baby, where is biological proof that there is a deference?  Where is the change point?  Is pixy fair dust involved?  I think you are illiterate when it comes to medical science.  You believe what you are told.   Science is about questioning things.  Just because we believe something is X, doesn't mean it will stay that way.  What you are calling medical science is really social engineering.

21 minutes ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Well seems is a very weak reasoning to go off on don't you think? It seems very weird that earth isn't actually a flat bed of dirt and water, i can't see the curve. That's no reason to think the globe is unscientific. One blob of cells is a person, the other has barely even formed yet. That's the distinction.

What?  You can see the earth is curved if you climb a mountain.  Logic dictates that bodies under gravitational pull generally form as globes.  

There is no parallel between that and calling a fetus a non-person until they pop out of the womb.  As for 12 weeks being a blob, a simple google search will put that to bed.  While it is too small to live outside the womb with today's technology, it is pretty well formed.  

[gregathit]

35 minutes ago, markdf said:

 

That's not even remotely true. I love meat as much as anyone, but people can absolutely survive on a vegan diet. Humans are consumate omnivores, we can survive on some pretty extreme diets -- from entirely plant based, to almost entirely meat based. That's not ideology, it's human biology. And if you're not convinced, try to actually identify even ONE nutrient that is not available in adequate quantities from a vegan source.

A pure vegan diet is hard to pull off without supplements.  You have to have access to a broad variety of things that folks outside of the "west" would not have the means or money to acquire.  Also, age makes this more and more difficult:  https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-supplements-for-vegans  and https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325283.

So doable, but only for limited parts of the human population and difficult even for them.  Heck, a balanced diet without supplements is damned hard as we get older.  ?

[markdf]

31 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

I don't have to.

 

The top two >vegan< (not vegetarian) scientists have a list of mandatory supplements, and will not sign off on any diet that does not contain them, because any diet that does not contain them will cause long term irreversible damage.

 

End of discussion.

 

So it should be easy to name those nutrients then, right? Or even name the scientists in question?

[markdf]

7 minutes ago, gregathit said:

A pure vegan diet is hard to pull off without supplements.  You have to have access to a broad variety of things that folks outside of the "west" would not have the means or money to acquire.  Also, age makes this more and more difficult:  https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-supplements-for-vegans  and https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325283.

So doable, but only for limited parts of the human population and difficult even for them.  Heck, a balanced diet without supplements is damned hard as we get older.  ?

 

Depends on what your standards for "healthy" are. If you expect the quality of health and longevity that people in industrialized nations are accustomed to, then yeah it's hard and requires a magnificent range of foods from a lot of places -- the fact that anyone can do it is one of capitalism's triumphs. But that's a far cry from vegans dying of malnutrition without supplements, which was the claim I was contradicting.

[Mr. Otaku]

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Um.....the part where you took it to an absurd end?  But hey.....details right?

Like what details?

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Stab or punch a pregnant woman in the belly killing the baby but not the woman and see if you don't wind up getting a murder charge for the baby.  Funny the hypocrisy in that.

This is what i'm talking about, you're merging several different non-related arguments into one and telling me that i'm missing details when really i'm just breaking down what you're saying. If i punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her fetus then i'll be charged because i'm not the mother. It's not my call to make and it sure as hell ain't medically safe for either of them so i'll also be charged for putting the mother's life at critical risk. The only hypocrisy here would be you completely ignoring who has the right to make such calls and then saying i'm taking this to an absurd level.

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Leaving a four year old in the ditch is the same as pulling said 12 week old out.  You are definitely risking the life of one and killing the other.  Abortion is legal for now so what why are you even concerned?

Which means you're saying the 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year old child. You are in fact making that comparison yet you said earlier that i'm missing what context now when i pointed that out? The places that have abortion legal will never go back to making it illegal and hopefully all other places will follow suit. My concern is about the places that don't enjoy such rights and the fact that people like you will keep attempting to reverse the progress made in the general first world out of your distorted sense of "morality".

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Oh, right.  So leaches should still be used and if you can't see something with your naked eye (like germs and bacteria and viruses) then it doesn't exist and blah, blah, blah.  Medical science is by no means fixed.  It continues to redefine what it thought it knew over and over and over.  As for a fetus not being a baby, where is biological proof that there is a deference?  Where is the change point?  Is pixy fair dust involved?  I think you are illiterate when it comes to medical science.  You believe what you are told.   Science is about questioning things.  Just because we believe something is X, doesn't mean it will stay that way.  What you are calling medical science is really social engineering.

It's not "blah, blah, blah" it's established medical science. Leaches aren't even human and sure as hell aren't people so again, another pointless point merged into the argument to dilute the core point. Medical science as a whole isn't fixed just like physics, but whether a fetus should be thought of as a baby and vice versa? That is fixed, so i'm sure what you think is being redefined here.

