Total posts: 1,065
-->
@TWS1405
All of the human being photos you pictured are all merely clumps of cells. What makes one clump of cells different from another clump of cells?
It is for this reason virtually all biologists disagree with you and claim human life begins at fertilization. That zygote you cited is considered just as much human, from a biological standpoint, as all the other photos of people you gave. Because, at the end of the day, from a biological standpoint, you and I are clumps of cells too.
And since we have no idea, from a scientific standpoint, how life force works, you can't make a claim that the zygote has no consciousness or no soul or any such similar claims because it is an entirely unprovable assertion.
So, once again, you demonstrate your lack of expertise on biology and resort to endless appeals to ridicule and irrational rants instead of citing serious academic texts or rigorous defenses of your position based on facts, logic, and intellectual acumen.
I recommend reading this rigorously documented article in an internationally recognized think tank concerning facts about Abortion, because you clearly need to learn more on this topic:
There are 800 citations in it, which is much more comprehensive than most other abortion links.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm kinda late to the party, but isn't believing that all gods and The God doesn't exist basically a belief?
As per Cambridge Dictionary, belief is:
"the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true." [1]
So that being said, if Atheism is holding that no God exists, then is that not a feeling of being certain that something is true?
It is for this reason Cambridge Dictionary defines atheism as:
"the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist" [2]
I realize the "or" statement there in the definition, but the contrapositive of the first half of the definition is believing in no god or gods, is it not?
So, therefore, how could atheism not be a belief?
Sources:
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You have not cited a single definition of personhood.
You have not cited a single definition of a human.
You have not cited a single instance or reputable source stating a pregnancy is not a human being.
And yet I need to prove my assertions?
The burden if proof is on the one who makes statements. Not the one who questions them. You did not ask me to prove any of my statements but instead made statements of your own and, when called out on that fact, and challenged to respond, to claim I don't know what these words mean.
If you assert a baby has no personhood, you need to defend that. If you assert a baby's life does not begin at conception, you need to defend that.
Your argument is irrational, and getting more irrational by the second.
I, on the other hand, have continued to cite reputable sources to defend my claim. I have supplied evidence, you have not. Who do you think is living his life in the Dunning Kruger effect currently? A person who cites sources, argues rationally and prefers to stick to the facts and data, or the person who responds with insults and doesn't offer proof of his assertions or definitions?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You keep saying reading comprehension matters but you then proceed to misread my statements and those of biologists and even the federal law repeatedly.
Also, insulting people doesn't make you smart, if you have to resort to ad hominem and appeal to ridicule then that means you can't actually attack the position. Your arguments are fallacious and an if-by-whiskey attempt at credibility and therefore irrational.
An animal lashes out in feelings, a rational person lashes out in logic and discipline.
If you want to simply assert your own personal definition of personhood without any logic or reason or even a study or statement of fact associated with it, then so be it. But biologists, world religions, and the U.S. code have all assigned personhood to a preborn human. I am simply repeating what is already being said by others.
It isn't just my own personal opinion that a baby is a human. It is the opinion of almost every biologist in surveys, and they (and I) base said opinion on the current known science.
If you disagree, then assert facts and studies and reality as your point of contention, not insults. Insults are not arguments, they are irrational statements masquerading as intelligence when there is none present in the actual argument.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
So when does it become a human? Right now, you and I are collections of cells. What makes our cells any more relevant than a preborn human's cells? Every living thing is comprised of clumps of cells. A preborn human is no different.
If human life begins at conception, a point you agree with, then it follows that it is a human at conception. Or else it would not be human life, it would just be life. So if it is a human at conception, and it is alive, then it is murder to kill it premeditatively with malice according to the U.S. Code.
Btw, the U.S. Code does qualify preborn humans as life, and does charge intentional murder for it when a pregnant woman is killed. It is in 18 U.S. Code § 1841 paragraph 2c:
"If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." [1]
So it isn't irrelevant. The question is over whether abortion is murder and the U.S. Code for murder would qualify. There is a legal definition of murder and, in some cases, it is murder to kill a baby in the womb. The U.S. Code does recognize they are safe from murder. Abortion is simply legalized murder in certain states. But Federally a child is considered alive in the womb, the same as with the biological definition and the religious ones for most of the world's major religions.
And for the person who earlier asked if they would debate a pro-life conservative on whether abortion is murder: honestly it would be a pointless debate because neither party would agree to a specific moral code. So why even bother debating it?
Now, as to the SAFETY of abortions, that would be a very easy debate for the Conservative, since the preponderance of scientific evidence proves abortions are significantly less safe than pregnancies and result in an increase in suicides, unintended medical consequences, and an increase in miscarriages. [2]
Source:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The DOJ literally had Hunter Biden's laptop in their possession back in 2019, when the laptop repairman literally gave the FBI the contents of Hunter's laptop. [1] Trump literally could have done it. The FBI had all the information for a warrant they needed. The leaked emails show grave efforts by both President Biden and Hunter to obstruct justice. They also show collusion with a foreign power. [2]
Trump was investigated for far less evidence than that, and even the FBI ultimately agreed on their official reports, regardless of why or where they got the warrants, that there was no evidence Trump colluded with Russia. [3]
Sources:
Created:
Posted in:
Btw, I think that, based in the stats for the public sector and the fact white people make 5-6k more than black people for having no college degree, there could be a case made for racism and white privilege in the PRIVATE sector of employment. But it has not been exhaustively examined, as in, people have not compared hours worked, number of current jobs worked per person, employment loyalty, work habits, length in a company, desire and trying to achieve promotions, or other things. So we cannot just conclude it is racism outright without more data. It could be a host of different things, or it could be racism.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
95% of biologists believe human life begins at fertilization, regardless of political belief or stance on abortion. [1]
Additionally, the four qualities of life are present shortly following fertilization. These four qualities are: growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli. [2]
Thirdly, the known medical science has found that a baby has it's own completed human DNA the moment of fertilization. [2]
Based on this, abortion is definitely killing a baby. But, legally, it would not be wrong to call it murder in certain cases since it fits with the definition of murder in the U.S. Code:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." [3]
The reason I argue, some cases, is because, even though abortion is a killing of a human being with aforethought, there is not always malice. Only in cases where the mother holds malice toward the baby, in a state that bans abortion, would be cases of murder under the U.S. Code.
However, according to various religious systems, abortion is considered murder.
The Bible and Tanakh both condemn murder as wrong. The Hebrew word for murder used in Exodus 20:13 is a word that means to "murder, slay." [4] In other instances it means to assassinate. [4] It is a completely different word than the Hebrew word to kill.
So, at face value, to take life from a fetus is murder, which violates Exodus 20:13.
The current Pope of the Catholic Church has called abortion murder. [5]
Furthermore, in Theravada Buddhist texts, a baby is considered a human being at the moment of fertilization, and that aborting it is the same a killing a human being, which is not allowed. And any Buddhist monk who does not tell a woman "no" on being asked whether to get an abortion is immediately expelled. [6]
So many of the world's biggest religions condemn abortion as morally wrong. The only notable exception is Islam, where the community is starkly divided.
Sources:
Created:
Posted in:
This depends on the definition of white privilege. For the purposes of my response, I will be using the following definition from Merriam Websters Dictionary:
"the set of social and economic advantages that white people have by virtue of their race (see RACE entry 1 sense 1a) in a culture characterized by racial inequality." [1]
The crux of this definition relies on privileges being tied SOLELY to a racial advantage. E.G. getting or having special treatment due to skin color.
The fact of the matter is, such treatment exists. But it is not systemic.
There is a portion of the American population that favors white people over other races. This is just a fact. Does everyone do this? No. Is it in our major institutions? No. But there are still members of the population who afford white people better treatment. I'll explain:
There is minority privilege at college universities
According to the ACT's 2020 college readiness test, just 26% of all students who took the test passed the test. [2]
Of the 26% who passed the test, the ethnicity makeup verus all test takers was, as reported by Just Facts:
- Asian – 52%
- White – 33%
- Hispanic – 14%
- Pacific Islander – 12%
- American Indian – 7%
- Black – 6% [3]
In 2020, these were the admission rates of new high school students at Colleges nationwide, as reported by Just Facts:
- 90% for Asians.
- 68% for whites.
- 63% for Hispanics.
- 50% for blacks. [4]
So even though just 6% of black people passed the college readiness test, 50% enter college. This is a significantly higher margin than for any other race in the United States. The second greatest margin is for Hispanic students, then for white students. Asian American students have the lowest margin between college unreadiness and college admission in the United States according to the data.
In 2004, all 27,000 of Stanford's onboarded law students were followed from freshman year to their first job after graduating law school. This was the result of the study, as reported by Just Facts:
- the combined median LSAT [Law School Admissions Test] score and undergraduate GPA for black students was roughly equal to the bottom 6th percentile of white students.
- 8% of white law students and 19% of black law students did not graduate after five years.
- among black students who graduated, 43% of them were in the bottom 10% of their class after their third year of law school.
- 78% of white students and 45% of black students who began law school in 1991 graduated, took the bar exam, and passed on their first attempt.
- black students were “nearly six times as likely as whites to not pass state bar exams after multiple attempts.”
- black lawyers earned “6% to 9% more early in their careers” than white lawyers with similar credentials who sought similar jobs. [5]
This Stanford study shows that the college degree system lowers the standard to accept black students. However, it also shows systemic economic racism against white students who passed the bar and went on to get a job.
Does this mean that black people are, by nature, unable to achieve education success? No. Since 45% of the enrolled black students graduated and passed the bar on their first attempt.
Instead, what the data shows is that colleges bend over backward to accommodate minority students, even if it means accepting people who are not college ready.
There is minority privilege in U.S. Government employment
In 2018, black people comprised of 13% of the general population. However, they comprised of 19% of the Federal workforce and 11% of the senior executive positions. This results in an overrepresentation in government employment. [6]
Hispanic people were underrepresented in the government workforce by 50% versus the total workforce. [7] However, according to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study as to why there is an underrepresentation of hispanic people in the Federal workforce, they concluded that the reason hispanics were underrepresented is because, of all hispanics in the workforce, roughly 33% were not US Citizens, which is a necessary prerequisite for a Federal government position. Additionally, when norming for this fact and others, hispanic citizens were 24% more likely to be employed by the Federal government compared to private companies. [8]
So, this concludes that white people are less likely to receive special treatment by the Federal Government when applying to jobs as opposed to other ethnic groups
Government jobs, on average pay 17% more money than equivalent private sector jobs, according to a 2016 report by the Congressional Budget Office. [9] Which means that minorities have a viable means of achieving significantly more money with fewer barriers to entry than their white counterparts.
Black people have greater access to social and legal justice than any other race in America
The NAACP was founded to be a black advocacy organization in 1909. Since then, the NAACP has become the largest advocacy organization in the United States. [10] So black people in America have the largest advocacy organization in the country focusing on defending their legal rights.
Additionally, Black Lives Matter, which rose to meteoric fame during the Trump Administration, received hundreds of millions of dollars in funding by all of America's largest corporations to advocate for black supremacism in America. [11]
The Real White Privilege In The United States: Inherited Positions Of Economic Standing From Parents
However, does this mean there are no special privileges to being white? Of course not.
The net worth of white people is higher than all other ethnicities in America. [12] This comes from years of white people in power rigging the system to favor themselves and other whites. However, much of this rigging has been removed thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Constitutional Amendments specifically banning racist laws by U.S. States, and other milestones in American history, in addition to the above current structures in place that benefit minorities above whites. But that doesn't mean White People did not receive any current financial advantages from the previous 150+ years of privilege.
Additionally, in the private sector, white people are overrepresented in employment, suggesting that it may be easier for a white person to get a private sector job, [16] which pays less, compared to a government job, which pays more.
However, another reason white people have a higher net worth is due to significant differences in financial literacy. Though most Americans are financially illiterate, 52.7%, to be specific, [13] black people are more likely to be financially illiterate than white people, [14] and black people are also more likely to spend money on consumer products than white people. [15] So the two biggest prolonged issues affecting black net worth have solutions that can be easily applied with self education on financial literacy and spending less on consumer goods to build net worth.
It is also worth noting that white people are the second highest wage earners besides Asians in almost all income categories except not receiving a high school diploma, where white people make 5-6k more than other ethnic groups. [17]
Sources:
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white privilege
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I didn't say that. Though, to be completely fair, they did violate a longstanding precedent on presidential records.
But what I did say was, just as Watergate may have been justified, it was still morally reprehensible. You just don't conduct FBI raids on your political opponents without providing the justification if you want people to believe you live in a Democracy. That was my point.
Trump could have done it to Hillary and Joe Biden but he didn't. He could have done it to Nancy Pelosi for her public financial ties to China, but he didn't. The closest Trump ever came was a State Department investigation that was under the radar and was strong armed by the DOJ and FBI despite there being ample evidence (the laptop, Nancy Pelosi's financial records being public, and the Ukrainian and Russian governments both blatantly talking about the quid pro quo going on with their governments and our elected officials).
In a democracy, you don't just lock up your political enemies or unleash the intelligence community on them without serious reason to. Like outright treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. Even with Joe Biden's and Hillary's cases, in my opinion, it would be acceptable, but this is why we have nationwide elections. The Declaration of Independence says government serves us. And Biden going after a political opponent who was complying 100% with both the FBI and National Archives is not democratic nor anything the United States stands for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Ah, the good ole' genetic fallacy. I suppose I should have cited CNN or MSNBC, which is anti-trump and therefore a reliable source on news concerning President Trump, somehow.
I'm surprised you didnt bother to click on the links. Because one of them was based on an interview with Trump's lawyer, who was present at the raid, another one was based on the Director of the DOJ's public statement about the raid, and the third link was Trump's lawyer present at the raid talking about the raid.
