Facts that even skeptics don't like to admit [Archive]

Hawk one

15th May 2005, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

see ya

1: Sorry, but facts disagree with you. In fact, the sex of a person has never truly been a 100% issue, as the numerous cases of "hermaphrodites" are sure to give telltale signs about. One can't get rid of one's y-chromosomes (if one has them), but it is possible to override their commands with hormonal treatment.

2: First time I've ever seen this claim. Until you provide evidence, I'll keep disagreeing with this, and suspect that it's nothing more than a lie fabricated by some radically antui-gay organisation.

3 and 4: Ahh, it seems like we're finally getting to your real agenda with this post. Life, technically, actually begins before conception, as those sperm cells and egg cells are to my knowledge alive. However, a single sperm cell can't be called a human being. And so far, there has been no evidence to suggest that humans have any form of immortal "soul", and even if they turned out to have one, it is not an automatic given that this "soul" in "inserted" at the moment of conception.

But since there are so far evidence of an immortal soul (or any kind of soul capable of functioning of its own without a body), most reasonable people will maintain that just an egg cell and sperm cell alone won't make a human being. Instead, many months of growth, until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, now that is what we can all agree on is a human being. The cluster of cells, while complex and wondrous in their own right, isn't even close to having achieved this within 12 weeks, which to my knowledge is the "average" amount of time allowed for a woman to abort the fetus on her own decision.

Bob Klase

15th May 2005, 06:05 PM

An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

A developing child is a "fetus".

"Abortion" has more than one definition- "developing child" is not one of them.

Here's a real fact- you don't know the difference between "fact" and "opinion".

clarsct

15th May 2005, 06:09 PM

:tr:

Ratman_tf

15th May 2005, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by clarsct
:tr:

Has all the hallmarks.

I'm wondering what any of them have to do with skepticism specifically?

Stereolab

15th May 2005, 07:28 PM

I mean I'm kind of being a troll but not really. I wanted to stir up some conversation and controversy, but I believe that each item I posted is a fact.

I posted in the Science forum (and I put this thread in the wrong forum, sorry, I don't think I can change it) that people can't change sexes, a few months back, and the majority of respondents disagreed with me. You can have operations and take hormones and whatnot, but chromosomes are chromosomes. No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

I will find a source for the rape fact. Rapes happen all the time in prisons, people know this but think it's okay because they're "just prisoners." I am by no means minimizing the problem of rape against women, but it's not okay in prison either.

And the last two...honestly, I have no agenda. I am pro-life; however, you could certainly put together a persuasive argument that abortion is okay. But if you start claiming that a "fetus" isn't alive or isn't a developing child, you've lost all credibility.

clarsct

15th May 2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I mean I'm kind of being a troll but not really. I wanted to stir up some conversation and controversy, but I believe that each item I posted is a fact.
Admission. Is there hope for a troll who admits he's a troll? Some sort of 12 step program?

I posted in the Science forum (and I put this thread in the wrong forum, sorry, I don't think I can change it) that people can't change sexes, a few months back, and the majority of respondents disagreed with me. You can have operations and take hormones and whatnot, but chromosomes are chromosomes. No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.
This is a social thing. I was involved in theatre at one point in my existence, and I can tell you that the men's dressing room doors were usually open. Some women did dress in there. No one cared. You almost had to have a password and countersign for the ladies' dressing room. If one considers oneself a woman, then what harm? It's not as though he/she's going to rape anyone, and there's little chance that some evil temptation will be there.(Oh LORD JAYSUS, SAVE US FROM TEMPTATION!:rolleyes: )
It's a mindset, and a social prejudice. It's saying that we men are slobbering pigs who can't control ourselves in a civilized fashion. While most of us want a little privacy for these things, they have stalls and walls, for the love of Freya! *sigh* Get over it, it isn't a big deal.

I will find a source for the rape fact. Rapes happen all the time in prisons, people know this but think it's okay because they're "just prisoners." I am by no means minimizing the problem of rape against women, but it's not okay in prison either.
We will await the evidence.

And the last two...honestly, I have no agenda. I am pro-life;
Anyone else see the contradiction here? A PRO-LIFER with no agenda? Isn't that like saying you have non-wet water?

however, you could certainly put together a persuasive argument that abortion is okay. But if you start claiming that a "fetus" isn't alive or isn't a developing child, you've lost all credibility.

Rhetoric. You'll have to be more convincing than that.

Mark A. Siefert

15th May 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.]

Give genetic science some time, they're working on it.

2. More men than women are raped every day in America.

Source please.

3. Life begins at conception.

So what?

4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

Again, so what?

Bikewer

15th May 2005, 07:59 PM

Someone once asked Stephen J. Gould "When does life begin?"

"About 3.5 billion years ago."

Ladewig

15th May 2005, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I mean I'm kind of being a troll but not really. I wanted to stir up some conversation and controversy, but I believe that each item I posted is a fact.

Why did you put all four in one thread? It is hard to have a conversation when people are talking about four different things at once?

SezMe

15th May 2005, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.
At least you got the first part right. An aborition is a medical procedure.

c4ts

15th May 2005, 08:30 PM

You have quite an amusing definition of "fact." It's a pity you've witheld it from us.

Ratman_tf

15th May 2005, 11:27 PM

turtle

15th May 2005, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

This may be derailing the thread, but... I'll play. Why? I'm just so damn curious about your opinion here. If a 'man' who believes he is really a woman, (man trapped in a woman's body) and goes through the whole sex change thing, ...he's, I mean, she's a woman. Are you a woman? I wonder how many women would be bothred by a man now woman in the ladies room, and how many men are bothered by the idea of it. Being a woman, I wouldn't care, that is, assuming I'd bother to be looking closely enough to find out.

I will find a source for the rape fact. Rapes happen all the time in prisons, people know this but think it's okay because they're "just prisoners."

You may think some people think it's okay -- I don't. So?

I am by no means minimizing the problem of rape against women, but it's not okay in prison either.

And the last two...honestly, I have no agenda.

LOL, of course you do, or you wouldn't have posted here. That's okay you have an agenda; everyone has an agenda. Just don't pretend you don't.

I am pro-life; however, you could certainly put together a persuasive argument that abortion is okay. But if you start claiming that a "fetus" isn't alive or isn't a developing child, you've lost all credibility.

There's a big difference between the concept of a fetus being alive, and a fetus being a developing child. Ask me, all things are alive, but that's me.

I think that whole idea belongs in the religion and philosophy thread.

Zep

16th May 2005, 12:26 AM

Questions for you, stereolab:

1) If there are, say, 1 million prisoners in the US prison system at any one time (a guesstimate on my part), and half rape the other half regularly, that's 500,000 males rapes in the prison system. But consider: The population of the USA is 250 million, of which half, 125,000,000, are women. Again guestimating, let's suppose just 1% of all these females are raped (or are forced to have sex against their will), then that's 1,250,000 female rapes in the community. This is all assuming different assailants every time too. Please explain.

2) What do you think a miscarriage of pregnancy is? Do you think they should be banned? Who do you think causes them at all?

3) What do sex do you think a person is who has XXY chromosomes instead of the normal XX or XY? Who is to blame for that?

Vikram

16th May 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I posted in the Science forum (and I put this thread in the wrong forum, sorry, I don't think I can change it) that people can't change sexes, a few months back, and the majority of respondents disagreed with me. You can have operations and take hormones and whatnot, but chromosomes are chromosomes. No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.
In testicular feminization, the fetus is XY but its cells are incapable of responding to testosterone. As a result, the body develops like that of a female (including the external genitalia) because the unused testosterone is converted to estrogen. The only difference is that the fetus has testes that remain in the abdomen and often go undetected, and that the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries are missing.

Complete testicular feminization is usually first diagnosed when a female child who fails to menstruate at puberty turns out to be lacking a uterus on examination

The person is XY. But the person has no penis or scrotum - just a vulva, vagina and breasts and every other external physical feature of a female.

Any suggestions as to which bathroom one should send such a person to? If, as you say, chromosomal makeup is the deciding criterion, such people who have developed as females (without any surgeries or hormone treatments) but who are XY should ALSO be sent to men's bathrooms, right?

clarsct

16th May 2005, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Vikram
In testicular feminization, the fetus is XY but its cells are incapable of responding to testosterone. As a result, the body develops like that of a female (including the external genitalia) because the unused testosterone is converted to estrogen. The only difference is that the fetus has testes that remain in the abdomen and often go undetected, and that the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries are missing.

Complete testicular feminization is usually first diagnosed when a female child who fails to menstruate at puberty turns out to be lacking a uterus on examination

The person is XY. But the person has no penis or scrotum - just a vulva, vagina and breasts and every other external physical feature of a female.

Any suggestions as to which bathroom one should send such a person to? If, as you say, chromosomal makeup is the deciding criterion, such people who have developed as females (without any surgeries or hormone treatments) but who are XY should ALSO be sent to men's bathrooms, right?

Forgive me, and by no means assume I'm with Stereolab.....Read my above post. But I've never heard if this and it seems ...well.....rather extraordinary. Is there data on this condition? Just curious.

Vikram

16th May 2005, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by clarsct
Forgive me, and by no means assume I'm with Stereolab.....Read my above post. But I've never heard if this and it seems ...well.....rather extraordinary. Is there data on this condition?
Absolutely.

Although a gynecology textbook would be the ideal source of information, here are some links to get you started:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001180.htm
http://adam.about.com/encyclopedia/001180.htm
http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001180.htm

The scenario I described above is that of Complete Testicular Feminization. People with Incomplete Testicular Feminization can have ambiguous genitalia - combinations of male and female genitalia. That makes classification even more difficult.

16th May 2005, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Zep

1) If there are, say, 1 million prisoners in the US prison system at any one time (a guesstimate on my part), and half rape the other half regularly, that's 500,000 males rapes in the prison system.

If your definition for "regularly" is "once". If "regularly" meant, for example, once in a week, it would be 26 million rapes a year.

But of course, this number is meaningless. According to a study (http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf) that I googled, 21% of the prisoners in seven Midwestern prisons had been raped during their prison term and 1% during the preceeding year and a half.

I suspect that some people are taking figures like "21% during prison stay" and then read it as "21% each year" which would mean that there were about 400,000 prison rapes each year, a figure that is significantly greater than the US Department of Justice estimate on yearly numer of rapes (248,000 in 1997, figure quoted from a compilation page (http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html)).

Seismosaurus

16th May 2005, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I mean I'm kind of being a troll but not really. I wanted to stir up some conversation and controversy, but I believe that each item I posted is a fact.

I posted in the Science forum (and I put this thread in the wrong forum, sorry, I don't think I can change it) that people can't change sexes, a few months back, and the majority of respondents disagreed with me. You can have operations and take hormones and whatnot, but chromosomes are chromosomes. No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

But who says that it is the chromosomes that determine what gender you are?

We only came up with the XY thing because we looked at men and women, and men had XY and women XX. But if that's the case then isn't it circular logic to then say that women are women because they are XX and men are men because they are XY?

I will find a source for the rape fact. Rapes happen all the time in prisons, people know this but think it's okay because they're "just prisoners." I am by no means minimizing the problem of rape against women, but it's not okay in prison either.

And the last two...honestly, I have no agenda. I am pro-life; however, you could certainly put together a persuasive argument that abortion is okay. But if you start claiming that a "fetus" isn't alive or isn't a developing child, you've lost all credibility.

Most pro-choice people don't make those arguments though. Clearly a foetus is alive - but so is a tumour and nobody has a problem getting rid of those. Yes it is a developmental stage of a Human, but so is a sperm and an egg, and people have no great problem getting rid of those either.

Rather the argument centres on whether the developing foetus is a "person".

CptColumbo

16th May 2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by clarsct
Forgive me, and by no means assume I'm with Stereolab.....Read my above post. But I've never heard if this and it seems ...well.....rather extraordinary. Is there data on this condition? Just curious.

While I don't have the information in front of me, I have heard of this condition and seen at least two documentaries on the subject. I believe one was from NOVA. They are not hermaphrodites (probably spelled wrong) merely people born female, but with XY. The downside is they can't bear children, but on the plus side many (not all) have better muscle development than other women.

As far as the rape statement goes, I think you've watched too many prison movies.

It reminds me of a time I was talking to a friend at a strategy game tournament, between games. I don't remember how the subject came up, but we were talking about a woman who had been sexually assaulted in our neighborhood, and a suspect had been caught. He mentioned what the woman was wearing, and said "what did she expect wearing something like that?" I'm afraid I blew my cool, and yelled "That she was living in a civilised society, populated by HUMAN BEINGS who can control themselves!"

People who blame the victim really piss me off.

BTW she was out jogging, and wearing a warm-up suit.

Read some true crime books by Anne Rule and John Douglas, and you'll see that the many of the rapes that occur in prisons are merely the temporary outlet for a sexual predator, who would rather do it to a woman, but can't.

16th May 2005, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

Dang.

I knew that I shouldn't have agreed to accepted when a woman friend of mine invited me to check how they had decorated the womens' room. I guess I made a mortal sin when I went in to look.

CptColumbo

16th May 2005, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by LW
Dang.

I knew that I shouldn't have agreed to accepted when a woman friend of mine invited me to check how they had decorated the womens' room. I guess I made a mortal sin when I went in to look.

When I was in the boy's choir at my church, after practice we whould gang up on one member and shove him in the ladies room and lock the door. So I guess I'll see you in hell or at least purgatory.

Zep

16th May 2005, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by LW
If your definition for "regularly" is "once". If "regularly" meant, for example, once in a week, it would be 26 million rapes a year.

But of course, this number is meaningless. According to a study (http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf) that I googled, 21% of the prisoners in seven Midwestern prisons had been raped during their prison term and 1% during the preceeding year and a half.

I suspect that some people are taking figures like "21% during prison stay" and then read it as "21% each year" which would mean that there were about 400,000 prison rapes each year, a figure that is significantly greater than the US Department of Justice estimate on yearly numer of rapes (248,000 in 1997, figure quoted from a compilation page (http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html)). Excellent work, LW! Thank you.

Some real figures for you, Stereolab. Carry on!

dann

16th May 2005, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by SezMe
Re: Facts that even skeptics don't like to admit
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stereolab
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least you got the first part right. An aborition is a medical procedure. Is it the medical procedure that turns white Australians into aborigines? (I wonder which toilet they'll have to use!)
And to Stereolab: No, not anymore!Originally posted by Stereolab
No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.Are you quite sure that you don't mean: No one who was born of a man? It would make things so much easier ...

DavoMan

16th May 2005, 04:30 AM

I think I dont like to admid those statements because they're just some *******'s uneducated opinion.

That too is an uneducated opinion of an *******. But I'm different. I'm.. I'm... cool.

wahrheit

16th May 2005, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

5. Women are genetically determined to serve men, breed, attend the hearth and shut up.
6. I know jack about sex change, but I repeat quasi-fascist propaganda, anyway.
7. I don't care if a fetus will kill my wife during pregnancy.
8. I don't care if a fetus will become nothing but a dead lump of cells upon birth or die within a few days after birth.
9. It's never good christian, heterosexual, land owning men raping women or girls, it's them gays. Luckily, they all might be in prison, already.
10. None of my blah blah has much to do with scepticism, I just wanted to rant my dumb agenda.

16th May 2005, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by LW
According to a study (http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf) that I googled, 21% of the prisoners in seven Midwestern prisons had been raped during their prison term and 1% during the preceeding year and a half.

Addendum: that 21% figure is by itself extremely high and I think that it would be a good idea for the US prison administration to start looking ways to lower it.

But it is not so high that it would make the OP's claim true.

El Greco

16th May 2005, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

Well, I think that he just mixed up words a little. What he really meant to say are these inarguably true statements:

1. Life is simply a developing child
2. An abortion begins at conception
3. No one can really rape a bunch of cells
4. More men than women change their sex in America

pauldmin

16th May 2005, 05:06 AM

Here's something to mess up Pro-Lifers heads:

If by preventing a human egg from being fertilised, are you committing murder?
An egg is a potential life and so could develop into a human if connected with sperm.

Therefore, does that make it everybody's responsibility to fertilise every egg that a woman produces?

Why is fertilisation considered to be the moment when a human is created? It could just as easily be the moment when the egg leaves the ovaries.

The Odd Emperor

16th May 2005, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

Woman’s bathrooms were not in evidence at the garden were they? You know; there are many places where co-ed facilities are very much in use. There are many cultures where elimination in public is not thought to be significant. I always find it strange when the things we have in the US are thought to be the norm world-wide, they are certainly not. Just like our religious views are only a tiny blip on a large tapestry of human society. As much as we would like to believe we have the end-all of morals and divine righteousness, our culture (the US culture) is pretty strange when compared with the rest of the world.

On the flip side; in Japan, US commodes are thought to be primitive and unsanitary. Most household jonnies have more controls than an average VCR.

The Odd Emperor

16th May 2005, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by pauldmin
Here's something to mess up Pro-Lifers heads:

If by preventing a human egg from being fertilised, are you committing murder?
An egg is a potential life and so could develop into a human if connected with sperm.

Therefore, does that make it everybody's responsibility to fertilise every egg that a woman produces?

Why is fertilisation considered to be the moment when a human is created? It could just as easily be the moment when the egg leaves the ovaries.

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate."

http://corky.net/scripts/meaning_life.html

Mark

16th May 2005, 08:54 AM

I haven't posted here in a very long time...this seemed like an interesting topic to jump back in with.

Fact most "pro-lifers" don't like to admit: Not every fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall. Any sexually active woman, each month during her cycle, flushes out fertilized eggs; or, in their silly terms, she kills her babies.

That's right, folks. Every sexually active, non-pregnant woman is a multiple murderer!

And "pro-life" is one of the disgustingly misleading terms ever.

Ashles

16th May 2005, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

see ya
It's the "see ya" that really shows your troll intentions, like a child ringing a doorbell and running away.

It's also the fact that you post 4 different points, only 2 of which are vaguely connected.
If you really wanted to discuss any of these issues you'd post them individually.

It's also the fact that you describe these as 'facts' when they aren't, and you don't even have a source for one of them. Maybe you heard it somewhere, or maybe you just live in constant paranoid fear of homosexual rape (and the psychological implications of that you really wouldn't want to know).

If you think stirring up controversy for the sake of it is clever or difficult then you are sadly mistaken. You appear to badly need a hobby.

Actually addressing your claims is rather pointless as you clearly aren't really here to discuss them.

16th May 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Mark
That's right, folks. Every sexually active, non-pregnant woman is a multiple murderer!

You probably should add a qualifier for condoms somewhere around there.

Odin

16th May 2005, 09:14 AM

http://www.create.co.nz/reelcollectibles/r_images/lotr_busts/cave%20troll_sml.jpg
Facts that even skeptics don't like to admit-

1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

see ya

mayday

16th May 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Bob Klase
A developing child is a "fetus".

"Abortion" has more than one definition- "developing child" is not one of them.

Here's a real fact- you don't know the difference between "fact" and "opinion".

If it's not a baby you're not pregnant.

Stereolab

16th May 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
It's the "see ya" that really shows your troll intentions, like a child ringing a doorbell and running away.

It's also the fact that you post 4 different points, only 2 of which are vaguely connected.
If you really wanted to discuss any of these issues you'd post them individually.

It's also the fact that you describe these as 'facts' when they aren't, and you don't even have a source for one of them. Maybe you heard it somewhere, or maybe you just live in constant paranoid fear of homosexual rape (and the psychological implications of that you really wouldn't want to know).

If you think stirring up controversy for the sake of it is clever or difficult then you are sadly mistaken. You appear to badly need a hobby.

Actually addressing your claims is rather pointless as you clearly aren't really here to discuss them.

You see, you're wrong.

I am fairly skeptical by nature and if you go back and read my posts over the years you'll see that. However, one of the things that really gets me about you people is you pride yourself on being "critical thinkers," and yet you make all kinds of accusations about my knowledge, beliefs, intentions etc. without having nearly enough evidence. This is not the first time this has happened.

I admitted up front that this post was somewhat "trollish" in nature because yes, I am calling you out on this stuff, and I knew people would get all bothered. But you don't understand my "agenda." My agenda, if I have to have one, is to see if anyone will admit that even skeptics promote bad science sometimes, and to see if anyone has any items to add to the list.

Ashles

16th May 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
You see, you're wrong.
I called you a troll and you said:
I admitted up front that this post was somewhat "trollish" in nature because yes, I am calling you out on this stuff, and I knew people would get all bothered.
So, admitting that it was a "trollish" post to get people "all bothered".
QED.
Thank you stereolab.

Darat

16th May 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
You see, you're wrong.

...snip...

I’d like to suggest something and I am not trying to wind you up with this suggestion.

If you are genuine as you are saying consider how it might appear to others that the two posts (granted only so far) you have made since your OP do not seek to further the discussion of any of the points you originally raised or any of the many, many counter arguments and facts others have put forward.

To an uninterested observer it does look as if you are not interested in debating the issues you originally stated you wanted to discuss.

(Edited for words.)

Chimpy

16th May 2005, 10:44 AM

El Greco

16th May 2005, 10:58 AM

Let me tell you why you are a troll:

Originally posted by Stereolab
Facts that even skeptics don't like to admit

You start by refering to "skeptics" as if they were a homogenous group with common beliefs.

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.

You continue with a statement that even if we accept it as true, we can't keep but wonder why do you give a fook about what anyone chooses to do with his/her body and how s/he calls it.

Originally posted by Stereolab
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.

Next you present the most questionable of your statements as a fact and you don't even try to back it up when challenged.

Originally posted by Stereolab
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

And finally, 3 and 4 are two more statements that even if we accept as true (and personally I do), they are completely void of any meaning. There are still good arguments for abortion even if "life begins at conception" and even if what we abort is "a developing child". Your statements address none of these arguments.

For the above reasons, sir, you are a troll.

Stereolab

16th May 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Darat
I’d like to suggest something and I am not trying to wind you up with this suggestion.

If you are genuine as you are saying consider how it might appear to others that the two posts (granted only so far) you have made since your OP do not seek to further the discussion of any of the points you originally raised or any of the many, many counter arguments and facts others have put forward.

To an uninterested observer it does look as if you are not interested in debating the issues you originally stated you wanted to discuss.

(Edited for words.)

I am not interested in debating the points because I consider them to be facts. (Yes, people, there are a small percentage of 'intersexed' people, and okay, I should have said 'aborted fetus' instead of 'abortion,' but you're really nitpicking here.)

I am also not interested in debating whether or not I am a troll. I posted something I expected to be controversial. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I am merely interested to find out if people will admit that lots of skeptics believe bad science, and if anyone has any other items for the list.

Ashles

16th May 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I am not interested in debating the points because I consider them to be facts.
...
I am also not interested in debating whether or not I am a troll.
Nor am I.

I consider it to be a fact.

wahrheit

16th May 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I am not interested in debating the points because I consider them to be facts.
Fine. Case closed. Next.

Bronze Dog

16th May 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I am not interested in debating the points because I consider them to be facts.
If they're facts, then you should be able to point us to evidence, rather than simply assert them as fact.

I'd certainly like to know where you got #2, as well as the idea that skeptics wouldn't like to admit it, if true. I don't know, because I never gave that particular subject much thought beyond thinking rape in general is wrong, etc.

I've never seen anyone argue against #1 or #4 (ignoring the linguistics debate about the way you typed it) or any reluctance to "admit" it by anyone, anywhere.

As for #3, it depends on your definition of "life." If you're talking about whether or not a zygote is alive in the way that bacteria and plants are alive, you won't get any argument from me. If you're talking about whether or not it's alive in the way that a full-grown human is, then we've got something to talk about. Until you clarify, it doesn't even qualify as a meaningful statement to me, much less a proven fact.

delphi_ote

16th May 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by wahrheit
Fine. Case closed. Next.

Yep. He's 100% wrong and 100% a troll. Facts are facts and everyone can agree, because there's no one interested in debating!

I love it when things are simple!

Mojo

16th May 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I am not interested in debating the points because I consider them to be facts. (Yes, people, there are a small percentage of 'intersexed' people, and okay, I should have said 'aborted fetus' instead of 'abortion,' but you're really nitpicking here.)

I am also not interested in debating whether or not I am a troll. I posted something I expected to be controversial. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.Is there anything you would like to debate? You might look less like a troll if you tried posting about something you wish to discuss.

I am merely interested to find out if people will admit that lots of skeptics believe bad science, and if anyone has any other items for the list.You're defining the four vaguely worded, politically contentious and unsubstantiated statements, which you claim in your OP that "skeptics don't like to admit," as "good science?"

Science is more than a collection of factoids.

El Greco

16th May 2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Stereolab
I am merely interested to find out if people will admit that lots of skeptics believe bad science, and if anyone has any other items for the list.

Oh, wait. I got you another one for your list:

Facts that even skeptics don't like to admit, cont.

5. Lots of skeptics believe bad science

16th May 2005, 12:12 PM

STOP! DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!

delphi_ote

16th May 2005, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by jj
STOP! DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!

Aww... but he's so cute and hungry...

headscratcher4

16th May 2005, 12:44 PM

"its a fact..."

Facts are funny things. My understanding is that Christopher Columbus thought the world was round until his ships sailed right off over the edge....

Odin

16th May 2005, 12:47 PM

This troll is not even funny like Jambo or 1inChrist.

Mark

16th May 2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by LW
You probably should add a qualifier for condoms somewhere around there.

Very true. OK...Every fertile woman who engages in unprotected sex with a fertile man is a serial killer!

Of course, the anti-abortion crowd usually says something like, "Yes, but those are acts of God."

So how about this for a slogan? Each month, God kills millions more babies than abortion doctors!

wahrheit

16th May 2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Odin
This troll is not even funny like Jambo or 1inChrist.
Now that you mention him: Where is 1inChrist? Haven't seen him lately http://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon5.gif

delphi_ote

16th May 2005, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by wahrheit
Now that you mention him: Where is 1inChrist? Haven't seen him lately http://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon5.gif

Seems obvious to me: The Rapture.

jmercer

16th May 2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by wahrheit
Now that you mention him: Where is 1inChrist? Haven't seen him lately http://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon5.gif

He's been busy posting over at http://www.skepticforum.com/ under the handle "element". Be forewarned - if you go there and join, it's closely moderated.

mayday

16th May 2005, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Mark
Very true. OK...Every fertile woman who engages in unprotected sex with a fertile man is a serial killer!

Of course, the anti-abortion crowd usually says something like, "Yes, but those are acts of God."

So how about this for a slogan? Each month, God kills millions more babies than abortion doctors!

Boy that logic is about as limp noodle as you can get.

Fertile egg is a fertile egg and sperm is sperm. Not a developing human.

One without the other is just egg and sperm. The two together=developing human.

Life begins at conception, and howdy doody, even an atheist says this is so!

Have you ever seen an intentional abortion? How about a partial birth abortion? I guess since the "glob of developing cells" hasn't yet breathed its first breath it is just a glob of cells, even as its body is delivered feet first with the surgical scissors are driven through the glob of cells brain to make sure it is dead? I knew a nurse who used to work in an abortion clinic, and after one particular incident she finally realized she had a conscience and quit that job. The doctor performed a partial birth abortion and when he did these abortions the "glob of cells" were put in cold storage in the next room so their tissues could be used for vaccines, experiments, etc.. Well, this one partial birth abortion baby didn't die right away. In fact, this glob of cells was crying, crying so hard in the fridge that they could hear it in the next room. This nurse became upset, to say the least, and began to beg the doctor to take the baby out because it was suffering. The doctor wouldn't but the crying *did* stop, eventually. So the next time you get on your high horse ridiculing people who happen to value living things maybe you should be thankful you didn't end up in a refridgerator all bloody with a stab wound through the brain.
On second thought, I think "globs of cells" *can* exist, even after birth. I see we have some who post on this forum.

delphi_ote

16th May 2005, 02:35 PM

Boy this thread sure sounds like it belongs in "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" now... :rolleyes:

wahrheit

16th May 2005, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by jmercer
He's been busy posting over at http://www.skepticforum.com/ under the handle "element". Be forewarned - if you go there and join, it's closely moderated.
Thanks for the warning. Had a look and found quite a number of familiar nicks over there! Though at the moment I guess I'm too lazy to join another battle field :)

Bronze Dog

16th May 2005, 02:48 PM

Mark

16th May 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by mayday
Boy that logic is about as limp noodle as you can get.

Fertile egg is a fertile egg and sperm is sperm. Not a developing human.

One without the other is just egg and sperm. The two together=developing human.

Life begins at conception, and howdy doody, even an atheist says this is so!

Have you ever seen an intentional abortion? How about a partial birth abortion? I guess since the "glob of developing cells" hasn't yet breathed its first breath it is just a glob of cells, even as its body is delivered feet first with the surgical scissors are driven through the glob of cells brain to make sure it is dead? I knew a nurse who used to work in an abortion clinic, and after one particular incident she finally realized she had a conscience and quit that job. The doctor performed a partial birth abortion and when he did these abortions the "glob of cells" were put in cold storage in the next room so their tissues could be used for vaccines, experiments, etc.. Well, this one partial birth abortion baby didn't die right away. In fact, this glob of cells was crying, crying so hard in the fridge that they could hear it in the next room. This nurse became upset, to say the least, and began to beg the doctor to take the baby out because it was suffering. The doctor wouldn't but the crying *did* stop, eventually. So the next time you get on your high horse ridiculing people who happen to value living things maybe you should be thankful you didn't end up in a refridgerator all bloody with a stab wound through the brain.
On second thought, I think "globs of cells" *can* exist, even after birth. I see we have some who post on this forum.

There is a crucial difference bewteen A "fertile" man or woman and a "fertilized" egg.

The fact is, if a fertile woman is sexually active with a fertile man, then they ARE producing fertilized eggs. If she doesn't get pregnant, it just means the fertilized aggs are not implanting on the uterine wall.

So, in other words, little "babies" are being rinsed and flushed every single month whether anyone likes it or not; therefore, millions more babies are dying each year than are artificially aborted by doctors.

So where is all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for all the "babies" dying "naturally?" Hmmmm?

You can post all the anectodal horror stories you want about partial birth abortions (a procedure almost never performed, even when legal), and still not change the simple fact that "God" is murdering millions more babies each year than abortion doctors ever dreamed of.

joobie

16th May 2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

since it seems you're into black and white with no shades of grey:

do you think it's wrong that my mother took me into women's rooms as a small child? in case you're wondering, i was born, and remain, a man.

Bronze Dog

16th May 2005, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by joobie
since it seems you're into black and white with no shades of grey:

do you think it's wrong that my mother took me into women's rooms as a small child? in case you're wondering, i was born, and remain, a man.

I was born a boy, not a man.

gnome

16th May 2005, 03:29 PM

I just wanted to toss in my thoughts on one of the more interesting issues raised--the bathroom issue.

(boy, what a sense of priority I have)

What is the purpose of bathrooms segregated by sex? It is because some are uncomfortable performing bodily functions in front of members of the opposite sex. So it's a comfort preference of the bathroom users, catered to by whoever hosts the bathroom.

With that in mind, which would be more uncomfortable for your average bathroom shy person: someone walking in who appeared to be of the opposite sex but wasn't, or someone walking in who appeared to be of the same sex but wasn't? Is the shy person likely to find out without asking, in the latter case?

Chimpy

16th May 2005, 03:33 PM

I have no intention whatsoever to enter a protracted debate on abortion, but I'll make one comment re:

Originally posted by mayday
Life begins at conception, and howdy doody, even an atheist says this is so!

A. This atheist most certainly doesn't say that, so kindly refrain from presenting a group of people as having one opinion.

B. The issue is not what an atheist, theist, Hindu, Christian, elf worshipper, pixie devotee or whatever believes. You seem to be making a mistaken appeal to authority and/or majority. Both are logical fallacies.

Chimpy

16th May 2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by gnome
What is the purpose of bathrooms segregated by sex?

'Cos men won't put the seat down:P And us girls like to use public bathrooms for bitching, redoing our make up etc. Men would totally ruin the atmosphere (that's the most subjective answer I can think of:-) )

Bronze Dog

16th May 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Chimpy
I have no intention whatsoever to enter a protracted debate on abortion, but I'll make one comment re:

A. This atheist most certainly doesn't say that, so kindly refrain from presenting a group of people as having one opinion.

B. The issue is not what an atheist, theist, Hindu, Christian, elf worshipper, pixie devotee or whatever believes. You seem to be making a mistaken appeal to authority and/or majority. Both are logical fallacies.

And don't forget straw men. Mayfig just had to manufacture a pro-partial birth abortion advocate out of thin air so that she could post that horrid story.

Chimpy

16th May 2005, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by BronzeDog
And don't forget straw men. Mayfig just had to manufacture a pro-partial birth abortion advocate out of thin air so that she could post that horrid story.

Yes, I have to say it is an amusingly grim story. I read a similar Z-type horror book once, I think it was called Spawn or some such attractive title. It involved apparently undead foetuses who took over the world (or America anyway)... ahh so glad my insomnia is somewhat under control now:-)

Hawk one

16th May 2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by mayday
Boy that logic is about as limp noodle as you can get.

Fertile egg is a fertile egg and sperm is sperm. Not a developing human.

One without the other is just egg and sperm. The two together=developing human.

[snip]

Hehe. I just had to smile when I see how mayday fails to realise that Mark was - rather obviously, based on the context - talking about an egg that had already gone through fertilisation, then builds up her entire post with its attempts of insulting in the end, all based on nothing but her own lacking in proper reading comprehension. :D

Mojo

16th May 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by jmercer
He's been busy posting over at http://www.skepticforum.com/ under the handle "element". And he's predicted that Osama will be caught on May 27th this time (although he hasn't said which year...).

16th May 2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by gnome
What is the purpose of bathrooms segregated by sex?

It's a misogynist patriarchal trick that male architects use to ensure that they don't have to wait in line so long.

LostAngeles

16th May 2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by BronzeDog
And don't forget straw men. Mayfig just had to manufacture a pro-partial birth abortion advocate out of thin air so that she could post that horrid story.

What amuses me is that the thread title is so similiar to her, "No honest skeptic could dismiss this," thread title.

I'd join in, but people have already made the points I was going to make.

Gr8wight

16th May 2005, 04:16 PM

Mark

16th May 2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Bam! Thank you for my new sig.

LOL!

You're welcome.

Gr8wight

16th May 2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Mark
LOL!

You're welcome.

I guess it should be credited, shouldn't it?

wahrheit

16th May 2005, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I guess it should be credited, shouldn't it?
Exactly my thought five minutes ago, but I see you already changed it :D

CptColumbo

16th May 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by wahrheit
Now that you mention him: Where is 1inChrist? Haven't seen him lately http://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon5.gif

SSSHHHH!

He may hear you.

Stereolab

16th May 2005, 05:09 PM

Link to New York Times article with statistics:

http://www.menweb.org/throop/abuse/usa-prison.html

CptColumbo

16th May 2005, 05:28 PM

I'm not trying to be dificult and it's great that you named a source, but it's not really the actual stats, it's an interpretation of them. I would have prefered the hard data from the original source rather than data interpreted by a less that independent source. As you may have read above others have named other sources that contradict what was presented in the article. It's nitpicky but he wrote he got his data from "the Bureau of Justice," if this is a typo then no problem, if however he got his fact from a place called the "Bureau of Justice" rather than the Dept. of Justice I would further suspect inflated figures to fit an agenda.

LostAngeles

16th May 2005, 05:35 PM

Unfortunately, the article only gives the source for one set of numbers and not the other. It vaguely cites two studies for the prison rape and the Bureau of Justice for the other one.

I've looked at the BoJ. Here's the data from 2002 in .pdf format. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0226.pdf) They don't have any later data at this point in time, but they also have from 1998 - 2001 I believe.

With both sets of statistics, one should keep in mind that the numbers are only what's reported. I would imagine it's possible that more prison rape is not reported than rape of women.

Nevertheless, we need data from another (reputable) study or the two cited to compare the two. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

LostAngeles

16th May 2005, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by CptColumbo
I'm not trying to be dificult and it's great that you named a source, but it's not really the actual stats, it's an interpretation of them. I would have prefered the hard data from the original source rather than data interpreted by a less that independent source. As you may have read above others have named other sources that contradict what was presented in the article. It's nitpicky but he wrote he got his data from "the Bureau of Justice," if this is a typo then no problem, if however he got his fact from a place called the "Bureau of Justice" rather than the Dept. of Justice I would further suspect inflated figures to fit an agenda.

I thought that too until I googled. Turns out there is a Bureau of Justice in the United States.

Go fig.

CptColumbo

16th May 2005, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I thought that too until I googled. Turns out there is a Bureau of Justice in the United States.

Go fig.

Is it associated with the Gov. or is it a Special Interest group.

Besides the FBI compiles all the data on Index Crimes, and would be the source I would use when researching an article of this type.

LostAngeles

16th May 2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by CptColumbo
Is it associated with the Gov. or is it a Special Interest group.

Besides the FBI compiles all the data on Index Crimes, and would be the source I would use when researching an article of this type.

It has a .gov domain, so unless someone did something funky, it's with the government. They're linked in my post above from my googling. They're a division of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. It looks like it's their staticistians or however that might be spell-ified.

D'oh! Linkage to main page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Chimera

16th May 2005, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
No one who was born a man should ever be allowed into a womens' bathroom.

Not even to clean them?:D

Ratman_tf

16th May 2005, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab

I admitted up front that this post was somewhat "trollish" in nature because yes, I am calling you out on this stuff, and I knew people would get all bothered. But you don't understand my "agenda." My agenda, if I have to have one, is to see if anyone will admit that even skeptics promote bad science sometimes, and to see if anyone has any items to add to the list.

YOU MEAN SKEPTICS ARE HUMAN?!?!?! MY WORLD IS SHATTERED NOW!!!

*sigh* Honestly...

mayday

17th May 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Mark
There is a crucial difference bewteen A "fertile" man or woman and a "fertilized" egg.

The fact is, if a fertile woman is sexually active with a fertile man, then they ARE producing fertilized eggs. If she doesn't get pregnant, it just means the fertilized aggs are not implanting on the uterine wall.

So, in other words, little "babies" are being rinsed and flushed every single month whether anyone likes it or not; therefore, millions more babies are dying each year than are artificially aborted by doctors.

So where is all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for all the "babies" dying "naturally?" Hmmmm?

You can post all the anectodal horror stories you want about partial birth abortions (a procedure almost never performed, even when legal), and still not change the simple fact that "God" is murdering millions more babies each year than abortion doctors ever dreamed of.

Oh, *sigh*, roll eyes, <insert barfing smiley here>...I just kneeew someone would have to bring up the it is anectdotal so it can't be true bit.

No babies are dying naturally by being flushed out of a woman's body every month. Those aren't babies. Why can't you understand that? A baby doesn't become a baby until the sperm meets the egg and implantation is successful. And a zygote IS a baby. If it's not a baby then you're NOT PREGNANT.

You know, even though I'm an atheist I still understand basic concepts pertaining to life. Perhaps it is because my existential IQ is so much higher than the rest of you, but it is still frustrating to try to explain to those who have limited ability to understand.

Bronze Dog

17th May 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by mayday
Oh, *sigh*, roll eyes, <insert barfing smiley here>...I just kneeew someone would have to bring up the it is anectdotal so it can't be true bit.

No babies are dying naturally by being flushed out of a woman's body every month. Those aren't babies. Why can't you understand that? A baby doesn't become a baby until the sperm meets the egg and implantation is successful. And a zygote IS a baby. If it's not a baby then you're NOT PREGNANT.

You know, even though I'm an atheist I still understand basic concepts pertaining to life. Perhaps it is because my existential IQ is so much higher than the rest of you, but it is still frustrating to try to explain to those who have limited ability to understand.

Well, you can't expect us to keep track of every definition of "life" and "baby" out there. Now that we've established what you're calling a "baby", I can say you're wrong: A single-celled zygote is not a baby, or at the very least, isn't a person in any meaningful sense.

Finally getting to a point of argument, however, doesn't excuse you from fabricating straw men so that you can post a morbid story, true or not.

jmercer

17th May 2005, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by mayday

No babies are dying naturally by being flushed out of a woman's body every month. Those aren't babies. Why can't you understand that? A baby doesn't become a baby until the sperm meets the egg and implantation is successful.

Egads. I cannot believe it, but I just saw a pig fly by my window just now... and I understand that heavy coats and mittens - not to mention ice skates - are the hottest things to buy in Hell these days!

I'm going to... (choke)... have to ... (gasp)... agree with ...(urk!)... mayday on this, s/he's 100% ...(wheeze)... correct... (gulp!)

Phew! Glad that's over!

Anyway, a zygote may or may not be a baby, but it's for sure that an unfertilized egg ain't one. :)

Maybe the paranormal IS real! ;) And I never knew you were an athiest, mayday... are there such things as athiestic apologetics? If so, I'd like to hear from them. :)

Chimpy

17th May 2005, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by mayday
Perhaps it is because my existential IQ is so much higher than the rest of you, but it is still frustrating to try to explain to those who have limited ability to understand.

Here's a mild suggestion. Since you consider yourself smarter than us (or whatever an existential IQ is meant to make you), why do you waste time with silly skeptics of our ilk? I'm sure that there are plenty of boards out there where people don't have "a limited ability to understand". Here's a revolutionary suggestion: start up your own board, where morbid stories will be accepted unquestioningly by others of your same intellectual capacity.

Mark

17th May 2005, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by mayday
Oh, *sigh*, roll eyes, <insert barfing smiley here>...I just kneeew someone would have to bring up the it is anectdotal so it can't be true bit.

No babies are dying naturally by being flushed out of a woman's body every month. Those aren't babies. Why can't you understand that? A baby doesn't become a baby until the sperm meets the egg and implantation is successful. And a zygote IS a baby. If it's not a baby then you're NOT PREGNANT.

You know, even though I'm an atheist I still understand basic concepts pertaining to life. Perhaps it is because my existential IQ is so much higher than the rest of you, but it is still frustrating to try to explain to those who have limited ability to understand.

A) "Anecdotal" does not necessarily mean "not true." Look it up.

B) I suspect you are deliberately misuderstanding my main point since it flies in the face of all the insane anti-abortion rhetoric. I'll try again: If a fertile woman and a fertile man are having sex, then they ARE PRODUCING FERTILIZED EGGS. Got it? Fertilized eggs. Or, in your parlance, babies. But if the conditions are not optimum, the FERTILIZED egg does not impant on the uterine wall.

In other words, God flushed the baby down the drain.

delphi_ote

17th May 2005, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Mark
In other words, God flushed the baby down the drain.

Or the mother just killed her baby! Cuff her involuntary manslaughter and child abuse! How dare she neglect her child so?

Vikram

17th May 2005, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by mayday
No babies are dying naturally by being flushed out of a woman's body every month. Those aren't babies. Why can't you understand that? A baby doesn't become a baby until the sperm meets the egg and implantation is successful. And a zygote IS a baby. If it's not a baby then you're NOT PREGNANT.
Mayday,

First you say "A baby doesn't become a baby until the sperm meets the egg and implantation is successful."

Then you say "And a zygote IS a baby."

What about zygotes that do not implant successfully? What are those? Twilight Zone babies?

You really need to stick to your pendulum swinging and not dabble in things you don't understand. Did you even read the post before commenting on it? Mark very clearly said that females who have sex without condoms have their eggs fertilized by sperms. Most of those eggs DO NOT implant and are flushed out. However, they ARE zygotes - "babies" (as per your definition) that are being flushed out every month.

You know, even though I'm an atheist I still understand basic concepts pertaining to life. Perhaps it is because my existential IQ is so much higher than the rest of you, but it is still frustrating to try to explain to those who have limited ability to understand.
Maybe Kumar is more your caliber. Strike up a discussion with him. He might just help you find your ghosts. And Bigfoot. And win the powerball.

Chimpy

17th May 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Vikram
Mark very clearly said that females who have sex without condoms have their eggs fertilized by sperms. Most of those eggs DO NOT implant and are flushed out. However, they ARE zygotes - "babies" (as per your definition) that are being flushed out every month.

I shudder to think how she views the contraceptive pill. Maybe it's also murderous for thickening the mucous and preventing sperm from doing its thing. *shakes head*

Jas

17th May 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by mayday
Boy that logic is about as limp noodle as you can get.

*snip*

Life begins at conception, and howdy doody, even an atheist says this is so!

Howdy Doody?

I think I've just revealed mayday's true identity: Annie Wilkes from Stephen King's Misery.

Chimpy

17th May 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Jas
If I wanted to hear the pitter-patter of little feet around the house, I would put shoes on the cats.

ROFLMAO. Can I please borrow that and quote it next time mum asks "When are you getting married?" followed by (without a pause) "When will I be a grandma?"

:-)

jmercer

17th May 2005, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Mark

B) I suspect you are deliberately misuderstanding my main point since it flies in the face of all the insane anti-abortion rhetoric. I'll try again: If a fertile woman and a fertile man are having sex, then they ARE PRODUCING FERTILIZED EGGS. Got it? Fertilized eggs. Or, in your parlance, babies. But if the conditions are not optimum, the FERTILIZED egg does not impant on the uterine wall.

In other words, God flushed the baby down the drain.

I'm going to quibble a little bit, Mark - a fertile man and woman having sex will not always produce fertilized eggs. Like I said, it's a quibble.

But yeah, you're right - fertilized eggs are at times flushed during menstruation. (No idea what the average frequency of flushing fertilized eggs would be.)

One heck of an observation .... God performs abortions? Ye Gods and Little Green Apples... that would give the fundies mass apoplectic fits.

Mind if I use it? :D

Mark

17th May 2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by jmercer
I'm going to quibble a little bit, Mark - a fertile man and woman having sex will not always produce fertilized eggs. Like I said, it's a quibble.

But yeah, you're right - fertilized eggs are at times flushed during menstruation. (No idea what the average frequency of flushing fertilized eggs would be.)

One heck of an observation .... God performs abortions? Ye Gods and Little Green Apples... that would give the fundies mass apoplectic fits.

Mind if I use it? :D

Help yourself!

Btw, I think I didn't make myself clear. I am not saying that every single time a fertile couple has sex they will produce a fertilized egg; I am saying that a regularly sexual, fertile couple is producing fertlized eggs each month. But not every single time.

Hi-Ho-Hi-Ho it's off to work I go! More anon...

thaiboxerken

17th May 2005, 10:28 AM

I've never thought of abortion as a bunch of cells, or a baby either. I know it's neither. It's a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

As far a men getting raped, by other men.. maybe. I'd have to see a scientific study.

If you think there are more men getting raped by women, then I'd like to know where you live, so I can live there too.

CptColumbo

17th May 2005, 10:29 AM

So what is and "existential IQ," and how does it differ from other tests for intelligence?

Garrette

17th May 2005, 10:32 AM

Those with a high existential IQ think it's real and think they're smart.

CptColumbo

17th May 2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
Those with a high existential IQ think it's real and think they're smart.
Gotcha.

thaiboxerken

17th May 2005, 10:41 AM

Stereo.. so, let's say it really is a fact that more men are raped in the USA than women. What would be your point in making the statement? I would admit that you are correct, if it's a fact, and I would be neutral as to "liking" it.

Bronze Dog

17th May 2005, 11:01 AM

Back to the specific "facts": I suspect one of the reasons us evil skeptics don't like admitting 3 and 4 is because all their unstated definitions of "life" "babies" and "human" prevent us from knowing what we'd be admiting to.

Heck, with #1, we seemed to be having a hard time defining "sex," "gender," "man," and "woman" with the talk of chromosomes vs. hormones.

#2, if I'm presented with the raw data, I'd be willing to admit if the data shows it. I'm not rooting for either type of rape to beat the other. All I'm rooting for is a general decrease.

thaiboxerken

17th May 2005, 11:05 AM

Let's compile some real facts that skeptics don't like.

I'll go first, speaking for myself only.

I don't like the fact that there is no evidence of an afterlife. I'd like to think that there is a heaven or someplace really nice to go to after death.

CptColumbo

17th May 2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by BronzeDog

#2, if I'm presented with the raw data, I'd be willing to admit if the data shows it. I'm not rooting for either type of rape to beat the other. All I'm rooting for is a general decrease.

Unfortunately, if you go to the Dept. of Justice website you'll see a increase of 1.4% in reported forcible rapes in 2004, over 2003.

Bronze Dog

17th May 2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Let's compile some real facts that skeptics don't like.

I'll go first, speaking for myself only.

I don't like the fact that there is no evidence of an afterlife. I'd like to think that there is a heaven or someplace really nice to go to after death.

Seconded. I hope some believer out there gets off his lazy [duff] runs some tightly blinded and controlled experiments, rather than complain about mundane explanations without any intention to disprove their viability as an alternative. Once they eliminate all the mundane alternative explanations for their results with good testing protocols, they will have Randi's million and my undivided attention.

Bronze Dog

17th May 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by CptColumbo
Unfortunately, if you go to the Dept. of Justice website you'll see a increase of 1.4% in reported forcible rapes in 2004, over 2003.

Dang. Oh, well. Let's hope next year is better while I try to figure out who to vote for in all the next elections, and which bills to support.

Jas

17th May 2005, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Chimpy
ROFLMAO. Can I please borrow that and quote it next time mum asks "When are you getting married?" followed by (without a pause) "When will I be a grandma?"

:-)

Sure, I actually borrowed it from a bumper sticker.

gnome

17th May 2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Let's compile some real facts that skeptics don't like.

I'll go first, speaking for myself only.

I don't like the fact that there is no evidence of an afterlife. I'd like to think that there is a heaven or someplace really nice to go to after death.

I'm annoyed that none of the UFO sightings are convincingly real aliens. I had always hoped that the galaxy was brimming with intelligent life, and that there would be a nearby interstellar community for us to join once we got smart enough.

Jas

17th May 2005, 12:31 PM

I'm upset that one can't cure cancer simply by buying a juicer and thinking nice thoughts.

Darat

17th May 2005, 12:34 PM

I'm upset that my dead grandmother can't speak to me.

(Edited for a silliness.)

delphi_ote

17th May 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I'm upset that my dead grandmother can't speak to me.

(Edited for a silliness.)

I'm upset that the stoichiometrics of

impossibly small amount of thing + H20 -> sugar pill -> cured!

don't work out.

Garrette

17th May 2005, 12:44 PM

I'm upset that I can neither pronounce nor define stoichiometric.

Bronze Dog

17th May 2005, 01:16 PM

I'm upset that no one was able to provide useful information about disasters before they happened.

Chimpy

17th May 2005, 02:06 PM

I'm upset that chocolate has to be fattening and that it doesn't last forever. It's just not fair, after all 'tis a vegetable. *sulk*

jmercer

17th May 2005, 02:20 PM

I'm upset because... um... because... well, I'm upset because I can't think of anything to be upset about!

LostAngeles

17th May 2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I'm upset that my dead grandmother can't speak to me.

(Edited for a silliness.)

For the record, I feel the same way with the addition of blinding white-hot rage and the urge to cry because I thought about it. Damn you, just go back to misspelling my name.

I'm upset that the world doesn't have some magical thing that will make everyone feel good and stop all the crap.

I'm upset that the Illuminati! aren't real, because that would make life more interesting and mysterious.

I'm upset that E3 is going on right outside my &*#^%@!#($#@&*^%$#$#@#$(&^(*&%*&$ window. (If you're wondering why I'm cursing that, it's because I have to channel my rage against something ridiculous and stupid.)

Ossai

18th May 2005, 06:19 AM

Chimpy
Yes, I have to say it is an amusingly grim story. I read a similar Z-type horror book once, I think it was called Spawn or some such attractive title. It involved apparently undead foetuses who took over the world (or America anyway)... ahh so glad my insomnia is somewhat under control now:-) I admit completely off topic, but could you post or pm me the title and/or author. It kind of reminds me of a series of bad movies. The first of which was It’s Alive - It was born three days ago. It has killed seven people. It's parents are human beings. Whatever it is, It's Alive!.

Thanks
Ossai

Dragon

18th May 2005, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by gnome
I'm annoyed that none of the UFO sightings are convincingly real aliens. I had always hoped that the galaxy was brimming with intelligent life, and that there would be a nearby interstellar community for us to join once we got smart enough. Me, too. I hope they're just waiting for that first warp flight and that our physicists get a bloody move on.

dann

18th May 2005, 09:11 AM

What?! You haven't joined?!!!
Oh, sorry, probably not smart enough yet ...

Skepiroth

18th May 2005, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
1. No one can ever really change his or her sex.
2. More men than women are raped every day in America.
3. Life begins at conception.
4. An abortion is not simply "a bunch of cells"--it is a developing child.

see ya
1-It depends on your definition of "changing sex". If it means having operations/taking medications so that your body behaves as if it were the opposite sex, then yes it is possible. If it means swapping the sex chromosome in every somatic cell in the body, then no.

2-BS... prove me wrong

3-True

4-Check your wording "An ABORTION is not simply a "bunch of cells" -- it is a developing child"... abortions are children?

mayday

18th May 2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Chimpy
Here's a mild suggestion. Since you consider yourself smarter than us (or whatever an existential IQ is meant to make you), why do you waste time with silly skeptics of our ilk? I'm sure that there are plenty of boards out there where people don't have "a limited ability to understand". Here's a revolutionary suggestion: start up your own board, where morbid stories will be accepted unquestioningly by others of your same intellectual capacity.

There's always hope, Chimpy, no matter how faint the hope is. I can't give up hope.

Mark, I know anectdotal doesn't mean not true...EXCEPT in the mind of a skeptimaniac. To me, this board is comprised of many who suffer from an illness just like any other mental disorder, such as anorexia nervosa. You can find numerous websites about anorexics who are more than proud of their accomplishments (e.g. 89 pounds at 5'6" tall) and they all gather on these boards to share tips and secrets about how to "succeed" at their goal weights, no matter how grotesque the goals, they may be sterile, they may be starving, their hair may be falling out, but if they could just lose another 10 pounds they would be beautiful, healthy and vivacious.

Ah, you bring back to mind the days of my human growth and development class.

A zygote is a baby, an embryo is a baby, a fetus is a baby, an infant is a baby, a child is just that, an adolescent is a developing adult (keep in mind DEVELOPMENT IS A LIFELONG PROCESS), an adult is a grown person, a geriatric is an elderly person, and a corpse is a deceased person.
These are all people. Development is lifelong an begins at conception and ends at death. But no matter what stage you are you are a person.

Case closed.

Stereolab

18th May 2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by new skeptic
1-It depends on your definition of "changing sex". If it means having operations/taking medications so that your body behaves as if it were the opposite sex, then yes it is possible. If it means swapping the sex chromosome in every somatic cell in the body, then no.

2-BS... prove me wrong

3-True

4-Check your wording "An ABORTION is not simply a "bunch of cells" -- it is a developing child"... abortions are children?

Please read the whole topic before replying...I've provided statistics for 2 (and honestly when you think about it it's pretty apparent) and I already admitted my choice of words was incorrect.

The Odd Emperor

18th May 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by mayday
There's always hope, Chimpy, no matter how faint the hope is. I can't give up hope.

Mark, I know anectdotal doesn't mean not true...EXCEPT in the mind of a skeptimaniac. To me, this board is comprised of many who suffer from an illness just like any other mental disorder, such as anorexia nervosa.

Sheeze! where did you get that idea? And being skeptical is a mental disorder? Seeing things that aren’t there *can* be a symptom of a mental disorder. Not believing things that aren’t there? You call that a mental problem that is potentially deadly (like anorexia nervosa?)

LostAngeles

18th May 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Stereolab
Please read the whole topic before replying...I've provided statistics for 2 (and honestly when you think about it it's pretty apparent) and I already admitted my choice of words was incorrect.

No you didn't. You provided a copy of an NYT story that referred vaguely to two studies done on prision rape. There were no actual, verifiable statistics given.

What we need to see is the actual data and how it was extrapolated. For example, if I said, "All anthropolgists are short and bald. Half of anthrolpolgists are gay," your next question would be, "Where did you get the data to draw that conclusion?"

Upon which I would inform you that my sampling was my teacher and a friend of a friend, which means my conclusion is wrong, generally. If I said, "...anthrolopogists that I know...," it'd be ok. I'm digressing.

Give us actual data to back up "fact" 2, please.

Ashles

18th May 2005, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by mayday
There's always hope, Chimpy, no matter how faint the hope is. I can't give up hope.

Mark, I know anectdotal doesn't mean not true...EXCEPT in the mind of a skeptimaniac. To me, this board is comprised of many who suffer from an illness just like any other mental disorder, such as anorexia nervosa.
Yes Mayday, we are really likely to listen to psychological opinion from you.

When it comes to stable, well-balanced psyches I'm sure we all think of Mayday as an archetype.

Incidentally, how is the pop star stalking? Or the random abusive posts? Or the ghost hunting? Or the pendulum swinging? Or the telekinesis? Or the EVP analysis? Or the bigfoot hunting?

thaiboxerken

18th May 2005, 04:07 PM

Case closed.

Translation: Mind closed. Don't try to talk rationally to me, I will just whine and cry and keep screaming that I'm right and you're wrong.

Chimpy

18th May 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Sheeze! where did you get that idea? And being skeptical is a mental disorder? Seeing things that aren’t there *can* be a symptom of a mental disorder. Not believing things that aren’t there? You call that a mental problem that is potentially deadly (like anorexia nervosa?)

Ah well, now I know I have a mental problem. Wouldn't have guessed before. I guess it can be cured by believing morbid stories. *shakes head*

Skepiroth

18th May 2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by mayday

Mark, I know anectdotal doesn't mean not true...EXCEPT in the mind of a skeptimaniac.
I don't think even the most skeptical skeptimaniac believes that anecdotal = false. However, anecdotes:
A) Are based on human memory. Evidence from psychological experiments indicates that people can observe something, but when asked about what they observed, they "remembered" something based on their biases. There is a famous picture of a crowded bus scene with a man snatching a woman's purse. The people were drawn in a way such that it would be difficult to determine their races. Yet, when psychologists show subjects this picture, take it away and ask the subjects to identify the race of the purse snatcher and the victem, most people identify the robber as black and the victem as white... I wish i had a copy of this picture... I mean the people's races are very ambiguous.

B)Do not factor in coincidence. I once threw a hat about 15 meters and and it landed perfictaly on a hat rack. Does this mean I am a master hat thrower? No, because my friends and I thought it was so cool that we tried it over and over again... not getting the hat on the rack once.

All this being said, an anecdote is still a (second hand) observation, and observation is an important part of the scientific process. However, only an experiment can support or refute a hypothesis. I personally think that most people on this forum associate anecdotal evidence of the paranormal with BS due to:
A)The miserable performance of all the Million Dollar Challenge applicants.
B)This is the freaking JREF forum. Posting here implies that you know that you can win $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate the existance of paranormal powers. Yet people come on here with anecdotes about 'super powers'. I tell you one thing, if I woke up tomorrow and found that I had telekenetic powers for some reason, I would not get online and start talking about my powers on the JREF forum. I would get the hell down to Florida and end up a million dollars richer.

Originally posted by mayday

To me, this board is comprised of many who suffer from an illness just like any other mental disorder, such as anorexia nervosa. You can find numerous websites about anorexics who are more than proud of their accomplishments (e.g. 89 pounds at 5'6" tall) and they all gather on these boards to share tips and secrets about how to "succeed" at their goal weights, no matter how grotesque the goals, they may be sterile, they may be starving, their hair may be falling out, but if they could just lose another 10 pounds they would be beautiful, healthy and vivacious.
umm? what?

Originally posted by mayday

Ah, you bring back to mind the days of my human growth and development class.

A zygote is a baby, an embryo is a baby, a fetus is a baby, an infant is a baby, a child is just that, an adolescent is a developing adult (keep in mind DEVELOPMENT IS A LIFELONG PROCESS), an adult is a grown person, a geriatric is an elderly person, and a corpse is a deceased person.
These are all people. Development is lifelong an begins at conception and ends at death. But no matter what stage you are you are a person.

This is true, at the moment of conception a genetically unique human being is formed.

Bronze Dog

18th May 2005, 06:19 PM

I don't think anecdotal evidence is automatically false. It's automatically useless for the reasons new skeptic brought up, as well as many others, so don't bother bringing them up.

No one has ever argued that anecdotal = false. You fabricated that argument and tried to put it in our mouths, just like you tried to put pro-partial birth abortion statements into our mouths. At the risk of forming a false dilemma, I see a finite number of possibilities for your behavior:

1) You're deliberately trying to deceive lurkers into thinking we're making the arguments you fabricate for us, trying to convert them to your side for some ulterior motive.
2) You have poor reading comprehension skills.
3) You're deluding yourself into arguing against your straw men, since you're so convinced you already know "our" arguments, and won't bother paying attention to our actual arguments. Since your worldview is so centered around the existence of Ian's Wickermen, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of reasonable arguments by skeptics, and have to invent pseudoskeptical arguments that you can easily defeat.
4) Any combination of the above.

Thomas

18th May 2005, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Ashles
Incidentally, how is the pop star stalking? Or the random abusive posts? Or the ghost hunting? Or the pendulum swinging? Or the telekinesis? Or the EVP analysis? Or the bigfoot hunting?
A day for Mayday.

She's all ready to go out on the major Bigfoot hunt, but first she gets an idea: "Hmm, I couldn't use my pendulum to predict the powerball numbers, again. Maybe I should try something more logical, more scientific. Yes. Pendulum, in which direction will I find Bigfoot?".
The guide has spoken, but as she's ready to use her mind to drag along her Bigfoot cage, she realize that she has forgot her most evident ghost hunter gear, the device that shakes the very ground under all the skeptics of the world, the camera.

Ok. All set, let's go.

Aaaaaaahh? The mind rays don't work! The cage won't move! It has to be interference from the ghosts in the old house. She puts on her walkman to listen for EVP ghosts, this kind of disturbance to the force just might explain why the cage won't move. Nothing to listen for, only the music of her next victim. "I wonder where he lives" She thinks. "He just might need me to take care of him, but the ghosts must be holding me back again today, for.. some.. reason".

Another typical day has passed for Mayday. Tommorow she will do the same, only in a slightly diffrent manner.

It all may seem a little bit far fetched on hold, but one day the cage will move, the pendulum will bring in the millions and Bigfoot and Nessie will be dancing cha-cha-cha in Mayday's traps to the latest rap-hit by Bonaparte Napoleon and Marco Polo, recorded with state-of-the-art EVP equipment. Yeees.

Bronze Dog

18th May 2005, 06:46 PM

Sounds about right, Thomas. You forgot to include the arguments she has with Ian's Wickermen, though. Their JREF posts are transmitted with the EVPs and can only be translated from binary by her mind, since the rest of us can't read them. Most of the Wickerman arguments go along these lines at the local restaurants:

Mayday: "Why'd you order the cheeseburger?! They're unhealthy!"
Wickerman: "I ordered a salad. And I never expressed a liking for beef or cheese."
Mayday: "Someday you're going to get a heart attack from all that greasy meat, and you'll just blindly accept it."

The Odd Emperor

18th May 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Chimpy
Ah well, now I know I have a mental problem. Wouldn't have guessed before. I guess it can be cured by believing morbid stories. *shakes head*

Morbid?!

That story was the equivalent of tossing some garish color photo of a bloody fetus on someone’s desk. If I were feeling charitable I’d call it trolling. But, that’s not what I call it.

clarsct

18th May 2005, 11:49 PM

Anyone else noticing that Stereolab posts when Mayday, erm Bigfig, erm..whomever he/she/it is, posts? They post at the same time with the same drivel. Back each other up nicely.

Mark, That bit about the fertilized eggs being washed out on the period sounds lot like George Carlin. Did ya get it from there, or elsehwere? Just curious...Carlin fan...