The fact that we don't address a baby as a fetus should give you all the proof but if this isn't enough you can always ask your local doctor to confirm what i said. Science is not about asking questions that were correctly answered thousands of years ago.

 

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

What?  You can see the earth is curved if you climb a mountain.  Logic dictates that bodies under gravitational pull generally form as globes.  

There is no parallel between that and calling a fetus a non-person until they pop out of the womb.  As for 12 weeks being a blob, a simple google search will put that to bed.  While it is too small to live outside the womb with today's technology, it is pretty well formed.

No you can't, and even if you did it wouldn't be enough to suggest that the earth itself is a round globe all the way around. But that's not even the point, the point is to speak from facts, not "morality" or "feelings" but facts and the concrete right of making a choice as the carrier/host. A 12 week old blob of cells is not a person, a 4 year old child is. A simple google search will put that to bed. It's got nothing to do with it's size lmao, it's got to do with the fact that it's not finished forming into a human baby let alone a person to begin with.

[27X]

2 hours ago, markdf said:

 

So it should be easy to name those nutrients then, right? Or even name the scientists in question?

 

Yep.

 

You can listen a gander of about twenty hours of meatasauruses and veggiesauruses like Kesser and Wilks screaming at each other in 2.5 to 4 hour segments, about seven of them in the last three to four years. All of them on Spotify via Joe Rogan Experience. Knock yourself out.

 

Quote

Depends on what your standards for "healthy" are.

 

1. Moving the goalposts

2. Dying of liver failure or pancreatic cancer is not generally regarded as "healthy" of any kind.

[markdf]

5 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

Yep.

 

You can listen a gander of about twenty hours of meatasauruses and veggiesauruses like Kesser and Wilkes screaming at each other in 2.5 to 4 hours segments, about seven of them in the last three to four years. All of them on Spotify via JRE. Knock yourself out.

 

So what I'm hearing is that you just have some rants on Spotify and no actual peer-reviewed research, and no names of ACTUAL nutrients. At least Gregathit had an actual list nutrients that are *harder* for vegans to get naturally (although still possible in every case).

 

The problem is this black or white attitude towards nutrition -- that you'll die of malnutrition without animal products. You won't, and there are millions of people who are very much alive to prove that. They may not be as healthy (although I'd like to see research before I believe that), but they are definitely not dying of malnutrition.

[27X]

You're hearing what you want to hear because apparently having the experts debate with annotations  literally in front of you is "too arbitrary", which is pretty ironic cause the one being arbitrary here isn't me.

 

You've got some anecdotal one time a guy was vegan and not died cause I know for sure versus the people right now at the cutting edge of developing the diets and sciences thereof and you're sure you know which answer is the right one without having heard them speak at all.

 

Sure.

 

 

[gregathit]

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

This is what i'm talking about, you're merging several different non-related arguments into one and telling me that i'm missing details when really i'm just breaking down what you're saying. If i punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her fetus then i'll be charged because i'm not the mother.

So if you are a chick and punch yourself in the tummy, which kills the fetus, by your twisted logic that is not murder.  Okay Dokey.  Way to miss the entire point.

My point, which was clear, is that killing a fetus can be murder:  https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Which means you're saying the 12 week old fetus is the same as a 4 year old child. You are in fact making that comparison yet you said earlier that i'm missing what context now when i pointed that out? The places that have abortion legal will never go back to making it illegal and hopefully all other places will follow suit. My concern is about the places that don't enjoy such rights and the fact that people like you will keep attempting to reverse the progress made in the general first world out of your distorted sense of "morality".

You can't give me a scientific or biological difference between a fetus that is about to be born and a baby that has just been born and you whine that my logic is distorted.  Wow.  Just Wow.  

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

It's not "blah, blah, blah" it's established medical science. Leaches aren't even human and sure as hell aren't people so again, another pointless point merged into the argument to dilute the core point. Medical science as a whole isn't fixed just like physics, but whether a fetus should be thought of as a baby and vice versa? That is fixed, so i'm sure what you think is being redefined here.

ROFL!!!!  Please stop.  You are either unable to understand due to a translator or just not up to this.  My point wasn't that leeches are people, it is that leeches where once considered cutting edge medical science.  Have you ever read a book about medieval times?  Golly Gee there Wally.  It is impossible to have misconstrued this as I went on to talk about the brightest medical folks at one time didn't believe in things they could not see with their eyes......such as germs and so on.  Medical science is not fixed was the entire point.  Oh, physics isn't necessarily fixed either.  We just have the tip of the iceberg there.  And as for your fetus vs baby being fixed.......nope.  Beyond you, it isn't fixed.  Sorry.

