What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

geezer said:
fyp
Click to expand...

Nope. Agreement is with the subject, a singular part, here evidenced by a collective noun.

So, wingnut humor is divided into several parts:

+ the attempted joke (mean-spirited and adolescent)
+ the factual errors (depressing)
+ the grammatical errors (funny!)

The only funny part of wingnut humor is the grammatical errors.

The only part of the Washington Nationals pitching staff that is certifiably insane is the relief pitchers...

Hmm. OK, that is clunky. I'll allow your objection and rewrite the sentence:

While a wingnut joke isn't funny, its grammar is.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kepler said:
Nope. Agreement is with the subject, a singular part, here evidenced by a collective noun.

So, wingnut humor is divided into several parts:

+ the attempted joke (mean-spirited and adolescent)
+ the factual errors (depressing)
+ the grammatical errors (funny!)

The only funny part of wingnut humor is the grammatical errors.

The only part of the Washington Nationals pitching staff that is certifiable insane is the relief pitchers...

Hmm. OK, that is clunky. I'll allow your objection and rewrite the sentence:

While a wingnut joke isn't funny, its grammar is.
Click to expand...

I'm so impressed by your exhaustive defense that I'll withdraw my objection. Carry on.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kepler said:
You are arguing that since there is no hard line when human life begins then a zygote is the same as a baby. That is a logical fallacy, taking the dichotomy paradox (for space) and translating it to time.

The fact is that for each condition in the definition of "human" there is a discrete instant when the condition is met. Your definition is a perfect example of this, since fertilization is that instant. And in fact your definition is just as vulnerable to your fallacious objection, since fertilization is itself broken down into lots of substeps.

On a football field, right at the very boundary line of the field it becomes very fuzzy whether a foot is on the out of bounds line or not. You are arguing that if we can't know exactly where that transition takes place then ALL PASSES ARE OUT OF BOUNDS. That's ridiculous, because 99.99% of all passes are well within the boundary lines. The ones that are right on the line we estimate -- which is why the line was drawn in the first place.
Click to expand...
Uh, is this supposed to be a response to someone else? I was saying what nonsense it was that people think that a clump of cells suddenly becomes a human being at some magic moment, after which they should be protected and before which they have no protection other than the hopefully good will of the mother.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Pretty much this. We draw arbitrary biological lines all the time.
Click to expand...
The right to vote is hardly the same as a life and death definition. I mean, come on, those aren't even remotely comparable circumstances. One situation is talking about if something is a human being or not, the other is an arbitrary line society draws as to when a person can exercise certain rights. I really expected something a little stronger in response.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Bob Gray said:
Uh, is this supposed to be a response to someone else? I was saying what nonsense it was that people think that a clump of cells suddenly becomes a human being at some magic moment, after which they should be protected and before which they have no protection other than the hopefully good will of the mother.
Click to expand...

Maybe LynahFan will have better luck. The point is your argument makes no sense.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kepler said:
Maybe LynahFan will have better luck. The point is your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...
It's a quite simple point that you are choosing to obfuscate on. For pro-abortion folks, they have to say babies before a certain age line are just lumps of cells, or else they would have to admit they support mass murder of the unborn children. But picking that line is an exercise in illogic, taking the 20 week line some states have debated recently as an example. A baby 19 weeks old is just as much a baby as one that is 21 weeks old and if someone says there's a magic line at 20 weeks where it magically becomes human instead of a lump of cells, they either do so out of ignorance or political expediency.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

If you crack open an egg from the store and see it was fertilized, do you start calling it a chicken? Do you call acorns "unborn oak trees"? No? Then you're being just as arbitrary for your own religious purposes.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Bob Gray said:
Thanks for reminding me. I'm done on this one. If people can't grasp the simple and obvious logical dilemma of setting an arbitrary magical date for presto/change going from globs of cells to a human, I can't help them further.
Click to expand...

Leave your toys, please.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

FreshFish said:
Is it a crime to eject a fertilized egg from the womb before it implants in the uterine wall? after it implants in the uterine wall but before cell division occurs? after the first few rounds of cell division occurs but before any organ differentiation begins? how far forward do we go until it is no longer acceptable?
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing christ. How many times do you have to be told you have the biology all wrong. Seriously, open a high school level textbook.

Cell division occurs well before implantation.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kepler said:
See my response to Bob. A zygote is not a human being.
Click to expand...

Technically one is not pregnant until the fertilized egg (blob of cells) has been implanted in the uterus. At that point you then know if you are pregnant. I define that as a human being, it is human, it's not a rock, and it's a being. I still contend all human are just blobs of cells in different stages of development.
 
Timothy A said:
Technically one is not pregnant until the fertilized egg (blob of cells) has been implanted in the uterus. At that point you then know if you are pregnant. I define that as a human being, it is human, it's not a rock, and it's a being. I still contend all human are just blobs of cells in different stages of development.
Click to expand...

So is a natural miscarriage a homicide? Is a woman who gets pregnant, parties hard during a girls night out, and miscarries a week later without ever knowing she was pregnant guilty of murder or manslaughter? Should we be holding funerals for all periods women have?
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Timothy A said:
Technically one is not pregnant until the fertilized egg (blob of cells) has been implanted in the uterus. At that point you then know if you are pregnant. I define that as a human being, it is human, it's not a rock, and it's a being. I still contend all human are just blobs of cells in different stages of development.
Click to expand...

I understand your position. I do not agree with it, but I recognize it is internally consistent. What I wish I could do is convince you that likewise there are opposing views which are both logically consistent and which are held by people of conscience.

99% of abortions will eventually be obviated by better technical means of birth control. The remainder will be disproportionately suffered by poor people and will thus be easy to re-criminalize.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kepler said:
I understand your position. I do not agree with it, but I recognize it is internally consistent. What I wish I could do is convince you that likewise there are opposing views which are both logically consistent and which are held by people of conscience.

99% of abortions will eventually be obviated by better technical means of birth control. The remainder will be disproportionately suffered by poor people and will thus be easy to re-criminalize.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell us it costs money to keep your legs shut?!

Don't want a baby? Can't physically or medicinally protect it? Don't have sex. Plain and simple.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

FlagDUDE08 said:
Are you trying to tell us it costs money to keep your legs shut?!

Don't want a baby? Can't physically or medicinally protect it? Don't have sex. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that advice has worked so well over the last 239 years of American history, and few thousand of human history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top