I cited those Epoch Times links specifically because they relied on primary source material from the people who were there at the raid and also were in charge of setting the raid in motion.
They contained primary source documents and testimonials from the people directly involved, or were based heavily on their accounts.
The next time you question a source, at least bother to go view what the source said or even is. Even the Associated Press and Reuters have been caught being wrong, and both are decidedly just as biased as The Epoch Times. It is the content, not the person who said it, that matters.
As for Falun Gong. You clearly did not do your research, as the good people over at NTD once gave me a job interview and I was one of their final choices for a news writer. They aren't a bunch of people walled off from society, or else they would not have given me a phone call. In fact Falun Gong is nothing like how you described at all. I don't practice it. I believe it has false teaching in it, but it certainly isn't any more of a cult than Buddhism, Catholicism, or Islam would be.
Here is a reputable primary-source about Falum Gong. It is written by one of the most respected members of the Falun Gong teaching community and is widely accepted as one of the two main source books concerning Falin Gong teaching by members of the Falun Gong community:
Once again, I do not believe Falun Gong. I do not practice it. But you don't have to believe something to be informed about it or speak accurately concerning it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Every single president in the last 40 years has left the White House with classified papers. Trump didn't do anything weird or unusual. [1]
And he had been complying with both the FBI and National Archives for months to retrieve all classified documents. [1]
Does this mean the search is not justified? Tbh, I think it was because he has classified documents. But the fact the FBI got the "official" reason "sealed" for National Security purposes means it could be for anything on the planet. [2]
TBH, if anyone is the idiot, it is Merrick Garland for signing off on an FBI raid on a Presidential candidate [3] who the polls show will win in November 2024. [4] Does he just want to lose his job? And did he ever take a second to wonder how that would look to the general public? Just unleashing the FBI on political opponents? What is this Venezuela?
At least the records will be unsealed soon, supposedly. There seems to be a lot of traction from the DOJ and Trump's legal team to get that out there. [5]
Sources:
[2] ibid
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is true, but it isn't the full story. According to a Politifact fact check on a Chuck Schumer statement, 91% of those on the FBI's terror watch list were able to buy a gun in 2016 (which includes an FBI background check by federal law). [1]
This means that, even if these people have not committed a crime, the FBI definitely knows they are suspected of being capable to and still allows them to purchase a gun. And, once again, if we follow the survey, this amounts to about 10% of all criminals who buy guns.
Additionally, according to the National Institute of Justice, while 77% of a PORTION of the guns used by shooters were purchased legally, 77.2% of mass shootings used handguns. Which means that, even if we enacted your form of gun control, it would still largely fail to prevent mass shootings. [2]
Furthermore, half of these mass shootings, according to the National Institute of Justice's study, happened in the last 20 years, and 1 in 3 occurred after 2010. These shootings follow the Brady and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Acts of 1994. [3]
In fact, the gross majority of gun control measures occurred between 1990-2020, [4] but have failed to prevent mass shootings, as evidenced by the National Institute of Justice's statistics.
--EDIT--
And furthermore, the National Institute of Justice's statistics also state that many of the deadliest mass shootings in the last 53 years (study was through 2019) occurred between 1999-2019, with 8 of the 16 deadliest mass shootings happening between 2014-2019. And the deadliest year on record was 2018. The second deadliest were tied between 2017 and 1999. So, no. According to statistics, banning assault weapons will not prevent mass shootings. The gross majority of mass shooters use handguns and banning automatic weapons, as we now know from the data, did absolutely nothing to limit the carnage. So why would banning assault weapons do anything?
Sources:
[4] ibid
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If you followed the original source, you would have seen the footnote referred to a poll from convicted criminals. About 1/4 of them said a friend or family member bought the gun. 42% of them, or about 2 in 5 of them, got their gun illegally or from the black market. The survey is effective because it explains how these people got their guns BEFORE THEY WERE ARRESTED, which is what we are talking about.
In the shootings you mentioned, they go right along with statistics, which shows that gun control failed to prevent either of those shootings.
Additionally, just because a gun rights activist made a study, that does not disprove the study. If you would like to look at the data and provide me a reason the data is wrong, then that would actually be enlightening to me, as you would be the first to do that. Most people just do what you do and make an ad hominem attack.
Created:
According to Crime Research, 94% of all mass shootings happen in gun free zones. [1]
Additionally, according to a 2016 DOJ survey, 89.7% of all criminals did not obtain their guns legally or through official channels. [2] so if gun control did anything, it wouldn't be so easy to buy a gun illegally.
Furthermore, in states where gun control was laxxed, like in Florida, the murder rate declined. [3] Other states were Michigan [4], Texas [5], and
And you want to try more gun control?
Sources:
Created: