Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
>-<
Damned spellcheck and lazy proofreading(the suggestion I even proofread....)
Imperial Scientist. Checking out his new iPod design.
On the face of it yes, but in practice all too often not so much. Biases in science can be very strong. Some areas of scientific enquiry can be quite vague. Depending on the observer(s) results can vary, sometimes wildly disagree. Scientific facts change over time. When used as evidence by non scientific/political groups cherrypicking is all too common. So it's not nearly so cold and hard as it appears and should be.
While the peer review system isn't perfect, experimental papers that appear will need to be well-designed. Science is disproven sometimes but some findings never are because they are elegant in their truth and easily demonstrated time and again. The reason people put so much faith in science is because there are so many checks and balances in place. From my experience, eminent or successful scientists can be an egotistical lot and are grudging in their praise. They are not happily running around giving the thumbs up to each other's paper. Any paper that is published has been through a lot.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I will edit out the majority of the uncalled for personal attacks here and respond to what is left of your post as I genuinely do not want to see you banned AGAIN for reducing an otherwise good discussion to personal attacks:One eyed Jack wrote: »You've been posting that misrepresentation for a while now
Except it is not a misrepresentation at all and anyone can go back to the initial post and follow the thread and find out that A) you did advocate that position and
you did not offer any support for it other than to pretend people including Clinton agreed with you.One eyed Jack wrote: »you appear to be addicted to misrepresenting other people and their points of view, while passing yourself off as some sort of an authority on whatever subject happens to tickle your fancy.
I assume you can offer some citations or evidence of me doing either of those two things, given the one you are trying here today is false?One eyed Jack wrote: »Here's the thing, and the point I was making at the time - no woman who finds herself pregnant and wants a termination, is going to give a damn for what your moral concerns are or aren't.
I do not recall suggesting she should be. Most women in that situation do not even know who I am, or have read a word that I wrote. So what ARE you on about now????
However we as a country/society have to have a discourse on abortion, and come to a decision about what services to offer, what not to offer, and what to outlaw. And how to implement and enforce it.
And the results of THAT have to be the concern of the women in question whatever they may be.
And therefore if someone like yourself wants to advocate for no limits abortion then people like myself can certainly be forgiven for wanting better arguments for that position that merely "It's a position that is advocated by many, including Hillary Clinton." They should be asked what it means EXACTLY to allow termination at, say, 8 months pregnancy. What does it mean for the woman. What does it mean for the baby. And what arguments are available for allowing whatever it is you describe. Because certainly, for example, killing a gestation after 8 months development merely because she chooses on a whim to do so... would be a position a person would be hard pushed to advocate for coherently, were a person to be advocating it.One eyed Jack wrote: »Quite why you think anyone should give a sugar for your opinion is something you've never been clear about, other than trying to pass yourself off as a scientist now.
Amazing that people might act like they are something they ACTUALLY are isn't it? However I am not someone who is interested in credentials, but in what people actually say and what arguments, evidence, data and reasoning they offer (when asked) for what they say. So my scientific education, career, and background is irrelevant and you would do better to deal with WHAT i said rather than WHO you want to pretend said it.
If however, rather than pointless ad hominem questions about who might or might not be a scientist..... you want to DIRECTLY reply to any science data or claims I have offered and show them to be erroneous then by all means go for it. This, so far, you have never done.
What I am saying to that user is above is simply this:
No, I do not hold the position of abortion without term limits, I am only aware PERSONALLY of three users on here who do, and I am not aware PERSONALLY of any of those three offering any arguments to support that position other than one of them claiming "It's a position that is advocated by many, including Hillary Clinton." which is at best an argument ad populum and at worst entirely false.
That sentence, although a long one, is at this time 100% true. Anyone, yourself included, can change the state of affairs which it describes at any time, rather than moaning about my pointing out said current state of affairs. But there is not once word of that sentence that is false or misrepresentation of me, my position, or what I have been made aware of in the past.One eyed Jack wrote: »To claim you are entirely pro-choice, when further examination of your opinion suggests otherwise, is the kind of misleading nonsense that should be pointed out.
Except it is neither misleading nor nonsense. I have explained exactly what I mean by saying that, and what I described is 100% accurate and descriptive of who and what I am, and how I got to this position. That you do not LIKE my position or why I hold it, does not magically make it a misleading position or a nonsense one. I have been abundently clear on what my position is, why I hold it, and what the basis and axioms supporting it are. I am happy to do so again if and when asked. Have at it.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement