Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Smeelious

  1. Oh deary me.

    I want to spend a few hours crafting my answer to this.  Anyway, most people use the scientific method in their lives, if they acknowledge it or not.  The sun example:  Everyone generally has this hypothesis:  The sun will come up tomorrow.  Our perceived model of the sun is, thus, that is rises every day.  We test this hypothesis everyday:  Did it come up today?  Yes!  Good, put another in the observed column.   This constitutes a scientific theory.  "The sun rises every day"  This isn't actually belief as such, as our model relies on historical data.  We "expect" that it will rise because it always has risen.  We have proof that it has always risen, not belief.

    Trust is exactly like the sun.  If the people around us are trustworthy, we assume people are trustworthy.  It becomes a theory:  "People are trustworthy!"  ...Until you hit a result of the experiment that falls into the negative category.  Suddenly you have to change your hypothesis, or reject it outright.

    Crossing the street is the same.  You don't trust that the car will stop because you have seen proof that sometimes a car will not stop.  You cannot therefore have a reasonable thesis that "cars will always stop when they are supposed to"


    You rely on evidence as a basis for your decisions...not faith

  2. From what I read (in about 3 seconds of looking) is the only physical implications are an increased risk of obesity. Even then, there was no evidence that it was actually a result of physical changes due to pregnancy.

    My bigger worry is WHO gets to make the choice. If a 10 year old isn't competent to make that choice, does it fall to her guardians? (Not the parents in this case.......) Does a judge decide?

  3. Betsy has a point...It doesn't matter who the father is.

    The mother can always exercise her choice to keep it or not.


    In the case of a 10 year old, I'm not sure what to say here actually. I can't see a 10 year old being able to make an informed decision on such a thing.

  4. Not only does she say she didn't consent, but he apologized for being angry at the relationship ending and getting carried away. You don't need to be a genius to piece that together. It is pretty disgusting that you'd excuse a rapist though. Keep fighting the "good" fight.

    On the flip side

    He breaks up with her, she reports rape...2+2... (Honestly it bothers me even writing that, but it isn't outside the realm of possible)

  5. Peter, you better read the OP, along with the articles provided. If you've already did read them, read them again.

    Obviously you didn't get them. The basis for my argument is there (which everyone seems to choose to ignore).

    Life beginning at conception has no bearing on the argument you highlighted in Peter's post.

  6. Rule #1 of a breakup.

    Don't have sex right afterwards.

    Her text isn't really relevant. If I send a text asking someone to make me tea, then I get there and don't want it...They can't make me drink it.

    His text a few days after the fact is probably why he was convicted. Something to the effect of, "Sorry, I got carried away...blah blah..."

  7. I imagine Bernie singing in the shower:

    "I didn't start the fire, But when I am gone, It will still burn on and on and on and on And on and on and on and on..."

    Imagine though if Bernie had a fair shake from the get-go. I'd bet we'd be seeing Hillary supporters rioting in the same manner right now because yet again a woman couldn't get nominated, and instead went to another old white guy.

  8. Well......if these airheads keep getting pregnant despite all the contraceptives available - a lot of them even have repeat abortions - it must be true what old men were saying: that women are incapable of sound decision.

    No wonder they were not allowed to vote in the old days.

    That would require broad sex ed in schools.


    The government has no right what-so-ever to force a woman to be an incubator against her will for 9 months. The situation is irrelevant. Personally I think we can revisit abortion when the fetus can be "relocated" without risk.

  9. Common sense and logic should tell you that the creator doesn't want any mixing. That is why the creator created variety. The creator did not intend for a horse to mix it up with a cow. So, I suppose then that you think that you know snot about the creator then?

    The implication here is so wrong on so many levels...

  10. ...

    You said you know how they went on separate paths. If you do understand.....

    ......how can you even make the assumption that the Qu'ran must therefore be "God's-breath?"

    Just because they say they worship the same God? That's why I said, the logic eludes you.

    You didn't understand my answer, too. What more can I say?

    I think you are missing his point. But it's a point you won't come to terms with anyway, so it's best to ignore it and move on.

    What deluge are you on about?

    I asked you:

    Did you read the evidences given so far in this thread? That's the argument here. That's all there is to it.

    Completely irrelevant. People who have read, and provided reasonable critiques and counter points, you simply brush off. Why would he bother reading them to suffer the same result. He is actually trying to get into a debate with you about the content and you don't want to, I guess?

  • Create New...