Oh, and the obligatory recipe:

Zucchini cakes:
1lb zucchini, grated
1 Teaspoon kosher salt
3/4 cup Feta cheese
1 large egg, slightly beaten(yeah I know..I'm a chicken abortionist:rolleyes: )
3 Green onions, thinly sliced
3 tablespoons all purpose flour
1/4 cup chopped pine nuts
1 tablespoon chopped, fresh dill
1 1/2 teaspoon freshly chopped oregano
1 garlic clove, finely chopped
1/4 teaspoon freshly milled black pepper
Olive oil

Combine the grated zucchini and kosher salt. Set aside for 5 minutes, no longer, or you will have mush. rinse in cold water ans squeeze dry in a kitchen towel, press in a strainer, or colander until dry.

Combine cheese, green onion, flour, pine nuts, dill, oregano, garlic and pepper in a small bowl. Fold in zucchini. Form 24 cakes(about 2 tablespoon of mixture for each). Saute in olive oil, turning once until browned, about 3 minutes on each side.

Makes 24 cakes, Per serving:33 calories; 1.9 grams protien; 2 grams fat(54.9 percent total calories); 1.8 grams carbohydrate; .3 gram fiber; 13 mg cholesterol; and 130 mg sodium.

(Copied from local newpaper, the Peoria Journal Star.)

Garrette

19th May 2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by clarsct:

Oh, and the obligatory recipe:

So in your file box of recipes, you file this and all the others under "O" for Obligatory?

Sounds like a great name for the JREF Cookbook. "Skeptical Cooking" would turn people away, but "Obligatory Recipes" would draw them in.

Chimpy

19th May 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by clarsct
Oh, and the obligatory recipe:

Here's a stupid question: why does salt have to be kosher? (Aside the fact that one may be Jewish, but I had no idea there was kosher and non kosher salt)

Mark

19th May 2005, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by clarsct
[B]
Mark, That bit about the fertilized eggs being washed out on the period sounds lot like George Carlin. Did ya get it from there, or elsehwere? Just curious...Carlin fan...

I was first told it by the doctor who performed my vasectomy (I know, TMI!!!!!). But, yes, I have heard Carlin's riff on it, too. It's very funny; I am a fan as well.

delphi_ote

19th May 2005, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Chimpy
Here's a stupid question: why does salt have to be kosher? (Aside the fact that one may be Jewish, but I had no idea there was kosher and non kosher salt)

It's a difference in the shape of the molecules. Arrangements of NaCl that anger our Lord are unacceptable.

mayday

19th May 2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Thomas
A day for Mayday.

She's all ready to go out on the major Bigfoot hunt, but first she gets an idea: "Hmm, I couldn't use my pendulum to predict the powerball numbers, again. Maybe I should try something more logical, more scientific. Yes. Pendulum, in which direction will I find Bigfoot?".
The guide has spoken, but as she's ready to use her mind to drag along her Bigfoot cage, she realize that she has forgot her most evident ghost hunter gear, the device that shakes the very ground under all the skeptics of the world, the camera.

Ok. All set, let's go.

Aaaaaaahh? The mind rays don't work! The cage won't move! It has to be interference from the ghosts in the old house. She puts on her walkman to listen for EVP ghosts, this kind of disturbance to the force just might explain why the cage won't move. Nothing to listen for, only the music of her next victim. "I wonder where he lives" She thinks. "He just might need me to take care of him, but the ghosts must be holding me back again today, for.. some.. reason".

Another typical day has passed for Mayday. Tommorow she will do the same, only in a slightly diffrent manner.

It all may seem a little bit far fetched on hold, but one day the cage will move, the pendulum will bring in the millions and Bigfoot and Nessie will be dancing cha-cha-cha in Mayday's traps to the latest rap-hit by Bonaparte Napoleon and Marco Polo, recorded with state-of-the-art EVP equipment. Yeees.

Skeptimania is a maladaptive pathological disorder.

Skepticism is healthy, as all things, in moderate doses. But we are not talking about skeptics here.

Music of my next victim? Are you talking about my relationship with Neil? I love him and I would follow him to the end of the earth, I hardly think that makes someone on the receiving end of that a "victim", most people would feell blessed someone felt that way about them.

Anyway, I'm glad to see there are a few healthy skeptics on this board who agree that life begins at conception, and that most all life is special. Nothing strawman about that.

delphi_ote

19th May 2005, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by mayday
Anyway, I'm glad to see there are a few healthy skeptics on this board who agree that life begins at conception, and that most all life is special.

So what makes a healthy skeptic, mayday? Do tell! Have you established signs that a skeptic is bordering on pathology, or do you just use your pendulum to differentiate? So far, the only characteristic of "skeptimaniacs" I can see is a tendency to disagree with mayday's beliefs. If so, I am sick indeed!

Ashles

19th May 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by mayday
Skeptimania is a maladaptive pathological disorder.
Sure. It is particularly prevalent in certain species - The Strawman is an especially prone sufferer.
Although he tends to suffer from many of the fictitious psychological conditions.

all life is special.
What including the animals we eat? Or the plants we eat? Or the bacteria we kill every day?
Oh you just mean human life I guess.

Absolutely. Nature certainly wouldn't survive without us special little humans running all over the place.
We are certainly 'special'.

Garrette

19th May 2005, 11:44 AM

Admit it, delphi_ote,

You would feel blessed to have Maytroll follow you to the ends of the earth.

Me? I'd be cussing up a storm saying "where the *&#@@ are the %#@! ends already?!"

Odin

19th May 2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Ashles

What including the animals we eat? Or the plants we eat? Or the bacteria we kill every day?
Oh you just mean human life I guess.

Absolutely. Nature certainly wouldn't survive without us special little humans running all over the place.
We are certainly 'special'.

How do you know it won't? Everything is capable of feeling. The bacteria in yogurt cultures has been shown to have feelings. And what about vegetables? Who says they don't have feelings, just because a radish can't scream?- Mayday

from here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53113&highlight=mayday+bacteria)

Chimpy

19th May 2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Absolutely. Nature certainly wouldn't survive without us special little humans running all over the place.
We are certainly 'special'.

Oh indeed. I would SO hate to break her heart but um we are 98% chimp DNA-wise. Should we tell her that? Would she believe us since we're all so pathologically sick? Those geneticists must stuff up results on purpose all the time...

Ossai

19th May 2005, 12:01 PM

mayday
Anyway, I'm glad to see there are a few healthy skeptics on this board who agree that life begins at conception, and that most all life is special. Nothing strawman about that.

Mayday agree that god murders millions of unborn babies every year.

After all, if life starts at conception and the FERTILIZED egg does not impant on the uterine wall it is flushed out of the woman, meaning dead baby.

Ossai

Mark

19th May 2005, 12:36 PM

MAYDAY

Anyway, I'm glad to see there are a few healthy skeptics on this board who agree that life begins at conception, and that most all life is special. Nothing strawman about that.

Really. Most all life is special? Why?

Tumors?
Syphillis?
Digger Wasps? (Look 'em up for their charming birthing habits)
Brown Recluse Spiders?
Flesh Eating Bacteria?
Body Lice?
Ebola Virus?
E coli?
Banana Slugs?
Poison Oak?

Besides, if (human) life begins at conception (and please answer this), why does "God" allow so many fertilized eggs to be flushed out of a woman's system each and every year? Hmmm? Is God a serial killer? Please answer that question.

Edited to add:
Btw, I know Brother Carlin has said similar things about this topic as well!

thaiboxerken

19th May 2005, 12:43 PM

I think the distinction should be made between a human life and a human being. A human being is a person. People have personalities and conscious thought. A human life doesn't necessarily have these things. A zygote does not have a personality or ability to form a conscious though, it is not a person. I don't think a zygote has much value as a life form itself and I'd value the choice of the pregnant person over the zygote's life.

Mark

19th May 2005, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think the distinction should be made between a human life and a human being. A human being is a person. People have personalities and conscious thought. A human life doesn't necessarily have these things. A zygote does not have a personality or ability to form a conscious though, it is not a person. I don't think a zygote has much value as a life form itself and I'd value the choice of the pregnant person over the zygote's life.

I agree.

Just out of curiosity...how to these "Life begins at conception" people feel about anencephaly?

mayday

19th May 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Mark
I agree.

Just out of curiosity...how to these "Life begins at conception" people feel about anencephaly?

Are you talking about humans born without a brain?
why, there are plenty of people with no brains here (lol).

Seriously...

You let nature take care of what medical science can't reasonably help and this world will run a lot better.

Bugs, worms, yogurt cultures, etc. are life forms and are very special. They serve a special purpose for other life forms and they were created to serve that purpose. Humans are created to be born, not sucked out of the uterus because they are an inconvenience. Fertilized eggs (babies) that do not make it to the uterus have not made it for a reason. Their implantation was not successful.
You are making this concept harder than it should be. It's really very simple.

thaiboxerken

19th May 2005, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by mayday
Are you talking about humans born without a brain?
why, there are plenty of people with no brains here (lol).

Irony.

You let nature take care of what medical science can't reasonably help and this world will run a lot better.

Medical science than reasonably help the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

Bugs, worms, yogurt cultures, etc. are life forms and are very special. They serve a special purpose for other life forms and they were created to serve that purpose.

Created?

Humans are created to be born, not sucked out of the uterus because they are an inconvenience.

Created?! Who says humans were created? Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Fertilized eggs (babies) that do not make it to the uterus have not made it for a reason. Their implantation was not successful.

There are many reasons miscarriages happen, do you think it would be unreasonable to find a way to prevent such miscarriages for those that want to become pregnant?

You are making this concept harder than it should be. It's really very simple.

A zygote is not a person, it's really that simple.