You are not the arbiter of truth.

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

Science is not about asking questions that were correctly answered thousands of years ago.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong.  Science is about asking questions of everything.  Nothing is established.  Very little that was believed thousands of years ago is actually true today.  Very little of what is true today may be true a thousand years from now.  As our understanding grows, so grows our capacity to figure things out.  Sure some basic building blocks are still going to be valid, but lots of things have been stood on their head in the last 100 years.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Otaku said:

But that's not even the point, the point is to speak from facts, not "morality" or "feelings" but facts and the concrete right of making a choice as the carrier/host. A 12 week old blob of cells is not a person, a 4 year old child is. A simple google search will put that to bed. It's got nothing to do with it's size lmao, it's got to do with the fact that it's not finished forming into a human baby let alone a person to begin with.

Wait, you want facts to be the basis but then you said:

2 hours ago, Mr. Otaku said:  A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

Link:   https://www.loverslab.com/topic/34500-what-really-pisses-you-off-please-no-posts-about-nexus-lol/?do=findComment&comment=3348459

 

 

I'm so confused.  So which is it?  Facts or feel feels?  If it is facts, then why won't you give me the biological difference between a baby just born and fetus about to be born?  I've asked twice (or is it three times?).

 

Oh, and those that are born with defects, ie that are not "finished forming" they aren't people?  Wow.  News to me.  Come on, pick facts or pick feelings.  You can't have both.  You are fence hopping to cherry pick talking points.  Pick your side and embrace it.  Unless you don't really believe what you think you believe?

[Mr. Otaku]

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

So if you are a chick and punch yourself in the tummy, which kills the fetus, by your twisted logic that is not murder.  Okay Dokey.  Way to miss the entire point.

My point, which was clear, is that killing a fetus can be murder:  https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

You just did it again lol. Yes technically if a woman chooses to, she can and should be able to punch her stomach really hard and abort the fetus, that's how they did it when the necessary right to abort was not a luxury mothers with unwanted pregnancies enjoyed. They used to do it with coat hangers and everything in between.

But NO woman should ever need to resort to punching herself if medically safe abortion services are available, something people like you oppose due to your twisted notion of morality. You'd rather think about the fetus that can't perceive anything than the woman who is pained by it's unwanted existence. For people like you morals aren't the point, the suffering is.

 

Posting an article from 1994 of a pregnant woman getting shot by a robber does nothing to erode my point and only confirms what i said earlier that you can't help but jump around to a 100 points and then say my logic is twisted when i break them all down one by one. The article you posted only confirms how much straighter my logic is compared to yours. You don't like that i'm not letting you switch the goalposts.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You can't give me a scientific or biological difference between a fetus that is about to be born and a baby that has just been born and you whine that my logic is distorted.  Wow.  Just Wow.

I thought you had google, why are you asking me to differentiate two completely different forms of life? Next you're going to ask if i can prove that bonobos aren't homosapiens? Yet you whine my logic is distorted? Wow, just wow.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

ROFL!!!!  Please stop.

Fake laugh aside

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You are either unable to understand due to a translator or just not up to this.  My point wasn't that leeches are people, it is that leeches where once considered cutting edge medical science.  Have you ever read a book about medieval times?  Golly Gee there Wally.  It is impossible to have misconstrued this as I went on to talk about the brightest medical folks at one time didn't believe in things they could not see with their eyes......such as germs and so on.  Medical science is not fixed was the entire point.  Oh, physics isn't necessarily fixed either.  We just have the tip of the iceberg there.  And as for your fetus vs baby being fixed.......nope.  Beyond you, it isn't fixed.  Sorry.

You did it again! More unrelated non-points to distract from the fact that fetuses aren't children and shouldn't enjoy the same rights as them. All this medieval leech talk, you can store it somewhere else, perhaps for topics that call for these things. We're in the 21st century, so i'll use 21st century medical science which proves that a fetus is not a baby. It is fixed, you can deny it but it wouldn't go away. Even illiterate people have a rough understanding of how this works. What did you people do in school?

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You are not the arbiter of truth.

Neither are you.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Wrong, wrong and more wrong.  Science is about asking questions of everything.  Nothing is established.  Very little that was believed thousands of years ago is actually true today.  Very little of what is true today may be true a thousand years from now.  As our understanding grows, so grows our capacity to figure things out.  Sure some basic building blocks are still going to be valid, but lots of things have been stood on their head in the last 100 years.

So if i claim you're a dog then you have to believe me because nothing is established? Do you just like talking in hyperboles all the time? We know for a fact that fetuses are not babies, they don't function like each other and they don't even look like each other. That's why we have two different terms to note two separate states of a human's development pre-birth. Saying "wrong wrong wrong" to me won't make this a lie as much as you may hate it.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Wait, you want facts to be the basis but then you said:

2 hours ago, Mr. Otaku said:  A person can't be abandoned because the person will have some feelings about that, a fetus can't possess that.

Link:   https://www.loverslab.com/topic/34500-what-really-pisses-you-off-please-no-posts-about-nexus-lol/?do=findComment&comment=3348459

 

 

I'm so confused.  So which is it?  Facts or feel feels?  If it is facts, then why won't you give me the biological difference between a baby just born and fetus about to be born?  I've asked twice (or is it three times?).

Are you unable to understand what i wrote due to a translator or just not up to this? Don't answer, i already know. I can't see what presumed hypocrisy you're gesturing at. There's nothing about feelings in what i wrote. It's like you're desperately trying to look for any loophole in what i'm saying but failing along at every step. But i'll break this down even simpler. Read slowly if you have to, pay attention to the highlighted parts they'll help you:

 

1) A child feels and thinks things, it's a person now so to abandon one would be a wrong thing to do against a person. The child will cry and develop negative emotions and be subject to abuse that the child will be consciously aware of.

2) A fetus is not a person, it's not even close to being a baby so it won't and can't mind if the mother decides to abort it. It won't cry and develop negative emotions and suffer in poverty and it'll never be consciously aware of anything because it hasn't finished forming yet.

 

There is no version of this where you can make me look like i'm contradicting myself, no matter how hard you try. But i appreciate the effort nonetheless.

 

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Oh, and those that are born with defects, ie that are not "finished forming" they aren't people?  Wow.  News to me.  Come on, pick facts or pick feelings.  You can't have both.  You are fence hopping to cherry pick talking points.  Pick your side and embrace it.  Unless you don't really believe what you think you believe?

LOL i had a felling it'll come down to insults now, it's a classic conservative tactic. Inadvertently calling me retarded won't change the facts i've laid in front of you. You can insult me, pout, gishgallop, misconstrue my arguments to point at assumed hypocrisy and rant to your heart's content but your moral panic anti-science talking points will never work.

 

I also find it rather funny that such a spiteful person like you are tasked with moderation on this site. Let me risk a ban here and say that insulting people out of desperation when you start losing an argument makes you categorically unfit for the role of moderating anything. I guess the site owner couldn't give enough of a fuck to hire more suitable people for this task if people like you can get such a position.

 

I'm not even angry, i'm just disappointed in you.

[Macross.]

Oh boy, an abortion debate on a porn site. This should be informative and well researched.

9 hours ago, gregathit said:

Oh, right.  So leaches should still be used and if you can't see something with your naked eye (like germs and bacteria and viruses) then it doesn't exist and blah, blah, blah.  Medical science is by no means fixed.  It continues to redefine what it thought it knew over and over and over.  As for a fetus not being a baby, where is biological proof that there is a deference?  Where is the change point?  Is pixy fair dust involved?  I think you are illiterate when it comes to medical science.  You believe what you are told.   Science is about questioning things.

 

Leaching is very much a facet of modern medicine. Such as when a foreign object leaches toxins into the body, or when a malformed placenta kills the mother by leaching critical nutrients from the blood stream.

 

If you were trying to refer to the creatures known as leeches, those are also still used. If you can convince your local hospital to let you browse the refrigeration units in their pharmacy, you will likely find a package of them right next to the maggots.

 

As to a biological difference between a foetus and a baby?

There is one single clear difference; a foetus is the scientific name for an entity prior to birth. "Baby" is much harder to properly quantify because it is used in so many different contexts and settings. But you are clearly getting at the usage in medical science, in which case it is generally used to refer to an entity after birth. That is the distinction; before, or after excretion and systematic separation from the mother.

 

 

It seems like you're the one suffering from medical (and maybe general) illiteracy.

[DoctaSax]

There's been enough snark in here for a while. This is why there's a no politics rule, so just stop.

Temp locking to make sure this is read.

 

 

[Captain Cobra]

Way too many weirdos walking out in the middle of the street (and freeway!) these past few nights.  They're in dark clothing too so you have to dodge them at the last second.

[Darkpig]

5 hours ago, Captain Cobra said:

Way too many weirdos walking out in the middle of the street (and freeway!) these past few nights.  They're in dark clothing too so you have to dodge them at the last second.

Wait! Yours wear clothing?

[Darkpig]

Also sorry DoctorSax. No more pole ticks for me.

[AKM]

Having a thing, and then... not having it - with absolutely NO idea where the hell I put it.  Damn it, I NEED this thing!  Where the hell is it???

The ONE time I didn't immediately put it in its dedicated spot: POOF!